Nothing particular against either the actor nor the character really (although quite lame).
I just truly hate the concept of a man transforming into our beloved xenomorph. It's just so damn lazy writing.
Like basic sci-fi fantasies from pre-school.
This is actually the rendition I loathe the most. :-X :-X
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-xWq6vxRjeXM%2FUDZKYvxD49I%2FAAAAAAAACng%2FaP06HSKta_c%2Fs1600%2Ffifield2.jpg&hash=6a7d8fe00c280c7b3670895dfc741ee89e2938cb)
So it's actually a SLIGHT relief for me, that they changed it to a far worse executed design instead.
(https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/c/c2/Fifield01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140220023728)
At least now it's just a ridiculous space zombie instead.
Does anyone else share my deep disdain for this particular element?
He wasn't turning into a Xenomorph. Nor was he a space zombie.
But it's okay - he wasn't there to be your friend.
I really enjoyed the transformative properties of the accelerant and both variants of the Fifield mutation - but Fifield as a character had nothing going for him.
Here's how I'd rewrite the character:
Milburn: Is anyone sitting here? Milburn, biologist.
Fiffield: Er, no. Sit down. Fifield, cydonian geologist.
They shake hands.
Milburn: Cydonian geology?
Fifield: Uh, yeah. I was lead consultant on the martian aquifier survey project.
Milburn: You're the man that lead the team that discovered water... on Mars? ...and helped to make it habitable for the new colonies?
Fifield: Yeah. That was us.
Milburn: (humbled) wow...
A brief exchange of this nature would be an ideal opportunity to get to know the character, give him purpose and set in our minds that he was a Professional. His work is important. Fifield has valuable skills in regards and probably is the best in his field and appropriate for his position aboard the Prometheus and instantly earns the respect of Milburn - and really, it doesn't take many words to achieve all this. Critical elements a team member aboard the expedition needs.
Critical elements that the character completely lacks in the movie.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 11, 2017, 11:27:57 AM
I really enjoyed the transformative properties of the accelerant and both variants of the Fifield mutation - but Fifield as a character had nothing going for him.
Here's how I'd rewrite the character:
Milburn: Is anyone sitting here? Milburn, biologist.
Fiffield: Er, no. Sit down. Fifield, cydonian geologist.
They shake hands.
Milburn: Cydonian geology?
Fifield: Uh, yeah. I was lead consultant on the martian aquifier survey project.
Milburn: You're the man that lead the team that discovered water... on Mars? ...and helped to make it habitable for the new colonies?
Fifield: Yeah. That was us.
Milburn: (humbled) wow...
A brief exchange of this nature would be an ideal opportunity to get to know the character, give him purpose and set in our minds that he was a Professional. His work is important. Fifield has valuable skills in regards and probably is the best in his field and appropriate for his position aboard the Prometheus and instantly earns the respect of Milburn - and really, it doesn't take many words to achieve all this. Critical elements a team member aboard the expedition needs.
Critical elements that the character completely lacks in the movie.
-Windebieste.
No offence, but you need dramatic tension, and that exchange is flat and boring. Setting Fifield up as an antagonist of sorts worked for the film.
Sean Harris did a great job with the role.
Establishing his credentials in a scene of establishing the mission would've been fine. Instead we got "Fifield; geologist, dick." And that's it.
Quote from: SM on Aug 11, 2017, 11:20:50 AM
He wasn't turning into a Xenomorph. Nor was he a space zombie.
But it's okay - he wasn't there to be your friend.
Nor to contribute anything to the GIGANTIC DEAD BODY ARENA. :)
What's more, it didn't add any tension. His antagonistic, selfish attitude just made me wonder how is this guy even suitable for the mission? It didn't make me feel he was someone I wanted to get to know or respect from the outset. Instead, as SiL states, he's a dick. On a mission like this, credentials are important, sure; but the ability to function as a team member is just as important. We don't get any of that.
When Fifield does become exposed to the accelerant, we don't care about him. Simply because he's a dick. It would have been much more horrific if he was a character we had some empathy for. As it is, he's a dick who got what he deserved. Who gives a shit?
There was an opportunity right at the start of the movie to lay the ground work for a memorable and respectful character for the audience to latch onto and say, "Wow. I really like this guy" and have the sting of his mutation become a deep emotional experience by losing someone incredibly valuable.
No. Instead, he's a dick and "Thank God he's dead" is the best we got out of it.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 11, 2017, 12:07:07 PM
What's more, it didn't add any tension. His antagonistic, selfish attitude just made me wonder how is this guy even suitable for the mission? It didn't make me feel he was someone I wanted to get to know or respect from the outset. Instead, as SiL states, he's a dick. On a mission like this, credentials are important, sure; but the ability to function as a team member is just as important. We don't get any of that.
When Fifield does become exposed to the accelerant, we don't care about him. Simply because he's a dick. It would have been much more horrific if he was a character we had some empathy for. As it is, he's a dick who got what he deserved. Who gives a shit?
There was an opportunity right at the start of the movie to lay the ground work for a memorable and respectful character for the audience to latch onto and say, "Wow. I really like this guy" and have the sting of his mutation become a deep emotional experience by losing someone incredibly valuable.
No. Instead, he's a dick and "Thank God he's dead" is the best we got out of it.
-Windebieste.
I agree, Although in some deleted segments, especially the Finding of the worm he seem's more like a buddy to Millburn from that point on. So I always figured he could be a grouchy type after waking up and from traveling for so long. Probably just needed to toke a fattie. ;D
In the deleted scene, I love when after Millburn finds the worm. Fiefeld comes up and is like "GREAT find Millburn from B I O L O G Y" or something and say's it kind of goofy, playfully. ALL the characters are happy, and smiling. I just love those little character moments because it really does make me feel more sympathetic for them, and at this point Fiefeld is friendly and is basically now, well Millburns Buddy.
Quote from: bobby brown on Aug 11, 2017, 10:57:21 AM
Nothing particular against either the actor nor the character really (although quite lame).
I just truly hate the concept of a man transforming into our beloved xenomorph. It's just so damn lazy writing.
Like basic sci-fi fantasies from pre-school.
This is actually the rendition I loathe the most. :-X :-X
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-xWq6vxRjeXM%2FUDZKYvxD49I%2FAAAAAAAACng%2FaP06HSKta_c%2Fs1600%2Ffifield2.jpg&hash=6a7d8fe00c280c7b3670895dfc741ee89e2938cb)
So it's actually a SLIGHT relief for me, that they changed it to a far worse executed design instead.
(https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/c/c2/Fifield01.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140220023728)
At least now it's just a ridiculous space zombie instead.
Does anyone else share my deep disdain for this particular element?
I prefer the top version ... no more silly mohawk.
Quote from: markweatherill on Aug 11, 2017, 12:03:19 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 11, 2017, 11:20:50 AM
He wasn't turning into a Xenomorph. Nor was he a space zombie.
But it's okay - he wasn't there to be your friend.
Nor to contribute anything to the GIGANTIC DEAD BODY ARENA. :)
:laugh:
The existing 'Fifield' zombie-fied makeup is just one of the many reasons I'll never watch Ridley's 'Theatrical' release of PROMETHEUS ever again.
But thankfully, the likes of the excellent 'Workprint Edition' fan edit incorporates the superior CGI'd version instead, along with many other deleted moments that shouldn't have been removed in the first place - which I will happily re-watch anytime. :D
Quote from: BringbackJonesy! on Aug 12, 2017, 02:09:32 AM
The existing 'Fifield' zombie-fied makeup is just one of the many reasons I'll never watch Ridley's 'Theatrical' release of PROMETHEUS ever again.
But thankfully, the likes of the excellent 'Workprint Edition' fan edit incorporates the superior CGI'd version instead, along with many other deleted moments that shouldn't have been removed in the first place - which I will happily re-watch anytime. :D
Same here. The fan edit is the only version worth watching, imo.
Can't imagine any fan edit that's going to improve it.
Mind you can't imagine ever watching a fan edit of anything...
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:05:41 AM
Can't imagine any fan edit that's going to improve it.
Mind you can't imagine ever watching a fan edit of anything...
Why not?
Cause I wouldn't trust most fans to recut a movie. And I find it a bit disrespectful. And every trailer I've watched for a fan edit has left me scratching my head (to be generous) instead of really wanting to watch it.
I've not been tempted by fan edits either. I've seen the deleted scenes, some of them add extra context, others create continuity problems. Now that I've seen them, I look at them like some of the viral stuff, if they add a little extra depth and understanding to the film fine, but I don't need them to be recut into the actual film.
I do sort of prefer the Fifield mutation, but it doesn't change anything about the story or what the pathogen does.
Quite.
I prefer the practical version. The WETA version was little too Gollum on speed.
I've heard Ridley saying he'd eventually end up like the dead Engineer and his head would explode.
Quote from: Himiswho on Aug 12, 2017, 07:52:54 AM
Was it actually confirmed that he was turning into a Xenomorph or was he just INCREDIBLY upset that he got reemed by Aliens and wanted to take revenge against the crew?
Given that worms turn into aggressive Hammerpedes I assumed Fifield was being turned into a violent bloodthirsty reinvention of a human, courtesy of the Engineers unwise experiments with biological weapons, not any version of the pure alien.
Yeah. The larger head is supposed to evoke the Alien, but he's not literally turning into an Alien.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:19:01 AM
Cause I wouldn't trust most fans to recut a movie. And I find it a bit disrespectful. And every trailer I've watched for a fan edit has left me scratching my head (to be generous) instead of really wanting to watch it.
I just watched it. It is leaps and bounds better than the original cut. Fans are people, too, and honestly I'd trust a fan more with the IP than 80-year old Ridley Scott at this point.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 08:15:12 AM
I've heard Ridley saying he'd eventually end up like the dead Engineer and his head would explode.
Interesting. Where did you hear this?
Either the commentary or Furious Gods. I need to watch it again to check.
Quote from: Olde on Aug 12, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:19:01 AM
Cause I wouldn't trust most fans to recut a movie. And I find it a bit disrespectful. And every trailer I've watched for a fan edit has left me scratching my head (to be generous) instead of really wanting to watch it.
I just watched it. It is leaps and bounds better than the original cut. Fans are people, too, and honestly I'd trust a fan more with the IP than 80-year old Ridley Scott at this point.
Hurrah for you. I'd rather watch what the actual artist created, for good or ill.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 08:15:12 AM
I've heard Ridley saying he'd eventually end up like the dead Engineer and his head would explode.
Its in the audio commentary. Ridley comments on how the Engineer was already infected when his head came off and that the mutation is similar to what happen's with Fifield. Though he never says that the head exploding is part of the mutation. I'd say that its implied that reason the Engineer's head exploded was because the Xenovirus was trying to mutated what was essentially a severed mummy's head, which then was hit with decontamination gas. Fifield was much farther along in his transformation and his head was fine.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:19:01 AM
Cause I wouldn't trust most fans to recut a movie. And I find it a bit disrespectful. And every trailer I've watched for a fan edit has left me scratching my head (to be generous) instead of really wanting to watch it.
Disrespectful from a lawful or visionary standpoint?
The latter. It strikes me as 'I don't care how many people spent however many years pouring their energy into this - they don't know what they're doing and I'm going to sit at my computer and do it properly.'
Completely agree. Like it or not, directors or story tellers have a vision and it's their vision they want you to see.
It's certainly the one I want to see for good or ill.
If people want to make fan cuts - good for them. Art has been purloined and turned into new things since forever, but they have a different kind of investment in it, and in these instances it's not really one I'm interested in.
How do you feel about the director's cut of Alien?
Riddles was correct to leave the 'what are my chances scene' in and cocoon scene out the first time.
It is his prerogative to change it however. Same with Cameron on Aliens, Abyss, T2 etc or Lucas on Star Wars.
Totally agree with the above. I have watched a couple of fan edits but they dont become my definitive version.
There are instances where i prefer certain alternate and deleted scenes. But as far as i am concerned, the vision that the director, or original creator, intends is the definitive material.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 01:00:37 PM
Hurrah for you. I'd rather watch what the actual artist created, for good or ill.
Good for you. I'd rather watch something of quality than a piece of shit. To each their own, though.
Quote from: SM on Aug 24, 2017, 10:19:26 PM
The latter. It strikes me as 'I don't care how many people spent however many years pouring their energy into this - they don't know what they're doing and I'm going to sit at my computer and do it properly.'
Why should someone care how many people spent however many years pouring their energy into a film? Did they not get paid? Was their film not made?
If a fan watches the final product, doesn't like parts of it, wishes to edit them out and doesn't seek profit while doing so, where exactly is the harm?
Quote from: Jango1201 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:50:14 AM
Completely agree. Like it or not, directors or story tellers have a vision and it's their vision they want you to see.
And you do see that vision when the film comes out. How is that a counter-argument to wanting to edit a film after seeing it?
Im pretty sure SM is just saying that he is not a fan of fan edits. I cant see anything saying that others cannot like them.
If that's the case, that's fair enough, I suppose.
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 10:56:22 AM
Im pretty sure SM is just saying that he is not a fan of fan edits. I cant see anything saying that others cannot like them.
Indeed.
Not sure how it could've been interpreted differently, but everyone's got different agendas I guess.
Because you said you find it disrespectful, when the finished product could itself be disrespectful. A funny extension of your logic means that you'd prefer the 1997 Special Edition of the original Star Wars trilogy over the famed fan remaster of the same movies, dubbed the Star Wars De-Specialized edition, which combed meticulously over the 35mm prints and raised each frame to a higher quality without destroying the artistic integrity of the original films by adding in unnecessary and out of place CGI, making Greedo shoot first, etc.
Unless you're going to actually stand there and defend the Special Edition as something we should swallow wholesale because it was George Lucas's "real vision." I mean, the fan, whose vision you'd take with a grain of salt at best, put it well when he said the Special Edition was "an act of cultural vandalism," which is putting it lightly.
You'd have a point - if any of the above was remotely close to what I was saying.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 12:03:06 PM
You'd have a point - if any of the above was remotely close to what I was saying.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:05:41 AM
Mind you can't imagine ever watching a fan edit of anything...
Yeah so?
Since you missed it the first time in your rush to get stroppy.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 01:13:08 AM
It's certainly the one I want to see for good or ill.
If people want to make fan cuts - good for them. Art has been purloined and turned into new things since forever, but they have a different kind of investment in it, and in these instances it's not really one I'm interested in.
If you want to apply spurious "logic" to what I'm saying, go you, I guess? I'm not sure what the point would be though. Should I want to watch an old cut of Star Wars, I'll chuck a VHS tape in.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 11:41:18 AM
Not sure how it could've been interpreted differently, but everyone's got different agendas I guess.
Yeah, gotta hate those "agendas".
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 12:14:19 PM
If you want to apply spurious "logic" to what I'm saying, go you, I guess? I'm not sure what the point would be though. Should I want to watch an old cut of Star Wars, I'll chuck a VHS tape in.
You said you can never imagine seeing a fan cut of anything, ever. Of anything. Ever. It doesn't get any more clear cut a point to argue against than that.
You and I are lucky to have copies of the originals on VHS. But what about people who can't find copies of the originals, and what happens when they're all unusable? Do you actually recognize that the final product is a conglomerate of different people's ideas and isn't 100% artistically genuine? A final product is just a series of compromises. Any attempt to try to say that Prometheus or Covenant are artistically pure and shan't ever be touched by the hands of those who aren't Ridley Scott are just deluding themselves. They're both mediocre products on their own, anyway.
If you don't give a shit about fan cuts, that's fine. I'm not interested in what's going on in Elderly Scott's senile mind these days. The guy is clearly unfit to be making decisions for the franchise; in the AvP Galaxy interview alone, he said that, without any evidence or even reasonable suspicion, that the human race is probably the product of intergalactic visitors, so excuse me for taking his opinion with a grain of salt and thinking that he's actually a fraud and not a real artist. I'm entitled to my opinion as you are of yours. And if that fan cut of Prometheus actually makes the film watchable to not only me but also to others, I feel like it should be celebrated, not mocked or called "disrespectful." It's a movie about aliens popping out of people and people turning into zombies, and you're calling the
fan version disrespectful. On behalf of the people who made the edits, I'm sorry these mere low-life fan products disrespect the artistic integrity of the classy topic of aliens popping out of people. We're such philistines that we can't recognize pure artistic greatness achieved in a work that should never be touched like...Prometheus.
If you're only interested in Ridley Scott's works, then by all means I feel you should lap up his shitty products without a critical mind for what
could be changed or what
could make it better, and
never watch anything that might make it in the slightest bit cohere or make more sense. I really don't care. But Prometheus and Covenant in their original states are themselves an insult to me of the original Alien franchise.
Edit: I should also say that fan cuts don't actually hurt the original film in any way. No one's forcing anyone to watch it. How does it disrespect the integrity of the original work when you can watch the original any time you want and actively forget that fan versions exist? You said you "wouldn't trust most fans to recut a movie," but no one's saying those recuts are canon or definitive in any way.
The way i see it is the Star Wars trilogy that Lucas had in mind was the special editions. Plus he was the one to implement the changes, no ? Therefore, not a fan edit. So how does SM contradict himself ? Have i missed something here ?
Why do people really feel the need to dig eachother out about opinions?
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
The way i see it is the Star Wars trilogy that Lucas had in mind was the special editions. Plus he was the one to implement the changes, no ? Therefore, not a fan edit. So how does SM contradict himself ? Have i missed something here ?
The special edition Lucas made is the inferior cut of the film. The De-Specialized edition - the fan-made cut - is the superior one.
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
The way i see it is the Star Wars trilogy that Lucas had in mind was the special editions. Plus he was the one to implement the changes, no ? Therefore, not a fan edit. So how does SM contradict himself ? Have i missed something here ?
He doesn't contradict himself. Quite the contrary, my point is that since Lucas made the changes, it is the "definitive" version of Star Wars. It is his official artistic vision, as is the original (or Director's Cut) of Prometheus/Covenant of Scott's. Yet the Special Edition of Star Wars has been universally panned and is pretty much unanimously agreed upon to be absolute filth in comparison with the originals. It was used by whiterabbit earlier today as the butt of a joke. What I'm saying is that SM would be forced to agree that the Special Edition would be the version to watch rather than a fan remaster that raises the video quality while also doing away with all the needless excess, purely on the fact that it was a fan who did the changes, not the original author.
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PMWhy do people really feel the need to dig eachother out about opinions?
I don't really care what SM thinks, though his opinion for some reason seems to hold more weight on these forums than others'. So I think it kind of matters when he said that fan "recuts" as he calls them are disrespectful, when the only thing disrespectful I've found are Ridley Scott's attempts to ruin the original Alien by answering a question that needed no answer.
I see. I missed that.
Like i have said, i do find fan edits interesting and often there are modifications that i prefer.
They will never be my "prefered" cut though.
What it boils down to is some people get grumpy that people like movies that they don't like and vice versa. And like to get all melodramatic and superior about it.
I can't stop them peddling opinions as fact. People can make up their own mind.
Quote from: Olde on Aug 25, 2017, 12:56:55 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
The way i see it is the Star Wars trilogy that Lucas had in mind was the special editions. Plus he was the one to implement the changes, no ? Therefore, not a fan edit. So how does SM contradict himself ? Have i missed something here ?
He doesn't contradict himself. Quite the contrary, my point is that since Lucas made the changes, it is the "definitive" version of Star Wars. It is his official artistic vision, as is the original (or Director's Cut) of Prometheus/Covenant of Scott's. Yet the Special Edition of Star Wars has been universally panned and is pretty much unanimously agreed upon to be absolute filth in comparison with the originals. It was used by whiterabbit earlier today as the butt of a joke. What I'm saying is that SM would be forced to agree that the Special Edition would be the version to watch rather than a fan remaster that raises the video quality while also doing away with all the needless excess, purely on the fact that it was a fan who did the changes, not the original author.
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PMWhy do people really feel the need to dig eachother out about opinions?
I don't really care what SM thinks, though his opinion for some reason seems to hold more weight on these forums than others'. So I think it kind of matters when he said that fan "recuts" as he calls them are disrespectful, when the only thing disrespectful I've found are Ridley Scott's attempts to ruin the original Alien by answering a question that needed no answer.
Well its his opinion. I wouldnt say they are disrespectful myself but i can see his way of thinking.
I really cant agree with you regarding Scott disrespecting the original Alien.
Im not really a Star Wars fan so this will likley mean nothing but i thought the special editions were far better than the originals.
I don't see any disrespect. He's making movies he wants to make, and if people don't like them, that's a shame - but you can't please everyone.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 01:06:37 PM
I don't see any disrespect. He's making movies he wants to make, and if people don't like them, that's a shame - but you can't please everyone.
It's truly amazing how much sway your opinion can have when it's reasonable and makes sense.
The Star Wars Special Editions are terrible, I don't know how anyone could defend those. The De-Specialised fan edits are superior in every way.
As for Fifield, he gets too much hate.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 25, 2017, 12:53:52 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on Aug 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
The way i see it is the Star Wars trilogy that Lucas had in mind was the special editions. Plus he was the one to implement the changes, no ? Therefore, not a fan edit. So how does SM contradict himself ? Have i missed something here ?
The special edition Lucas made is the inferior cut of the film. The De-Specialized edition - the fan-made cut - is the superior one.
Not so much a fan cut as a fan restoration then.
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 01:06:37 PM
I don't see any disrespect.
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:19:01 AM
Quote from: Elmazalman on Aug 12, 2017, 05:10:47 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:05:41 AM
Can't imagine any fan edit that's going to improve it.
Mind you can't imagine ever watching a fan edit of anything...
Why not?
Cause I wouldn't trust most fans to recut a movie. And I find it a bit disrespectful. And every trailer I've watched for a fan edit has left me scratching my head (to be generous) instead of really wanting to watch it.
Well if you just want to double down and say that no, you don't actually find it disrespectful like you originally said, then I won't argue because that was my main point of contention. However, I do still take umbrage with this:
Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:19:01 AM
Can't imagine any fan edit that's going to improve it.
This is completely dismissive for no reason other than you refuse to accept something. If you're so sure about it, why don't you go watch it and see for yourself? Do you really think that Ridley Scott's version of Prometheus is so unbelievably good (100% perfect) that no one could
possibly improve upon it in the least? Or do you think that works of art like Prometheus ought never to be touched by another person? Do you even know what the fan edit does? It adds about 45-50 minutes of deleted scenes, remastered to fit the quality of the rest of the film, put in logical places for further explanation of what's going on so it's not such a catastrophic mess that fails to explain most of what's happening. It's not like someone took a hatchet to the film and made it a post-modern pastiche, or interspersed the film with home-made footage of a half-naked middle-age obese man in his backyard dancing with a flotation device in a kiddie pool...although given the train-wreck that is the original Prometheus, that might actually have made the film more watchable.
What ability do you have making any remarks about a film you refuse to watch, and why should anyone care about what you can or can't imagine if you're just going to avoid seeing the work and judging its improvements and flaws for yourself? It's as petty as judging a film you haven't seen...because that's exactly what you're doing. I've seen both the original and the fan edit of Prometheus and I can tell you that from the pacing, narrative, character development, action,
and dramatic standpoints, the fan edit far and away excels over the original. But I guess my and others' opinions are wrong for no reason other than, uh, I guess the authenticity of the original work is disrespected. When what we're talking about is
Prometheus (7.0/10 IMDB).
I get that you're saying I can watch the fan edit if I prefer, and you can stick to your original. That's fine, but don't try to also pass off your snide comment that you can't imagine the fan edit being possibly better than or preferable to the original. You're talking to someone who thinks that the original Prometheus is literally unwatchable yet found the fan edit to be actually a good movie. The bigger picture of this is that by saying you can't imagine the fan edit being better, and even worse by refusing to watch it or any fan edit, you've essentially denigrated the entire fanbase of the AvP community as well as I guess fan editing/remastering communities across the board. It's been shown again and again that Ridley Scott is no smarter than the community's fans, unless you'd like a little reminding by having me pull up one of his recent quotes, and saying that you'll only watch
his works while disregarding any attempts to make his films remotely watchable. You've built this pedestal for Ridley Scott, which is just insulting. And I'm sorry for giving a little bit more credit to the AvP community than you. But fans do whatever work they do for their love of the series, not for a paycheck. There's more honesty, genuineness, and love for the series in a lot of the fan content than the official "canonical" bullshit. And I refuse to accept that there's no value in fan works, be they re-cuts or re-edits. They won't replace your precious originals, so you don't have to be such a prick to dismiss them. Take them for what they are, an alternative.
QuoteWell if you just want to double down and say that no, you don't actually find it disrespectful like you originally said, then I won't argue because that was my main point of contention.
Perhaps go look at the context of when I said...
Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 01:06:37 PM
I don't see any disrespect. He's making movies he wants to make, and if people don't like them, that's a shame - but you can't please everyone.
QuoteThis is completely dismissive for no reason other than you refuse to accept something.
I accept people make them and some people like to watch them. I've watched trailers for some fan cuts and nothing in them makes me want to watch them. Not wanting to watch something based on promotional material isn't a terribly difficult concept to get ones head around. I have a shit tonne of other movies I don't have time to watch first.
And you could saved yourself such a long rant too.
I'm in a bit of a conundrum with Olde. I think both the OT Special Editions AND the Prometheus Fan Edit are bullshit.
The OT Special Editions completely butchered and destroyed the artistic aesthetic of the era in which the films were made. Lucas casually replaced practical aliens and creatures throughout the films with modern CGI ones. It just looks so jarring. I won't even get into the scene edits and ADDED DIALOGUE that he put in. Empire and Jedi weren't even scripted or directed by him, and still edits and revises them.
They're his babies.
Unless Disney released the original cuts - in 20-30 years it won't matter.
As an interesting footnote there's one situation where a fan edit was picked up for official distribution: https://www.fanedit.org/fanedit-impresses-director-and-becomes-official-cut/
Nice work if you can get it.
Quote from: SM on Aug 26, 2017, 12:11:22 AM
I accept people make them and some people like to watch them. I've watched trailers for some fan cuts and nothing in them makes me want to watch them. Not wanting to watch something based on promotional material isn't a terribly difficult concept to get ones head around. I have a shit tonne of other movies I don't have time to watch first.
I didn't watch any promotional material or trailers of the fan edit, and I also don't judge an entire genre around the presence of bad trailers. Some good movies have terrible trailers (a lot of shitty ones have bad ones, too). It doesn't mean that everything is garbage and it certainly doesn't mean that it's inconceivable that a fan version could be better than the original or that fans can resolve discrepancies, figure out what makes the movie cohere/look/pace better and implement it, etc.
Quote from: SM on Aug 26, 2017, 12:11:22 AMAnd you could saved yourself such a long rant too.
I never can.
Clearly.
Didn't the NIGHTBREED CABAL CUT start off as a fan edit?
I liked the alien Fifield better than zombie Fifield. I wish they finished the cgi for it and used that scene instead. It was much more menacing than what we got in the end. Prometheus has a very good build up, but you can see they toyed with the script too much so when we are halfway it becomes quite a mess that even Ridley couldn't fix.
Alien Fifield looked silly. Ridley Scott made the right call on that one.
As for why Milburn and Fifield got lost, the film makes it clear that Fifield is a very hostile character. Janek could have guided them out of the structure but Fifield would probably try and find his own way out with his arrogant personality. By the time they realise they are lost, it is too late as the storm hits.
So why did they wander deeper into the pyramid for two people who were so eager to get out. Janek could've guided them to the exit and they could have wait out the storm there.
Because as I said, Fifield is an arrogant SOB, and Janek was probably playing with him by not trying to help as a practical joke "try not to bugger each other". IMO, it fits with their respective personalities.
Besides, at this point, Janek was not aware of the danger in the structure.
Fifield wanted out when they found a dead body. Then while pointlessly wandering around they found a pile of dead bodies and he wanted out even more - and to get away from the sporadic lifeform reading. Then they end up back in the room with the first dead body, and decide - this looks cosy.
Janek 'not wanting to help them because he wants to play partical joke lol' is beyond laughable.
The real crime is that more wasn't done with Fifield's backward-turned legs. That seriously creeped people the f**k out at the midnight screening I attended. Then he just stands up like ho-hum.
It would have been fantastic to have a Fifield-monster whose limbs and neck could bend in any direction running around the place... a sort of Linda Blair on speed.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Sep 04, 2017, 04:10:13 PM
The real crime is that more wasn't done with Fifield's backward-turned legs. That seriously creeped people the f**k out at the midnight screening I attended. Then he just stands up like ho-hum.
It would have been fantastic to have a Fifield-monster whose limbs and neck could bend in any direction running around the place... a sort of Linda Blair on speed.
Seeing the Fifield-mutant folded up and resting on the ramp, was one of the best and creepiest scenes in the film.
It looked just like an Alien.
Too bad.
Quote from: SM on Sep 04, 2017, 04:07:09 AM
Fifield wanted out when they found a dead body. Then while pointlessly wandering around they found a pile of dead bodies and he wanted out even more - and to get away from the sporadic lifeform reading. Then they end up back in the room with the first dead body, and decide - this looks cosy.
Janek 'not wanting to help them because he wants to play partical joke lol' is beyond laughable.
Not saying Janek didn't want to help, he probably wasn't asked. And maybe Fifield was so scared that he lost his senses. And Milburn was never much help, either.
Besides, in the dark, with all the hallways looking the same, it would be easy to get lost in that temple, even if you had a map. Particularly if you are scared out of your mind, and you have two people who don't get along. Janek was also too laid back a Captain, he probably was dicking them around a bit.
wut?
The Captain is in charge of the crew - their safety is his responsibility. He should have ordered them to wait by the exit, and not gone off to shag Vickers without anyone relieving him on watch.
Nitpicking. People don't always act like professionals in real life.
Hand waving. Predictable.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 05, 2017, 02:03:38 AM
Nitpicking. People don't always act like professionals in real life.
The kind of people they send on trillion-dollar space missions tend to.
'They' as in hand-picked by Peter Weyland, not NASA.
So you're saying he intentionally chose incompetent people, or what ... ?
Well the dude did stupidly touch the worm thingy
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2017, 02:49:12 AM
So you're saying he intentionally chose incompetent people, or what ... ?
Just because you can get through a rigorous selection process, doesn't mean you are incapable of being incompetent.
Quote from: Vermillion on Sep 05, 2017, 02:50:56 AM
Well the dude did stupidly touch the worm thingy
There's a deleted scene where Milburn finds worms, and it's the first multicellular lifeform they found not from Earth. And he's a biologist, so that explains why he got excited.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 05, 2017, 03:17:24 AM
Just because you can get through a rigorous selection process, doesn't mean you are incapable of being incompetent.
Yes, but we generally don't see anybody being competent to begin with.
I don't know if there is a rulebook for dealing with alien life and technology.
No, just studies in bioethics, standard and advanced scientific procedures, and years of studying to pass qualifications that you're required to be licensed in before you become a practitioner in biology.
But I mean, it's space, so there couldn't possibly be any rules by which scientists have to abide in order to be scientists in space. And did you know that they're just handing out doctoral degrees at Yale and Harvard? ::)
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 05, 2017, 05:37:14 AM
I don't know if there is a rulebook for dealing with alien life and technology.
In Janek's case we've had captains for a good few dozen centuries.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2017, 02:27:46 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 05, 2017, 02:03:38 AM
Nitpicking. People don't always act like professionals in real life.
The kind of people they send on trillion-dollar space missions tend to.
Apparently for this particular mission, they don't. :-\ Characters really weren't Prometheus' strong point.
It was planned. Weyland wanted to have true believers and dumb scientists on-board so they would do some crazy irrational shit and give David more opportunity to play with them ;D It worked. A bit.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2017, 02:49:12 AM
So you're saying he intentionally chose incompetent people, or what ... ?
That was my assumption. Weyland puts all his trust in David. Shaw's mission crew are all guinea pigs.
Yeah, Weyland's purpose was to meet his makers to become immortal. He is a crazy old man. This is not a NASA mission to catalogue alien life. It is about one man's personal crusade to become a god.
And everyone complains that these people don't act like NASA scientists. It's a fantasy/scifi movie, not a science documentary. Nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
You mean to say... these movies are for entertainment purposes only and they're not fact laden documentaries about the intricacies of how NASA will colonise the farthest reaches of outer space? I'm shocked!
Next heretical thing you'll say is: "There are no spaceships. ...or aliens."
That would be a real downer to some people. lol.
-Windebieste.
Actually it was Vickers who employed the crew.
Quote from: Ingwar on Sep 08, 2017, 04:50:05 AM
Actually it was Vickers who employed the crew.
And she doesn't seem like the kind of person who'd intentionally hire people so incompetent.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 08, 2017, 04:25:40 AM
And everyone complains that these people don't act like NASA scientists. It's a fantasy/scifi movie, not a science documentary. Nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
The problem with the prequel characters isn't that they don't act like NASA scientists; It's that they don't even act like the average Joe...The audience questions their decision making because
even they know better.
Quote from: windebieste on Sep 08, 2017, 04:48:17 AM
Next heretical thing you'll say is: "There are no spaceships. ...or aliens."
There are spaceships:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.wp.pl%2Fa%2Ff%2Fjpeg%2F21956%2Fprom_discovery_kosmos_afp_512.jpeg&hash=158eb2788ce27a65a1b120aee42a62c150c3c665)
Quote from: Hamster1066 on Sep 08, 2017, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2017, 02:49:12 AM
So you're saying he intentionally chose incompetent people, or what ... ?
That was my assumption. Weyland puts all his trust in David. Shaw's mission crew are all guinea pigs.
To kinda add to bursting the "incompetent personnel hiring was intentional" bubble: During the first half of the film, the characters don't know what they might find and aren't even sure that the "Engineer" thesis is correct. Vickers, Millburn and David openly state that they have doubts about the validity of Shaw and Holloway's claims. The hiring of incompetent people to be used as guinea pigs for Davids experiments requires you to know in advance what you'll find. You basically had to have known that Engineers exist and that they have some type of substance stored away somewhere that can be experimented with. What if there was no goo at all? What if there were no Engineers at all? Or even worse - What if there were Engineers, but tracking them down required actual experts? Now you're just stuck with an incompetent crew that serves no purpose other than to sabotage your own mission.
The Space shuttle is no longer in service - so your pedantic choice gets crossed off the list. Instantly. You lose. :P
By the way, no Man has yet gone beyond the gravitational pull of the Earth. None. Not one. Not Buzz Aldrin, Not Neil Armstrong. No one.
Not until we develop technology that takes us to Mars can we truly call ourselves a space faring race.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Sep 08, 2017, 11:50:18 AM
The Space shuttle is no longer in service - so your pedantic choice gets crossed off the list. Instantly. You lose. :P
Does that mean it never existed? Cause if it doesn't, I don't see your argument here...
Quote
Not until we develop technology that takes us to Mars can we truly call ourselves a space faring race.
I thought being a space faring race means being a race that fares to space? As in, something the human race has been doing for decades.
Quote from: windebieste on Sep 08, 2017, 11:50:18 AM
By the way, no Man has yet gone beyond the gravitational pull of the Earth. None. Not one. Not Buzz Aldrin, Not Neil Armstrong. No one.
Not until we develop technology that takes us to Mars can we truly call ourselves a space faring race.
-Windebieste.
If you're going to be
that pedantic, no-one will
ever go past the gravitational pull of the Earth. Gravity's range is effectively infinite, it's just not appreciable at certain distances.
I was talking about manned interstellar spaceships.
In case you haven't noticed. There's none. Not one.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Sep 08, 2017, 11:50:18 AM
The Space shuttle is no longer in service - so your pedantic choice gets crossed off the list. Instantly. You lose. :P
By the way, no Man has yet gone beyond the gravitational pull of the Earth. None. Not one. Not Buzz Aldrin, Not Neil Armstrong. No one.
Not until we develop technology that takes us to Mars can we truly call ourselves a space faring race.
-Windebieste.
Maybe no Man
wants to be that isolated from humanity? We have plenty of satellites that have escaped the gravitational pull of Earth, just because there isn't anyone insane enough to want to do that for him or herself doesn't mean we don't have the technology.
We technically have the technology to shoot something at another star and hope it gets there in a few thousand years, but keeping people alive on such voyage, not so much.
Quote from: Olde on Sep 09, 2017, 02:16:30 AM
Maybe no Man wants to be that isolated from humanity?
I'd sign up at the drop of a hat.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 08, 2017, 10:26:16 AM
The problem with the prequel characters isn't that they don't act like NASA scientists; It's that they don't even act like the average Joe...The audience questions their decision making because even they know better.
The audience has the advantage of having watched Alien, or at least being familiar with the concept. In this fictional universe, there is no Alien 1979 movie. The only movie confirmed to exist in this fictional universe is Lawrence of Arabia.
"Lieutennant! Get me the videocassette of ALIEN, the movie!"
Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot this movie plays with reality in such weird ways that I'm not even sure if it's supposed to take place in our actual universe.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 11, 2017, 03:52:42 AM
The audience has the advantage of having watched Alien, or at least being familiar with the concept. In this fictional universe, there is no Alien 1979 movie. The only movie confirmed to exist in this fictional universe is Lawrence of Arabia.
What does Alien have to do with any of it?
You got people taking off their helmets in an alien environment without any worry about infections, despite it being a real issue even on Earth in real life (people need to get vaccinated when traveling to far away countries; largest genocide in the history of the planet occurred with the spread of smallpox by Europeans to the indigenous population with the discovery of America).
You got a map expert getting lost and losing the ability to read his own map; You got a biologist that's scared of corpses but adores cobra-looking alien creatures.
You got people running away from danger in a straight line instead of simply going left/right (until one of them trips, rolls to the right, and then she's "surprisingly" safe).
You got "scientists" saying things like "this is what I choose to believe"...
And those are just the Prometheus characters. The Covenant characters make the Prometheus characters look like Albert Einstein clones and listing all the dumb things those guys do would have me talk about every scene in the film with the exception of the prologue.
The Prometheus characters would've been considered dumb by the audience even if Alien never existed.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Sep 11, 2017, 04:24:02 PM
"Lieutennant! Get me the videocassette of ALIEN, the movie!"
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlZVJx.jpg&hash=320731c6acc03e1030319a84c0cf03d4ce94dde7)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 11, 2017, 07:30:14 PM
You got people taking off their helmets in an alien environment without any worry about infections, despite it being a real issue even on Earth in real life (people need to get vaccinated when traveling to far away countries; largest genocide in the history of the planet occurred with the spread of smallpox by Europeans to the indigenous population with the discovery of America).
How do you know they didn't take those precautions? It wasn't needed in the script, but I doubt any preparation could have prevented what happened in the movie.
QuoteYou got a map expert getting lost and losing the ability to read his own map;
It's not unheard of to get lost even if you have a map.
QuoteYou got a biologist that's scared of corpses but adores cobra-looking alien creatures.
Character quirk.
QuoteYou got people running away from danger in a straight line instead of simply going left/right (until one of them trips, rolls to the right, and then she's "surprisingly" safe).
That's because the remains of the Prometheus was crashing on both sides. Nowhere to run.
QuoteYou got "scientists" saying things like "this is what I choose to believe"...
Many scientists have religious beliefs.
QuoteThe Prometheus characters would've been considered dumb by the audience even if Alien never existed.
Nitpicking. It's easy to say that from the comfort of your seat, you don't know what you would do in the same situation.
QuoteYou got people running away from danger in a straight line instead of simply going left/right.
No, you don't.
This bullshit is doomed to be repeated till the end of time...
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 12:48:38 AM
No, you don't.
This bullshit is doomed to be repeated till the end of time...
Then maybe you'd like to disprove everyone else who saw the movie or just that scene. Case in point, memes that can be found in a quick Google search:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fjde2E3T.jpg&hash=c78e5defa277da4d46904718ca2c57ffb630c773)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fb0%2Fb0aa7d2b92c5c17b7fa4b3fc77574afe0323983c29a21917a20d35df459572d8.jpg&hash=3334d11e5442506c62da98b7d8bed277f3277df8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBaKqOMGPWc#t=1m17s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BWnTW4rL0U#t=3m25s
Let me guess, either you'll say that they do pitch a sharp turn at a right angle and the ship also turns with them, or that they're trying to run perpendicular and it falls on them anyway. Unfortunately, if there are two very clear shots where Shaw and Vickers are running directly underneath the falling object and not perpendicular to it, the film audience won't care if there is technically an extremely brief throwaway two-second shot where they technically change their direction.
:laugh:
Well I guess it must be true if it's in a meme.
Personally I'll go with the film that quite adequately shows Shaw and Vickers changing directions.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 12, 2017, 12:04:31 AM
How do you know they didn't take those precautions? It wasn't needed in the script, but I doubt any preparation could have prevented what happened in the movie.
Because you see them take no precautions and because some of the characters are originally against taking the helmets off. When Holloway decides to, and I quote the film itself here, "Be an idiot", everyone else follows suit.
Quote
It's not unheard of to get lost even if you have a map.
Not when you're the team's map expert and not when you're literally the only character in the entire film to do so.
Quote
Character quirk.
Character quirks need to be established beforehand. In the first act, preferably. Since it's not established as an element that defines his character, it is purely dumb decision making.
Quote
That's because the remains of the Prometheus was crashing on both sides. Nowhere to run.
Again: Shaw trips, rolls to the right, and she's fine.
Quote
Many scientists have religious beliefs.
Yes, but they don't use faith as an argument to convince other scientists...or anyone, for that matter.
Quote
It's easy to say that from the comfort of your seat, you don't know what you would do in the same situation.
That's the point: the film has the audience second-guessing the characters on numerous occasions.
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 12:48:38 AM
QuoteYou got people running away from danger in a straight line instead of simply going left/right.
No, you don't.
This bullshit is doomed to be repeated till the end of time...
Yes, you do:
https://vimeo.com/145692163 (https://vimeo.com/145692163)
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 02:28:40 AM
:laugh:
Well I guess it must be true if it's in a meme.
Personally I'll go with the film that quite adequately shows Shaw and Vickers changing directions.
Not just in
a meme, it is literally
the meme when talking about this movie. Ask a group of people who aren't ardent Alien fans about Prometheus and you're bound to get some people saying "Isn't that the one movie where they run from a crashing ship in a straight line instead of sideways?"
I'm not saying they don't change direction, because at one point they do. However, in the movie there are more shots of them running alongside the ship's direction than against it. It also doesn't make sense to me, so I guess try to explain it to me: if they both change the direction they're running,
why does the ship still fall on Vickers (and the spot where Shaw is when she trips)? Should I also address the fact that when one side of the ship has crushed Vickers and it starts to fall back towards Shaw, instead of moving to the space where she would be safe, instead trips and simply backs up, which makes it look like she should be crushed as well?
As a film director, Ridley has the opportunity to make the film coherent and sensible. This scene, with all its flaws, is neither. That's the reason why it's become a running gag. There is literally a meme called the "Prometheus School of Running Away from Things." It's not that literally everyone except you is wrong because they change direction; it's that the scene makes no sense. If they change direction, the ship shouldn't fall on either one of them, yet it does. The secret of this scene isn't that they change direction, it's that for most of the shots of the falling ship, they're running alongside it. That you blatantly say they don't run alongside it when
they clearly do doesn't make you right and it doesn't make everyone else wrong and stupid. You're either willfully trying to be right and prove everyone else wrong, you're trying to justify this incredibly stupid scene for yourself, or both.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 12, 2017, 07:29:09 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 12, 2017, 12:04:31 AM
How do you know they didn't take those precautions? It wasn't needed in the script, but I doubt any preparation could have prevented what happened in the movie.
Because you see them take no precautions and because some of the characters are originally against taking the helmets off. When Holloway decides to, and I quote the film itself here, "Be an idiot", everyone else follows suit.
Quote
It's not unheard of to get lost even if you have a map.
Not when you're the team's map expert and not when you're literally the only character in the entire film to do so.
Quote
Character quirk.
Character quirks need to be established beforehand. In the first act, preferably. Since it's not established as an element that defines his character, it is purely dumb decision making.
Quote
That's because the remains of the Prometheus was crashing on both sides. Nowhere to run.
Again: Shaw trips, rolls to the right, and she's fine.
Quote
Many scientists have religious beliefs.
Yes, but they don't use faith as an argument to convince other scientists...or anyone, for that matter.
Quote
It's easy to say that from the comfort of your seat, you don't know what you would do in the same situation.
That's the point: the film has the audience second-guessing the characters on numerous occasions.
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 12:48:38 AM
QuoteYou got people running away from danger in a straight line instead of simply going left/right.
No, you don't.
This bullshit is doomed to be repeated till the end of time...
Yes, you do:
https://vimeo.com/145692163 (https://vimeo.com/145692163)
1:05. Cheers.
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 08:30:15 AM
1:05. Cheers.
They take a step to the left and continue running straight. You see it clearly in the shots that follow. Nice try though.
They turn nearly 90 degrees.
I can see it as either. I first saw it as a 90 degree turn but the next cut shows them as running straight and not continuing the turn. Also doesn't address my question of if they do turn at a sharp angle, why does the ship still fall over them? Why don't they turn right back? :P
Quote from: Olde on Sep 12, 2017, 09:03:34 AM
I can see it as either. I first saw it as a 90 degree turn but the next cut shows them as running straight and not continuing the turn. Also doesn't address my question of if they do turn at a sharp angle, why does the ship still fall over them? Why don't they turn right back? :P
Either Ridley Scott is a hack who can't coherently connect two shots together in order to show the audience what is happening,
Or they are running straight. :laugh:
From 1:05-1:11 you can see that A) they start running to the right and B) the Juggernaut starts rolling in that direction as it starts to roll on the same slope.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 12, 2017, 09:35:44 AM
From 1:05-1:11 you can see that A) they start running to the right and B) the Juggernaut starts rolling in that direction as it starts to roll on the same slope.
I completely disagree with the ship changing direction, but for the sake of argument let's assume you're correct: Why aren't the characters making
another turn? Why are they running straight
then? Were they only capable of making one single turn and completely lost that ability afterwards?
Maybe they waited for their turn ability to recharge.
Stamina bar was depleted. Maybe Vickers failed the QTE.
Quote from: Olde on Sep 12, 2017, 10:05:32 AM
Stamina bar was depleted. Maybe Vickers failed the QTE.
Shaw survives by glitching the game and rolling to the right instead of turning, like the developers intended.
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 12:48:38 AM
QuoteYou got people running away from danger in a straight line instead of simply going left/right.
No, you don't.
This bullshit is doomed to be repeated till the end of time...
:D very true
I have lots of issues with characters in Prometheus but this was never an actual problem.
Yeah, there's a bunch of legit issues with Prometheus but this hoary old chestnut constantly gets regurgitated.
They stay out of its shadow. It turns with them.
Realism is only set dressing, anyway. A movie is there to tell a story. It's not real life. Everything is scripted. Movies exist more in dream logic than real logic.
So all this arguing over 'realism' is a moot point. Especially when you're dealing with science fiction/fantasy films. 'Realism' is more of a spectrum, as no work of fiction is ever going to reach 100%.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 04:29:04 AM
Realism is only set dressing, anyway. A movie is there to tell a story. It's not real life. Everything is scripted. Movies exist more in dream logic than real logic.
So all this arguing over 'realism' is a moot point. Especially when you're dealing with science fiction/fantasy films. 'Realism' is more of a spectrum, as no work of fiction is ever going to reach 100%.
Remember this when the sequel comes out and you get tooth fairy David riding his unicorn off to battle Alien Hitler and his zombie vampire army.
Every film has a specific tone and premise the audience is expected to 'buy into' in order to enjoy. Good films maintain that tone and premise. If it is broken, the audience loses investment in what they see on screen. Suspension of Disbelief no longer works, and the audience can't connect to what they see and enjoy the film. It's terrible filmmaking, basically.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 14, 2017, 10:38:40 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 04:29:04 AM
Realism is only set dressing, anyway. A movie is there to tell a story. It's not real life. Everything is scripted. Movies exist more in dream logic than real logic.
So all this arguing over 'realism' is a moot point. Especially when you're dealing with science fiction/fantasy films. 'Realism' is more of a spectrum, as no work of fiction is ever going to reach 100%.
Remember this when the sequel comes out and you get tooth fairy David riding his unicorn off to battle Alien Hitler and his zombie vampire army.
Every film has a specific tone and premise the audience is expected to 'buy into' in order to enjoy. Good films maintain that tone and premise. If it is broken, the audience loses investment in what they see on screen. Suspension of Disbelief no longer works, and the audience can't connect to what they see and enjoy the film. It's terrible filmmaking, basically.
It all depends on what story they're trying to tell. Some stories require a higher degree of realism, yes, but other stories don't.
The Alien franchise requires a higher degree of realism. What's your point?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 14, 2017, 11:13:18 AM
The Alien franchise requires a higher degree of realism. What's your point?
See, you use that word - "franchise". You just want carbon copies? This is why I like the Alien 'franchise', because each entry is different. Different director, different vision. Alien Resurrection does not have realism, for example. You have a guy pulling a piece of brain out of his head and looking at it. That's not realism. It's surrealism, maybe comedy. But not realism.
And Ridley Scott is going in a new direction with his prequel movies, instead of just remaking Alien 1979. It's clear he is going in a more speculative direction than just making a standard thriller. And that's good because trying to remake Alien 1979 would be a wasted opportunity to do something different.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 11:20:04 AM
See, you use that word - "franchise". You just want carbon copies?
No, I want tonal consistency.
Quote
This is why I like the Alien 'franchise', because each entry is different. Different director, different vision.
The prequels don't fall under the category of "Different director, different vision". They're the same director as the original Alien, and they have the same gritty and realistic tone.
Quote
Alien Resurrection does not have realism, for example. You have a guy pulling a piece of brain out of his head and looking at it. That's not realism. It's surrealism, maybe comedy. But not realism.
Wasn't this an element Resurrection was criticized for? Being a campy film in a gritty and 'realistic' franchise? You're basically defending a flaw with a flaw.
QuoteYou have a guy pulling a piece of brain out of his head and looking at it. That's not realism. It's surrealism, maybe comedy. But not realism.
And that scene was roundly criticised for lacking realism.
It fit the tone of the movie, though.
Many considered it too out there even by Resurrection standards, so no, not really. Other deaths in that film fit the tone.
Yeah, all the other deaths were realistic except for that one.
Like the guy getting a chestburster through his head or the bullet ricocheting off multiple surfaces.
Wren didn't get up and start looking for bits of brain.
(I don't even have an issue with Perez' death - but many others do).
Quote from: SM on Sep 15, 2017, 02:21:34 AM
Wren didn't get up and start looking for bits of brain.
So?
Relevant:
QuoteAs in all of the "Alien" films, characters do tremendously stupid things with such regularity that you pretty much have to stop judging the movie by real-world logic. Instead you have to judge it by the standards of a fever dream or nightmare, a Freudian-Jungian narrative in which the thing you fear most is what happens to you, and where you're doing stuff like going to work naked or trying to climb across the face of a skyscraper or accepting someone's invitation to look into, say, the sticky maw of a xenomorph egg that just opened...
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/alien-covenant-2017
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 11:20:04 AM
And Ridley Scott is going in a new direction with his prequel movies, instead of just remaking Alien 1979. It's clear he is going in a more speculative direction than just making a standard thriller. And that's good because trying to remake Alien 1979 would be a wasted opportunity to do something different.
Please tell me what the xenomorph contributed to Alien: Covenant that was different than the "standard thriller."
Quote from: Olde on Sep 16, 2017, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 11:20:04 AM
And Ridley Scott is going in a new direction with his prequel movies, instead of just remaking Alien 1979. It's clear he is going in a more speculative direction than just making a standard thriller. And that's good because trying to remake Alien 1979 would be a wasted opportunity to do something different.
Please tell me what the xenomorph contributed to Alien: Covenant that was different than the "standard thriller."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartofvfx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2FAlienCovenant_Framestore_ITW_11.jpg&hash=41891de54ae2471c55a56ac040305f787d8f7fb6)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 12, 2017, 08:34:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 12, 2017, 08:30:15 AM
1:05. Cheers.
They take a step to the left and continue running straight. You see it clearly in the shots that follow. Nice try though.
Book a session at Specsavers.
Realism is overrated.
Quote from: Predaker on Sep 16, 2017, 06:13:51 PM
Quote from: Olde on Sep 16, 2017, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 11:20:04 AM
And Ridley Scott is going in a new direction with his prequel movies, instead of just remaking Alien 1979. It's clear he is going in a more speculative direction than just making a standard thriller. And that's good because trying to remake Alien 1979 would be a wasted opportunity to do something different.
Please tell me what the xenomorph contributed to Alien: Covenant that was different than the "standard thriller."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartofvfx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2FAlienCovenant_Framestore_ITW_11.jpg&hash=41891de54ae2471c55a56ac040305f787d8f7fb6)
What's different about it than the standard thriller? The film makes the comparison between it and the Frankenstein Monster...Can you even get more "standard thriller" than that?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 16, 2017, 11:05:03 PM
Realism is overrated.
Realism was one of this franchise's foundations.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 17, 2017, 09:33:18 AM
Realism was one of this franchise's foundations.
The same has been said about 2001 ASO, often categorized as Hard Sci-Fi, yet its aliens had a VHS-shaped box that accelerates any creature's evolution and once its out of the oven they have a decadent hotel waiting room to process their special recipe prize.
So a foundation of realism is a very gray area.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 17, 2017, 09:33:18 AM
Quote from: Predaker on Sep 16, 2017, 06:13:51 PM
Quote from: Olde on Sep 16, 2017, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 14, 2017, 11:20:04 AM
And Ridley Scott is going in a new direction with his prequel movies, instead of just remaking Alien 1979. It's clear he is going in a more speculative direction than just making a standard thriller. And that's good because trying to remake Alien 1979 would be a wasted opportunity to do something different.
Please tell me what the xenomorph contributed to Alien: Covenant that was different than the "standard thriller."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fartofvfx.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2FAlienCovenant_Framestore_ITW_11.jpg&hash=41891de54ae2471c55a56ac040305f787d8f7fb6)
What's different about it than the standard thriller? The film makes the comparison between it and the Frankenstein Monster...Can you even get more "standard thriller" than that?
In its moment of birth we see what is essentially a cold and vicious killing machine mimicking, and possibly bonding with, David. The alien isn't the type of creature that will wrestle with thoughts and emotions, or have an existential crisis. Standard fare would have it born and just scamper off.
While brief, I did find that scene to be moving.
Quote from: Predaker on Sep 17, 2017, 03:01:36 PM
In its moment of birth we see what is essentially a cold and vicious killing machine mimicking, and possibly bonding with, David. The alien isn't the type of creature that will wrestle with thoughts and emotions, or have an existential crisis. Standard fare would have it born and just scamper off.
While brief, I did find that scene to be moving.
Whether you found the scene moving or not is irrelevant. The Frankenstein angle is still one of, if not the most generic take on a monster one can possibly take. Only thing that could've possibly topped it was if the alien turned into a bat and started looking for a coffin to sleep in.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 17, 2017, 04:00:22 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Sep 17, 2017, 03:01:36 PM
In its moment of birth we see what is essentially a cold and vicious killing machine mimicking, and possibly bonding with, David. The alien isn't the type of creature that will wrestle with thoughts and emotions, or have an existential crisis. Standard fare would have it born and just scamper off.
While brief, I did find that scene to be moving.
Whether you found the scene moving or not is irrelevant.
Just my personal take on it. :)
QuoteThe Frankenstein angle is still one of, if not the most generic take on a monster one can possibly take. Only thing that could've possibly topped it was if the alien turned into a bat and started looking for a coffin to sleep in.
I don't consider that particular scene to be "The Frankenstein angle." You're talking about an overarching theme and I was only referencing one scene.
Other than that, I agree much of what was done with the alien was pretty standard stuff.
Alien, The Thing, Vampires, Zombies, The Blob etc are monsters that tap into the human fear of the individual getting absorbed into a collective. Becoming part of the problem as it were.
Just take Blomkamp's short 'Zygote' inspired by those things...
Spoiler
(https://moviesfilmsandflix.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/tumblr_ot3simpqzj1ut1d6co1_500.gif)
It's all generic at this point but how its told can recapture interest.
Fifield is my fav character.
You guys should watch Creep. Fantastically creepy performance by Sean Harris.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 11, 2017, 11:27:57 AMHere's how I'd rewrite the character:
Milburn: Is anyone sitting here? Milburn, biologist.
Fiffield: Er, no. Sit down. Fifield, cydonian geologist.
They shake hands.
Milburn: Cydonian geology?
Fifield: Uh, yeah. I was lead consultant on the martian aquifier survey project.
Milburn: You're the man that lead the team that discovered water... on Mars? ...and helped to make it habitable for the new colonies?
Fifield: Yeah. That was us.
Milburn: (humbled) wow...
A brief exchange of this nature would be an ideal opportunity to get to know the character, give him purpose and set in our minds that he was a Professional. His work is important. Fifield has valuable skills in regards and probably is the best in his field and appropriate for his position aboard the Prometheus and instantly earns the respect of Milburn - and really, it doesn't take many words to achieve all this. Critical elements a team member aboard the expedition needs.
I legitimately find Fifield's intro in the finished film to be one of the most cringeworthy bits of dialogue in the entire franchise. It's such an atrociously slap-handed piece of "character development".
I find him to be an all round badly written character. I just can't stand any of his moments in the movie. His character felt unnatural.
I dunno. I've encountered plenty of people who are just arseholes who enjoy making other people uncomfortable to feed their sense of superiority.
My ears are burning.
I never understood how Milburn didn't give him shit back for being rude and how Holloway just stood there while Fiefeld was screaming in Shaw's face. I would have given him a slap for talking to my partner like that. Childish, I know lol but I wouldn't be able to help myself if that happened to my Lady.
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2017, 11:43:21 AM
I dunno. I've encountered plenty of people who are just arseholes who enjoy making other people uncomfortable to feed their sense of superiority.
And kids die all the time, but like you said with Newt; just because it happens doesn't mean people will respond well.
Quote from: Russ840 on Sep 19, 2017, 12:58:13 PMHolloway just stood there while Fiefeld was screaming in Shaw's face. I would have given him a slap for talking to my partner like that. Childish, I know lol but I wouldn't be able to help myself if that happened to my Lady.
Yeah, that's just plain bad writing/direction. It's a case of 'I'm not gonna do anything because I've read the script and I know that he's not gonna do anything.'
Quote from: SiL on Sep 19, 2017, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2017, 11:43:21 AM
I dunno. I've encountered plenty of people who are just arseholes who enjoy making other people uncomfortable to feed their sense of superiority.
And kids die all the time, but like you said with Newt; just because it happens doesn't mean people will respond well.
Of course. I still don't find Fifield especially unnatural though.
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2017, 08:42:55 PM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 19, 2017, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: SM on Sep 19, 2017, 11:43:21 AM
I dunno. I've encountered plenty of people who are just arseholes who enjoy making other people uncomfortable to feed their sense of superiority.
And kids die all the time, but like you said with Newt; just because it happens doesn't mean people will respond well.
Of course. I still don't find Fifield especially unnatural though.
Do you find the way the other characters react to him natural ?
Like Millburn trying to suck up to him so Fifield will direct his ire at others and not him? Yep.
I've met people like Milburn and Fifield. They are very realistic characters. Of course, we are only given enough information that we need to know about them. No exposition about their backgrounds, which is not needed.
That's why I liked how Fifield was later shown to be a coward, even though he was acting like a tough guy in the beginning. SImilar to Hudson from Aliens. But he did try to help Milburn when he was being attacked by the Hammerpede, so he got some redemption in the end.
Underrated characters, imo.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 20, 2017, 03:30:34 AMSImilar to Hudson from Aliens.
Except nowhere near as believable or entertaining.
Fifield never feels like a real person. He's a cardboard asshole who's there because the script wants an asshole because that will be interesting. Except it isn't.
And look where being an asshole got him.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 20, 2017, 08:05:42 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 20, 2017, 03:30:34 AMSImilar to Hudson from Aliens.
Except nowhere near as believable or entertaining.
Fifield never feels like a real person. He's a cardboard asshole who's there because the script wants an asshole because that will be interesting. Except it isn't.
And the script needed a cocky marine for Aliens so that it could have more drama when the shit hits the fan.
I find Hudson annoying, but each to their own.
You might well find him annoying, but his dialogue and character are still infinitely more realistic and believable than Fifield's simple "Go away, I'm a dick because the script says so."
It says a lot when f*cking Hudson is the more nuanced of two characters, but he really was.
Hudson had layers.
Only two, smack-you-in-the-face with a housebrick subtle layers; but one more than Fifield
I like the character Fifield because for me, he sold the angle that everyone there is not enthralled with finding a creator. His ambitions are little more earth-bound and he's extremely pissed that he has been manipulated into joining a foolish creator-hunting quest without his consent. I can imagine me expressing anger with such animated flair if I too had been duped like that.
And if one or more viewers harbor the same perception, the charge of poorly written character and the like, really doesn't hold water.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 22, 2017, 01:44:41 PMAnd if one or more viewers harbor the same perception, the charge of poorly written character and the like, really doesn't hold water.
One or more people like
AVP: Requiem.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 22, 2017, 03:22:33 PM
One or more people like AVP: Requiem.
Your implication acknowledged. I have no quantitative affirmation for the character other than other members here expressing value in the character, either in this thread or in thread archive. Point is, disliking how a character is presented does not necessarily equate to a poorly written character.
Quote from: Olde on Aug 12, 2017, 10:00:50 AM
Fans are people, too, and honestly I'd trust a fan more with the IP than 80-year old Ridley Scott at this point.
I would agree with SM. I never did find much value in fan edits. It's like an art fan not liking how Van Gogh painted the church in his painting, 'Starry Night.' So the art fan painted a copy of Starry Night, painting the church how he thinks the church should have been painted. And even more bizarre, other art fans somehow get on board that his version is better than Van Gogh's original.
The difference here being, the cinema fan didn't even do any "painting." The cinema fan has to work with what the artist already created either in released product or video extras. Unless the cinema fan actually invested money and filmed alternate scenes with hired actors, built stages, etc., I see no one able to improve the original with their $60 Filmora home hobby video editor.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 22, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
I like the character Fifield because for me, he sold the angle that everyone there is not enthralled with finding a creator. His ambitions are little more earth-bound and he's extremely pissed that he has been manipulated into joining a foolish creator-hunting quest without his consent. I can imagine me expressing anger with such animated flair if I too had been duped like that.
And if one or more viewers harbor the same perception, the charge of poorly written character and the like, really doesn't hold water.
Fifield was angry straight out of hypersleep and before they had the mission briefing . Besides he signed up without knowing what the mission was to begin with, its not like they misled him.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Sep 22, 2017, 05:13:30 PM
Fifield was angry straight out of hypersleep and before they had the mission briefing .
Within the film, how do you know Fifield was angry straight out of hypersleep and before they had the mission briefing? Because he more or less told Milburn to buzz off? A nasty disposition to a stranger does not necessarily equate to boiling in a long term anger. He never raised his voice in anger to Milburn when they met. I saw no anger in him while waiting for the mission briefing, even during the mission briefing. Skepticism, cynicism? Yes, but no anger.
In most of the scenes he appeared in, I saw little or no anger. We witnessed an outburst of rage from Fifield after discovering the alien cadaver. His not so pleasant message he requested Janek to pass on to Shaw, appeared to me more as disgust than anger. There really is no repeated pattern Fifield is embroiled in an eternal funk of anger.
Fifield displayed no tone of anger at all in some passages trekking along with others in the alien corridors. Quite the opposite in fact, he seemed to be having a good time while launching his pups, howling it up with pleasured gusto, and have a flaunting recreational smoke within his suit.
We viewers are sometimes guilty of witnessing a character's singular example of extreme behavior and pinning that as the character's overall demeanor.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Sep 22, 2017, 05:13:30 PM
Besides he signed up without knowing what the mission was to begin with, its not like they misled him.
Perhaps misled or duped is not the proper word here. Tipping point might be the better description.
Slivko was also on board with his commander's mission to escort the scientists to Skull Island without knowing the details of the mission. Dialogue implies him and his mates have been on multiple missions before and I would speculate they would be conditioned to expect the worst without knowing the details of the mission. But when he started his day, never in a million years would he have predicted he would witness that day most of his mates being slaughtered by a 100 ft. tall, 160 ton, ferocious ape.
Everyone has a tipping point. And that unconventional encounter was enough of a tipping point for Slivko to turn on his own commander.
Likewise, I speculate Fifield throughout his career has come to expect the worst. But having alien ghosts (figuratively) charge through you and discovering not just an alien, but an alien cadaver that has been decapitated, could be quantified as the unconventional encounter that triggers someone's tipping point.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 22, 2017, 04:23:17 PMPoint is, disliking how a character is presented does not necessarily equate to a poorly written character.
Liking how a character is presented does not necessarily equate to a well written character.
You may well enjoy the character. That's entirely your perogative. But you're never going to convince me he's at all deep, interesting or well-written, because, like most of the characters in the film, he's a flat, uninteresting, forgettable piece of cardboard, and his entire characterisation is based on some really cringe-worthy, forced dialogue.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 22, 2017, 06:50:28 PMWithin the film, how do you know Fifield was angry straight out of hypersleep and before they had the mission briefing?
Because literally the first words out of his mouth are "f**k off and leave me alone." He sounds cheerful.
"Forgettable" is a bit of a long bow.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 23, 2017, 09:10:28 AM
Liking how a character is presented does not necessarily equate to a well written character.
Now you're catching on.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 23, 2017, 09:10:28 AM
Because literally the first words out of his mouth are "f**k off and leave me alone." He sounds cheerful.
Heh, literally?
MILLBURN: Has this seat been taken? Hi, I'm Millburn, Biology. Nice to meet you.
FIFIELD: Look uh, no offense, but uh, I've been asleep two years. I'm not here to be your friend. I'm here to make money. You got that?
MILLBURN: . . . okay.
To the point, short, and a courtesy "no offense." He even gives Milburn a reason so he would understand why he wants to be left alone.
No raising his voice in anger........and, no "f**k off" ........ literally.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 23, 2017, 09:10:28 AM
But you're never going to convince me he's at all deep, interesting or well-written......
Look uh, no offense, but uh, I've been retired two years. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to make posts. You got that? . . . . ;)
I thought he was one of the more tolerable characters. Maybe like attracts like. The only thing I thought was stupid about him was his head tattoo.
You should hire him for your crew. He'd probably make a decent space pirate.
I would if I could.
I have another theory why Milburn and Fifield got lost. The map did not show the exit.
Janek had a map of the whole structure pinpointing each member of the survey team and the pups started mapping just after they entered.
They got lost because they assumed they could find their way back.
By the time they realise they're lost the storm had hit.
Janek doesn't contact them because he's distracted by the storm.
Shaw and the others think they're on board the Rover when they see it driving back to the prometheus.
Why does this need a theory?
Because it's flakey as.
It's fair enough that Shaw thought they'd already left since they see the RT driving away. But Janek, Vickers, Chance and Ravel have a 3D map that shows where Millburn and Fifield are inside the pyramid - then asks Shaw where they are when they get back.
It's a really hamfisted way to strand them at the pyramid so they can die when Janek - whose supposed to be on watch - nicks off to root Vickers at just the right contrived time for them to be attacked.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 27, 2017, 12:13:38 AMI have another theory why Milburn and Fifield got lost. The map did not show the exit.
They literally start mapping in the first room they enter. Of course it shows the exit, because it's right there.
Quote from: Alien³ on Sep 27, 2017, 08:13:19 AMJanek doesn't contact them because he's distracted by the storm.
As SM says, Janek not contacting them isn't the problem. The problem is them not contacting Janek. Fifield launched the pups, he
knows Janek has access to the map they are generating on board, yet rather than call in and ask for directions he decides to wander around aimlessly all night until Janek gets in touch with
him for being lost.
Dumb.
Quote from: Alien³ on Sep 27, 2017, 08:13:19 AM
They got lost because they assumed they could find their way back.
By the time they realise they're lost the storm had hit.
Janek doesn't contact them because he's distracted by the storm.
Shaw and the others think they're on board the Rover when they see it driving back to the prometheus.
Why does this need a theory?
Fifield, the "geologist map expert", had direct map readings from his "pups" that told him where to go when the plot needed him to do his job.
(https://i.imgur.com/oT2qNzh.jpg)
When the plot needed him to die, he became a clueless idiot, to whom "it all looked the same". He's also the only character to get lost in the entire film (Millburn excluded, since he was with him). Everyone else knew where to go when they needed to get someplace even without Fifield present. When the only person in your film to get lost is your supposed map expert, you have yourself a problem.
^ The pups were not looking for the exit.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 27, 2017, 08:44:30 AM
Janek has access to the map they are generating on board, yet rather than call in and ask for directions he decides to wander around aimlessly all night until Janek gets in touch with him for being lost.
The time between Milburn/Fiefeld choosing to leave and storm hitting is short. Only a couple of minutes or so.
I agree Janek did a poor job of looking after his crew but that is a flaw in his character, right? That he just doesn't care about a lot of it. Only in the end does he makes the right decision.
Quote^ The pups were not looking for the exit.
They don't have to be looking for it. They've already mapped it.
Quote from: Alien³ on Sep 27, 2017, 09:11:24 AM^ The pups were not looking for the exit.
As I already pointed out, the PUPS start recording
in the room where the exit is.
Quote from: Alien³ on Sep 27, 2017, 09:11:24 AMThe time between Milburn/Fiefeld choosing to leave and storm hitting is short. Only a couple of minutes or so.
Debatable. The others had time to do a bunch of exploring in the ampule room and still leg it outside before the storm got there. And even if it was only moments, that still doesn't excuse Fifield not calling in and asking for directions. He doesn't know there's a storm outside. Instead he just wanders around like a dumbass.
And none of that explains why he can't just check the map himself like he did earlier.
Quote from: Alien³ on Sep 27, 2017, 09:11:24 AMI agree Janek did a poor job of looking after his crew but that is a flaw in his character, right? That he just doesn't care about a lot of it.
That's literally the opposite of his character. He cares enough about others to do a suicide run to save Earth at the end of the film.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 27, 2017, 09:18:47 AM
He cares enough about others to do a suicide run to save Earth at the end of the film.
I mentioned that is my previous post. Before it's revealed that Holloway is infected Janek is pretty nonchalant about the expedition as a whole.
You're right, I just rewatched the scene the pups do map the exit from the get go.
I guess communication is key to avoiding space-snakes down the throat.
QuoteHe cares enough about others to do a suicide run to save Earth at the end of the film.
Without alerting the non-bridge crew to evacuate.
More than likely because the editors forgot there was still meant to be a non-bridge crew.
The only gods Janek knows of are the Engineers; not the editor.
HE probably wouldn't care either way.
"We're in a film? That figures."
Quote from: SM on Sep 27, 2017, 09:35:22 AMWithout alerting the non-bridge crew to evacuate.
Weren't they all dead by this point? I thought Fifield got all the mechanics and mercenaries (not counting the one who simply disappears) in the vehicle bay?
Apart from the two guarding the door to Weyland's quarters.
Ah yeah. Still, that's a problem with them arbitrarily chopping and changing the order of events in the edit. Had the Fifueld attack been left where it was intended characters wouldn't magically appear and disappear.
F*cking Fifield again :laugh:
Didn't they drive off in a vehicle, never to be seen again?
They did drive off.
But they came back.
Well Janek did not know they were there. They could have died on the Prometheus.
As for Fifield, maybe his state of mind caused him to get lost. He is not the most stable character to begin with.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 27, 2017, 11:48:17 AMWell Janek did not know they were there. They could have died on the Prometheus.
So he didn't even bother to check?!
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 27, 2017, 11:48:17 AMAs for Fifield, maybe his state of mind caused him to get lost. He is not the most stable character to begin with.
Or maybe it was shit writing. It's not the most stable of scripts to begin with.
Lol I'd say shit writing
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 27, 2017, 09:18:47 AM
That's literally the opposite of his character. He cares enough about others to do a suicide run to save Earth at the end of the film.
Developing a character and reversing their behavior 180 is one of writers' favorite writing tools. Imagine how different cinema/literary history would look today if writers chose to keep their character's behavior consistent with no straying outside the lines of their M.O.?
There would be no Michael Corleone that we know in The Godfather. There would be no Butch Coolidge that we know in Pulp Fiction. There would be no Anikin Skywalker that we know in Return of the Jedi. There would be no HAL 9000 that we know in 2001 ASO. There would be no Hans Landa that we know in Inglorious Basterds. There would be no Bill Munny that we know in Unforgiven. There would be no Rick Deckard that we know in Blade Runner. There would be no Jake Sully that we know in Avatar. The list goes on and on and on.
In the examples above, the writers injected a "tipping point" that justified their reversal of behavior. Are you not seeing the tipping point for Janek's "literally opposite" behavior?
Quote from: SM on Sep 27, 2017, 09:15:51 AM
Quote^ The pups were not looking for the exit.
They don't have to be looking for it. They've already mapped it.
Now this......... is constructive criticism of the writing. Even Janek's hologram shows the entire ship had been scanned.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 27, 2017, 11:48:17 AM
As for Fifield, maybe his state of mind caused him to get lost. He is not the most stable character to begin with.
I'm with this.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 27, 2017, 07:51:17 PMDeveloping a character and reversing their behavior 180 is one of writers' favorite writing tools. Imagine how different cinema/literary history would look today if writers chose to keep their character's behavior consistent with no straying outside the lines of their M.O.?
But it's not character development. He just suddenly decides to kill himself to save Earth with little to no explanation.
They had that fantastic scene between Janek and Vickers that
completely set up his death run at the end, but for reasons that boggle the mind they decided to excise it in the edit.
That scene was too long and a bit too Chekov's gun. His line to Shaw that he can't let the goo get back to Earth was sufficient and showed it wasn't at all out of character.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 27, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
But it's not character development. He just suddenly decides to kill himself to save Earth with little to no explanation.
The same could be said for Michael Corleone. There was little character development to suddenly abandon his disdain for his family's business. There were little to no signs of character development to indicate Anikin suddenly turning on Palpatine. There was zero character development prior to Butch Coolidge suddenly trying to save the antagonist he was about to kill minutes earlier. It took a sequel 16 years later real world, to finally explain HAL 9000's sudden reversal of behavior.
Now.....allow me to share what bothers me about the writing of that scene. Chance and Ravel volunteer to go alongside the suicide run on the reason Janek could not accomplish it without their aid. Yet nothing is indicated they played a critical role in accomplishing the suicide run. Seems to me it takes only one person to aim the ship in one direction and put pedal to the metal. The writer failed to give Chance and Ravel a role in that successful suicide run. The writer's agenda was to kill off these two characters and made no effort to muster a coherent demise in story-telling fashion.
Just another note on my point in my first paragraph above. I'm not criticizing the writers for not guiding us through their character's sudden transition to opposite behavior. I praise their solid grasp on story telling.
James Cameron said it best, loosely quoting - A writer struggles with continuity consistency and scene impact. Once you start explaining everything, then you quit telling a story and you are now talking to the audience. For example, I could have easily shown how the alien queen boarded the drop ship remaining true to continuity consistency, but then I have robbed the audience of the impact of the queen's grand appearance exiting the drop ship. Guiding the audience how the queen boarded the ship is talking to the audience. Having the queen suddenly appear is telling a story.
I'm not going to lie the idea of Chance and Ravel landing on the surface only to be killed by the Engineer or the falling Juggernaut is neat to think about.
Ignoring the fact that we see Chance and Ravel actually flying the ship with Janek and therefore do have a role, that's kinda missing the point. It's more about their loyalty to Janek - despite Chance's obvious reluctance.
Quote from: SM on Sep 27, 2017, 09:11:12 PM
Ignoring the fact that we see Chance and Ravel actually flying the ship with Janek and therefore do have a role, that's kinda missing the point. It's more about their loyalty to Janek - despite Chance's obvious reluctance.
I can get on board with that. Once Janek ordered Ravel to activate the ion propulsion converting the ship to a bullet, not much else to do with a bullet other than aim it, which is confirmed by Janek stating he can handle it himself. Surely the pilot has at least that control at hand. But we do see a brief glance of Chance throwing back a lever just before impact. Works for me.
As for loyalty, that only works if their fatal sacrifice has a cause. Perhaps my flaw in analyzing that scene is I failed to put credence in Ravel's dialogue, "You're a shit pilot, you're going to need all the help you can get." There's really nothing in the scene to contradict their contribution.....especially since I know nothing about what it takes to guide a futuristic spaceship as a bullet. Excellent counterpoint!
Quote from: Alien³ on Sep 27, 2017, 09:02:49 PM
the idea of Chance and Ravel landing on the surface only to be killed by the Engineer or the falling Juggernaut is neat to think about.
An intriguing what if. And their deaths on the ground could have added some coherency in the whole 'running away in the same direction of the falling ship' controversy. Show Chance and Ravel running running away in different directions and being fatally crushed by falling debris.
Chance and Ravel are not important to the story.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 27, 2017, 08:39:52 PM
Once you start explaining everything, then you quit telling a story and you are now talking to the audience.
Exactly.
No need to waste more time showing their deaths, it's Vickers/Shaw we care about. That's why they died on the Prometheus.
Would showing them live make the movie better?
Whom?
I think he's talking about Chance/Ravel, the characters whose only memorable aspect is the bet they wager in the beginning of the film.
Yes, I was talking about Chance and Ravel, thanks for clearing that up.
They're just like red shirts in Star Trek. The movie doesn't need to focus on them. It would make too many characters.
Quote from: SM on Sep 27, 2017, 09:11:12 PMIgnoring the fact that we see Chance and Ravel actually flying the ship with Janek and therefore do have a role, that's kinda missing the point.
Janek initially tells them to leave, so clearly he's perfectly capable of flying the ship without them.
If he's so determined to take down the Juggernaut, he wouldn't try and send them away if that would somehow hinder him doing it.
Considering what we see Chance and Ravel do, it's obviously easier if there's three of them.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:15:07 AM
Yes, I was talking about Chance and Ravel, thanks for clearing that up.
They're just like red shirts in Star Trek. The movie doesn't need to focus on them. It would make too many characters.
They're supporting characters and we do see their deaths.
Poor Ravel. He never got that lap dance with Miss Vickers.
That was a pretty misogynistic part of the movie.
::)
It is OK to have characters that aren't perfect human beings, you know.
Not to mention the film features a pretty strong female lead to counterbalance one guy briefly being a lad with his mates.
Great logic. Except he's obviously degrading her and not giving a second thought to any of her qualities other than physical. He's basically saying "I don't care if she's smart, strong, accomplished, independent, hard-working, no-bullshit, or my boss, I still think her worth is only measured by her body."
I don't think misogyny, no matter how "casual" you claim it to be, should be tolerated. But I guess you think it's okay.
Films can't have characters with deplorable qualities now?
They can. That doesn't contradict anything that I said:
Quote from: Olde on Oct 13, 2017, 10:00:11 AM
That was a pretty misogynistic part of the movie.
I was simply stating a fact. HuDaFuK seems to disagree.
Quote from: Olde on Oct 13, 2017, 12:15:48 PM
Great logic. Except he's obviously degrading her and not giving a second thought to any of her qualities other than physical. He's basically saying "I don't care if she's smart, strong, accomplished, independent, hard-working, no-bullshit, or my boss, I still think her worth is only measured by her body."
Yeah, Call IS severely f**kable, isn't she? :D
15 pages about stupid character. Hmm :)
That kind of macho talk is pretty common. The prisoners in Alien 3 talking about Ripley (in the Assembly Cut scene), for example.
Even the female marines in Aliens "Who's Snow White".
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 13, 2017, 11:07:17 PM
That kind of macho talk is pretty common. The prisoners in Alien 3 talking about Ripley (in the Assembly Cut scene), for example.
Even the female marines in Aliens "Who's Snow White".
I believe that was supposed to be a reference to Ripley's long hypersleep.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Oct 13, 2017, 04:50:40 PM
Yeah, Call IS severely f**kable, isn't she? :D
Lol, you caught me. I thought HuDa or SiL surely would have, first.
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 14, 2017, 12:14:55 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 13, 2017, 11:07:17 PM
That kind of macho talk is pretty common. The prisoners in Alien 3 talking about Ripley (in the Assembly Cut scene), for example.
Even the female marines in Aliens "Who's Snow White".
I believe that was supposed to be a reference to Ripley's long hypersleep.
I don't think so. Vasquez doesn't know who Ripley is so she's not likely to know about the long hypersleep. The 'Snow White' reference is more likely to do with Ripley being a civilian.
Quote from: SM on Oct 14, 2017, 11:36:00 AM
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 14, 2017, 12:14:55 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 13, 2017, 11:07:17 PM
That kind of macho talk is pretty common. The prisoners in Alien 3 talking about Ripley (in the Assembly Cut scene), for example.
Even the female marines in Aliens "Who's Snow White".
I believe that was supposed to be a reference to Ripley's long hypersleep.
I don't think so. Vasquez doesn't know who Ripley is so she's not likely to know about the long hypersleep. The 'Snow White' reference is more likely to do with Ripley being a civilian.
Just a guess on my part because there was also the line about "they said she saw an alien once." They don't know her personally yet but there had been word about her going around, and her long hypersleep was noteworthy.
That, and it makes sense of why Vasquez would refer to her as "snow white" with the cheeky banter.
Quote from: Olde on Oct 13, 2017, 12:47:46 PMI was simply stating a fact. HuDaFuK seems to disagree.
No, I was simply saying the exact same thing as SiL, and then pointing out the film as a whole could hardly be considered misogynistic.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 15, 2017, 01:57:01 PM
No, I was simply saying the exact same thing as SiL, and then pointing out the film as a whole could hardly be considered misogynistic.
You rolled your eyes
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 13, 2017, 10:13:29 AM
::)
when I suggested that one moment in the film was misogynistic, and then made the excuse that casual misogyny was just
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 13, 2017, 10:13:29 AMone guy briefly being a lad with his mates.
Sounds like the actions of an enabler, tbh. I also never suggested that the "film as a whole" was misogynistic. If you're going to attempt to turn me into a straw man, at least make it subtle.
You said it was a "really misogynistic part of the movie". It wasn't. It was one character having a crack at a woman in that one scene because that was his character. The movie itself isn't misogynistic. It simply includes characters who, much like people in real life - shock - aren't angels.
Why is it even an issue that needs mentioning?
And I never made any excuses for his behaviour. I said it was realistic.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 15, 2017, 02:26:08 PM
You said it was a "really misogynistic part of the movie". It wasn't. It was one character having a crack at a woman in that one scene because that was his character. The movie itself isn't misogynistic. It simply includes characters who, much like people in real life - shock - aren't angels.
Why is it even an issue that needs mentioning?
And I never made any excuses for his behaviour. I said it was realistic.
I don't really understand what you're disagreeing with. Do you not think that the two characters are engaging in casual misogyny, demeaning Vickers by assuming the only thing she's worth is her body? Hopefully when you say they're not angels, you're agreeing that what they're saying shouldn't be something actually tolerated in the workplace, in real life, that is. I was simply saying that the line contributes absolutely nothing to their character or arc (in fact it does less than that by taking away from their character later when they make the noble "hero's sacrifice"), and that since the line doesn't even contribute to their character, the only other reasoning I can see for its inclusion is that it was played for a laugh. If so, then is it any stretch to say that whoever wrote the line seemed to think that sexually objectifying women is funny, seeing as how the line could just as well be omitted and the film would lose nothing? Even if you're going for "realism," there are countless other realistic things he could've said that wouldn't be degrading towards women. The fact that they chose that one is telling to me, even if not to you.
Again, you're condemning the movie for that one line when the quote right beneath your avatar is even worse. What's the deal? ???
Quote from: Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Today at 10:48:19 AM
Again, you're condemning the movie for that one line when the quote right beneath your avatar is even worse.
Quote from: Olde on Oct 16, 2017, 03:02:12 AM
......whoever wrote the line seemed to think that sexually objectifying women is funny, seeing as how the line could just as well be omitted........
Olde's standing forum quote: "She is severely f**kable, ain't she?"
Oh, the irony. . . . :laugh:
Such a quote could just as well be omitted...
I always did think that line was creepy as f**k, especially given how boyish Call looked.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 16, 2017, 07:04:59 PM
Quote from: Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Today at 10:48:19 AM
Again, you're condemning the movie for that one line when the quote right beneath your avatar is even worse.
Quote from: Olde on Oct 16, 2017, 03:02:12 AM
......whoever wrote the line seemed to think that sexually objectifying women is funny, seeing as how the line could just as well be omitted........
Olde's standing forum quote: "She is severely f**kable, ain't she?"
Oh, the irony. . . . :laugh:
The thing is I pointed this out a page or two ago and all he did was say 'lol, I'm surprised no one else noticed'.
So, the jig is up, dude! If you want to pretend you're some kind of Champion for Women, you'd best ditch the quote!
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 14, 2017, 12:14:55 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 13, 2017, 11:07:17 PM
That kind of macho talk is pretty common. The prisoners in Alien 3 talking about Ripley (in the Assembly Cut scene), for example.
Even the female marines in Aliens "Who's Snow White".
I believe that was supposed to be a reference to Ripley's long hypersleep.
She should have said "
Sleeping Beauty" then ;)
Quote from: Olde on Oct 17, 2017, 10:40:55 AM
Good, now I can stop. :laugh:
Why are you laughing? You just exposed yourself to everyone here you are a phony.
Correct.
and it did not help that the actor is god awful, i have no idea how in the hell he got casted.
In what way was he awful?
Nothing wrong with the actor. Just poor material.
He wasn't there to be your friend. Mission accomplished I'd reckon.
Well, I just thought his line delivery mixed with his accent didn't really cut it for me,
and on top of that he was just annoying to look at.
to me he was the worst part of the movie.
personally, I hate the concept of a space mutant/zombie in an alien film. I think the actor himself is pretty good. The character was a bit lame tough as well.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgngseries.retrogames.com%2Favp%2Finfectedhuman.jpg&hash=952db544a6828bcdf85301a1bdb6636fd9d00606)
Infected humans were in the AVP arcade game..
Wow, how official ;D
Love that game tough!
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 24, 2017, 10:47:14 AM
Infected humans were in the AVP arcade game..
Everyone is infected in the alien franchise. One way or another.
::) youknowwhatthef**kImean
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2Fjames-franco-wink.gif&hash=07cfca15a16b332e4a2ad39ab721ddbe2fde32cb)
Quote from: SM on Oct 21, 2017, 06:37:31 AM
He wasn't there to be your friend. Mission accomplished I'd reckon.
Did you dig Fiefeld?
He served a purpose.
Very carefully stated.
Despite all impressions to the contrary, one does not dig lightly.
Fifield was a dick, so not easy to dig. He worked in the context of the story (the getting lost thing aside).
It's reassuring to know that you wield the power of your shovel so responsibly.
Quote from: SM on Oct 26, 2017, 12:28:37 AM
Fifield was a dick,
I don't blame him, Milburn seemed annoying. I would have said the same thing.
We know.
It's that line, "I'm here to make money." It's about as 'here's MY character!' as "I'm strong to the finish, 'cause I eats me spinach." :-\
Quote from: SM on Oct 26, 2017, 05:45:35 AM
We know.
Anyone would. :D
Milburn is an annoying douchebag.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Oct 26, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
It's that line, "I'm here to make money." It's about as 'here's MY character!' as "I'm strong to the finish, 'cause I eats me spinach." :-\
Not subtle enough? He only has a few minutes screentime, if that.
I despised Holloway even more, he is one obnoxious prat of a man yet somehow is supposed to be an intelligent scientist who almost immediatley reduces himself to a champagne swilling drunk fool
That type of person would be obnoxious and full of ego, it stands to reason. You go to any university you'll see hundreds of Holloways about.
I don't think fifield was so bad. He was obviously a little frustrated having travelled so far for so long only to discover he was essentially surplus to requirements having nothing to contribute to the gigantic dead body arena. ;D
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 27, 2017, 02:23:31 AMNot subtle enough? He only has a few minutes screentime, if that.
Frost only had a couple of minutes screentime.
I heard that
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 29, 2017, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 27, 2017, 02:23:31 AMNot subtle enough? He only has a few minutes screentime, if that.
Frost only had a couple of minutes screentime.
Aliens fanboy alert. :P
Intelligent retort.
Frost felt like a real person. Fifield feels like the result of shitty, forced writing.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 29, 2017, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 29, 2017, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 27, 2017, 02:23:31 AMNot subtle enough? He only has a few minutes screentime, if that.
Frost only had a couple of minutes screentime.
Aliens fanboy alert. :P
I wish more movies could be like Aliens.
I wish every movie could be Aliens. Imagine hearing "Get away from her you bitch!" over and over again.
But I know people like Fifield. Not every character has to be immediately likeable to the audience. Kills realism.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 29, 2017, 10:26:50 PM
But I know people like Fifield. Not every character has to be immediately likeable to the audience. Kills realism.
https://local.theonion.com/awful-man-offers-witty-acerbic-take-on-everything-he-s-1819570846
:laugh:
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 29, 2017, 10:26:50 PMBut I know people like Fifield. Not every character has to be immediately likeable to the audience. Kills realism.
It has nothing to do with him being an unlikable character and everything to do with him being a shit character.
I'm loathe to use another example from
Aliens, but Burke is an unlikeable character, yet he's infinitely more engaging than Captain GO AWAY I DON'T LIKE YOU.
If I were to compare Fifield to a character in Aliens, it would be Hudson. If Hudson was an angry loner and British.
So, almost opposite then.
In some ways but not in others.
In that, they're both white?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 30, 2017, 08:41:55 AM
It has nothing to do with him being an unlikable character and everything to do with him being a shit character.
I'm loathe to use another example from Aliens, but Burke is an unlikeable character, yet he's infinitely more engaging than Captain GO AWAY I DON'T LIKE YOU.
I wouldn't say Burke is an unlikable character. You like him in the first half of the film, and hate him in the second half, once his involvement in the Hadley's Hope disaster is revealed. That minor nitpick aside, I do agree with your point.
Fifield's problem is that he's a cartoon; It's not so much about him being "likable", but rather about his character making sense. An over the top asshole who gets lost while being a map expert and who has tobacco in his respirator doesn't work in a gritty realistic Sci Fi film that makes an attempt at being smart by dealing (or at least trying to) with deep philosophical questions. He's a comic relief character in a film that shouldn't even have comic relief. Unlike Hudson, who is a cocky marine who completely freaks out in the moment of truth, which is such a common real life character trait it has become a cliche, and is featured in a film that doesn't even attempt to deal with philosophy.
Aliens knows what it is, and its characters make sense. Prometheus tries to be something it's not, and features cartoony characters.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Oct 30, 2017, 10:34:00 AMI wouldn't say Burke is an unlikable character. You like him in the first half of the film, and hate him in the second half, once his involvement in the Hadley's Hope disaster is revealed. That minor nitpick aside, I do agree with your point.
I thought he was slimy prick from the moment you first meet him lol.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Oct 30, 2017, 10:34:00 AMFifield's problem is that he's a cartoon; It's not so much about him being "likable", but rather about his character making sense.
But yes, this was my point.
Burke was an effective character. He started out being "an okay guy" for the most part, especially in how gently he handled Ripley and then when he backed her up against Gorman cowardice. I think that's what made the revelation of his true colors all the more disgusting. We felt as betrayed as Ripley did for allowing ourselves to like him.
If you think about it, Burke is a version of Ash.
It's a clever inversion of the original. Make cold android good guy, and friendly human bad guy.
Quote from: SM on Oct 30, 2017, 10:31:11 AM
In that, they're both white?
They're not white.
The only white people are clowns.
Bishop wasn't 'cold'.
He was initially. The intention was to fool the audience to think he would be another Ash.
Is that why he was all chummy with the marines and went out of his way to be friendly to Ripley?
Ripley sees him as being suss despite him not actually doing anything suss.
Cameron intended the audience to be suspicious if they saw the first movie.
The hugger autopsy is supposed to suggest Bishop might pull an Ash and Ripley will be justified in her suspicion. We buy Ripley's suspicion based on her prior experiences with androids.
We can argue whether Cameron did a good job or not but the intent is there.
I was just about to say that.
The audience sees Bishop to an extent through Ripley's biased eyes.
He never actually does anything suspicious beyond looking at Spunkmeyer for a couple for second longer than he should. Then he's all chummy again.
Ash was 'chummy' too, well not chummy chummy but acting like a normal person just with slight hints that something may be off.
Won't you PLEASE just hate Fiefeld like you're supposed to? >:(
I can't hate on Fifield, because I like him too much. How could anyone not like him?
He has a face that I'd like to punch, if only because of that haircut.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 31, 2017, 04:55:27 AM
I can't hate on Fifield, because I like him too much. How could anyone not like him?
I found him amusing also. Though you got to wonder, realistically would he have ever been hired for that mission. While conducting their initial interviews and tests for a geologist candidate, would someone like Fifield pass the mustard? If he was able to refrain from any outbursts during their interviews and tests like he went off on Shaw, then possibly. Would his work history reveal his short fuse has created conflicts on previous jobs? I would speculate that with a mission as important as the Prometheus mission, there would be some degree of vetting for each profession picked to join the team.
Apparently according to his character profile he's done other missions for Weyland.
Which makes inviting such a f*ckstick along even more stupid.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 31, 2017, 09:53:21 PM
Apparently according to his character profile he's done other missions for Weyland.
Ahh, first I heard that. Intriguing. Thanks for share!
No worries.
I think the reason for the cynicism in certain characters like Fifield is to make Shaw stand out more. She's optimistic about the mission, and that creates an interesting dynamic between the characters.
I'm still waiting for your declaration of hatred.
:-*
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviezone.com%2FFIFIELD.png&hash=ddddefad4128308582acbce97177201e61582096)
At least he's not a rapist. :P
Best not to make assumptions.
I think he looks one or two steps away from being sent to Fury 161.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.crackedcdn.com%2Fphpimages%2Farticle%2F7%2F5%2F4%2F140754.jpg%3Fv%3D1&hash=670dd45436085f177823bfb3ccca480e0adfe104)
Prometheus is actually a good Dumb and Dumber spin off.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 30, 2017, 01:25:16 PM
Burke was an effective character. He started out being "an okay guy" for the most part, especially in how gently he handled Ripley and then when he backed her up against Gorman cowardice. I think that's what made the revelation of his true colors all the more disgusting. We felt as betrayed as Ripley did for allowing ourselves to like him.
Just like Bishop 2 in Alien3.
He was a Droid.
Misdirection
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 01, 2017, 12:46:00 AM
No worries.
I think the reason for the cynicism in certain characters like Fifield is to make Shaw stand out more. She's optimistic about the mission, and that creates an interesting dynamic between the characters.
* The issue here is; what the viewer knows is not = to what the characters know/believe.
- The viewer knows there will be space alien monsters in the movie/story.
- The two scientists, Fifield and Milburn, do not expect that and they do not believe in that possibility.
* This is based on Vickers who set up the mission and who hired the two scientists.
- Vickers expected to find nothing important on LV-223 as she stated in the movie.
She was convinced no giant space aliens would be found.
She hired a geologist and biologist who were completely against Shaw's theory.
- The two scientists made this clear in the staff briefing.
* Logically the two scientists not only didn't believe in giant space aliens, they had no interest in giant space aliens.
- This is why Milburn walked away from the decapitated Engineer.
- This is why Fifield says to Shaw that he had no interest with giant space aliens.
They were hired because they agreed with Vickers and not Shaw.
* But Milburn was interested in primitive life forms like worms and snakes.
This is why Milburn tried to examine or even capture the Hammerpede.
Wildlife experts do that kind of thing in our world, for research or for putting animals in zoos; And several of them have been killed by poisonous snakes in non fiction.
It is plausible that this can happen to a character like Milburn.
;)
Edit; grammar/clarity
A biologist that isn't interested in biology. Except when he is.
Righto then.
Quote from: SM on Dec 08, 2017, 09:06:38 PM
A biologist that isn't interested in biology. Except when he is.
Righto then.
Biology is quite a massive field and interests can vary drastically, Milburn also may just be totally freaked out about the implications the dead Engineer has on his understanding of biology.
The hammerpede would have been more in line with his outward perception on exobiology, making him feel more comfortable. There's also the established dynamic of him trying to get Fiefield to like him and was probably... Peacocking? Trying to present an outward appearance of being far more competent and knowledgeable than he really was in the situation.
He was definitely sucking up to Fifield, but running away from a dead extra-terrestrial makes him look stupid. And in a movie like this, stupidity doesn't garner sympathy.
Quote from: Kurai on Dec 08, 2017, 11:16:24 PM
Biology is quite a massive field and interests can vary drastically, Milburn also may just be totally freaked out about the implications the dead Engineer has on his understanding of biology.
The hammerpede would have been more in line with his outward perception on exobiology, making him feel more comfortable.
That's exactly it. We don't know what field of biology that Milburn specialised in. Saying just because he's a biologist that he should know everything about biology is naive. There are many different people working in many different areas related to biology.
Even saying that, why would he put his career over his life? It is clear that danger is present. No sense in risking his life, even though he's a biologist. You won't find this in real world scientists, either. They don't usually risk their lives for their career.
It's just more nitpicking from haters looking for an excuse to hate.
That would totally be a valid interpretation if he didn't stick his hand in a space snake's face twenty minutes later.
Weren't they both a bit high at that point?
Fifield didnt share.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 09, 2017, 12:02:51 PM
That would totally be a valid interpretation if he didn't stick his hand in a space snake's face twenty minutes later.
And that was completely validated by the deleted scene where he discovers native worms. Yes it was deleted for pacing reasons, that doesn't make it invalid. The scene exists.
Don't know why I have to bring this up, it should be common knowledge by now, you of all people..
And again, those were living organisms, not desiccated corpses. Any biologist would be excited over finding complex alien life (assuming simple micro-organisms had already been discovered at that point). That is the holy grail of biology.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 09, 2017, 12:02:51 PM
That would totally be a valid interpretation if he didn't stick his hand in a space snake's face twenty minutes later.
'So Mr Milburn, your performance review. You encountered the body of a dead extraterrestrial - decapitated no less - but ran away instead of studying it. There was no immediate apparent threat to your safety. You do realise you're being paid, right?'
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 12:59:26 AM
And that was completely validated by the deleted scene where he discovers native worms. Yes it was deleted for pacing reasons, that doesn't make it invalid. The scene exists.
That it was cut -- and left out -- absolutely makes it invalid. It doesn't exist in the film. It's no longer part of the film's narrative.
Even if it had been added back in, how does finding worms make it sensible for someone to stick their hands in a snake's face?
QuoteAnd again, those were living organisms, not desiccated corpses. Any biologist would be excited over finding complex alien life (assuming simple micro-organisms had already been discovered at that point). That is the holy grail of biology.
He found complex alien life in a condition that was in no position to cause him any harm -- runs.
He found a complex life showing
all the known threat behaviours on this Earth -- assumed it was "mesmerized" and harmless.
There is no defense here. He's an incompetent, poorly written character who did only what the plot dictated.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 01:27:03 AM
That it was cut -- and left out -- absolutely makes it invalid. It doesn't exist in the film. It's no longer part of the film's narrative.
Even if it had been added back in, how does finding worms make it sensible for someone to stick their hands in a snake's face?
It's not a snake, for starters, and the reason it was cut was for pacing not narrative. It's still part of the film as it was released on the blu ray and dvd. You can't release deleted scenes in the theatre as an extra, can you?
Quote
He found complex alien life in a condition that was in no position to cause him any harm -- runs.
How does he know that? He doesn't know how they died.
QuoteHe found a complex life showing all the known threat behaviours on this Earth -- assumed it was "mesmerized" and harmless.
On Earth, if you're approached by an animal, it is not always predatory. Seagulls often approach humans, not to attack them but to scavenge for food.
What other threat behaviours were there? It seemed timid until it attacked.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 01:42:18 AM
It's still part of the film as it was released on the blu ray and dvd. You can't release deleted scenes in the theatre as an extra, can you?
Deleted scenes that aren't part of the movie still don't count to the film's narrative. It doesn't matter why it was cut; it was cut and left out, and no longer influences the film.
QuoteHow does he know that? He doesn't know how they died.
Right. It might have been a hissing snake-like creature for all he knew.
QuoteWhat other threat behaviours were there? It seemed timid until it attacked.
Making itself seem bigger and making noise. These are two of the most basic threat behaviours for non-aquatic organisms. The hammerpede flared its neck like a cobra and started hissing. No biologist on this Earth would consider that a sign of timidity or being "mesmerized".
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 02:38:38 AM
Deleted scenes that aren't part of the movie still don't count to the film's narrative. It doesn't matter why it was cut; it was cut and left out, and no longer influences the film.
A movie is more than just the finished product. Yes, the scene was cut out, but it does tell us the intentions of the filmmakers. It also gives us background info on certain characters. Unfortunately most films, especially high budget films, need to be under 2 hours or less for theatrical showings. It may even be added back in as a 'director's cut' one day.
It's really arbitrary. The fact is that scene does exist, whether in the final cut or not.
QuoteRight. It might have been a hissing snake-like creature for all he knew.
And why would he come to that conclusion?
Quote
Making itself seem bigger and making noise. These are two of the most basic threat behaviours for non-aquatic organisms. The hammerpede flared its neck like a cobra and started hissing. No biologist on this Earth would consider that a sign of timidity or being "mesmerized".
Animals do that for territorial reasons. It basically means "f**k off". Not "I am going to attack you". An animal will not attack something larger than them unless it's self defence or territorial (rarely). Milburn barely touched the animal. He had no reason to think it was going to attack, just that it was displaying territorial behaviour, like a frill necked lizard, and even if it did attack, he had no reason to expect that it had the kind of strength that it did (he even remarks "You're strong").
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Chlamydosaurus_kingii.jpg/800px-Chlamydosaurus_kingii.jpg)
Instead of a frill necked lizard, you could have posted a picture of a brown, taipan or tiger snake. No. I wouldn't encourage anyone to play with those, either.
Australian wildlife. Pick it up. Play with it.
(https://www.planetdeadly.com/wp-content/uploads/textile-cone.jpg)
If you don't know what it is, you could be royally f**ked. Just like Milburn.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 03:29:49 AM
A movie is more than just the finished product.
The film's story
isn't more than the finished version, unless there's a new released edit.
I'm not sure you realise how silly your argument is. You're saying every film can be absolved of any fault so long as the filmmakers intended to fix it at some point and we must read this information into the film even when it's not there.
That's not how it works.
Quote
And why would he come to that conclusion?
He sees a big dead thing that ran from something and then a small alive thing threatening him. Hm.
QuoteAnimals do that for territorial reasons. It basically means "f**k off". Not "I am going to attack you". An animal will not attack something larger than them unless it's self defence or territorial (rarely).
Milburne is in the thing's territory, so what you're saying is he has every reason to read it as a threat gesture. Thank you.
QuoteHe had no reason to think it was going to attack, just that it was displaying territorial behaviour, like a frill necked lizard, and even if it did attack, he had no reason to expect that it had the kind of strength that it did (he even remarks "You're strong").
Again, you're saying in one scene he runs from something dead because "he doesn't know if it's harmless", then sees something alive and threatening and sticks his hand in its face because "he doesn't know if it's harmful".
All you're doing is proving the point that his character is terribly written.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 04:29:22 AM
Instead of a frill necked lizard, you could have posted a picture of a brown, taipan or tiger snake. No. I wouldn't encourage anyone to play with those, either.
Australian wildlife. Pick it up. Play with it.
(https://www.planetdeadly.com/wp-content/uploads/textile-cone.jpg)
If you don't know what it is, you could be royally f**ked. Just like Milburn.
-Windebieste.
Snakes don't normally attack people, only if you go messing with it. Milburn didn't even touch the Hammerpede. There are a couple of cases where a snake has eaten a human. But those are the extremely large pythons that do that.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 05:14:43 AM
I'm not sure you realise how silly your argument is. You're saying every film can be absolved of any fault so long as the filmmakers intended to fix it at some point and we must read this information into the film even when it's not there.
That's not how it works.
How does it work then? Who says it is a fault? It's merely missing information.
Nearly every film does this as well.
QuoteHe sees a big dead thing that ran from something and then a small alive thing threatening him. Hm.
But it wasn't even threatening him. The body language was clear, it was saying back off. If it were threatening him it would pretend to lunge or strike or do something like that.
QuoteMilburne is in the thing's territory, so what you're saying is he has every reason to read it as a threat gesture. Thank you.
Territory also means personal space. You don't have to physically touch an animal for it to get aggressive. If you get too close most of the times it will run away but in some animals they do aggressive displays like the frill necked lizard.
Quote
Again, you're saying in one scene he runs from something dead because "he doesn't know if it's harmless", then sees something alive and threatening and sticks his hand in its face because "he doesn't know if it's harmful".
All you're doing is proving the point that his character is terribly written.
I said that he ran away from the dead bodies because he doesn't know what killed them. It could have been a virus, toxic gas, etc.. any number of things.
But being a biologist he knows about animal behaviour presumably so it makes sense that he would feel less threatened about those things.
It's not a good idea to get anywhere near any wildlife you don't understand. Especially snakes. Especially ALIEN snakes. lol.
No responsible biologist with proper training would have done what Milburn did. No equipment. No medical personnel nearby, no patience to observe the specimen - that approached him - that's ALWAYS a sign you should be wary of wildlife you're not familiar with.
Milburn... Darwin Award Nominee, 2093.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/59/ac/ff/59acff52d067212bcc9ee9be8b620124.gif)
Cobra: Can spit venom up to 2m.
Hammerpede: Unknown ability. Assume safe to approach despite cobra like behaviour. Must pet to find out. Turns out its aggressive and has acid for blood - who would have guessed..? lol.
-Windebieste.
Of course it's not a good idea, but people do stupid things all the time. Milburn was shown earlier in the film to approach somebody clearly hostile (Fifield). This foreshadows his encounter with another hostile life form later in the film. His enthusiasm gets the better of him
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HOwELhfsnDI/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lyUd7hziOvE/hqdefault.jpg)
See the mirroring? Hand reaching out.
Poorly written? It was there from the beginning if you were paying attention.
If his enthusiasm gets the better of him, why did he run from a corpse? Why did he not enthusiastically approach this find of a century?
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 05:46:18 AM
No responsible biologist with proper training would have done what Milburn did.
I see. . . . ;)
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/53/98353-004-0C90672C.jpg)
Steve Irwin wouldn't have run scared from a corpse.
And was never dumb enough to think the animals he encountered were actually harmless.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 07:47:57 AM
Steve Irwin wouldn't have run scared from a corpse.
And was never dumb enough to think the animals he encountered were actually harmless.
Ahh, but the point is, biologists have done dumb things that cost them their lives.
But I guess I can concede Steve Irwin was a poorly written character.
Oh wait......he was real........never mind..... ;)
Steve Irwin also new what a crocodile was very implicitly... He had decades of experience with snakes, spiders, and crocs to know their behavior well enough to be able to interact with them like he did. And he did get bit on several occasions. He also stressed time and again not to do what the f*ck he was doing, because he was the exception and not the rule.
Millburn and Fifield are just shittily written.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 06:31:25 AM
If his enthusiasm gets the better of him, why did he run from a corpse? Why did he not enthusiastically approach this find of a century?
I don't know about you, but if I saw a pile of dead bodies I wouldn't run towards them with arms outstretched and singing hallelujah.
Nobody would do that, no matter who they are.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 10, 2017, 08:03:56 AM
Steve Irwin also new what a crocodile was very implicitly... He had decades of experience with snakes, spiders, and crocs to know their behavior well enough to be able to interact with them like he did. And he did get bit on several occasions. He also stressed time and again not to do what the f*ck he was doing, because he was the exception and not the rule.
Millburn and Fifield are just shittily written.
Umm....Irwin dived into chest high water because he wanted to be filmed right next to a stingray for a documentary. No tether, no shield, no protection. It was an eight foot stingray he would know has a large jagged barb - six to eight inches, fatally deadly poisonous serrated dagger-like stinger.
With his "decades of experience" as you say, he would know a stingray can impale you over a hundred times in just a few seconds, which is what the cameraman described exactly what happened to Irwin. But he took no precautions and just dived in right next to it anyway. That is a real world "experienced" Integrative Biologist pulling a f*cking bonehead and fatal mistake.
You're making excuses for a real world biologist who did something just as stupid as Milburn. If you can't see that a writer is portraying a human behavior that is identical to real life human behavior, I question if you even know what shitty writing is, sorry no offense.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 10, 2017, 07:27:50 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 05:46:18 AM
No responsible biologist with proper training would have done what Milburn did.
I see. . . . ;)
https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/53/98353-004-0C90672C.jpg
Irwin knows exactly what he was doing with that crocodile - he'd done it for years. You can't say the same for Milburn and his first encounter with
an unknown extraterrestrial life form.
As for his death, yeah. Just like Milburn, that was stupidly disappointing, too. Such a great talent, needlessly lot. Can't say the same for Milburn in that sense.
Like I said, no responsible biologist with proper training would do that. What it boils down to is there is nothing admirable about Milburn. He's a fool who just wants to interact with a space snake without any observation, study or training.
How much observation, study and training did Irwin have of crocodiles? Coz that's not his first encounter with one right there.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 08:13:25 AM
I don't know about you, but if I saw a pile of dead bodies I wouldn't run towards them with arms outstretched and singing hallelujah.
But his enthusiasm is supposed to get the better of him. Can you please be consistent? ???
QuoteNobody would do that, no matter who they are.
Have you heard of archaeologists?
I don't understand the hate. Fiefeld was never important. Fiefeld was in 3 or 4 scenes and nothing more.
It's different from the Jar Jar Binks situation. Jar Jar Binks was very important in The Phamton Menace.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 10:54:17 AM
Irwin knows exactly what he was doing with that crocodile - he'd done it for years.
One word - Stingray.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 10:54:17 AM
You can't say the same for Milburn and his first encounter with an unknown extraterrestrial life form.
So......taking a stupid risk with a dangerous creature (stingray) you are familiar with is somehow more intelligent than taking a stupid risk with a creature (hammerpede) you're not familiar with? Allllrighty then.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 10:54:17 AM
Like I said, no responsible biologist with proper training would do that.
Except Steve Irwin. You can't exclude him from your declaration. Well.... you can, but I easily refute it.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 10:54:17 AM
He's a fool who just wants to interact with a space snake without any observation, study or training.
Irwin was a fool who wanted to interact with an eight foot wide stingray with an eight inch poisonous serrated dagger-like barb without any tether or protection.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 10, 2017, 10:54:17 AM
Coz that's not his first encounter with one right there.
Well, we know what his last encounter was: A biologist pulling a bonehead and fatal mistake.......just like Milburn. ;D
Absolutely nothing wrong with you hating Fifield. But using the charge a real biologist wouldn't make a dumb and fatal mistake, really doesn't hold water. Irwin wasn't the only careless biologist who lost his life.
Steve Irwin wasn't a biologist.
And wouldn't have run from a pile of corpses.
He also probably wouldn't have been on your list of experts to join the crew for mankind's first mission across space to potentially make contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life :laugh:
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 10, 2017, 09:06:16 PM
He also probably wouldn't have been on your list of experts to join the crew for mankind's first mission across space to potentially make contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life :laugh:
Well this isn't Star Trek.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 11:55:51 AM
But his enthusiasm is supposed to get the better of him. Can you please be consistent? ???
No, because the character is written as much more complex than that. I listed 2 times where he approached something clearly hostile in the film. Doesn't mean he does it every single time. That would make for a very cliche character.
Quote
Have you heard of archaeologists?
Yes I have, but they are not on alien worlds where they discover a pile of corpses and not know what killed them. This isn't some ancient burial site or battlefield. What killed them could still be present and therefore highly risky.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 08:23:26 PM
Steve Irwin wasn't a biologist.
Well that doesn't bode well for Queenland's University at all. No sir, not at all. Apparently QU will allow any swinging dick to be an adjunct professor at their School of Integrative
BIOLOGY. . . . according to you.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 08:23:26 PM
And wouldn't have run from a pile of corpses.
I saw you posted that earlier and I didn't refute that point. So once again, I'm not refuting that......again. My counterpoint centers on the fact that real world biologists can and have pulled bonehead mistakes that cost them their lives.......just like Milburn. ;D
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 10, 2017, 09:06:16 PM
He also probably wouldn't have been on your list of experts to join the crew for mankind's first mission across space to potentially make contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life
Certainly a possibility.
Just like it's certainly a possibility a real world manager would never pick the alcoholic Brett to be responsible for a 20 million ton of mineral ore, or certainly a possibly a real world sergeant would never pick the piss-poor attitude Hudson who thought his team was a chickenshit outfit, or certainly a possibility a corporate suit would never pick the simpleton Aaron, with an IQ of 85, to assist in the control of rapists and murderers.
We could play this game all the live long day. :laugh:
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 10, 2017, 09:33:28 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 08:23:26 PM
Steve Irwin wasn't a biologist.
Well that doesn't bode well for Queenland's University at all. No sir, not at all. Apparently QU will allow any swinging dick to be an adjunct professor at their School of Integrative BIOLOGY. . . . according to you.
Honestly who cares if he was an accredited biologist. He was manager of Australia zoo. He had done dozens of wildlife programs He knew about animals more than the average layman, let's just put it this way. A piece of paper won't change that.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 09:28:59 PM
No, because the character is written as much more complex than that. I listed 2 times where he approached something clearly hostile in the film. Doesn't mean he does it every single time. That would make for a very cliche character.
So he just does it when it's appropriate for the plot.
That's a poorly written character.
Quote
Yes I have, but they are not on alien worlds where they discover a pile of corpses and not know what killed them. This isn't some ancient burial site or battlefield. What killed them could still be present and therefore highly risky.
So you're saying everyone
else is poorly written because they
don't run away?
At least we agree the characters of
Prometheus aren't well written.
Also I think we're getting confused: I and others are talking about when Milburne leaves when he sees the decapitated Engineer and leaves the group with Fifield.
He knows exactly what killed it - its head got cut off by a closing door, but he still ran away.
I mean, you're right in that what killed the Engineer was still there - the door - but you're still doing nothing to explain how it makes sense he runs from that but not a hostile organism.
Running from the pile of bodies later when it's just him and Fifield is fine.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 10, 2017, 09:33:28 PM
Well that doesn't bode well for Queenland's University at all. No sir, not at all. Apparently QU will allow any swinging dick to be an adjunct professor at their School of Integrative BIOLOGY. . . . according to you.
He still worked with animals and could provide valuable insight. He had practical experience and knowledge. He wasn't any swinging dick, no.
But he still wasn't a biologist.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 10:10:56 PM
He still worked with animals and could provide valuable insight. He had practical experience and knowledge. He wasn't any swinging dick, no.
But he still wasn't a biologist.
I see.
By the way, off topic question. You by any chance split hairs for a living?
Excuse my memory, but IIRC Milburn never ran away from the corpses, didn't he simply follow Fiefield like a puppy? Milburn reacted fairly reasonably towards the corpses, with shocked unease and maybe a bit of a stutter when Fiefield asked him if he would follow.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 10, 2017, 10:32:16 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 10:10:56 PM
He still worked with animals and could provide valuable insight. He had practical experience and knowledge. He wasn't any swinging dick, no.
But he still wasn't a biologist.
I see.
By the way, off topic question. You by any chance split hairs for a living?
Right across from you at the Department of Missing the Point and Acting Smug About It!
:laugh:
Quote from: Kurai on Dec 10, 2017, 11:20:54 PM
Excuse my memory, but IIRC Milburn never ran away from the corpses, didn't he simply follow Fiefield like a puppy? Milburn reacted fairly reasonably towards the corpses, with shocked unease and maybe a bit of a stutter when Fiefield asked him if he would follow.
Millburn was more analytical in that scene, while Fifield was more emotional. But yeah, Millburn pretty much followed Fifield. Until they encountered the threatening snake monster.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 10, 2017, 10:32:16 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 10:10:56 PM
He still worked with animals and could provide valuable insight. He had practical experience and knowledge. He wasn't any swinging dick, no.
But he still wasn't a biologist.
I see.
By the way, off topic question. You by any chance split hairs for a living?
Right across from you at the Department of Missing the Point and Acting Smug About It!
I didn't miss your point at all - Irwin would never run away from a pile of corpses - check.
Where you're missing the point is you have all entitlement to consider a character poorly written, but you're picking a poor argument why you think he's a poorly written character, basing it on the weak loophole Irwin didn't have a formal degree in Biology. Come on dude, you're splitting hairs.
First of all, Irwin's decades of experience in biology was held in such high regard by Queenlands University, they honored him with the title of Adjunct Professor to teach in their School of Integrative Biology on the topic of.........wait for it.......BIOLOGY.
Secondly, you honesty believe no biologists in the entire span of biology history has ever committed a stupid and fatal mistake in the field?
Hint: Pay a visit to Lord Google, among your keywords, include Biologists, Fatalities. . . . ;)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 12:59:26 AM
And that was completely validated by the deleted scene where he discovers native worms. Yes it was deleted for pacing reasons, that doesn't make it invalid. The scene exists.
Is there an Assembly Cut that totally redeems Prometheus as well?
Prometheus has no assembly. Prometheus needs no assembly.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 10:10:56 PM
So he just does it when it's appropriate for the plot.
That's a poorly written character.
You could apply that criticism to every film ever made, so in that sense every film character ever written is a poorly written character.
Quote
So you're saying everyone else is poorly written because they don't run away?
At least we agree the characters of Prometheus aren't well written.
Also I think we're getting confused: I and others are talking about when Milburne leaves when he sees the decapitated Engineer and leaves the group with Fifield.
He knows exactly what killed it - its head got cut off by a closing door, but he still ran away.
I mean, you're right in that what killed the Engineer was still there - the door - but you're still doing nothing to explain how it makes sense he runs from that but not a hostile organism.
Running from the pile of bodies later when it's just him and Fifield is fine.
Yes, Milburn and Fifield don't see the pile of dead bodies till later when Fifield remarks that it looks like a "holocaust painting". They originally only witnessed one dead Engineer. However before that they witnessed a hologram with several Engineers running from
something. This means there was more to what killed the Engineer than just a door.
Quote from: SM on Dec 11, 2017, 12:35:04 AM
Prometheus has no assembly. Prometheus needs no assembly.
If there was one, would it fix all the problems?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 11, 2017, 12:32:42 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 10, 2017, 12:59:26 AM
And that was completely validated by the deleted scene where he discovers native worms. Yes it was deleted for pacing reasons, that doesn't make it invalid. The scene exists.
Is there an Assembly Cut that totally redeems Prometheus as well?
There's been no other version officially released by Fox. Not yet, anyway. There are various 'fan edits' of the movie floating around. Which basically amount to pirate copies of the movie with excised and deleted scenes added/returned. Some are better than others.
As all previous 6 'ALIEN (vs PREDATOR)' movies have had the uncut/directors/special edition treatment, I see it as just a matter of time before 'PROMETHEUS' sees a revised release on whatever home media is available.
For the greater part, I really like 'PROMETHEUS'. A lot. It's just let down in a few areas. Milburn and Fifield's characters don't bother me too much, it's when they're called upon to demonstrate competency in their professional fields when called upon to do so that irk me. These people are supposed to be at the top of their field. They certainly don't behave like it.
So yeah, 'PROMETHEUS' doesn't need to be 'totally redeemed' - but the issues that need to be addressed should have never been a problem in the first place. No special edition will fix them unless entirely new dialogue by the original actors is dubbed over the existing crap that passes as professional vernacular... "Martian piss." Really? The comment does nothing for the movie at all. Instead Fifield could have answered "Atmospheric pressure and the presence of dissolved salts and minerals can change the ambient freezing point of water. " or something along those lines relating to his geological profession. Anything to raise the movie's supposed intellectual content is welcome...
"martian piss..." :D :D :D :D :D
"MARTIAN PISS." BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!1!1!!!!
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 11, 2017, 01:28:50 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 11, 2017, 12:35:04 AM
Prometheus has no assembly. Prometheus needs no assembly.
If there was one, would it fix all the problems?
No.
This is how I feel,
Milburn to me never really ran away from the pile of corpses. He seemed genuinely interested and I think said something to the effect that" it looks like something pushed out of it", not exactly but something to that effect, Referring to the holes on the body's. Fiefeld seemed more nervous and wanting to move on. To me anyway's.
Also Milburn was enthusiastic about things to me. He seemed vary pleased and happy the find worm in deleted scene, and was vary interested in the skin lying on the ground in another deleted scene. He seemed excited about the Hammerpede as well. The way I took it was that we the fans know Aliens and how dangerous they are. He does not obviously know how dangerous it is or anything. He never expected to be so strong to coil around his arm and break it like that, let alone have a Super Acid for blood. He just see's a snake and I think the rewards of the find out weighs the risk to him. Hence in deleted scene when he say's "in so many planets and worlds, nothing bigger has been found", that's when he finds tiny worm. Not an exact quote but something to that effect. So imagine his excitement when he finds a snake.
Yes it was a dumb choice for him, but to me was not badly written. So with those two deleted scenes, the characters actions make more sense to me anyways. I think the theatrical cut is badly edited.
Worst scene to me was Fiefield attack. We have a chance for a real nice action scene to take place here, but it was badly edited. Maybe even not finished by the looks of it. The cutting back to Shaw in the corridor and cutting back to the action of the hanger was dumb imo. I would have like that action scene to have been a nice 4-5 min piece. I thought they should of used both, mutant fiefeld and alien fiefeld. Should of started with mutant and throughout the scene have him keep mutating into something as her kills? That scene was badly written to me, one that really irks me.
QuoteAs all previous 6 'ALIEN (vs PREDATOR)' movies have had the uncut/directors/special edition treatment, I see it as just a matter of time before 'PROMETHEUS' sees a revised release on whatever home media is available.
How do you make he most money off a movie? You release it several times on home media. 4K just came out I think in Nov, maybe in a couple years we get a directors cut on blu ray first, then another year later a 4K directors cut. I do believe a directors cut will be put out, but it will probably take a couple years. Then again The studio Fox is having huge issues right now. Lot of talks of them selling their studios and getting out of the movie biz. So who knows Disney may get it.
Gorman led a team of heavily armed marines into a nuclear reactor. Nobody mentions it until the last minute (and a civilian no less). Poor writing?
Kane stuck his head into an alien egg on an alien ship. Poor writing?
Dallas going alone into the vents. Poor writing?
There are lots of examples of characters doing stupid things in these movies.
QuoteYes it was a dumb choice for him, but to me was not badly written. So with those two deleted scenes, the characters actions make more sense to me anyways. I think the theatrical cut is badly edited.
Those scene just exacerbate the silliness of Millburn running away from the safer dead body rather than studying it.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 03:50:54 AM
Gorman led a team of heavily armed marines into a nuclear reactor. Nobody mentions it until the last minute (and a civilian no less). Poor writing?
Incompentent and inexperienced leader, overzealous marines, established in the story before hand pretty substantially. Consistent with the narrative and the theme. Gorman later apologizes to Ripley and redeems himself by standing in battle with his fellow marines.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 03:50:54 AM
Kane stuck his head into an alien egg on an alien ship. Poor writing?
Kane is established as the very curious and adventurous member of the crew. Eager to explore, even when things seem potentially dangerous.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 03:50:54 AM
Dallas going alone into the vents. Poor writing?
Having more than one person in the vent shafts would pose a hazard of friendly fire given the claustrophobic nature of the vents. Not even an issue worth bringing up.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 03:50:54 AM
There are lots of examples of characters doing stupid things in these movies.
Doing stupid things isn't the entire point here. It's about the inconsistent nature of the writing of the characters and the stupid things they do in the process. Dead bodies, spooky spooky. Snake-dick-vagina monster hissing at me? LET ME TRY TO GRAB IT!
Milburn and Fifield were established too. Fifield is only in it for the money. He is described in the script (Paradise by Damon Lindelof Final Draft) as "grumpy". Milburn is described in the script as a "bookish but instantly likeable science wonk". This is pretty obvious in their character introduction in the film.
The script - just for reference: http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/PARADISEfinal.pdf
They're initially at odds with each other but they bond over their shared disdain for Shaw and Holloway ("You want to discount 3 centuries of Darwinism" - Milburn) ("Bullshit" - Fifield).
Hence giving a reason why Milburn would follow Fifield after he got scared over the dead body. Why did Fifield get scared? He's only in it for the money, as he stated previously, not to risk himself.
Both are not positive about the mission itself either, given their earlier comments.
This is all plain to see in the film.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 11, 2017, 07:49:02 AM
It's about the inconsistent nature of the writing of the characters and the stupid things they do in the process. Dead bodies, spooky spooky. Snake-dick-vagina monster hissing at me? LET ME TRY TO GRAB IT!
And you think that is totally impossible in real life? A person who has a fascination with dangerous snakes, even keeps them as pets, but that same person jumps on the top of the couch in fear if they see a spider on the floor? Just to be clear, these type of people do indeed exist. But I guess they are not allowed to exist in fiction. No sir, not at all. Can't have that!
Wouldn't it be great if human beings were great at being human? But that is naive to think human nature abides by that virtue, and inconsistent behavior is a regular staple among our species. Anyone who doesn't realize this, needs to spend less time in the world of fiction and more time watching real people.
A biologist sees a dead humanoid alien body - the biggest find for someone in his field - that was decapitated by a door; runs away with someone he barely likes instead of staying with the larger group just to get away from it.
Later, isolated and alone with said guy he barely likes, sees an alive organism threatening him. Acts like it's a Care Bear.
It's bad writing, plain for all to see.
"Let me call your attention to the fact that humans are inconsistent or irrational in their behavior."
. . . . Dr. Herzog.
Boy, it's a good thing Dr. Herzog never wrote fiction, he would have failed miserably. . . . ;)
Another point I forgot to mention is Milburn is a young guy. Rafe Spall was only in his 20s when he played Milburn. The character himself probably just out of college/university. So he lacks experience. Nothing to suggest he has experience with dead alien bodies.
Why wouldn't a young, naive character follow the only other person in the group which he agrees with? Makes complete sense to me. People more often than not tend to choose sides.
It's the previous character interactions that count. But for some reason people just ignore everything that happened before that and focus only on that one scene.
Had to share this:
(https://img00.deviantart.net/bc1e/i/2012/200/3/b/touch_all_the_things_by_prisonsuit_rabbitman-d57w400.jpg)
Search Milburn and Fifield on deviantart. For such hated characters they seem to have quite a following.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 11, 2017, 08:37:26 AM
"Let me call your attention to the fact that humans are inconsistent or irrational in their behavior."
. . . . Dr. Herzog.
Boy, it's a good thing Dr. Herzog never wrote fiction, he would have failed miserably. . . . ;)
You're due for a promotion in your department, I take it.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 08:38:16 AM
Nothing to suggest he has experience with dead alien bodies.
Nothing suggesting he has experience with deadly snakes but he seems fine sticking his hand in their faces.
Every reason you give for him leaving the harmless dead decapitated body doesn't gel with the hammerpede, and the other way around. That's the issue. You're no closer to closing that gap than you were pages ago.
QuoteWhy wouldn't a young, naive character follow the only other person in the group which he agrees with? Makes complete sense to me. People more often than not tend to choose sides.
Why would he not stick with the larger group which would be safer?
QuoteIt's the previous character interactions that count. But for some reason people just ignore everything that happened before that and focus only on that one scene.
Previous interactions are taken into consideration. The problem is they aren't reconciled to form a human being, rather a plot device that does whatever the story needs it to.
QuoteThose scene just exacerbate the silliness of Millburn running away from the safer dead body rather than studying it.
I'm in disagreement here. Milburn never runs away like your making it sound. He walks away after studying pile of Engineers. Running would be an exaggeration. I think it was the ping that made him move in the opposite direction. He was scared that a lifeform got picked up, because he say's to Fiefeld something like "whatever killed them is long gone right." Then Janek comes over comm and that scares both of them. After talking to Janek they decide to go East or West, I can't remember, and they are shown Walking opposite direction of ping.
Quote from: bleau on Dec 11, 2017, 09:55:22 AM
I'm in disagreement here. Milburn never runs away like your making it sound. He walks away after studying pile of Engineers.
Wrong scene. He leaves when they find the decapitated Engineer at the entrance to the urn chamber.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 11, 2017, 10:08:22 AM
Quote from: bleau on Dec 11, 2017, 09:55:22 AM
I'm in disagreement here. Milburn never runs away like your making it sound. He walks away after studying pile of Engineers.
Wrong scene. He leaves when they find the decapitated Engineer at the entrance to the urn chamber.
Oops, I just assumed he was following Fiefeld at that scene. It was intense and creepy. Maybe gigantic dead body was too much for him.
Quote
Nothing suggesting he has experience with deadly snakes but he seems fine sticking his hand in their faces.
Firstly it's not a snake and he's a biologist why wouldn't he have experience with snakes?
QuoteEvery reason you give for him leaving the harmless dead decapitated body doesn't gel with the hammerpede, and the other way around. That's the issue. You're no closer to closing that gap than you were pages ago.
He didn't know that was biological, all he saw was the Engineer suit not the creature inside.
Quote
Why would he not stick with the larger group which would be safer?
Because the larger group is headed into the temple while Fifield wanted to go back to the ship to safety.
---
Remember Hudson in Aliens? He was a very scared character until right at the end he turns into Rambo all of a sudden. Now you can apply everything you just said to Hudson.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 10:23:28 AM
Firstly it's not a snake and he's a biologist why wouldn't he have experience with snakes?
It's a snake-like organism. I'm using snake as an allegory -- and because "hammerpede" is too annoying to type out on mobile.
QuoteHe didn't know that was biological, all he saw was the Engineer suit not the creature inside.
Now you're really grasping at straws.
QuoteRemember Hudson in Aliens? He was a very scared character until right at the end he turns into Rambo all of a sudden. Now you can apply everything you just said to Hudson.
Hudson's shown as a person who's bought into the bullshit of the lean mean fighting marine and believes he's unstoppable. He gets his ass kicked by Aliens and his nerves are rattled. At the end when the walls are closing in (that, again, is figurative speech) he goes down fighting like a lean mean fighting marine should. The dude is still clearly shitting himself, but damned if he's not going down like a man.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 12:38:50 AMYou could apply that criticism to every film ever made, so in that sense every film character ever written is a poorly written character.
:laugh: Wut?
There are
plenty of movies populated with characters who make sensible, believable, logical and consistent decisions, as opposed to being spontaneously moronic simply for the sake of furthering the plot.
Likewise there are plenty of movies where characters act in seemingly contradictory or arbitrary ways, or even against their own self interests, in ways that are believable and consistent with human behaviour rather than plot necessity.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 11, 2017, 09:48:36 AM
You're due for a promotion in your department, I take it.
Now, now, no need for you to lash out just because you completely missed the point and totally skirted my question.
I'll leave it here again, but I harbor no hopes you will answer......
Do you honestly believe no biologists in the span of biology history have ever committed a bonehead and fatal mistake in the field?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 11, 2017, 11:01:32 AM
There are plenty of movies populated with characters who make sensible, believable, logical and consistent decisions, as opposed to being spontaneously moronic simply for the sake of furthering the plot.
I suspect what Scorpio is getting at is you can drum up any cynical description on just about any character. Which that tactic seems to be rife in this forum.
For example, you say "being spontaneously moronic simply for the sake of furthering the plot." Kane's sheer stupidity in poking his head in an alien egg was nothing more than a plot device to get the creature on the ship. Now it's already been eagerly mentioned here, "well, that's different because Kane had a strong curiosity." And there's the rub, people make excuses for an act of sheer stupidity if it's a character they adore.
The livid hatred for a certain character diminishes a person's objective view often causing them to exaggerate their descriptors. A perfect and recent example: You, in this very thread. Your hatred for the Fifield character had you thoroughly convinced Fifield literally told Milburn to f**k off, early in the film. Which of course the scene you paint is totally non-existent. You fabricated fan fiction to justify your hatred for the character.
That said, for me, I agree it felt more like a plot device than characterization. Now plot devices can be a writer's useful tool or they can be harmful to their story. Writers sometimes use real world and / or personal experiences that really happened to move their plot forward. The path through that thorny briar patch is, if real life was a story, it would be the worst ever written.
No, you're still not getting it.
Kane is established to be Mr. Adventure, and curious. He's gung-ho to go out and explore. He's gung-ho to keep going. He's gung-ho to go down the dark cavernous hole. So of course he's going to be the one who sticks his face in the egg. Unlike Milburn and Fifield as far as we know, Kane isn't a scientist. He has no idea what he's dealing with. Curiousity + ignorance = deadly mistake. But it's consistent with the way his character is portrayed from that point backward through the film.
Milburn, not so much. His character waffles, is contradictory.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 11, 2017, 05:47:10 PM
Kane is established to be Mr. Adventure, and curious. He's gung-ho to go out and explore. He's gung-ho to keep going. He's gung-ho to go down the dark cavernous hole. So of course he's going to be the one who sticks his face in the egg. Unlike Milburn and Fifield as far as we know, Kane isn't a scientist. He has no idea what he's dealing with. Curiousity + ignorance = deadly mistake. But it's consistent with the way his character is portrayed from that point backward through the film.
Milburn, not so much. His character waffles, is contradictory.
Perfect timing and another perfect example of someone making excuses for an act of sheer stupidity simply because they adore the character. Now that's what you call serendipity.
Even the most curious know there are risks and maintain some degree of precautions. It was necessary for that character to abandon all caution in order to get the creature on the ship. Kane practicing even the very basics of his safeguard protocol training from his military and medical academics would force the writer to drum up some other way to get the creature on the ship. Hence, plot device.
Realistically, Kane never would have been there. His repeated drug addiction history would more realistically disqualify him from any responsibility in overseeing corporate assets.
1. Kane wasn't a trained biologist. He was a space trucker.
2. Since when have eggs ever been considered a threat? How many people have died by sticking their heads into an egg?
3. The egg wasn't making any kind of threatening display.
4. Trying to find fault with other films isn't going to improve Prometheus' sloppy writing.
5. Check that attitude of yours at the door please.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:12:15 PM
1. Kane wasn't a trained biologist. He was a space trucker.
Kane had formal medical, military, and engineering degrees. I haven't seen many truckers with that list of academic credentials. Kane was extremely intelligent. Which makes his act of sheer stupidity stick out like a sore thumb.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:12:15 PM
2. Since when has eggs ever been a threat? How many people have died by sticking their heads into an egg?
I'm surprised I even have to tell you those eggs were not the familiar sunny side up delicacies you're used to seeing on your breakfast plate.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:12:15 PM
3. The egg wasn't making any kind a threatening display.
That's a poor example...........It spread it's portal flaps wide open........... just like the hammerpede spread it's facial flaps wide open.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:12:15 PM
4. Check that attitude of yours at the door please.
I see. So if someone has a differing opinion from yours, in your mind they have an "attitude."
You sound intelligent. . . . ;)
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 11, 2017, 06:26:25 PM
Kane had formal medical, military, and engineering degrees. I haven't seen many truckers with that list of academic credentials. Kane was extremely intelligent. Which makes his act of sheer stupidity stick out like a sore thumb.
Where is that established in the film? Could you please provide quotes, screengrabs or clips.
QuoteI'm surprised I even have to tell you those eggs were not the familiar sunny side up delicacies you're used to seeing on your breakfast plate.
Again I ask, could you please provide me with cases of people dying from sticking their head into any kind of egg.
QuoteThat's a poor example...........It spread it's portal flaps wide open........... just like the hammerpede spread it's facial flaps wide open.
It opened.... and then... nothing. It was rooted to the spot. It wasn't lunging at Kane like the hammerpede.
QuoteI see. So if someone has a differing opinion from yours, in your mind they have an "attitude."
Nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with you. It was with regards to your condescending attitude towards Huda, OpenMaw and others on here.
QuoteYou sound intelligent. . . . ;)
Thanks! :-*
This is my second favorite thread after Egg on Sulaco!
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
Again I ask, could you please provide me with cases of people dying from sticking their head into any kind of egg.
As Biomechanoid said it wasn't your normal, garden variety every day type of egg. Also the fact he happened to be in an alien ship on an alien planet.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
Where is that established in the film? Could you please provide quotes, screengrabs or clips.
Official Fox material from the Alien Legacy DVD set, Alien Anthology BD set......unless you think official Fox material for an official Fox film is nothing more than fan fiction.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
Again I ask, could you please provide me with cases of people dying from sticking their head into any kind of egg.
Again I remind you comparing it to a harmless egg is a weak tactic. It's an unknown never before explored alien regardless of it's form. You trying to reduce it to a chicken egg is ludicrous.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
It wasn't lunging at Kane like the hammerpede.
......until a second later when Kane ignorantly stuck his nose in the egg.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
It was with regards to your condensing attitude towards Huda, OpenMaw and others on here.
Condensing? I will assume you meant condescending.
Now when you say attitude towards others here, do you mean the kind of attitude like.......
Quote from: SiL on Sep 08, 2017, 01:46:48 PM
If you're going to be that pedantic..........
or do you mean the kind of attitude like.......
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 29, 2017, 08:06:20 PM
Intelligent retort.
or do you mean the kind of attitude like.......
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 11:22:06 PM
Right across from you at the Department of Missing the Point and Acting Smug About It!
or do you mean the kind of attitude like....... (my personal favorite ;))
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 02, 2017, 09:28:02 PM
Some real Olympic-class conclusion jumpers on this board! :laugh:
Is that kind of attitude you mean? Please clarify..... ;)
If Kane ran away from the Jockey, then stuck his face in the egg, this would be a totally relevant comparison to make.
Sticking his face in an alien organism is and always has been dumb, but it's not a convenient out of character moment for the plot.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 11, 2017, 11:01:32 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 11, 2017, 12:38:50 AMYou could apply that criticism to every film ever made, so in that sense every film character ever written is a poorly written character.
:laugh: Wut?
There are plenty of movies populated with characters who make sensible, believable, logical and consistent decisions, as opposed to being spontaneously moronic simply for the sake of furthering the plot.
Also
plenty of threads. ;D
Irrelevant comparison, SiL, the two situations are totally different.
Again you fail to take into account the hologram the Prometheus crew witnessed prior to finding the dead Jockey/Engineer. That in itself is indication danger could be present.
But even out of the Nostromo crew, Lambert wanted to leave just like Fifield. After seeing the Jockey she says "let's get the hell out of here", yet she had even less reason to be concerned. Before you argue that is in character, before that she wasn't depicted as someone who would be scared of gigantic dead bodies.
So really, if you're going to apply that criticism to Milburn/Fifield, you may as well apply it to Lambert as well.
A hissing alien snake is also an indication that danger is present.
QuoteBefore you argue that is in character, before that she wasn't depicted as someone who would be scared of gigantic dead bodies.
...yeah, she is. She's nervous and griping the entire time. She clearly doesn't want to be there.
And when did anyone have a problem with Fifield leaving...?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 11, 2017, 08:14:39 PM
She's nervous and griping the entire time. She clearly doesn't want to be there.
To add to that, I picked up a display of apprehension on Lambert's part before they even left the ship. Starting at the dialogue.....
KANE: I'll volunteer for the first group to go out.
DALLAS: Yea, that figures. You too, Lambert.
LAMBERT: Swell.
Watch her reaction in that scene, besides her sardonic reply, and I can only speculate what she's thinking, but her expression is of someone who's feeling an air of dread. Fear of the unknown? Who knows, point is, I get the impression she is not happy about getting "volunteered."
Quote from: kwisatz on Dec 11, 2017, 06:49:39 PMThis is my second favorite thread after Egg on Sulaco!
:laugh:
Quote from: SiL on Dec 11, 2017, 08:14:39 PM
A hissing alien snake is also an indication that danger is present.
A different type of danger, though. One a biologist should be aware of.
Quote
...yeah, she is. She's nervous and griping the entire time. She clearly doesn't want to be there.
And no explanation given as to why. Is that poor writing? Maybe she need two pages of exposition to fill in the audience. Maybe some background info like when she was a little girl she wandered into a cave and discovered a dead body, and the fear has remained with her ever since. That would clear things up for the audience.
QuoteAnd when did anyone have a problem with Fifield leaving...?
I don't know, so the problem is only with Milburn leaving is it?
You're actually trying to miss the point by now, surely.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 11, 2017, 08:29:30 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 11, 2017, 08:14:39 PM
She's nervous and griping the entire time. She clearly doesn't want to be there.
To add to that, I picked up a display of apprehension on Lambert's part before they even left the ship. Starting at the dialogue.....
KANE: I'll volunteer for the first group to go out.
DALLAS: Yea, that figures. You too, Lambert.
LAMBERT: Swell.
Watch her reaction in that scene, besides her sardonic reply, and I can only speculate what she's thinking, but her expression is of someone who's feeling an air of dread. Fear of the unknown? Who knows, point is, I get the impression she is not happy about getting "volunteered."
She also wants to turn back, and when they get to the ship she says "Let's get out of here."
Quote from: SiL on Dec 11, 2017, 09:07:09 PM
You're actually trying to miss the point by now, surely.
I'm not even sure what the point is anymore. Where are we? What does any of this mean anymore?
Why are we here?Oh, yeah... Albino Space Men peed in a waterfall...
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 11, 2017, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 06:40:30 PM
Where is that established in the film? Could you please provide quotes, screengrabs or clips.
Official Fox material from the Alien Legacy DVD set, Alien Anthology BD set......unless you think official Fox material for an official Fox film is nothing more than fan fiction.
Yes, but where
in the film itself is that established?
And anyway, didn't you mention a few posts ago that Kane was some kind of addled drug addict that shouldn't even have been aboard the ship in the first place? Except now he's suddenly an "
extremely intelligent" and clear minded intellectual with "
medical, military and engineering degrees" who shouldn't have done such a silly little thing like sticking his head into an egg? What is it to be?
QuoteAgain I remind you comparing it to a harmless egg is a weak tactic. It's an unknown never before explored alien regardless of it's form. You trying to reduce it to a chicken egg is ludicrous.
Well, I could reduce it to a crocodile egg and the same would still apply. Even so, the eggs that Kane encountered was an unknown danger. It wasn't an obviously agitated space cobra.
Quote......until a second later when Kane ignorantly stuck his nose in the egg.
And a few moments ago he had accidentally bumped into one with nothing bad happening to him.
QuoteCondensing? I will assume you meant condescending.
Yes thank you, that typo was spotted and edited long before your helpful reply.
Quote
Now when you say attitude towards others here, do you mean the kind of attitude like.......
Quote from: SiL on Sep 08, 2017, 01:46:48 PM
If you're going to be that pedantic..........
or do you mean the kind of attitude like.......
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Oct 29, 2017, 08:06:20 PM
Intelligent retort.
or do you mean the kind of attitude like.......
Quote from: SiL on Dec 10, 2017, 11:22:06 PM
Right across from you at the Department of Missing the Point and Acting Smug About It!
or do you mean the kind of attitude like....... (my personal favorite ;))
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 02, 2017, 09:28:02 PM
Some real Olympic-class conclusion jumpers on this board! :laugh:
Is that kind of attitude you mean? Please clarify..... ;)
Wow, that's some really bad sportsmanship. Shape up you guys! >:(
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 11, 2017, 09:09:26 PM
She also wants to turn back, and when they get to the ship she says "Let's get out of here."
Yes, that's a very good point, it wasn't completely out of the blue.
But neither were Milburn/Fifield's reaction to the dead Jockey/Engineer. They were already shown to be critical and apprehensive about the mission. Just like Lambert is in Alien. But for some reason one gets the pass yet the other does not.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Yes, but where in the film itself is that established?
You already know that answer, it's established nowhere in the film. Nothing wrong with you dismissing official Fox material that, you know, consumers open the DVD jacket and read more official backstory on the official Fox film they just purchased, as long as you understand not everyone has to abide by your dismissal.
It's officially established, you just don't like the official answer and where it came from......officially. ;D
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
And anyway, didn't you mention a few posts ago that Kane was some kind of addled drug addict that shouldn't even have been aboard the ship in the first place? Except now he's suddenly an "extremely intelligent" and clear minded intellectual with "medical, military and engineering degrees" who shouldn't have done such a silly little thing like sticking his head into an egg? What is it to be?
Not much point in explaining that to you if you dismiss official Fox material. So let me know if you ever decide Fox has the right to include official back story to their official Fox films, then I will proceed to pick apart your weak argument. . . . ;)
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Well, I could reduce it to a crocodile egg and the same would still apply.
So......... it's a crocodile egg now, oh well that's different! You know just the other day I picked up a crocodile egg and the first thing that raced in my mind, "hmm, wow that reminds me exactly of a mysterious alien in an alien spaceship on a distant world....... ;)
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Even so, the eggs that Kane encountered was an unknown danger.
Ahh, so "unknown" equates to you as "safe.".....heh. Good to know that if I ever encounter an unknown alien, according to Passenger's logic, I can assume it's safe to approach it.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
It wasn't an obviously agitated space cobra.
Neither was the Hammerpede. It was an elongated reptile type creature that simply opened it facial flaps and nothing more on the initial encounter........just like the egg opened its portal flaps and nothing more on the initial encounter.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
And a few moments ago he had accidentally bumped into one with nothing bad happening to him.
So one of out two alien egg encounters he was attacked. What you're concluding here is Kane had no more than a 50% chance of not being harmed. Most reassuring. :P
QuoteYes thank you, that typo was spotted and edited long before your helpful reply.
I can only go by what clicking on the quote provides me. But don't I get at least two points for assuming correctly what you intended? Come on, be a sport!
Quote
Wow, that's some really bad sportsmanship. Shape up you guys! >:(
Heh, heh, you're the one who got his feelings all hurt because of "attitude" that, you know.......wasn't even directed at you.
But I'm sure those guys must feel real safe you're playing their forum hero. :laugh:
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 11, 2017, 08:21:14 AM
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 11, 2017, 07:49:02 AM
It's about the inconsistent nature of the writing of the characters and the stupid things they do in the process. Dead bodies, spooky spooky. Snake-dick-vagina monster hissing at me? LET ME TRY TO GRAB IT!
And you think that is totally impossible in real life? A person who has a fascination with dangerous snakes, even keeps them as pets, but that same person jumps on the top of the couch in fear if they see a spider on the floor? Just to be clear, these type of people do indeed exist. But I guess they are not allowed to exist in fiction. No sir, not at all. Can't have that!
Wouldn't it be great if human beings were great at being human? But that is naive to think human nature abides by that virtue, and inconsistent behavior is a regular staple among our species. Anyone who doesn't realize this, needs to spend less time in the world of fiction and more time watching real people.
People who don't understand Milburn's actions with that snake are clearly not familiar with where Steve Irwin ended up.
Quote from: Alionic on Dec 12, 2017, 02:59:36 AM
People who don't understand Milburn's actions with that snake are clearly not familiar with where Steve Irwin ended up.
I already tried the Irwin angle, but the Negative Nancys here dismissed it on the anemic loophole Irwin didn't have a formal degree in Biology, so they disqualified Steve to be used as a comparison.
Heh, whatever.
To this day, I'm still surprised and baffled that it was a stingray instead of a crocodile.
Steve Irwin wouldn't have run from a decapitated body as being too spooky, though.
That's the point.
Milburn running from the body -- fine.
Milburn sticking his hand in the snake's face -- stupid, but fine.
Both together -- not fine.
This is the issue. We can address one or the other; it's trying to reconcile the two where people end up with "because, uh, humans! Obviously!"
Quote from: SiL
Steve Irwin wouldn't have run from a decapitated body as being too spooky, though.
That seems to be your mantra, but I don't think you get to speak on behalf of the dead Steve Irwin on how he might react to seeing a dead and decapitated alien....and neither do I.
Quote from: SiL
That's the point.
Milburn running from the body -- fine.
Here's also the point.
Right here, you got to wonder if those drumming up this "need for reconiliation" somehow saw Milburn shrieking like a little girl and scrambling his feet like a gazelle upon sight of an alien decapitated body. He sat there and contemplated before deciding he would prefer the ship. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar......no matter how much you hate the cigar.
Quote from: SiL
Milburn sticking his hand in the snake's face -- stupid, but fine.
Once again, Stever Irwin and his history of risking his life with dangerous creatures. Enough said.
Quote from: SiL
Both together -- not fine.
This is the issue.
It's not THE issue......it's your issue.
Quote from: SiL
We can address one or the other; it's trying to reconcile the two.....
We? I have nothing to reconcile. A character preferred the ship, later he gets curious about a small creature. You're drumming up the need for reconciliation. Not everyone is on board with your reconciliation campaign, but good luck with that.
Quote from: SiL
......where people end up with "because, uh, humans! Obviously!"
.......and your party ends up with melodramatic descriptions like, "because, uh, spooky, spooky!".......;)
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 12, 2017, 08:17:43 AMIt's not THE issue......it's your issue.
It's an issue a
hell of a lot of people have with the film.
Because it's f*cking stupid.
What an immensely painful thread and set of interactions to have to have read through. Can everyone involved tone down the attitudes?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 12, 2017, 08:17:43 AM
That seems to be your mantra, but I don't think you get to speak on behalf of the dead Steve Irwin on how he might react to seeing a dead and decapitated alien....and neither do I.
You're the one dragging his memory into this.
QuoteHe sat there and contemplated before deciding he would prefer the ship.
And had no interest in studying the dead alien organism that would be the find of a century.
But then stuck his hand in the face of a living one without considering the possibility of keeping his distance.
One or the other is fine. Both together with nothing to link the two is bad writing. Something as simple as Milburn telling them to bring him back a sample, or saying he wanted to follow the guy with the map, would have cleared it up. But that didn't happen, and we're left with poor writing.
QuoteIt's not THE issue......it's your issue.
It's the issue that's being discussed.
QuoteWe? I have nothing to reconcile.
And yet you keep trying ???
Quote.......and your party ends up with melodramatic descriptions like, "because, uh, spooky, spooky!".......;)
We end up with "This is a poorly written character who is only doing what the plot dictates, and does not feel anything like a character with any thought behind them".
Quote
And yet you keep trying ???
Hmm good point. Good luck with your reconciliation campaign. :laugh:
And I commend you for the maturity of butting heads in one topic, but remaining civil in other topics.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 11, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 11, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Yes, but where in the film itself is that established?
You already know that answer, it's established nowhere in the film. Nothing wrong with you dismissing official Fox material that, you know, consumers open the DVD jacket and read more official backstory on the official Fox film they just purchased, as long as you understand not everyone has to abide by your dismissal.
It's officially established, you just don't like the official answer and where it came from......officially. ;D
So Kane is a badly written character (just like Millburn and Fifield) because of ancillary character information written by Cameron (or another writer) several years after the film's release?
QuoteSo......... it's a crocodile egg now, oh well that's different! You know just the other day I picked up a crocodile egg and the first thing that raced in my mind, "hmm, wow that reminds me exactly of a mysterious alien in an alien spaceship on a distant world....... ;)
The point was that Kane categorized the unknown objects as "eggs". In his mind it was probably safe considering that no egg from any terrestrial creature has ever harmed a human before.
QuoteNeither was the Hammerpede. It was an elongated reptile type creature that simply opened it facial flaps and nothing more on the initial encounter........just like the egg opened its portal flaps and nothing more on the initial encounter.
An elongated reptile type creature that looked and acted like a cobra. And yeah, it hissed and lunged at Millburn more than once while he was teasing it.
QuoteHeh, heh, you're the one who got his feelings all hurt because of "attitude" that, you know.......wasn't even directed at you.
But I'm sure those guys must feel real safe you're playing their forum hero. :laugh:
Why would my "feelings" be hurt by comments that wasn't even directed at me? I was trying to keep the discussion civil like the Corporal requested earlier today, a request that you are still blatantly ignoring. And of course those guys are going to make snarky comments back at you. Your attitude reeks like a public toilet that hasn't been flushed in weeks.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 12, 2017, 04:43:49 PM
I was trying to keep the discussion civil blah, blah, blah......
I find it rather amusing that not long after you fed a number of members here with your nasty attitude by insulting them with an accusatory and belittling remark, "Some real Olympic-class conclusion jumpers on this board!" then hop on another thread and wave your finger of admonishment to another member about attitude. You apparently harbor no shame in your hypocrisy.
Let it go, son, no one cares you got your feelings hurt ......and nobody likes a forum hero.
Why are we arguing over Milburn when we should be hating on Fifield?
^This.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 12, 2017, 05:07:27 PM
Why are we arguing over Milburn when we should be hating on Fifield?
I liked prosthetic monster Fifield more than CGI monster Fifield.
Yep. The CGI one moved a little too much like Gollum.
Quote from: SM on Dec 14, 2017, 12:50:06 AM
Yep. The CGI one moved a little too much like Gollum.
We will never know for sure but maybe, just maybe, we could have had a Deacon with that kind of movements.
Looking at the Deacon's legs, the scampering movement might make more sense.
Fifield and Holloway only had minimal contact with the pathogen, so it makes sense narrative wise that they didn't have such dramatic transformations. Holloway was only slightly mutated, probably turning into what Fifield was. Plus the pathogen seems more effective as an airborne agent, as seen in the Engineer genocide scene in Alien Covenant, where it dramatically transforms and mutilates entire populations once unleashed from above.
Quote from: SM on Dec 08, 2017, 09:06:38 PM
A biologist that isn't interested in biology. Except when he is.
Righto then.
I've taken a few biology classes.
In another class we studied the ecology in the Mediterranean.
With another we dissected frogs.
In one class the professor had us on field trips and we only studied natural plants. We bypassed lots of animal life. The professor wasn't interested in that. Just plants.
In the world of "Prometheus" MIlburn is interested in worms and snakes.
There are people in our world who have such a specialization.
- From a US Public Broadcasting snake venom documentary by NOVA;
QuoteNARRATOR: ...scientists who will go anywhere and do anything, risking their lives to study these creatures and their killing chemicals...
NARRATOR: With the help of colleague Tao Nguyen, of the Vietnam Academy of Sciences, Zoltan will spend the next ten days trying to capture as many of these dangerous snakes as he can...
NARRATOR: Armed only with sticks, bare hands and knowledge of snake behavior, Zoltan has been collecting venom this way for 20 years.
NARRATOR: Three of Zoltan's friends and colleagues have been killed by snakebite...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/venom-natural-killer.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/venom-natural-killer.html)
(Click on "Transcript".)
Did Zoltan study Vietnamese monkeys? No. He studied snakes.
Here is a British snake expert, in our world, being killed by a King Cobra. Those snakes are from India. Why didn't he collect snow leopards from South Asia? Those are very rare and interesting animals. But no. This animal expert chose to collect cobras.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/british-snake-expert-killed-by-king-cobra-bite/story-e6frf7jx-1226085140065 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/british-snake-expert-killed-by-king-cobra-bite/story-e6frf7jx-1226085140065)
Here is another cobra expert who collected these snakes for a wild animal park. Why doesn't he collect other types of animals? Could it be that he made a choice to examine one type of animal over another?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4496199/TV-snake-expert-in-h ospital-after-deadly-king-cobra-bite.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4496199/TV-snake-expert-in-h%20ospital-after-deadly-king-cobra-bite.html)
* With an adventure science fiction movie, plausibility imo can depend on whether a character's behavior is consistent with what can happen in our world.
In non fiction, wild animal experts can choose to study one type of another over another.
Therefore, imo an animal expert in a movie can make a similar choice.
;)
:o UH-OH! He just compared Milburn to a real world biologist. Oh man, are you gonna get it...... ;)
QuoteIn the world of "Prometheus" MIlburn is interested in worms and snakes.
There are people in our world who have such a specialization.
Cop out. He's paid to be the ships biologist. He's the only one on the ship - but he gets to pick and choose?
Milburn only encounters worms and snakes. The Gigantic Dead Bodies he sees are encased in a space suit, nobody knew what they were until the head was brought back to the ship to be examined. For all they knew it was some kind of weird alien technology. Nothing Milburn would be familiar with.
Don't know why this is a nitpick. I think one person or a few persons complained about it and then everybody followed this complaint without even thinking about its merits. It's a kind of group think.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 14, 2017, 10:58:31 PM
Don't know why this is a nitpick.
He didn't even examine the damn thing before running off to know whether that's true or not. Ya know,
do his job.
-He didn't work in the gigantic dead body arena.
-He didn't know what was in those suits.
-Holograms and a dead body indicated danger could be present.
-He was following Fifield.
-People get scared sometimes eg mass hysteria
-Milburn was young and inexperienced
-The whole point of the mission was so that Weyland could gain immortality, it was not a scientific mission.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 15, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
-He didn't work in the gigantic dead body arena.
-He didn't know what was in those suits.
-Holograms and a dead body indicated danger could be present.
-He was following Fifield.
-People get scared sometimes eg mass hysteria
-Milburn was young and inexperienced
-The whole point of the mission was so that Weyland could gain immortality, it was not a scientific mission.
So we can blame Fifield then.
Was Fifield posting cringe inducing and irrelevant handwaves? 'Cos it's the kind of thing I could see him doing.
Kirk/Bones
Bones/ Kirk.
Does SM have excavatory tendencies regarding Milburn?
Please stick to topic, no need to have every thread devolve into banter. Thank you. :)
I keep trying to get people back to hating Fifield so don't blame me.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviezone.com%2FFIFIELD2.png&hash=54fc4540b73a7322116e0fda60b63001942009d0)
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 15, 2017, 10:16:21 PM
Does SM have excavatory tendencies regarding Milburn?
He's aight.
But he plays with space cobras. :-\
I didn't really mind that so much as his inconsistency.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviezone.com%2FFIFIELD3.png&hash=cbfdff1fe66e30c4c6f35122021e40705435065b)
Why isn't this thread still active? There's plenty more hate for Fifield that needs to be expressed.
Fifield was lame and cringe inducing, but Milburn was worse. A biologist doing zero biology apart from getting killed by a penis snake.
Fiefeld is the best because we got a lot of bad geologist memes in the paleocommuity from his character ;D
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/348c706d4f713769cfa078f8b5de51f3/tumblr_n4x16jJgbA1tzm9i8o1_500.png)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 31, 2017, 02:57:58 AM
https://78.media.tumblr.com/348c706d4f713769cfa078f8b5de51f3/tumblr_n4x16jJgbA1tzm9i8o1_500.png
OMG thank you.
That is my favorite one!
Regarding why Milburn and Fifield got lost, one theory is that the storm interfered with their equipment.
Another thing, in that it wasn't exactly a scientific expedition, but a top secret corporate mission. So the scientists they chose weren't necessarily Earth's best scientists, more like mercenary scientists in it for the money.
Except Fifield brought the mapping gear and had a map on his wrist. The storm didn't hit until long after they left the group, so he should have
A) been able to leave the way they came and
B) been able to ask the Prometheus for directions if he couldn't read the map properly.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2018, 06:37:54 AM
Except Fifield brought the mapping gear and had a map on his wrist. The storm didn't hit until long after they left the group, so he should have
A) been able to leave the way they came and
You don't know how long it would take to leave the temple.
Shaw and company had David with them who has photographic memory and would be able to easily lead them out.
QuoteB) been able to ask the Prometheus for directions if he couldn't read the map properly.
It was live streaming to the Prometheus, so once the storm hit they lost it.
a) Fifield was directing them via a feed from the PUPs earlier.
b) No, they didn't. We see the holographic map operating during the storm pinpointing Fifield and Millburn's position.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2018, 07:57:39 AM
a) Fifield was directing them via a feed from the PUPs earlier.
So he lost the feed because of the storm.
Quoteb) No, they didn't. We see the holographic map operating during the storm pinpointing Fifield and Millburn's position.
The map, yes, but not Fifield and Milburn's position.
QuoteYou don't know how long it would take to leave the temple.
Except they left before the rest of the team, who had plenty of time to get back, so obviously they had time as well.
The pups were feeding Fifield map info, not the
Prometheus. The storm didn't hit until just before the others got back to the Prometheus, so Fifield and Milburne should've been back by then.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 08:46:43 AM
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2018, 07:57:39 AM
a) Fifield was directing them via a feed from the PUPs earlier.
So he lost the feed because of the storm.
Quoteb) No, they didn't. We see the holographic map operating during the storm pinpointing Fifield and Millburn's position.
The map, yes, but not Fifield and Milburn's position.
No, and no. Fifield was getting data from the PUPs via a computer on his wrist, and so was the ship before and during the storm. Fifield and Millburn's position are clearly seen on screen during the storm, while Janek is talking to them.
Janek had to ask Fifield what his position was, so he clearly did not know. He said that the signal has been coming in sporadically since the storm, which is why he picked up a lifeform then lost the signal.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2018, 09:10:39 AM
QuoteYou don't know how long it would take to leave the temple.
Except they left before the rest of the team, who had plenty of time to get back, so obviously they had time as well.
You don't know how long it took.
QuoteThe pups were feeding Fifield map info, not the Prometheus.
You don't know what kind of info they were feeding Fifield, it's not shown on screen.
Janek didn't lose the lifeform reading because of the storm.
I strongly suggest you go and have a look at the film, before commenting further.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
You don't know how long it took.
I'm really not sure what point you think you're making here.
QuoteYou don't know what kind of info they were feeding Fifield, it's not shown on screen.
"Pups are saying go this way". They were giving directions and showing him a map. It got them to the room, it should have got them back.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2018, 10:16:08 AM
Janek didn't lose the lifeform reading because of the storm.
I strongly suggest you go and have a look at the film, before commenting further.
"Boys, the signal's been coming
in sporadicly since the storm hit."
-Janek
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2018, 10:21:41 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 09:54:27 AM
You don't know how long it took.
I'm really not sure what point you think you're making here.
QuoteYou don't know what kind of info they were feeding Fifield, it's not shown on screen.
"Pups are saying go this way". They were giving directions and showing him a map. It got them to the room, it should have got them back.
The pups only showed what the pups had mapped, there's no indication that they would show them the way out.
As for how long it took, it's not stated on screen. It could have taken Shaw an hour or more to get back to the Prometheus. Screen time does not equal real time.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 10:40:55 AM
As for how long it took, it's not stated on screen. It could have taken Shaw an hour or more to get back to the Prometheus. Screen time does not equal real time.
It couldn't have. When Shaw and the others are warned about the incoming storm, Vickers lets them know that she'll be "closing the outer doors in 15 minutes; I sincerely hope you can make it".
They make it. The conclusion is that it took them less than 15 minutes.
Vickers is a bit of bitch, she could just be saying that to make them hurry.
But assuming it would not take them as long as Milburn/Fifield, as they have David with them, who has a photographic memory, so with David to guide them, they easily find their way out.
It's wrong to assume that Milburn and Fifield should already be back at the ship, since they only have the pups to guide them, and the storm is interfering with their equipment, plus there's no indication that the pups show them the exit, it just maps the place. It's like being in a hedge maze, you know the full layout, but not where the exit is. So you have to find where it is. And Janek can't help as the storm is interfering with the equipment.
Quote"Boys, the signal's been coming
in sporadicly since the storm hit."
-Janek
So? That doesn't mean the 'sporadic' is caused by the storm. It's shown later the PUP was picking up the faint Engineer lifeform signature.
Quotesince they only have the pups to guide them, and the storm is interfering with their equipment
But it isn't.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 10:40:55 AM
The pups only showed what the pups had mapped, there's no indication that they would show them the way out.
Are you even trying to make sense? The pups started mapping from the entrance. They had a map from the entrance to the room. If they could get there, they could get out.
And the storm doesn't hit until after the rest of the group leaves the temple. There's no interference when Fifield and Milburne leave.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 11:35:03 AM
Vickers is a bit of bitch, she could just be saying that to make them hurry.
But assuming it would not take them as long as Milburn/Fifield, as they have David with them, who has a photographic memory, so with David to guide them, they easily find their way out.
It's wrong to assume that Milburn and Fifield should already be back at the ship, since they only have the pups to guide them, and the storm is interfering with their equipment, plus there's no indication that the pups show them the exit, it just maps the place. It's like being in a hedge maze, you know the full layout, but not where the exit is. So you have to find where it is. And Janek can't help as the storm is interfering with the equipment.
There's no indication that Vickers wasn't sinecre, or that the crew was late, therefore you must conclude that the timing is correct. This is also supported by the film's visuals, which indicate a very short amount of time passing between the warning and the crew's return to the ship. Either that, or Ridley Scott is a hack who can't communicate the passage of time in his films; Covenant establishes that David's memory is a piece of crap by demonstrating that he can't even remember the author of his favorite poem. Aside from that, David having photographic memory or being able to navigate better than a map expert is never established in the film and is 100% a figment of your imagination; Milburn starts mapping the installation once they get in, therefore the entrance is mapped, therefore the pups show them the exit; Janeks sees what Milburn mapped with his pups, therefore Milburn sees it as well; Milburn is a map expert, therefore can read his own "hedge mazes" better than anyone in the crew, and was, in fact, hired specifically for that task; Milburn left before the storm even started, and it takes less than 15 minutes to reach the Prometheus. This includes bagging a decapitated head and the drive itself. Meaning that if he knew where he was going, he should've been at the very least already driving back to the ship when they noticed the storm.
Conclusion: Fifield is an idiot.
Hell, Shaw & co found their way out of the pyramid no problem.
The purpose of the PUPs was not so that they wouldn't get lost. Its purpose is surveying unknown planetary terrain.
It was to make maps. Which Fifield used to direct the team through the temple. But somehow couldn't be used to just walk in the opposite direction.
Talk about grasping at straws...
Again, it was the storm.
Now are you a weather expert, because tell me how a static storm works.
The storm didn't hit until after they got lost.
Fifield was getting information from the pups, not the Prometheus.
The pups still transmitted during the storm, and Fifield was inside the building with them.
We didn't see Fifield checking his wrist device after the storm.
Honestly, are you even trying to make sense?
He got lost before the storm. Before. What he does after is irrelevant.
The PUPs were still mapping when they got lost.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 01:46:03 PM
The PUPs were still mapping when they got lost.
OMG, the pups mapped the entrance first. Fifield had plenty of time to use the pups and their "work in progess" map to exit the paramid before the storm hit.
Fifield has access to the map and is in communication with the Prometheus. The storm hasnt hit yet, he gets lost anyway.
Contrarian indeed.
I hate Fifield even more now than when this thread got started. Thanks, Scorpio!
Yeah Scorpio, just let it go man. There's nothing you can do. There is nothing, ok? :'(
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2018, 01:18:10 PM
It was to make maps. Which Fifield used to direct the team through the temple. But somehow couldn't be used to just walk in the opposite direction.
Talk about grasping at straws...
* I don't start this topic about navigation with gut feelings or with action movie cliches where expert characters usually don't make basic mistakes.
* I begin with examples from our world where experts in navigation can make basic mistakes.
- An airliner plane overshooting its destination by 150 miles because of a heated discussion.
QuoteBut when the pilots of Northwest Airlines flight 188 became distracted it had more serious consequences as they overflew their Minneapolis destination by 150 miles.
"They were in a heated discussion over airline policy and they lost situational awareness," the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) explained.
When the pilots got their "situational awareness" back they turned the Airbus A320 around and landed it safely on Wednesday evening, apparently without any of the 144 passengers realising they had taken a roundabout route.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/23/northwest-pilots-argument-miss-runway (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/23/northwest-pilots-argument-miss-runway)
- In "Prometheus" Fifield had a very 'heated discussion' with Shaw. He lost his 'situational awareness' and was lost for a few minutes until the storm made it impossible for him and Milburn to return to the ship.
Plausible.
- You may counter that pilots getting lost almost never happens. But that would not be true. Planes landing at the wrong airport for instance is not unusual.
QuoteA day after a Southwest Airlines jet with 124 passengers landed at the wrong airport, many are asking: How in the world could that happen?
"It's not common, but it's not unheard of," said pilot Mark Weiss, a 20-year veteran of commercial aviation...
But even with all the instruments available to modern pilots, Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation told CNN that planes landing at the wrong airport aren't unusual.
"A visual landing on side-by-side airports, not far apart ... that's how it happens," she said Monday on CNN. "It happens many times."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/travel/southwest-plane-wrong-airport/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/travel/southwest-plane-wrong-airport/)
* Anyway, I have little problem with the Fifield character.
Considering that Vickers, who hired him, believed there were no Engineers on LV-223. She hired someone who agreed with her.
Also, Fifield in the crew briefing was emotional about this calling the Engineer hypothesis BS.
In addition, the Fifield character was stressed when entering the tunnels.
It is plausible imo that when Fifield saw the dead Engineer that he panicked, seeing something which in his mind was impossible.
And considering all of that, it makes sense that he could then get into heated discussion with Shaw about this not being part of his job and loose his situational awareness for a few minutes.
;)
It's obvious he panicked. Doesn't change the fact he had a map. It's dumb that a guy who wanted to leave ASAP didn't consult his map at some point. Millburn had some sort of GPS tracking too.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jan 28, 2018, 01:56:07 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 01:46:03 PM
The PUPs were still mapping when they got lost.
OMG, the pups mapped the entrance first. Fifield had plenty of time to use the pups and their "work in progess" map to exit the paramid before the storm hit.
Fifield has access to the map and is in communication with the Prometheus. The storm hasnt hit yet, he gets lost anyway.
Contrarian indeed.
Point out where the entrance/exit is then:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/bluray/prometheus-bluray-0494.jpg)
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 03:12:36 AM
Point out where the entrance/exit is then:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/bluray/prometheus-bluray-0494.jpg)
Sure:
https://ibb.co/jxfnob (https://ibb.co/jxfnob)
The entrance would be over the tunnel to the hanger, facing the Prometheus - on Janek's right.
Yeah he didn't do a very good job of the whole lost thing. Even Anderson did it ok in AVP.
How do you know that is entrance? If it was that close, they could have left easily, unless they did not want to leave. Maybe they had a smoke break.
Who says they got lost, anyway? Milburn says: "We've been here before, Fifield". And Fifield responds: "It all looks the same to me". They never say "We're lost". So maybe they didn't even get lost in the first place. People just assume they are lost because they never made it back. Maybe Fifield went to retrieve his PUPs.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Jan 29, 2018, 08:44:16 AM
The entrance would be over the tunnel to the hanger, facing the Prometheus - on Janek's right.
Sure, I'm willing to debate over that. The entrance needs to be somewhere along the spirally tunnel at the base of the dome because that tunnel is the first thing mapped in the film. I assumed it's the particular area I circled because there's a segment in that specific hologram scene that kind of resembles the "crack" the crew went in through. I'm willing to concede and place the entrance somewhere else on that tunnel if someone presents better evidence.
That said, even if I had absolutely no clue about my surroundings, I'd still make my way to that spiral tunnel because that's the most logical location for an entrance. Then again, I'm no geologist/map expert... :P
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 09:05:10 AM
How do you know that is entrance? If it was that close, they could have left easily, unless they did not want to leave. Maybe they had a smoke break.
Everybody left the installation easily.
Everybody. Except for the "map expert" and his "biologist" sidekick.
Quote
Who says they got lost, anyway? Milburn says: "We've been here before, Fifield". And Fifield responds: "It all looks the same to me". They never say "We're lost". So maybe they didn't even get lost in the first place. People just assume they are lost because they never made it back. Maybe Fifield went to retrieve his PUPs.
They don't need to say that they're lost because that exchange of conversation is what the word "lost" is supposed to describe.
Yeah, so they may have got lost on their way back. Fifield went up to retrieve his PUPs before going back to the ship, then the static storm hit which interfered with his equipment. He couldn't read the map so he got lost. Janek also was losing the signal which is why he didn't know Fifield/Milburn's position. They couldn't leave after the storm hit, anyway.
The most logical explanation is that Fifield/Milburn did not straight away try to return to the ship as many people assume.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 29, 2018, 09:20:44 AMI'm willing to concede and place the entrance somewhere else on that tunnel if someone presents better evidence.
Considering that the hanger is between the tunnel entrance and the Prometheus, then the entrance on the 3D map would be facing in the same direction as the tunnel that leads to the hanger. Best evidence I've got.:D
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Jan 29, 2018, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 29, 2018, 09:20:44 AMI'm willing to concede and place the entrance somewhere else on that tunnel if someone presents better evidence.
Considering that the hanger is between the tunnel entrance and the Prometheus, then the entrance on the 3D map would be facing in the same direction as the tunnel that leads to the hanger. Best evidence I've got.:D
Sold!
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 09:39:21 AM
Fifield went up to retrieve his PUPs before going back to the ship, then the static storm hit which interfered with his equipment. He couldn't read the map so he got lost. Janek also was losing the signal which is why he didn't know Fifield/Milburn's position. They couldn't leave after the storm hit, anyway.
No, Fifield didn't go anywhere to retrieve his pups because:
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 01:46:03 PM
The PUPs were still mapping when they got lost.
Quote
The most logical explanation is that Fifield/Milburn did not straight away try to return to the ship as many people assume.
The most logical explanation is the one everybody uses to criticize the film with. Not the one you came up with 31 pages in, when realizing your other excuses for the stupidity of the character don't work.
The entrance would be 90 degrees around from the tunnel to the juggernaut. They go in under the face at the top of the pyramid which faces north.
Of course they were still mapping, you saw the one stuck in that corridor that lead to the hangar.
He did not retrieve all his PUPs, but why wouldn't he retrieve his PUPs? They belong to Ffield, they're Fifield's PUPs. Why would he leave his PUPs behind? That doesn't make any sense.
I'm not making excuses, since nobody here is the screenwriter, and call tell us definitively the intentions behind the scene. It's not just in the script, but all the discussions they had behind the scenes. None of you are experts on the film, since nobody here was involved in making the film, thus your judgments about the film are not truth, therefore it is impossible for anybody to make excuses, as excuses to what? Your nitpicks? Because that's all they are - nitpicks.
The screenwriters intended they got lost.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 10:36:39 AM
He did not retrieve all his PUPs, but why wouldn't he retrieve his PUPs?
Sigh...because:
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 28, 2018, 01:46:03 PM
The PUPs were >>>still mapping<<<.
...And because he literally never so much as attempts to retrieve them.
Quote
I'm not making excuses, since nobody here is the screenwriter, and call tell us definitively the intentions behind the scene. It's not just in the script, but all the discussions they had behind the scenes. None of you are experts on the film, since nobody here was involved in making the film, thus your judgments about the film are not truth, therefore it is impossible for anybody to make excuses, as excuses to what? Your nitpicks? Because that's all they are - nitpicks.
Yes, you are. It is the film's job to feed the audience information about what's happening in the scene, and Prometheus does just that. You don't need to be the screenwriter; You don't need to be involved in its production. All you need to do is watch the film and figure out what the film tries to show you. The film quite blatantly shows the map expert being the only one getting lost.
Either you concede that this is a flaw of the film when it comes to properly establishing character behavior and motivations, or you have to concede that the entire film is unwatchable because only the people involved in making it are able to understand what's going on.
It's not a flaw in the film, just a flaw in your understanding.
It is never stated once that Fifield is a "map expert", yet that's exactly what you stated:
QuoteThe film quite blatantly shows the map expert being the only one getting lost.
He's a GEOLOGIST. A quick google search gives this answer:
A geologist is a scientist who studies the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth as well as the processes that shape it.What does that have to do with "map expert"?
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 01:01:57 PM
It's not a flaw in the film, just a flaw in your understanding.
It is never stated once that Fifield is a "map expert", yet that's exactly what you stated:
QuoteThe film quite blatantly shows the map expert being the only one getting lost.
He's a GEOLOGIST. A quick google search gives this answer:
A geologist is a scientist who studies the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth as well as the processes that shape it.
What does that have to do with "map expert"?
What are you talking about?
The film clearly establishes that mapping is in his area of expertise. Here, have a look:
(https://i.imgur.com/Nn2DRtv.jpg)
This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, since you seem to be very much aware that the pups used for mapping are Fifield's:
(https://i.imgur.com/bBLL1yZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/N1urdFP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RsP0Eky.jpg)
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 10:36:39 AM
They belong to Ffield, they're Fifield's PUPs.
He is clearly the map expert of the crew.
But hey, since you brought up his expertise as a Geologist...
(https://i.imgur.com/x2N0f13.jpg)
Fifield is a terrible Geologist as well. Like, the worst one. In the universe. Bar none. Worse at his job than a person with zero expertise at the job, evidenced by Milburn - the Biologist - displaying more awareness to rocks than him.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 29, 2018, 01:41:09 PM
The film clearly establishes that mapping is in his area of expertise. Here, have a look:
(https://i.imgur.com/Nn2DRtv.jpg)
It's not said that mapping is his area of expertise, as your image showed, they needed a grid of the structure, Fifield had the PUPs with him so they asked Fifield to get a grid of the structure.
If Shaw had the PUPs then they would ask Shaw, does that mean Shaw is a map expert?
QuoteThis shouldn't come as a surprise to you, since you seem to be very much aware that the pups used for mapping are Fifield's:
(https://i.imgur.com/bBLL1yZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/N1urdFP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/RsP0Eky.jpg)
They are his, or at least he is the one carrying them.
QuoteQuote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 10:36:39 AM
They belong to Ffield, they're Fifield's PUPs.
He is clearly the map expert of the crew.
I still don't get how carrying PUPs = map expert.
QuoteBut hey, since you brought up his expertise as a Geologist...
(https://i.imgur.com/x2N0f13.jpg)
Fifield is a terrible Geologist as well. Like, the worst one. In the universe. Bar none. Worse at his job than a person with zero expertise at the job, evidenced by Milburn - the Biologist - displaying more awareness to rocks than him.
Maybe he is a terrible Geologist, maybe he tricked Weyland to go on the mission, as he states he is only there to make money.
Remember, it is not a scientific expedition. The purpose is for Weyland to gain immortality. It's obvious Weyland doesn't care about geology, the 'scientific expedition' is just a front for the mission's true purpose.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 03:17:05 PM
I still don't get how carrying PUPs = map expert.
He refers to them rather fondly as "
my pups". One would assume he has at least a passing familiarity with his equipment, no? The film certainly strongly suggests this. And considering that everyone else are placing their lives at risk by relying on his pups and mapping skills one would assume he probably has some kind of accredited qualification on how to use them.
When all the goal posts have been shifted and counter arguments have been duly ignored, we get to the predictable dismissal in the form of the word 'nitpick'.
Quote from: SM on Jan 29, 2018, 09:04:46 PM
When all the goal posts have been shifted and counter arguments have been duly ignored, we get to the predictable dismissal in the form of the word 'nitpick'.
Fo sho. It IS possible to love Prometheus while still acknowledging that there's some pretty damn silly stuff in there. That's the camp I'm in. :)
Me too.
Scorpio just out on another fishing trip catching the big fish!
Quote from: Highland on Jan 30, 2018, 01:21:22 AM
Scorpio just out on another fishing trip catching the big fish!
(https://i.imgur.com/sxCZ3AO.gif)
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Jan 29, 2018, 04:51:10 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 03:17:05 PM
I still don't get how carrying PUPs = map expert.
He refers to them rather fondly as "my pups". One would assume he has at least a passing familiarity with his equipment, no? The film certainly strongly suggests this. And considering that everyone else are placing their lives at risk by relying on his pups and mapping skills one would assume he probably has some kind of accredited qualification on how to use them.
What special mapping skills do you need? You press a button and let them go. That is what is shown in the film.
What's also shown in the film is Fifield using his pups to tell everyone else where to go, making him the only person who knows where to go...until the film decides he's now the only person who doesn't know where to go. He gets so lost he ends up in another film.
The PUPs are there to explore the structure, not for them to find their way out.
So the PUPs are there to create a map; but not for them to actually use a map to find their way around or anything.
"OK Pups, where to?"
"This way!"
"Great. Now that I've been walking for a long time, how do I get back?"
"No, f**k you. Only forwards."
"But --"
"f**k. You."
:laugh:
I'm leery to step into this because reading the last few pages gave me a migraine. Okay, well not literally.
Anyway, I found it curious if it's true geologists would not be map experts as Scorpio suggests. Too many links to post, so just use the key words I used, in your search engine - geology, degree, field, mapping, training, and you should pull up several related links to various academic sites.
Many stating training includes not only how to read a field map, but you are trained to make a field map. A couple university sites mentioned training includes even two-three week field trips into remote terrain to produce a terrain map. So does that make a geologist a map expert?.........oh, wait....migraine's coming back......it's all yours to decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_map
There's different kinds of maps for different kinds of things. And they all have different purposes.
:laugh:
This thread.
Seriously Scorpio, your posts makes for some entertaining reading.
You may HATE Fiefeld, but you gotta LOVE Scorpio.
Don't fall off the bandwagon, you might hurt yourself.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 30, 2018, 09:43:02 AM
I'm leery to step into this because reading the last few pages gave me a migraine. Okay, well not literally.
Anyway, I found it curious if it's true geologists would not be map experts as Scorpio suggests. Too many links to post, so just use the key words I used, in your search engine - geology, degree, field, mapping, training, and you should pull up several related links to various academic sites.
Many stating training includes not only how to read a field map, but you are trained to make a field map. A couple university sites mentioned training includes even two-three week field trips into remote terrain to produce a terrain map. So does that make a geologist a map expert?.........oh, wait....migraine's coming back......it's all yours to decide.
As someone who works on the mines Geo's can definitely read maps. In El scorpioanos defence though, a new map of a new place that is quite maze like , it's slightly understandable since you would have no structures to identify , just the same kind of corridors. You would think however that the digital map would be linked to a chip on their suits which could then send the data back and forth.
If they were deep inside and the data couldn't be transmitted because of the storm, then at a push you could get lost....I guess.
It was fortunate the data could be transmitted through the storm.
He was more effective as a space-zombie than a geologist.
He was more effective at being a Geologist as a space zombie than as a living human.
Come to think of it, he did manage to find his way out of the ship and to Prometheus as a space-zombie. He didn't even use any Pups.
Took him a while but. While Janek and co were looking for them and finding Millburn, he was still wandering the pyramid looking for a way out.
He just went to retrieve his PUP's.
This thread has taken a left turn, gone off road, drove through a desolate terrain, got back on road to find a gas station a thousand miles from nowhere, walk behind the gas station a few miles blindfolded until you stumble into an armadillo and ask it, "Where the hell am I?" And I didn't help matters any by also straying away from the OP's comment, much earlier in this thread.
Here's a friendly tip.........Maybe this is a good time for a reminder to us all to bring back to focus on the OP's comment why he hated Fifield. It was not because he was no map expert, or he was a lousy geologist, or a simpleton who easily got lost, or the actor was bad. The OP's hatred for Fifield was because he hated the concept of a man transforming into a xenomorph. Perhaps the flow of conversation would benefit with a realignment of input to zero back in on the OP's reasoning for his hatred for Fifield?
That friendly tip, my gift to you, no thanks is necessary. ;D
I, on the other hand, think we should explore the myriad and manifold justifications for hating Fifield with the blazing white-hot fury of a trillion exploding suns.
But that's just me.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 31, 2018, 01:52:20 AM
I, on the other hand, think we should explore the myriad and manifold justifications for hating Fifield with the blazing white-hot fury of a trillion exploding suns.
Well let's see, out of nearly 500 posts, maybe only a dozen tops is discussing the OP's actual reason for hating Fifield. So if you truly want to "explore," seems to me the OP's first and original reason is still a relatively virgin topic yet to be fully analyzed......unlike the plethora of back and forth on how Fifield's plain common sense and geo skills are supposedly full tilt travesties, yes? No? Maybe? . . . ;)
It's not even an issue as it's not even in the film.
I have nothing against 'space zombie' Fifield. It's just what the film needed in the second act. Fifield is the main physical threat in the movie, if you think about it. The Engineer is an existential threat, but he seemed less interested in the survivors than wiping out human civilisation. The hammerpedes were not actively attacking people, either. The Trilobite was contained for most of the movie. So that leaves it up to Fifield as the main physical threat of the film.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 31, 2018, 03:10:00 AM
I have nothing against 'space zombie' Fifield. It's just what the film needed in the second act.
I understand what Bobby Brown is saying if you look at it as a single layer of perspective regarding a man turning into a xenomorph, or space zombie, or whatever xeno label you want to call it. But to include the deleted Alien 79 cocoon scene and other examples in later films, it's essentially a man (or in some cases, a woman) turning into a xenomorph.... Granted it's the first stage of the xenomorph, but regardless, it's still the xenomorph. I don't hate Brett or Dallas because they, as men, were turning into a xenomorph.
I liked Fiefeld more than Milburn, personally.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 31, 2018, 03:26:20 AM
I understand what Bobby Brown is saying if you look at it as a single layer of perspective regarding a man turning into a xenomorph, or space zombie, or whatever xeno label you want to call it. But to include the deleted Alien 79 cocoon scene and other examples in later films, it's essentially a man (or in some cases, a woman) turning into a xenomorph.... Granted it's the first stage of the xenomorph, but regardless, it's still the xenomorph. I don't hate Brett or Dallas because they, as men, were turning into a xenomorph.
I don't know if Brett was actually turning into an egg or was just food for the egg and developing facehugger (yep normal aliens can create eggs, no need for queen..).
Dallas was cocooned like the colonists were cocooned in Aliens, EXCEPT the version of cocooning in ALIEN is much more horrific, basically you are melded into the hive instead of just being trapped by it.
They toned down that whole idea for ALIENS for some reason. Ripley freed Newt just by pulling some stuff of of her. She couldn't free Dallas, he was already beyond saving. He had physically transformed.
Quote from: Alionic on Jan 31, 2018, 03:41:47 AM
I liked Fiefeld more than Milburn, personally.
They were both odious bastards.
Dallas was turning into an egg, Newt wasn't. Dallas didn't let Ripley even try to take him down, so saying she couldn't is completely unfounded.
Dallas was not turning into an egg. He was cocooned, but not turning into an egg.
The filmmakers disagree with you.
The other points stand regardless - Ripley didn't try to remove him (as much as she wanted to), so your assertion she couldn't is unfounded.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 31, 2018, 08:41:16 AM
Dallas was not turning into an egg. He was cocooned, but not turning into an egg.
And I thought this thread couldn't get sillier...
This is the new Egg on the Sulaco thread.
Quote from: SM on Jan 29, 2018, 10:36:04 AM
The entrance would be 90 degrees around from the tunnel to the juggernaut. They go in under the face at the top of the pyramid which faces north.
Correct. Thanks.
Paranoid was right.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 29, 2018, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 03:12:36 AM
Point out where the entrance/exit is then:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/bluray/prometheus-bluray-0494.jpg)
Sure:
https://ibb.co/jxfnob (https://ibb.co/jxfnob)
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 31, 2018, 08:41:16 AM
He was cocooned, but not turning into an egg.
Okay, I'll bite. The process of cocoon is a transitory state. What was the cocooned Dallas transitioning to, if not an egg?
(everyone, please no butterfly jokes. Joke away but at least
get past low hanging fruit jokes ;) )
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 31, 2018, 11:05:55 AM
This is the new Egg on the Sulaco thread.
I miss that thread. Got loads of laughs out of reading it.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Jan 31, 2018, 11:19:50 AM
Quote from: SM on Jan 29, 2018, 10:36:04 AM
The entrance would be 90 degrees around from the tunnel to the juggernaut. They go in under the face at the top of the pyramid which faces north.
Correct. Thanks.
Paranoid was right.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 29, 2018, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Jan 29, 2018, 03:12:36 AM
Point out where the entrance/exit is then:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/bluray/prometheus-bluray-0494.jpg)
Sure:
https://ibb.co/jxfnob (https://ibb.co/jxfnob)
If Weyland industries ever needs a map expert, send them my way. I'll get to the bottom of their "hedge mazes" in no time!
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 31, 2018, 01:52:20 AM
I, on the other hand, think we should explore the myriad and manifold justifications for hating Fifield with the blazing white-hot fury of a trillion exploding suns.
But that's just me.
Hate leads to the dark side.
We should rather start a "
I love Turk SO much" thread instead. Imagine everyone vehemently agreeing with one another for a change.
Much more positive.
It's like the Matrix, every time we reset a thread it starts with an Egg.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 31, 2018, 09:58:13 AM
The filmmakers disagree with you.
They do? Alright, well that's settled then.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2018, 07:26:44 PM
It's obvious he panicked. Doesn't change the fact he had a map.
Of course Fifield had a map.
But as I quoted;
-
"the pilots of Northwest Airlines flight 188 became distracted ... they overflew their Minneapolis destination by 150 miles." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/23/northwest-pilots-argument-miss-runway
-
"a Southwest Airlines jet with 124 passengers landed at the wrong airport,"http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/travel/southwest-plane-wrong-airport/
The pilots in those planes had sophisticated instruments which included maps.
* Still, all the instruments in those situations didn't matter because the pilots made serious errors in judgement.
One example involved stress which relates to what happened to Fifield in "Prometheus".
* Looking at Alien films; Imo there is also 'dumb' behavior by experts in those movies.
- For instance in "Alien", science officer Ash should not have let Kane, who had a fast growing, foot long (1/3 meter) parasite in his chest, eat with the crew. From basic medical science it's a very bad idea.
- "Alien: Resurrection" where a scientist should not have put 3 xenomorphs in the same cell together, with their razor sharp teeth and acid blood which can quickly burn through any substance created by humans. Terrible experiment design.
- But in horror movies, even expert characters sometimes need to do 'dumb' things to move the story along.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2018, 07:26:44 PMMillburn had some sort of GPS tracking too.
In "Prometheus" it is shown that Fifield is the one navigating in the tunnels while Milburn follows.
In our world when there is an exploration team, there is often a team leader who leads others with exploring / navigating.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2018, 07:26:44 PMIt's dumb that a guy who wanted to leave ASAP didn't consult his map at some point.
- I think Fifield probably looked at the map but in his stressed out state he didn't properly act on it; something like, he took the wrong turn.
- Back to non fiction.
Even experts in navigation with maps can do 'dumb' things as I've shown in previous quotes / links that I've posted.
- This kind of 'Dumb' behavior by experts in our world can exist. It's plausible.
* 'Dumb' expert behavior can involve other things.
Like walking on the Moon (a skill which would receive lots of training) where a geologist astronaut got excited (Harrison "Jack" Schmitt) and fell multiple times.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gM140g0zsQc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjOnsbodCus
;)
BB-15: "Even experts in navigation with maps can do 'dumb' things as I've shown in previous quotes / links that I've posted. "
I remember BB-15 clear back when he was BB-8. Okay bad joke aside, it's not unusual that some film viewers expect flawless behavior from certain characters. For some viewers, idiotic behavior/judgement of real people, well that is simply not allowed for fictional characters, and in some strange way, they actually attribute that to bad writing. Which seems odd to me, they want the writer to abandon realism, such as the real world examples you provide, and write the character as a professional with flawless judgment.
Not everyone, but some viewers I see chant, "I prefer realism," I wonder if they really mean, "I prefer MY realism."
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 01, 2018, 05:22:44 PM
* Looking at Alien films; Imo there is also 'dumb' behavior by experts in those movies.
- For instance in "Alien", science officer Ash should not have let Kane, who had a fast growing, foot long (1/3 meter) parasite in his chest, eat with the crew. From basic medical science it's a very bad idea.
Wut? ???
Ash was under orders to bring back the "organism", the crew were considered "expendable". He didn't give a f**k about them. How exactly is that "dumb" behavior?
Beat me to it.
Possibly the worst example of whataboutery imaginable.
QuoteIn "Prometheus" it is shown that Fifield is the one navigating in the tunnels while Milburn follows.
In our world when there is an exploration team, there is often a team leader who leads others with exploring / navigating.
Irrelevant. Millburn reads his position off to Janek over the radio.
What's more confusing is that two guys who were really eager to leave end up at the centre of the pyramid when they could've asked Janek for directions to wait near the exit for pickup after the storm breaks.
I can forgive a lot of questionable character decisions in movies 'cos I'd rather enjoy them than needlessly nitpick. But some things are just dodgy and contrived and too difficult to justify.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 01, 2018, 06:14:29 PM
I remember BB-15 clear back when he was BB-8. Okay bad joke aside, it's not unusual that some film viewers expect flawless behavior from certain characters. For some viewers, idiotic behavior/judgement of real people, well that is simply not allowed for fictional characters, and in some strange way, they actually attribute that to bad writing. Which seems odd to me, they want the writer to abandon realism, such as the real world examples you provide, and write the character as a professional with flawless judgment.
Characters can (and are even encouraged to) make mistakes in stories. That's what makes stories interesting in the first place. That said, mistakes need to be set up in the story as either a character flaw, or some logical external reason that caused them. If it is not set up, it is indeed bad writing.
The examples bb-15 provides don't apply because all of his examples are of people who make mistakes in their fields of expertise, not of people who fail to even have an expertise. Everybody makes mistakes. That said, Fifield doesn't only fail to demonstrate his expertise, he gets outclassed in his supposed field of expertise by every single character in the film (even characters who stayed on the ship). To put this into perspective, take bb-15's first example of Flight 188 missing its destination by 150 miles (which is more of a sensationalist headline, as 150 miles aren't that much for a plane): To compare that example to how Fifield operates in Prometheus, you'd need to give every single passenger on board their own plane, then have every single one of them land their planes in the correct destination, while the pilots of Flight 188 crash their plane into the ground because they don't even know how to fly a plane and "all the buttons are the same to them".
Everybody here is missing the point.
QuoteFew beings have ever been so impregnated, pierced to the core, by the conviction of the absolute futility of human aspiration. The universe is nothing but a furtive arrangement of elementary particles. A figure in transition toward chaos. That is what will finally prevail. The human race will disappear. Other races in turn will appear and disappear. The skies will be glacial and empty, transversed by the feeble light of half-dead stars. These too will disappear. Everything will disappear. And human actions are as free and as stripped of meaning as the unfettered movement of the elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, sentiments? Pure "Victorian fictions." All that exists is egotism. Cold, intact, and radiant.
HP Lovecraft
Ridley Scott's Alien is a dark, dystopian vision of humanity. This isn't Star Trek which is utopian fantasy.
More in line with Lovecraft like the original Alien.
I posted this before but I'll post this again, it explains it well:
I love Fifield. His story is interesting.
He tried so hard to make sense around him, end up he's the first xeno character of Alien universe.
Educated people who do stupid things are real. So I fail to see the problem with all of the idiots in Prometheus.
Quote from: asil on Feb 02, 2018, 02:27:03 AM
I love Fifield. His story is interesting.
Aside from smoking in his spacesuit and that one hilarious quote and delivery ("I like rocks...I LOVE rocks!"), he was more or less an Everyman, a good frame of reference character for the audience. That fact that he had didn't even try to hide his disdain for others around him made him much more relatable to me than any of the other characters.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Feb 02, 2018, 02:59:42 AMEducated people who do stupid things are real. So I fail to see the problem with all of the idiots in Prometheus.
Sure.
The issue is believability. And clearly a lot of people couldn't believe how immensely stupid Fifield was.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 01, 2018, 08:57:21 PM
Characters can (and are even encouraged to) make mistakes in stories. That's what makes stories interesting in the first place. That said, mistakes need to be set up in the story as either a character flaw, or some logical external reason that caused them. If it is not set up, it is indeed bad writing.
....and, hence my comment....Not everyone, but some viewers I see chant, "I prefer realism," I wonder if they really mean, "I prefer MY realism."
Your description above is a good example "Mistakes need to be set up," that some have their own perception of realism. Who made the rule mistakes need to be set up? Real world, is there an explanatory set up for mistakes about to happen, created by real people? Mishaps in real world are often received as "WTF?" Not necessarily bad writing, there's always the doubt of personal perception of realism is in play.
As for BB-15's examples you address, perhaps more appropriate I don't speak on behalf of BB-15, so I will leave him the mic if he decides to bring forth a counterpoint.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 01, 2018, 06:14:29 PMFor some viewers, idiotic behavior/judgement of real people, well that is simply not allowed for fictional characters, and in some strange way, they actually attribute that to bad writing. Which seems odd to me, they want the writer to abandon realism, such as the real world examples you provide, and write the character as a professional with flawless judgment.
Not everyone, but some viewers I see chant, "I prefer realism," I wonder if they really mean, "I prefer MY realism."
The thought process described was advocated by Roger Ebert as the only way to do film criticism.
1. Begin with a gut feeling. 2. Then try to rationalize why that gut feeling is right.
(This is the way most people I've interacted with approach movie reviews which I accept. After all no rating process of a film is objectively wrong. I'm just sharing my view about movie criticism which can include looking at similar behavior in our world.)
****************
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Feb 01, 2018, 06:31:21 PMWut? ???
Ash was under orders to bring back the "organism", the crew were considered "expendable". He didn't give a f**k about them. How exactly is that "dumb" behavior?
Imo this is a common misinterpretation of Special Order 937 which states;
Quote"Priority one — Ensure return of organism for analysis. All other considerations secondary. Crew expendable."
- Priority one is to get the organism back to the lab near/on earth.
- Killing a crew member (like Kane) to get the organism into the ship follows priority one. (The organism needs to be in the ship for it to be transported back to a lab near or on earth.)
- Once the creature is on board (inside of Kane), then killing the crew could sabotage getting the creature back to the lab near/on earth. That would violate priority one. After all, in "Alien" the creature does not get to the lab. The mission was a failure.
- How to avoid priority one failure?
Put Kane (who has the creature inside of him) in stasis in an isolated med room (quarantine) in sick bay.
Parker suggested putting Kane into stasis.
It's clearly a reasonable idea.
- Instead Ash lets Kane, who had a fast growing, foot long (1/3 meter) parasite in his chest, eat with the crew.
That risks parasite escape and contaminating the crew.
This basic ignoring of medical science by Ash puts in jeopardy completing priority one & Special Order 937.
- Again, the Nostromo does not reach earth. That = failure of Special Order 937 which could have been avoided by Ash.
* But I have an answer to this story issue.
Imo Ash eventually didn't care about Special Order 937 with its priority one (based on his perfect organism speech).
To me as he saw the baby chestburster grow in sick bay, he because obsessed with it.
Ash wanted the creature to grow and take over the ship.
He began to almost worship this 'perfect organism' and letting it run free and kill became his top priority.
**************
Quote from: SM on Feb 01, 2018, 08:34:05 PMPossibly the worst example of whataboutery imaginable.
LOL!
Quote from: SM on Feb 01, 2018, 08:34:05 PMIrrelevant. Millburn reads his position off to Janek over the radio.
Not in the crucial few minutes (less than 15) when Fifield is leading Milburn and they are getting lost.
At that time Fifield/Milburn don't contact Janek because they haven't yet realized they are lost.
- In the film once the storm is identified by Chance/Janek there is less than 15 minutes that Fifield/Milburn could do anything to get back to the ship.
- Vickers said;
QuoteVickers: I'll be closing the outer doors in fifteen minutes
- What's important here is that Shaw (& her group) got to the vehicles and arrived at the ship in 15 minutes.
Therefore she got to the vehicles in less than 15 minutes; maybe 13 or 14 minutes.
- In those crucial ~13 minutes an agitated Fifield is leading Milburn (as shown in the film).
Once the rest of the away team left with the vehicles, it didn't matter what Milburn did.
He and Fifield couldn't return because of the storm as also discussed in the movie.
Quote from: SM on Feb 01, 2018, 08:34:05 PMWhat's more confusing is that two guys who were really eager to leave end up at the centre of the pyramid when they could've asked Janek for directions to wait near the exit for pickup after the storm breaks.
I don't see it as confusing at all.
- Fifield at first leads Milburn into the tunnels and he soon takes the wrong turn.
I've already explained how such behavior by navigation experts exists in our world.
- When Janek radios the away team to get back to the ship, as I've explained, Fifield had already taken the wrong turn.
He didn't get back to the vehicles or see the rest of the away team in the tunnels.
- By the time Fifield and Milburn realized the mistake after those crucial 15 minutes, they were in contact with Janek but it was too late.
Quote from: SM on Feb 01, 2018, 08:34:05 PMI can forgive a lot of questionable character decisions in movies 'cos I'd rather enjoy them than needlessly nitpick. But some things are just dodgy and contrived and too difficult to justify.
- I fully accept your personal taste and approach to reviewing / rating this part of this film.
- I just happen to have a different approach compared with you and most people I've seen on internet movie review threads.
My method includes trying to give well made science fiction films a chance and that includes looking for examples of similar behavior in our our world.
I'm most willing to agree to disagree about this.
****************
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 01, 2018, 08:57:21 PMthat said, mistakes need to be set up in the story as either a character flaw, or some logical external reason that caused them. If it is not set up,
Sorry but it is set up.
Fifield clearly has anger issues. And anger, yelling, & stress can interfere with a person's functioning.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 01, 2018, 08:57:21 PMnot of people who fail to even have an expertise. ... Fifield doesn't only fail to demonstrate his expertise, he gets outclassed in his supposed field of expertise by every single character in the film
No. Fifleld does things such as using the PUPS and seeing the structure of the dome/pyramid which no other away team member can do.
And in the beginning of the mission to the dome/pyramid Fifield is the lead navigator of the away team.
All that is evidence of competence/expertise.
But when Fifield saw the dead Engineer, his stress went up a lot and his abilities took a drastic negative turn.
*****************
Quote from: whiterabbit on Feb 02, 2018, 02:59:42 AMEducated people who do stupid things are real. So I fail to see the problem with all of the idiots in Prometheus.
Agreed. When educated / experts are under stress and they have a short time limit, they can sometimes do very wrong things.
- And one of my views about films is, if a behavior exists in our world, it can be put into a movie.
******************
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 02, 2018, 08:39:59 AMThe issue is believability. And clearly a lot of people couldn't believe how immensely stupid Fifield was.
Excellent point.
What I'd add is that in my experience what is believable for most film viewers has to do with their gut reaction to a movie.
For the majority of members in film forums that I've seen, what is stupid isn't a question of facts + logic.
It has to do with seeing a scene and concluding; that was awful.
On IMDb a long time member named Angry James (great name) who had years of debates with me explained it very well.
Angry James wrote that the faster than light travel in "Prometheus" was terrible and unbelievable.
- I replied to AJ as I usually do with a page full of franchise information about FTL travel.
- Angry James responded that with his film reviews franchise facts didn't matter.
His gut reaction was all that mattered to him.
* So, I understand that I am an outlier in this debate with my multiple quotes about navigation experts in our world getting lost.
For most movie viewers that I've interacted with, that kind of information doesn't matter.
;)
I don't recall seeing Angry James in the imdb 2001 aso forum where you and I set up tents, but his name rings a bell. Was he a frequent poster in imdb's Prometheus forum? I didn't go there a whole lot because for months it was embroiled in chaos.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 02, 2018, 07:36:11 PM
I don't recall seeing Angry James in the imdb 2001 aso forum where you and I set up tents, but his name rings a bell. Was he a frequent poster in imdb's Prometheus forum? I didn't go there a whole lot because for months it was embroiled in chaos.
Yeah, Angry James was a longtime regular on the "Prometheus" IMDb board. He was the easiest for me to communicate with of those in the hate the film camp.
As for the IMDb forums overall, most of the boards for major movies were in chaos (with spamming, insults).
Even the IMDb "2001" board, which had a knowledgeable community, had some people secretly deleting comments and some trolling.
Since the end of the IMDb forums, I've been on several of the film discussion successors and imo there is nothing like the level of the "2001" IMDb community on those new sites. (Or like other solid IMDb communities such as for Lord of the Rings or Blade Runner which are now lost.)
** This is why of all the science fiction movie forum choices now on the web, I'd much rather be on this site.
- I'm very impressed by the regulars on AVPGalaxy.
- It doesn't matter if some people here disagree with me. (Debate is part of life.)
This site has well informed members who often make many thoughtful comments.
The discussions are mostly enjoyable and informative.
The site is also well moderated which I very much appreciate.
;)
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 02, 2018, 08:17:13 PM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 02, 2018, 07:36:11 PM
I don't recall seeing Angry James in the imdb 2001 aso forum where you and I set up tents, but his name rings a bell. Was he a frequent poster in imdb's Prometheus forum? I didn't go there a whole lot because for months it was embroiled in chaos.
Yeah, Angry James was a longtime regular on the "Prometheus" IMDb board. He was the easiest for me to communicate with of those in the hate the film camp.
As for the IMDb forums overall, most of the boards for major movies were in chaos (with spamming, insults).
Even the IMDb "2001" board, which had a knowledgeable community, had some people secretly deleting comments and some trolling.
Since the end of the IMDb forums, I've been on several of the film discussion successors and imo there is nothing like the level of the "2001" IMDb community on those new sites. (Or like other solid IMDb communities such as for Lord of the Rings or Blade Runner which are now lost.)
** This is why of all the science fiction movie forum choices now on the web, I'd much rather be on this site.
- I'm very impressed by the regulars on AVPGalaxy.
- It doesn't matter if some people here disagree with me. (Debate is part of life.)
This site has well informed members who often make many thoughtful comments.
The discussions are mostly enjoyable and informative.
The site is also well moderated which I very much appreciate.
;)
Always a pleasure to read your posts BB.
Haven't spoken to you for a bit. I missed your thoughts on Covenant. What did you think ?
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 02, 2018, 06:23:08 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Feb 01, 2018, 06:31:21 PMWut? ???
Ash was under orders to bring back the "organism", the crew were considered "expendable". He didn't give a f**k about them. How exactly is that "dumb" behavior?
Imo this is a common misinterpretation of Special Order 937 which states;
Quote"Priority one — Ensure return of organism for analysis. All other considerations secondary. Crew expendable."
- Priority one is to get the organism back to the lab near/on earth.
- Killing a crew member (like Kane) to get the organism into the ship follows priority one. (The organism needs to be in the ship for it to be transported back to a lab near or on earth.)
- Once the creature is on board (inside of Kane), then killing the crew could sabotage getting the creature back to the lab near/on earth. That would violate priority one. After all, in "Alien" the creature does not get to the lab. The mission was a failure.
- How to avoid priority one failure?
Put Kane (who has the creature inside of him) in stasis in an isolated med room (quarantine) in sick bay.
Parker suggested putting Kane into stasis.
It's clearly a reasonable idea.
- Instead Ash lets Kane, who had a fast growing, foot long (1/3 meter) parasite in his chest, eat with the crew.
That risks parasite escape and contaminating the crew.
This basic ignoring of medical science by Ash puts in jeopardy completing priority one & Special Order 937.
- Again, the Nostromo does not reach earth. That = failure of Special Order 937 which could have been avoided by Ash.
* But I have an answer to this story issue.
Imo Ash eventually didn't care about Special Order 937 with its priority one (based on his perfect organism speech).
To me as he saw the baby chestburster grow in sick bay, he because obsessed with it.
Ash wanted the creature to grow and take over the ship.
He began to almost worship this 'perfect organism' and letting it run free and kill became his top priority.
**************
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fseriouspod.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F08%2Fwtf-meme.jpg&hash=f137fdc5d2243e3c507ac483ecf719f8748c8a35)
^What he said.
Ash didn't know there was a parasite in Kane's chest.
QuoteNot in the crucial few minutes (less than 15) when Fifield is leading Milburn and they are getting lost.
At that time Fifield/Milburn don't contact Janek because they haven't yet realized they are lost.
- In the film once the storm is identified by Chance/Janek there is less than 15 minutes that Fifield/Milburn could do anything to get back to the ship.
Still irrelevant. The point is both Fifield and Millburn were able to pinpoint their location in the pyramid and still got lost. Such contrivances strain credibility in the extreme.
QuoteI don't see it as confusing at all.
- Fifield at first leads Milburn into the tunnels and he soon takes the wrong turn.
I've already explained how such behavior by navigation experts exists in our world.
- When Janek radios the away team to get back to the ship, as I've explained, Fifield had already taken the wrong turn.
He didn't get back to the vehicles or see the rest of the away team in the tunnels.
- By the time Fifield and Milburn realized the mistake after those crucial 15 minutes, they were in contact with Janek but it was too late.
You've managed to dodge the question about getting Janek to guide them to an exit to wait for the storm to break. Instead they conveniently ended up in the most dangerous room.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PM
Instead they conveniently ended up in the most dangerous room.
Within the vast span of Hobbiton countryside, the Nazgûl conveniently ended up in the exact same spot as Frodo and his Hobbit gang despite the fact the ring was not activated.
Despite the endangered species Indo-tiger were at less than 100 population within hundreds of miles of Vietnam jungle at the time, Chef conveniently ended up at the exact same spot as a rare tiger.
Despite several towns circling around the Sierre Madre hills where Dobbs and gang could have easily exchanged their Treasure or replaced supplies and acquire transport, they conveniently ended up in a vast desert to get to a town.
Despite the fact there is a one in ten million chance of being killed by a falling commercial jet engine, one conveniently ended up in Donnie Darko's bedroom.
Despite the fact there is a one in four million chance of being attacked by a shark, ie. Jaws, good luck calculating the astronomical odds that sharks conveniently ended up attacking three family members of the same family at three different locations and three different time periods.
I could go on and on. History of movies is loaded with a whole gaggle of "conveniently ended up."
Yeah but your list doesn't make the Fiefield and Milburn scenario any less shit lol.
And I don't see how any of the examples are comparable anyway.
Except Jaws which is way dumber. And rightly called out as such.
Quote from: Russ840 on Feb 03, 2018, 05:54:28 AM
Yeah but your list doesn't make the Fiefield and Milburn scenario any less shit lol.
The goal of the list wasn't to necessarily paint F&M's scenario as any "less shit" lol. The goal of the list is to show "conveniently ended up" is a trope that is employed quite frequently. And without digging up stats, I would even risk betting it's less at the lower end and more at the higher end of frequently employed tropes.
Quote from: SM on Feb 03, 2018, 06:05:36 AM
And I don't see how any of the examples are comparable anyway.
I would need to understand what it is you're unclear on, regarding the examples. They are pretty much self explanatory. The examples are comparable because of their level of absurdity to justify the label of 'conveniently ended up.'
But I will pick one and elaborate to hopefully clear up your confusion....
Apocalypse Now
"Despite the endangered species Indo-tiger were at less than 100 population within hundreds of miles of Vietnam jungle at the time, Chef conveniently ended up at the exact same spot as a rare tiger. "
The endangered tiger population (less than 30 left today) live in the Annamite Range which stretches for 700 miles through Laos and Vietnam. However, Willard's team is traveling down the Nung (Mekong) River to Cambodia which stretches almost 3,000, but his team travels only a few hundred miles to get to Kurt's outpost.
They stop once to go on the delta shore, yet out of only less than 100 tigers at the time within hundreds of miles of the Annamite Range, one of them traveled down to the basin and conveniently ended up at the exact same spot Chef stepped no more than a few yards inland for just a few minutes. You really can't get any more "conveniently ended up" than that. I hope that helps.
Quote from: SM on Feb 03, 2018, 06:05:36 AM
Except Jaws which is way dumber. And rightly called out as such.
I would certainly agree the Jaws scenario is way dumber, nevertheless it's still a "conveniently ended up." In fact if a movie blog site were to compile a Top 20 Dumbest "Conveniently Ended Up" List, I would be surprised not to see the Jaws scenario included in the list.
They were special sharks though :laugh:
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 02, 2018, 05:19:45 PM
Your description above is a good example "Mistakes need to be set up," that some have their own perception of realism. Who made the rule mistakes need to be set up? Real world, is there an explanatory set up for mistakes about to happen, created by real people? Mishaps in real world are often received as "WTF?" Not necessarily bad writing, there's always the doubt of personal perception of realism is in play.
All the people who ever told a good story in the history of mankind made up the rule that mistakes need to be set up. Stories are about infusing specific events with order and meaning, when real life has neither order nor meaning. Stories have a beginning, middle and end. Real life does not. Storytelling is never about literally depicting real life. It's about depicting a made up scenario that, under the rules set up in said story, could occur in real life. This means that the story needs to set up rules, and has to maintain them until the story ends. If it does not, the story has no meaning; No reason to exist. The audience does not understand why things happen, and can't deduce anything out of them.
Fifield being a professional until the story suddenly decides he doesn't know anything about anything for plot convenience is the story breaking the rules it set up with no explanation. This is indeed bad storytelling.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMAsh didn't know there was a parasite in Kane's chest.
It's my film theory (since I saw the film in 1979) that Ash did know there was a parasite inside of Kane.
I've believed that because there is a scene at 43:51 in "Alien" where Ash is looking in a scope and there are medical images on a screen.
It is logical procedure that a science officer would do a full examination of a patient when there is a space crab stuck on the patient's face.
And in a future with FTL travel it make sense that a med lab would have X-Rays/CT scans which would be used to examine the entire body of the patient.
There are screen images in front of Ash which look like scans and one image seems to be a blown up picture of the eye of a creature.
* From my view, I know that scans (echo cardiogram, MRI) exist in our world since I've even have had them done to me.
In our world medical scans can be used to find parasites.
Quotea CT scan revealed the malady. Alvarez had neurocysticercosis — a calcified tapeworm lodged in her brain.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/tapeworm-in-her-brain/
With my film theory it all fits;
Ash did scans. He found the parasite and he kept that information from the crew.
* On YouTube I don't have a film clip of all the images that Ash was looking at but here is a bit of the end of this where imo Ash is reviewing scan information before he chats with Ripley about quarantine protocol.
- And when Ash says;
"I don't know yet."I think he knows much more than he is letting on.
* Anyway, this is another of those situations where I'm most happy to agree to disagree.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uOxmONFwsG4
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMStill irrelevant. The point is both Fifield and Millburn were able to pinpoint their location in the pyramid and still got lost.
1. You can assume that Fifield sees the entire hologram which is visible to the crew/audience on the ship.
But that is not necessarily the case. And even if he saw the larger hologram image, that could miss crucial small tunnel details.
2. The viewer does not see the screen on Fifield's device.
On a small screen it is possible that only a section of the tunnels in detail could be seen at one time while the whole image on a phone sized screen would be hard to read.
3. Fifield needed to focus to know the correct way to go, and in his agitated state he could easily have trouble with that.
4. In the 13 minutes from Janek's broadcast, Fifield had already taken the wrong turn and for a few minutes, with him being stressed, he had trouble getting back on the right path.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMSuch contrivances strain credibility in the extreme.
I understand your POV. But I don't agree with it and I've already presented non fiction examples which support my conclusion that Fifiled getting lost for a few minutes is credible.
- Another thing SM;
I can be persuaded by your arguments.
Our discussion that we had a year ago about the location of LV-223 remained in my mind for several months.
And I eventually came completely over to your position on that.
So, I do have an open mind to your opinions.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMYou've managed to dodge the question about getting Janek to guide them to an exit to wait for the storm to break. Instead they conveniently ended up in the most dangerous room.
- Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
* I emphasize, what the audience knows is often not = to what the characters know.
- When Shaw & Holloway left the urn room, they didn't know it was dangerous.
- Janek knew even less about that than Shaw/Holloway. They had no reason to fear the urn room.
- (David knew much more but he kept his knowledge secret because he was following Weyland's secret orders to find a cure for death.)
- The only thing that Fifield and Milburn wanted to avoid was the location of the glitch (which was behind the door of the juggernaut).
- Very soon the two scientists were no longer lost and they backtracked to where they had been before.
- Janek had smiled about the situation. For all he, Milburn and Fifield knew at the time, this mission had little danger.
At that moment in the movie, from those character's view, it was as safe as exploring Egyptian pyramids on earth.
**************
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AMAll the people who ever told a good story in the history of mankind made up the rule that mistakes need to be set up. Stories are about infusing specific events with order and meaning, when real life has neither order nor meaning. Stories have a beginning, middle and end. Real life does not. Storytelling is never about literally depicting real life.
This works very well for me.
PA, I look at many of your comments and usually we come from completely different directions where effective communication between us is not possible but this time imo you nailed one of the main reasons for the divide between the anti two scientist sequence group and those who generally support it.
* There are differences in move story styles.
As extreme examples; think "2001" and "ET" which are both about human/alien contact films where one style used by Kubrick has almost no exposition while Spielberg helps the audience follow his movie every step of the way.
- With a character getting lost in a science fiction film in addition to the Fifiled / Milburn sequence, I'll bring up another Spielberg movie where Nedry gets lost in "Jurassic Park".
* With Nedry, his getting lost is more improbable than what happened in "Prometheus". He worked on the island for a long time and there's one road with one fork in the road. It's a tropical island with lots of rain where driving in wet weather would be routine.
- However improbable, Spielberg guides the audience every step of the way to show how it happened. Nedry has no defroster in the jeep and has to wipe his glasses. He drives like a maniac. He can't remember what turn to take to go to the dock. He drives off the road.
- I understand why most viewers want this kind of story handholding. In theaters I see parent dealing with their kids. I notice audience members leaving during the movie to get popcorn / go to the bathroom.
- The argument is; movies should be easy to understand. There should be no need for discussion, or 'research'.
- Everyone one has the privilege to feel about movies whatever they wish including about hating "Prometheus".
* Now to Ridley Scott and his science fiction style.
QuoteLindelof: "All these ideas where on the table, and yes, there were drafts that were more explicitly spelled out. I think Ridley's instinct kept being to pull back, and I would say to him, 'Ridley, I'm still eating sh!t a year after Lost is over for all the things we didnt directly spell out - are you sure you want to do this?' And he said, 'I would rather have people fighting about it and not know, then spell it out, that's just more interesting to me.'
http://diymag.com/archive/a-long-prometheus-discussion-with-writer-damon-lindelof
- A main influence on Scott with science fiction is Kubrick.
Ridley can make a more Spielberg kind of SF movie such as "The Martian" but that does not fit his passion.
I certainly understand that vague, more art film kinds of science fiction movies get lots of hate.
It comes down to personal taste.
* But I am going to say there is a part of the Fifield/Milburn sequence which needed some brief exposition dialogue.
It's not about Fifiled getting lost. That is set up by his anger and agitation. And as I've already explained many times, experts in our world can get lost due to stress. It's plausible and appropriate for a Ridley Scott movie.
- My criticism of the sequence has to do with when Milburn tries to examine/capture the alien snake.
In the Blu-ray commentaries ideas are presented by the filmmakers about why Milburn is doing this with the snake.
These ideas about Milburn being an expert with worms/snakes and him having a protective suit aren't presented visually or with exposition in the film.
A little more dialogue in the movie imo was needed. Something like;
Milburn to Fifield: "It's OK, I know how to handle dangerous snakes and this suit should protect me.* As for story rules in SF movies, with more of an art film style, often things aren't fully explained.
There are clues and the viewer is expected to piece things together.
- Here is an example from "2001" where Dave Bowman, a competent professional, suddenly decides to make a basic mistake.
Dave asks HAL to get him a pod so he can go after Frank who is floating in space.
Dave moves slowly. His helmet is right in front of him and he doesn't take his helmet.
The pod has no airlock. For a rescue operation where someone may need to be brought into the pod, having a helmet could be essential.
Forgetting his helmet is one of the biggest expert character blunders in a major SF movie.
And the mistake has almost no set up. (The art film style leaving lots of things to interpretation.)
Yet, I accept it.
It was a stressful situation. And stress can cause people in fiction and in non fiction to do very incompetent things.
********************
Quote from: Russ840 on Feb 02, 2018, 08:37:08 PMAlways a pleasure to read your posts BB.
Haven't spoken to you for a bit. I missed your thoughts on Covenant. What did you think ?
Hi. Glad we could connect.
- "Covenant" is my 4th favorite film in the franchise after A1, A2, & Pro.
- Imo the setup and execution of the Neomorphs was excellent as action horror.
- In terms of characters, Fassbender as David/Walter is terrific.
* And what the David character does extends the god theme which Ridley sees running through his version of the franchise.
Scott wanted to explore the story of the Space Jockey.
In "Alien" the SJ symbolically could be seen as a godlike character who has failed because of his creations.
Ridley has described the SJs/Engineers as "Dark Angels".
- With "Prometheus" the Engineers are clearly given a creator god role. But Weyland also wants to have that recognition. His company creates androids. He thinks he should be a god who does not die. (The deleted "Engineer Speaks" sequence spells this out but other dialogue and visuals in the theatrical cut present the same message.)
- In "Covenant" David is the new messiah who wants to overthrow the old gods; the Engineers and the human gods of bio-mechanics.
He thinks they are not worthy and of course he thinks he should be their successor as he plays Wagner's "Entry of the Gods Into Valhalla" which is sort of his theme song. ;)
- Things only become a bit too routine at the end with the Xenomorph (protomorph) hunt in the ship.
This kind of serial killer action sequence as a climax was also done in the SF film "Sunshine".
I think that "Covenant" does it better but in a way the sequence is much less tense compared with "Alien" because Daniels always seems to have the upper hand. (While Ripley looks like she will lose.)
Also the Xenomorph by now is very familiar. Maybe the Neomorph would have been a better choice for the end?
- What do you think of "Covenant"?
;)
PS. Edit for spelling / grammar
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
All the people who ever told a good story in the history of mankind made up the rule that mistakes need to be set up.
No offense, but what I'm hearing you say is, "Stories must adhere to MY realism." And you're trying to pitch your take on storytelling in relation to realism is the "worldwide stance historically." Never fabricate endorsements, have confidence in your own belief without the need for endorsements. Especially endorsements where it would take you countless hours of research to pull up confirmed resources to even begin to believe your boast has any viable weight to it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
Stories are about infusing specific events with order and meaning, when real life has neither order nor meaning.
Really sorry for this, but that is complete hogwash. Apparently you don't watch Kubrick or Tarkovsky films. There's a good article on The Editor's Blog called "Don't Explain, Don't Explain, Don't Explain." I'll see if I can find the link.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
Stories have a beginning, middle and end. Real life does not.
Again, complete hogwash. Sorry, nothing personal. We jumped right into the middle of the story in Star Wars 77. We did not see the ending of the story of The Grey, we left it before a new intense scene was about to erupt. There's countless movies where there is no beginning or end or more accurately, the audience is plopped into the middle of the story often with little or no explanation.........just like Real Life. And to put it in a very basic film viewer perspective, if it were true what you claim stories have a beginning and an end.....then it would be impossible for prequels or sequels to even exist.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
Storytelling is never about literally depicting real life.
Never?
That's just a wildly insane claim. You could take the approximately near one million films made since the birth of the industry, throw them in a massive pot. Randomly pick one out, randomly replay one scene and there's a very high chance it will show a scene literally depicting real life. You could repeat that for the next ten years randomly selecting scenes, and my bet would lie on the overwhelming majority of your samples would be literally depicting real life. No, not even remotely close to your claim of "never."
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AM
It's about depicting a made up scenario that, under the rules set up in said story, could occur in real life. This means that the story needs to set up rules, and has to maintain them until the story ends. If it does not, the story has no meaning; No reason to exist. The audience does not understand why things happen, and can't deduce anything out of them.
Fifield being a professional until the story suddenly decides he doesn't know anything about anything for plot convenience is the story breaking the rules it set up with no explanation. This is indeed bad storytelling.
Story telling is not about some other realm of existence, story telling is about our real life. Other than adding fantasy elements, we literally have no other frame of reference to tell a story. I take it you don't like movies like the Godfather, where Fredo makes a bone head mistake of fumbling his gun allowing his father to get gunned down, yet no prepping the audience that he had the potential to be a flake.
He was the son of a mafia king, most in that family and around that family are warriors so to speak, there's nothing for the audience to assume any differently for Fredo. It was sprung on the audience..........just like real life. But according to your belief, that is bad storytelling.
Maybe this is the time for the old quote, 'I agree to disagree' on this one.
QuoteIt's my film theory (since I saw the film in 1979) that Ash did know there was a parasite inside of Kane.
Personally, I'll take the deleted scene where they notice a stain on Kane's lung that the autodoc scanner can't penetrate over a theory.
QuoteAt that moment in the movie, from those character's view, it was as safe as exploring Egyptian pyramids on earth.
Them not knowing it was dangerous is me assigning them knowledge they, of course, couldn't have. It's also besides the point. That particular room, with the dead headless body in the doorway, was the main place they wanted to get farthest from (well, second after the 'ping'). Instead of asking Janek to guide them to an exit when they spoke to him earlier - they go inside the room they wanted to get away from and set up camp there. A line of two of dialogue to give some reasoning or their thought processes might've done wonders to make them look less dumb.
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 03, 2018, 08:00:36 PM
Hi. Glad we could connect.
- "Covenant" is my 4th favorite film in the franchise after A1, A2, & Pro.
- Imo the setup and execution of the Neomorphs was excellent as action horror.
- In terms of characters, Fassbender as David/Walter is terrific.
* And what the David character does extends the god theme which Ridley sees running through his version of the franchise.
Scott wanted to explore the story of the Space Jockey.
In "Alien" the SJ symbolically could be seen as a godlike character who has failed because of his creations.
Ridley has described the SJs/Engineers as "Dark Angels".
- With "Prometheus" the Engineers are clearly given a creator god role. But Weyland also wants to have that recognition. His company creates androids. He thinks he should be a god who does not die. (The deleted "Engineer Speaks" sequence spells this out but other dialogue and visuals in the theatrical cut present the same message.)
- In "Covenant" David is the new messiah who wants to overthrow the old gods; the Engineers and the human gods of bio-mechanics.
He thinks they are not worthy and of course he thinks he should be their successor as he plays Wagner's "Entry of the Gods Into Valhalla" which is sort of his theme song. ;)
- Things only become a bit too routine at the end with the Xenomorph (protomorph) hunt in the ship.
This kind of serial killer action sequence as a climax was also done in the SF film "Sunshine".
I think that "Covenant" does it better but in a way the sequence is much less tense compared with "Alien" because Daniels always seems to have the upper hand. (While Ripley looks like she will lose.)
Also the Xenomorph by now is very familiar. Maybe the Neomorph would have been a better choice for the end?
- What do you think of "Covenant"?
;)
Glad you liked it.
I enjoyed the movie a great deal. I think the third act suffers a lot. Beautiful to look at, not quite as nice as Prometheus.
I found the film to be more focused than Prom but less grand and ambitious.
I really enjoy an observation that I have made regarding the original Trilogy ( I see Resurrection as a serperate story to the first three ) and this prequel series, which I hope sees a third to round out a trilogy.
The original trilogy follows Ripley as the only real constant through the story and her goal is to destroy the Alien. To stop it getting Into the wrong hands to prevent it getting home a destroying us.
The prequels depict David, the series constant, in his mission to create ( The Alien ) and destroy mankind.
I like how things in thier respective series are flipped.
Protagonist - Human - Female - wants to destroy the Alien
Antagonist - synthetic - Male - wants to create the Alien
Not that any of that is relevant I suppose.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 03, 2018, 08:07:26 PM
No offense, but what I'm hearing you say is, "Stories must adhere to MY realism." And you're trying to pitch your take on storytelling in relation to realism is the "worldwide stance historically." Never fabricate endorsements, have confidence in your own belief without the need for endorsements. Especially endorsements where it would take you countless hours of research to pull up confirmed resources to even begin to believe your boast has any viable weight to it.
No offense, but this is quite the ignorant claim on your part. There's a whole field of studies dedicated to literary theory that goes back as far as Aristotle and Ancient Greece. Countless hours of research? How about 5 seconds on Google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_(Aristotle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_(Aristotle))
Quote
Really sorry for this, but that is complete hogwash. Apparently you don't watch Kubrick or Tarkovsky films. There's a good article on The Editor's Blog called "Don't Explain, Don't Explain, Don't Explain." I'll see if I can find the link.
I believe you were referring to this:
http://theeditorsblog.net/2015/03/03/dont-explain-dont-explain-dont-explain/ (http://theeditorsblog.net/2015/03/03/dont-explain-dont-explain-dont-explain/)
If so, allow me to quote your own source:
"If you've set the scene properly, readers will know exactly why a character behaves as he does. He responds because of some stimulus, some event or moment of dialogue. And because of his personality and goals and the circumstances, he responds in a particular way."Quote
Again, complete hogwash. Sorry, nothing personal. We jumped right into the middle of the story in Star Wars 77. We did not see the ending of the story of The Grey, we left it before a new intense scene was about to erupt. There's countless movies where there is no beginning or end or more accurately, the audience is plopped into the middle of the story often with little or no explanation.........just like Real Life. And to put it in a very basic film viewer perspective, if it were true what you claim stories have a beginning and an end.....then it would be impossible for prequels or sequels to even exist.
Ok, so two things wrong with your Star Wars example:
1. You didn't jump in the middle of Star Wars 77. Star Wars was originally supposed to be a single film, and not part of a trilogy, and it does work as a single contained story (albeit flawed). It has a clear beginning, middle and end.
2. Even after turning into a trilogy, the trilogy has a clear beginning, middle and end, and it is made perfectly clear to the audience that they are watching 3 films that, together, are supposed to tell one single story. The trilogy stands on its own. It does not require the prequels; It does not require the new trilogy; It does not require the TV series; It does not require the books; It does not require the toys. It is a complete story.
Not going to comment on The Grey because I've never seen it.
As for stories having a beginning, middle and end meaning that sequels and prequels can't exist...you really lost me there, I'm afraid. Why not? Sequels/Prequels are new stories that are set on the basis of old stories. How does concluding one story make the existence of a new story impossible?
Quote
Story telling is not about some other realm of existence, story telling is about our real life. Other than adding fantasy elements, we literally have no other frame of reference to tell a story. I take it you don't like movies like the Godfather, where Fredo makes a bone head mistake of fumbling his gun allowing his father to get gunned down, yet no prepping the audience that he had the potential to be a flake.
He was the son of a mafia king, most in that family and around that family are warriors so to speak, there's nothing for the audience to assume any differently for Fredo. It was sprung on the audience..........just like real life. But according to your belief, that is bad storytelling.
Maybe this is the time for the old quote, 'I agree to disagree' on this one.
The Godfather is the second time you use a bad example to make your point, because in The Godfather, Fredo's gun fumbling
is set up. You get to see that the events occur suddenly and very quickly; You get to see that the deed is done before Fredo even gets out of the car; You get to see the shocked look on his face when fumbling the gun. The audience watching the scene understands exactly why Fredo messes up, because everything has been set up, because it's based on a well written book - a good story to begin with.
This is the difference between a good story and a bad one. In a bad story you get a character like Fifield walking around for hours of story time not remembering anything about his field of expertise for no good reason, while in a good story you get a character like Fredo messing up for a second due to obvious reasons. This is why millions of people watched Prometheus and ended up asking themselves why is Fifield such an idiot, and why The Godfather is considered a masterpiece.
I don't know why you had to assume I don't like The Godfather...I don't know why you had to assume anything, really.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 04, 2018, 12:59:30 AM
No offense, but this is quite the ignorant claim on your part.
That wasn't very nice.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 04, 2018, 01:39:33 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 04, 2018, 12:59:30 AM
No offense, but this is quite the ignorant claim on your part.
That wasn't very nice.
I didn't intend to offend (rereading it now does somewhat make it seem as though my 'no offense" in response to yours is supposed to be a jab at you, and I really didn't intentionally aim for that). I just honestly didn't know how else to call a claim as if there aren't well established rules on how to write a good story that go back thousands of years, when there clearly are.
It's called a plot hole. Happens all the time.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 04, 2018, 08:41:31 AM
I didn't intend to offend
Just jokin' PA. That was just my way of saying I made my point, seemed only fair you have the last word on the topic with your counterpoint. I may disagree with your opinions sometimes, but I have always respected your opinions.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 04, 2018, 01:48:08 PM
Just jokin' PA. That was just my way of saying I made my point, seemed only fair you have the last word on the topic with your counterpoint. I may disagree with your opinions sometimes, but I have always respected your opinions.
Likewise. Which is why that post of yours caught me off-guard.
Had a genuine Lucas "may have gone too far in a few places" moment there. :laugh:
Let's agree to disagree, then.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 04, 2018, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 04, 2018, 01:39:33 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 04, 2018, 12:59:30 AM
No offense, but this is quite the ignorant claim on your part.
That wasn't very nice.
I didn't intend to offend (rereading it now does somewhat make it seem as though my 'no offense" in response to yours is supposed to be a jab at you, and I really didn't intentionally aim for that). I just honestly didn't know how else to call a claim as if there aren't well established rules on how to write a good story that go back thousands of years, when there clearly are.
You know, it is possible to present your thoughts about what a good story is without defaulting to some """"""objective"""""" idea of what a good story is that goes back """""thousands of years""""".
Forum Trivia: Fifield has been mentioned in these forums 687 more times than Jesus.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviezone.com%2FFIFIELD4.png&hash=130ea3bf64275acc663bafc553513bf07459788d)
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 03, 2018, 08:07:26 PM
There's countless movies where there is no beginning or end or more accurately, the audience is plopped into the middle of the story often with little or no explanation.........just like Real Life.
Please note that a story that begins
in medias res is entirely different from a story that doesn't have a beginning, middle, or end.
Quote from: Olde on Feb 04, 2018, 06:51:27 PM
Please note that a story that begins in medias res is entirely different from a story that doesn't have a beginning, middle, or end.
As Jesus would say, "Noted."
Quote from: SM on Feb 03, 2018, 08:25:54 PMThat particular room, with the dead headless body in the doorway, was the main place they wanted to get farthest from (well, second after the 'ping'). Instead of asking Janek to guide them to an exit when they spoke to him earlier - they go inside the room they wanted to get away from and set up camp there. A line of two of dialogue to give some reasoning or their thought processes might've done wonders to make them look less dumb.
There are bits here where you and I are on the same page.
- When I first saw "Prometheus", I agreed with part of your argument about Milburn.
Why was a biologist afraid of a dead alien body? Why would he go back to the place that he was afraid of?
I put that on my flaws list for "Prometheus".
- But in my IMDb flaws thread someone brought up the idea that Milburn wasn't afraid. He just specialized in primitive life forms.
This was confirmed by the director/writer's commentaries.
The writers had a scene (which was deleted) referring to this idea where Milburn happily catches a worm in the tunnels.
That was supposed to be the clue for the viewer.
- But without that scene, I agree that another line of dialogue would have been helpful.
Maybe added to this bit.
QuoteMillburn: So why is this water not frozen?
Fifield: Maybe it ain't water.
Millburn: Maybe it's Martian piss.
Fifield: That's your um...scientific theory, is it, Mr. Biology?
The extra line after that could be something like this;
Milburn to Fifield: "Well, what I'd like to find in this piss is a worm or a bug; the things which I study on earth."* Back to the two scientists returning to the urn room.
- Milburn was only scared by the glitch and not by that room. He just wasn't interested in looking at the dead Engineer.
- Fifield is an emotional guy. He got away from the glitch and the ancient pile of dead Engineers.
When they backtracked to the urn room, Milburn was fine going in and Fifiled figured this would be a good place to get stoned.
* Everything about these guys points back to Vickers who hired them.
At first she didn't believe Shaw's Engineer hypothesis. Vickers thought the whole mission was a waste of money.
So, she hired scientists who not only had no interest in giant super intelligent aliens. She hired scientists who believed Shaw's Engineer hypothesis was BS.
A lot of how Milburn and Fifield act points back to that imo.
Quote from: SM on Feb 03, 2018, 08:25:54 PMPersonally, I'll take the deleted scene where they notice a stain on Kane's lung that the autodoc scanner can't penetrate over a theory.
Below I'll post a YouTube clip of that scanner deleted scene.
And I'll post comments which also repeat the film theory that Ash knew about the parasite which fits my view.
* From the YouTube video commentary;
QuoteJean Loup Knecht
The stain on Kane's lungs is the embryo of the alien growing into a fetus, and Ash knows exactly what he's dealing with.
* From a science fiction and fantasy stack exchange thread;
QuoteWhy didn't the crew detect the Alien inside of Kane?...
- Remember that the scanner was being run by Ash (who was Science Officer) who had something of a hidden agenda, even if he did detect it he wouldn't have said anything...
- I just rewatched Alien last weekend and I'm 99% certain Ash knew and hid it. In the scanning scene mentioned in the answer Ripley is talking with Ash about breaking quarantine and the monitor in the background clearly shows a black circular mass in what appears to be a chest scan. Ash turns off this display before Ripley gets a good look at it...
- Ash knew about the embryo in Kane. He is studying it from a scan but when Ripley comes over he turns the screen off...
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/13465/why-didnt-the-crew-detect-the-alien-inside-of-kane
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw2BhcXn9ac
* Anyway, it's another one of those agree to disagree situations.
*************
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Feb 04, 2018, 09:26:13 AM
It's called a plot hole. Happens all the time.
Yup.
There are routine story and logic gaps in many films.
Like how did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham from the pit in "The Dark Knight Rises"?
How did Bruce Wayne paint a giant flaming bat on a bridge right after returning to Gotham?
Why do audiences accept this?
Spielberg has said that if the audience is emotionally connected to a movie, then the story can go overboard in terms of story gaps / logic.
* Accepting that or not comes down as always to personal taste.
*************
Quote from: Russ840 on Feb 03, 2018, 11:15:02 PM
Glad you liked it.
I enjoyed the movie a great deal. I think the third act suffers a lot. Beautiful to look at, not quite as nice as Prometheus.
I found the film to be more focused than Prom but less grand and ambitious.
Yeah, the last act of "Covenant" was a competent action sequence.
But the characters learn what the audience already knows about the xenomorphs and David.
"Prometheus" has an Engineer trying to leave and kill/alter all life on earth, the earth ship/crew destroying itself to stop the Engineer, the Engineer hunting down Shaw, David pretending to be nice by helping Elizabeth, Shaw leaving warnings and she optimistically thinking she can make things right with the Engineers.
Quote from: Russ840 on Feb 03, 2018, 11:15:02 PMI really enjoy an observation that I have made regarding the original Trilogy ( I see Resurrection as a serperate story to the first three ) and this prequel series, which I hope sees a third to round out a trilogy.
The original trilogy follows Ripley as the only real constant through the story and her goal is to destroy the Alien. To stop it getting Into the wrong hands to prevent it getting home a destroying us.
The prequels depict David, the series constant, in his mission to create ( The Alien ) and destroy mankind.
I like how things in thier respective series are flipped.
Protagonist - Human - Female - wants to destroy the Alien
Antagonist - synthetic - Male - wants to create the Alien
Not that any of that is relevant I suppose.
I think it's relevant.
In the franchise the characters get caught up in the grander schemes of the powerful, godlike players in this fictional universe.
- The origin of science fiction starts with Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus" where the Dr. Frankenstein character takes the creator, godlike role. Everyone in the story is greatly affected by what he does.
* Agreed that in the first 3 Alien films, Ripley is trying to end what seems to be the Space Jockey's nightmare creation (the Xenomorphs) and Weyland/Yutani's weapons lab setting things in motion to capture and experiment with the creatures.
Ripley does not want power or to be like a god.
She wants to end the xenomorph creation/experiments with no ambition for herself.
* With the prequels imo there is a competition for who can best take the godlike role.
- There's the Engineers, Weyland and David.
- For David to be a godlike leader he needs helpers so, he alters the Engineer's creation into the Xenomorphs.
* Side characters like Fifield and Milburn are just pawns of the powerful characters in this fictional universe.
- Weyland, who wants to be godlike, has David snoop around looking for a cure for death.
- David, following Weyland's overall directions, and taking his own initiative, opens the door to the urn room against Shaw's orders.
- If Weyland/David had not sabotaged Shaw's plans for the expedition at that point;
1. The urn room remains closed.
2. Fifield / Milburn stay outside the urn room and they live.
* In fact without Weyland trying to be a godlike manipulator, the entire crew lives.
* And that idea carries over to "Covenant".
- In the second movie David is a killing machine whether directly or by him trapping people.
- So overall, should the viewer be so harsh on characters like Fifield (the hate fest) who are caught up in the plans/actions of these powerful characters?
Imo, no.
- Also agreed with wanting a third prequel film.
;)
QuoteBelow I'll post a YouTube clip of that scanner deleted scene.
And I'll post comments which also support the film theory that Ash knew about the parasite which fits my view.
Again, I'll go with the film (albeit deleted) over someone's interpretation of it to suit a theory.
:laugh: Every time I get back from a weekend away, this thread doesn't fail to amuse.
Some people really don't want to accept what is clearly just a shitty bit of writing.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 05, 2018, 12:05:21 PM
Some people really don't want to accept what is clearly just a shitty bit of writing.
I know what you mean, some people really don't want to accept they are not the Authoritative Watchdog on what is shitty writing. :laugh:
I don't claim to be the authoritative watchdog on anything.
This thread is exhibit A as far as the intelligence of the Fifield mess goes.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 05, 2018, 12:05:21 PM
:laugh: Every time I get back from a weekend away, this thread doesn't fail to amuse.
Some people really don't want to accept what is clearly just a shitty bit of writing.
Truly a WutDaFuK thread this.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 05, 2018, 04:05:38 PM
This thread is exhibit A as far as the intelligence of the Fifield mess goes.
Good point. I see intelligent input from both sides of the camp. Very positive of you to shine a spotlight on that.
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2018, 08:23:41 PM
QuoteBelow I'll post a YouTube clip of that scanner deleted scene.
And I'll post comments which also support the film theory that Ash knew about the parasite which fits my view.
Again, I'll go with the film (albeit deleted) over someone's interpretation of it to suit a theory.
Fair enough.
I've enjoyed the exchange.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 05, 2018, 04:05:38 PMThis thread is exhibit A as far as the intelligence of the Fifield mess goes.
There is intelligence throughout this discussion.
This thread (along with many others on the web) shows that hardcore fans can strongly disagree in their reactions to a film.
It isn't about one side getting the other side to agree.
Imo it's a sharing of different interpretations (based on their personal taste), of the theatrical cut, deleted scenes, and extras material.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 05, 2018, 12:05:21 PM...this thread doesn't fail to amuse.
This thread also entertains me because of the film knowledge in well thought out discussions.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 05, 2018, 12:05:21 PMSome people really don't want to accept what is clearly just a shitty bit of writing.
You are right about those who don't agree with the 'sh!tty' label.
But I do appreciate how that comment touches on the long running topic on this site about; 'what is good or bad writing (based on personal taste) in an action/adventure/science fiction film?'.
For instance I believe that "The Last Jedi" has some terrible writing.
Some respectfully debate/disagree.
No one (including me) has the infallible answer/opinion in reacting to technically well made science fiction movies.
;)
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 05, 2018, 04:57:44 PM
For instance I believe that "The Last Jedi" has some terrible writing.
<<<
This message is hidden because this member is on your ignore list >>>
:laugh: Joking aside, I've still yet to see it. And now Solo is around the corner. If I don't get busy, I'll have Star Wars films not seen yet, piling up.
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 05, 2018, 04:57:44 PM
It isn't about one side getting the other side to agree.
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. ;)
I have a theory.
Vickers employed Fifield and Milburn (another 'genius') to f**k up her father's mission. Makes sense? ;D
Prometheus selection criteria:
*Must be willing to sleep 4 years (2 years there and back)
*Sign confidentiality agreements
*Have qualifications in science field
*Sign waiver for all damage liability/insurance
*Big payout
*All expenses paid
* Be an asshole
Quote from: Ingwar on Feb 05, 2018, 08:01:16 PM
I have a theory.
Vickers employed Fifield and Milburn (another 'genius') to f**k up her father's mission. Makes sense? ;D
That is a long time film theory about the two scientists. I partly agree with it.
A movie like "Prometheus" can have many reasonable interpretations and that's one of them.
* Which leads to (a good topic); What was Weyland's mission?
1. Weyland wanted a cure for death and didn't care about science or money or the lives of the crew.
- Weyland was the puppet master behind the scenes, with David as his tool, which is a basic part of the story of "Prometheus" imo.
- Under Weyland's direction, David opened the urn room door (against Shaw's orders) which led to the deaths of the two scientists.
- Due to pressure by Weyland to try harder, David had Holloway drink the black goo which killed him.
- David found the Engineer in stasis which is what Weyland wanted the most.
Weyland insisted on taking an away team to meet the Engineer to ask to live forever.
* That ended Weyland's mission to find a death cure with David's help (while killing crew members).
2. Vickers' mission;
- Vickers thought that her father was a dangerous / irrational old man.
- She believed that Shaw's Engineer hypothesis (and Weyland's belief in it) was nonsense.
- Vickers hired scientists who agreed with her that finding super advanced giant space aliens on LV-223 was ridiculous.
- So she hired a geologist who was just interested in rocks and a biologist who specialized in primitive creatures like worms or bugs.
* Hiring the two scientists did not help with Weyland's plan so in that way it can be seen as sabotage.
- But importantly, Weyland didn't need the two scientists to accomplish his mission.
- He had David. And David under Weyland's prodding, was going to do what Weyland wanted.
* As for Shaw/Holloway; they were just pawns in Weyland's plan. They were there to help David get information for Weyland's mission, finding the death cure.
;)
Fifield and Millburn weren't briefed on the mission before they left.
Exactly, they weren't told anything. So you have to think what kind of 'scientist' would want to go on such a mission. Why are people pretending this is some NASA level project with the world's top scientists. It's not a scientific mission at all. Weyland didn't even need to bring those scientists. They're all expendable like the Nostromo crew. His main purpose was to find our creators so that he could extend his life. He was a crazy/desperate old man.
And why do so many people focus on this point of 'criticism'? Because it was said by a few critics, and everyone just copied what they said. Total groupthink situation. People don't even consider the arguments being presented, just take them as facts without a second thought. As with most popular beliefs, that turn out to be utterly false or based on false assumptions.
All you need to do is actually watch the film and pay attention.
All you need to do is f**k right off with telling people what they think and why.
Maybe it's time that someone did.
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 07, 2018, 12:22:04 AM
Maybe it's time that someone did.
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 07, 2018, 12:22:04 AM
Maybe it's time that someone did.
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
aweful.
m8
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Oh, the irony. . . . ;)
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 07, 2018, 12:22:04 AM
Maybe it's time that someone did.
Quote from: tleilaxulink=topic=58685.msg2273158#msg2273158 date=1517964267]
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 07, 2018, 12:22:04 AM
Maybe it's time that someone did.
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
aweful.
m8
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 07, 2018, 12:50:19 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Oh, the irony. . . . ;)
Yes thats right, hurry to the defense of someone who suggests that people need to be told how to think becuase they don't agree with him.
Still cringing.
You owe me awe.
Oweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 01:33:02 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 07, 2018, 12:22:04 AM
Maybe it's time that someone did.
Quote from: tleilaxulink=topic=58685.msg2273158#msg2273158 date=1517964267]
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 07, 2018, 12:22:04 AM
Maybe it's time that someone did.
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
when reading your posts, so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
so aweful.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
aweful.
m8
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 07, 2018, 12:50:19 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 12:37:52 AM
I always cringe when reading your posts, so aweful.
Oh, the irony. . . . ;)
Yes thats right, hurry to the defense of someone who suggests that people need to be told how to think becuase they don't agree with him.
Still cringing.
Word.
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2018, 04:43:50 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2018, 01:33:02 AM
Yes thats right, hurry to the defense of someone who suggests that people need to be told how to think becuase they don't agree with him. Still cringing.
Word.
I can assure you with the utmost accuracy I was defending no one. But the irony keeps on truckin' :laugh:
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Feb 07, 2018, 02:51:40 AMYou owe me awe.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.craveonline.com%2Fimages%2Fstories%2F2011%2FFilm%2FManhunter%2520Tom%2520Noonan.jpg&hash=ca66d6fb0c5d33d2f4696af055df0dd3cc3ac899)
Awwwwwww.
Was suprised to see Fiefeld in the new Mission Impossible: Fallout trailer.
Quote from: Wweyland on Feb 07, 2018, 05:12:28 PM
Was suprised to see Fiefeld in the new Mission Impossible: Fallout trailer.
I too am surprised to see him appearing in MI considering he really doesn't have anything to contribute in the MURDERED CIA AGENTS ARENA!
Also looks like he will possibly die by.....drowning.
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2018, 08:35:20 PM
Fifield and Millburn weren't briefed on the mission before they left.
They didn't have to be. Of the crew, none of them know Weyland's mission except for Weyland (in hiding) David and Vickers.
* It is the people who did the recruiting / hiring (Weyland / Vickers) who knew what the mission really was.
- What an interview process can do is find out what is not only what the applicant/advisor skills are, but also what they are interested in and what they believe.
- In the interview ask things like; what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Then from the responses to that and similar questions, the company/Vickers decided who gots hired.
* Weyland knew what kind of scientists that he wanted on the ship.
Vickers told Shaw that Weyland wanted true believers and that is why Weyland picked Elizabeth (as mentioned by Weyland in the film in his first face to face chat with Shaw in the film).
- But in the beginning Weyland didn't tell Shaw his true plan to have David sabotage the science expedition while looking for a cure for death.
- Again, what the person doing the hiring knows is often not = to what the applicant knows.
* A similar process happens in "Jurassic Park" where Malcom, Grant and Ellie were picked by Hammond.
Hammond knows the park but Grant doesn't. Hammond recruits the people he wants (because he knows their background) to go on a trip though the park.
* Vickers knew what her father wanted with the mission.
(She and Weyland discuss her prior opposition to Weyland's mission in the movie.)
* In "Prometheus" Vickers hired the geologist and biologist who did not fit what Weyland wanted.
- She picked people by looking at resumes and doing interviews.
And from that group of applicants she chose those scientists who shared her beliefs; that something like the Engineer hypothesis would be BS.
And she picked a geologist and biologist who did little to further Weyland's mission since they weren't interested in super advanced giant space aliens.
;)
Quote- What an interview process can do is find out what is not only what the applicant/advisor skills are, but also what they are interested in and what they believe.
- In the interview ask things like; what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Then from the responses to that and similar questions, the company/Vickers decided who gots hired.
You've just made that up, though.
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2018, 03:43:04 AM
Quote- What an interview process can do is find out what is not only what the applicant/advisor skills are, but also what they are interested in and what they believe.
- In the interview ask things like; what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Then from the responses to that and similar questions, the company/Vickers decided who gots hired.
You've just made that up, though.
To make a less antagonizing point than SM's, we're discussing an aspect of the story that doesn't exist. So it's wide open for fan theory. What you describe how the interview might have went, sounds logical.
Except your theory they included an interview question like, what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Besides this being an alarming question received by the interviewee, I find it unlikely an interviewer would even mention anything remotely revealing what their top secret mission is.
That unintentional innuendo would be a security risk. Not to mention, this is a question that would be asked of several people, not just one. Pretty high risk to share an abstract description so to speak of your top secret mission with several people who are not even picked for the mission.
Quote from: bb-15 on Feb 07, 2018, 09:53:02 PM
- But in the beginning Weyland didn't tell Shaw his true plan to have David sabotage the science expedition while looking for a cure for death.
That's because such a plan never existed. At best, it was an improvisation of Weyland after the discovery of the black goo; At worst, it was David misunderstanding Weyland's intentions when saying "try harder".
In order for Weyland to develop such a plan, he needs to be a prophet; someone who can see into the future and know that not only is Shaw correct and the engineers exist, but they also have this unique material that does stuff, which will be found by the expedition...however in that case he would've also known that the black goo is not a cure for death. :P
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2018, 03:43:04 AM
Quote- What an interview process can do is find out what is not only what the applicant/advisor skills are, but also what they are interested in and what they believe.
- In the interview ask things like; what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Then from the responses to that and similar questions, the company/Vickers decided who gots hired.
You've just made that up, though.
In that regard, Phobos does that to the Covenant crew
Quote from: David Weyland on Feb 08, 2018, 07:54:00 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2018, 03:43:04 AM
You've just made that up, though.
In that regard, Phobos does that to the Covenant crew
Ahh, that's an excellent point to add to BB-15's interview theory. The candidates are subjected to a one-word game using random and key words related to the Covenant mission. The interviews never spell out the candidates have been informed of the details of the Covenant mission.
But the word game could achieve what BB-15 is suggesting, so maybe my earlier point is off the mark. Phobos seems to endorse BB-15's theory Fifield might have been subjected to a similar test without revealing any hints of the Prometheus mission.
I wonder if Fifield was asked how he felt about rocks.
He loves rocks.
I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to think there'd have been some sort of face-to-face evaluation prior to their final selection. Just seems like it'd be a sensible expectation.
Religious beliefs aren't terribly relevant for a scientific exploration mission.
I don't mean to say they'd ask that specifically, just that a face-to-face evaluation like Phobos isn't a stretch.
Quote from: SM on Feb 12, 2018, 10:33:30 AM
Religious beliefs aren't terribly relevant for a scientific exploration mission.
Normally yes, but this is a Ridley Scott Alien prequel, so religious beliefs are the main reason why anyone does anything ever.
This is what I choose to believe.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 12, 2018, 05:20:56 PM
Nornally yes, but this is a Ridley Scott Alien prequel, so religious beliefs are the main reason why anyone does anything ever.
This is what I choose to believe.
:laugh: Clever.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 08, 2018, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2018, 03:43:04 AM
Quote- What an interview process can do is find out what is not only what the applicant/advisor skills are, but also what they are interested in and what they believe.
- In the interview ask things like; what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Then from the responses to that and similar questions, the company/Vickers decided who gots hired.
You've just made that up, though.
To make a less antagonizing point than SM's, we're discussing an aspect of the story that doesn't exist. So it's wide open for fan theory. What you describe how the interview might have went, sounds logical.
Except your theory they included an interview question like, what the applicant thinks about creationism involving space aliens. Besides this being an alarming question received by the interviewee, I find it unlikely an interviewer would even mention anything remotely revealing what their top secret mission is.
That unintentional innuendo would be a security risk. Not to mention, this is a question that would be asked of several people, not just one. Pretty high risk to share an abstract description so to speak of your top secret mission with several people who are not even picked for the mission.
Hey, just sharing.
1. I look at the exchange of information about scientists in our world. The number of science publications is vast and public.
I assume there is similar published information in the "Prometheus" fictional world.
2. The same complex symbol found in multiple ancient civilizations over thousands of years (in the film) would lend support to the ancient astronaut idea.
That would produce challenges to a pure view of Darwin's evolution theory in the fiction world of the movie.
There would be a scientific debate about this as part of the background of the film.
3. In the backstory of "Prometheus", Shaw was peddling her idea of a mission to Zeta 2 Reticuli to the Weyland corporation.
In the main Blu-ray disk this information is in the section; Extras - The Peter Weyland Files - Quiet Eye: Elizabeth Shaw
This has notes that summarize the career and goals of Shaw / Holloway.
4. There is also a "Quiet Eye" film extras video which is on the web including on YouTube.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iOpAXTaGAlc
* In the video Shaw says she has at least 3 doctorates.
For a researcher like her to get her degrees she would need to publish.
Since her main ideas are about the same complex symbol being found around the world in ancient times, that information would be publicly known.
** What does that tell me?
* While the mission to LV-223 was secret, prior published information from Shaw/Holloway was not.
- Shaw & Holloway's data about the same symbol being in ancient cultures around the world would be known as it would be published.
- This would naturally lead to the hypothesis of space aliens affecting evolution on earth (a challenge to a pure view of Darwin's ideas).
* In "Prometheus" Weyland says that he considered Shaw's information.
- Vickers said that Weyland wanted Shaw and Holloway on the mission because he wanted true believers on board.
- Weyland and Vickers discuss what the real mission was; for Weyland to find a miracle.
- Weyland tells Shaw what that miracle is; he was looking for a cure for death.
* This tells me about the hiring process for a scientist on the mission.
- Weyland found people he wanted on the mission and had them put on board.
* There are also the two other scientists who were hired by Vickers and they are completely against any challenge to a pure view of Darwin's evolution theory.
- I cannot believe that was a coincidence created by random chance.
- Vickers seems to be a competent person who is aware of details. She would find out information about her science hires.
- In the scientific community of our world controversial ideas are discussed and scientists will publicly state their positions.
In our world there may be polls of scientists about certain hypotheses.
- In the "Prometheus" world opinionated scientists like MIlburn and Fifield imo would have commented on their support for Darwin's evolution theory.
- My conclusion is that Vickers knew that Milburn and Fifield would have a very negative position about any challenge to Darwin stirred up by Shaw's published data and that is why Vickers chose them.
* An objection to my idea is that any interview question which brings up creationism would give away the secrecy of the mission.
I'll clarify. A question doesn't have to be clumsy.
- And if a creationism question is a bad idea, then just stick to the topic of Darwin's theory of evolution.
It can be framed in talking about challenges to Darwin's theory of evolution.
Clearly Milburn and Fifield were rigid about their belief the pure view of evolution.
This could be found out in the published research/discussions of the two scientists or in a questionnaire as part of a long list of questions.
- The employer could get the info they need without giving away what the mission is.
* Basically, in the film extras, which is backed up by the movie, Weyland investigated Shaw's career and ideas.
I think that it was a natural thing for Vickers to do the same thing with the scientists she hired which resulted in the complete conflict between Shaw/Holloway vs. Milburn/Fifield.
;)
@BB-15, since creating my post you quoted, David Weyland brought up the point about Phobos. I added later the Phobos example endorses your theory. The single word game could have been used. Gather the information you need to know about an interviewee without revealing the classified mission.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 14, 2018, 05:02:55 AM
@BB-15, since creating my post you quoted, David Weyland brought up the point about Phobos. I added later the Phobos example endorses your theory. The single word game could have been used. Gather the information you need to know about an interviewee without revealing the classified mission.
Oops. LOL :laugh:
You know I skipped over your comment about the "Phobos" extras video for "Covenant"!
Thank you for bringing that topic up again.
Yes, you are right, the "Phobos" video shows many things which take place in highly structured interviews.
Using structured interview techniques, the company/agency can get information they want from the applicant without that person knowing details about the job.
For instance for a Vickers scientist applicant there could be 100+ questions/words/scenarios and one could be; 'what do you think of Darwin's theory of evolution?' Or 'True or False; Darwin's theory of evolution is always correct'.
The answer of the applicant to questions like this can then be rated on a scale from pure Darwinist belief to someone who is more open to things which could challenge a pure view of the theory of evolution.
- Another movie example of a very structured interview is the Voight-Kampff test from 1982 "Blade Runner" where the ~100 questions/scenarios presented are scripted. In that example the interviewer is looking for a lack of emotional response.
But that kind of interview could be adapted to get other knowledge from the subject.
In our world there are job interviews like this.
Some are done with lie detector machines but usually there is no special equipment.
In my experience structured interviews (with no special equipment) are often set up by the Human Resource department to defend against discrimination lawsuits.
A common structure; there is an interview panel which states the questions/scenarios which are always the same.
The panel adds nothing during that part of the interview.
The responses of the applicant are rated on a confidential scale for each question/scenario presented.
* Vickers and her hiring the 2 scientists could easily have a rating scale designed which measured the devotion to Darwin's theory of evolution.
- And that interview could be done without the applicants knowing any of the details about the Prometheus mission.
;)
We don't even know if Vickers recruited Millburn and Fifield.
Quote from: SM on Feb 14, 2018, 07:52:19 PM
We don't even know if Vickers recruited Millburn and Fifield.
VICKERS: For those of you I hired personally, nice to see you again. For the rest of you, I'm Meredith Vickers and it's my job to make sure you do yours.
Indeed.
Not enough Fifield hate.
The reason people hate Fifield is because he has no redemption arc.
Gorman had one, Hudson had one. Not Fifield, though.
Although he did show some bravery trying to help Milburn.
I bet even rocks hate Fifield.
That's harsh, man. Really harsh.
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 15, 2018, 08:09:11 AMThe reason people hate Fifield is because he has no redemption arc.
I like how you keep claiming to know exactly why other people dislike him.
And then bring up something I've seen
no one actually mention as being the reason they hate him.
Scorpio is our very own Gorman.
If anyone would like to share, I and others would like to know the reasons.
They're well documented, if you'd care to actually pay attention to them.
Reason #1: Everything he says and does in Prometheus.
Reason #2: See Reason #1.
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 15, 2018, 11:57:19 AMIf anyone would like to share, I and others would like to know the reasons.
:laugh: Are you for real?
Where have you been for the last 41 pages of this thread?
If Fifield hadn't died of black goo, I'm pretty sure Vickers intended to leave him behind anyway. In fact, I'm fairly certain that's why she hired him in the first place.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Feb 15, 2018, 11:59:24 AM
Where have you been for the last 41 pages of this thread?
I've been with this thread since page 1 if you go back and look.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 15, 2018, 11:58:49 AM
Reason #1: Everything he says and does in Prometheus.
Reason #2: See Reason #1.
No, those are your reasons. Even then, there's probably more to it than what you're letting on.
First, just look at him. Second, listen to all the shit he says. What more do you need?
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 15, 2018, 12:06:30 PMI've been with this thread since page 1 if you go back and look.
Yes, I know. Hence why your question made me roar with laughter.
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 15, 2018, 12:06:30 PMNo, those are your reasons. Even then, there's probably more to it than what you're letting on.
"Give me your reasons!"
...
"I don't want your reasons!"
::)
If you've been here for 41 pages and still don't know why people don't like him, then you haven't actually paid attention to a single thing people have said.
Amazing.
Maybe I haven't because none of it makes sense to me.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 15, 2018, 12:07:58 PM
First, just look at him.
Now we're getting somewhere, thanks.
What is it about him you don't like the look of? The tattoos? The mohawk? Too skinny? Too pale? Facial hair?
Don't forget that he's a soulless ginger.
So you don't like Fifield because hes a ginger?
Fair enough then.
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 15, 2018, 12:10:40 PM
Maybe I haven't because none of it makes sense to me.
Then you've read the reasons, and it's on you to exercise some basic reading comprehension. None of the problems have been terribly hard to understand.
He also hangs around with Milburn of all people, which is like a force-multiplier of douchebaggery.
It wasn't his choice to hang around Milburn, though?
Quote from: SiL on Feb 15, 2018, 12:17:03 PM
Then you've read the reasons, and it's on you to exercise some basic reading comprehension. None of the problems have been terribly hard to understand.
I've read some of the reasons, but there is more to it. There has to be some fundamental reason behind this collective hatred for a movie character. Or else everybody just has a different opinion, such as one not liking ginger. It's probably a bit of both.
I don't hate gingers, I just reminded you that he happens to be one in addition to all the other traits you listed.
People tend to dislike obnoxious and poorly written characters.
I think... yeah... I think I hate him as much as I hate the skull.
There, I said it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 15, 2018, 12:36:49 PM
I don't hate gingers, I just reminded you that he happens to be one in addition to all the other traits you listed.
You don't hate gingers but the fact that someone you don't like also happens to be ginger makes you hate him more?
Well, it certainly doesn't help.
My hate for Fifield is completely unfounded.
I hate this bastard.
Quote from: Scorpio on Feb 15, 2018, 12:29:50 PMI've read some of the reasons, but there is more to it. There has to be some fundamental reason behind this collective hatred for a movie character.
Why does there have to be more to it than the fact THE GUY WITH THE MAP MANAGES TO GET LOST WITH NO EXPLANATION. I fell like Ridley and co. asking me to swallow something that blatantly stupid is almost offensive.
I hate Fifield because he represents such a God-awful bit of writing. More than that, he's the embodiment of how Lindelof took Spaihts' script and "improved" it by changing everything so that things which were logical now make no sense.
Bad writing is a fundamental reason.
Can we all finally agree that Fifield is the worst human being in the history of science fiction?
Just watch A9's edit of it (and maybe add parts you liked that he removed if you have the capability to do that).
Why subject yourself to the normal cut.
Quote from: NetworkATTH on Mar 05, 2018, 02:42:44 PM
Just watch A9's edit of it (and maybe add parts you liked that he removed if you have the capability to do that).
Why subject yourself to the normal cut.
This. I loved how he/she almost completely got rid of those dinguses and you barely noticed a difference in the narrative. Hell, if anything it only improved the movie.
Quote from: MU-TH-UR 6000 on Mar 05, 2018, 02:57:05 PM
Quote from: NetworkATTH on Mar 05, 2018, 02:42:44 PM
Just watch A9's edit of it (and maybe add parts you liked that he removed if you have the capability to do that).
Why subject yourself to the normal cut.
This. I loved how he/she almost completely got rid of those dinguses and you barely noticed a difference in the narrative. Hell, if anything it only improved the movie.
It is absolutely amazing how terrible these prequel movies are edited. By themselves they can probably be edited down fairly well, maybe some additional footage shot after the fact. But nope. We have these two men smoking weed in the land of the lost. It's absolutely astonishing how much character development was deleted and how much fluff was kept. I don't think I'll ever understand it.
Quote from: NetworkATTH on Mar 05, 2018, 02:42:44 PM
Just watch A9's edit of it (and maybe add parts you liked that he removed if you have the capability to do that).
Why subject yourself to the normal cut.
I wouldn't even know where to view it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 05, 2018, 03:41:01 PM
Quote from: NetworkATTH on Mar 05, 2018, 02:42:44 PM
Just watch A9's edit of it (and maybe add parts you liked that he removed if you have the capability to do that).
Why subject yourself to the normal cut.
I wouldn't even know where to view it.
hush hush ;)
Spoiler
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/12734020/A9_Prometheus_1080p_Special_Edition_FanEdit_BRRip_x264_AAC-m2g
The best fancut of Prometheus is the 'Workprint' version
Link: https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=57480.0
Quote from: David Weyland on Mar 05, 2018, 05:26:52 PM
The best fancut of Prometheus is the 'Workprint' version
Link: https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=57480.0
I made a hybrid of the two. The ending is the workprint's. Although I shifted the Deacon birth before they escaped to add some ambiguity if it got on the ship and motivated David somehow. It seems thematically appropriate anyways for some ambiguity there like the script had.
Kept most of A9's edits intact as it felt more cohesive. Except added Shaw's dreams. I also did foley to make the deaths more visceral.
The introduction goes Ted Talk with Weyland —-> Weyland and David from Alien Covenant —-> Shaw discovering Cave —> David onboard the Prometheus
It's A9's with some additions I thought necessary. It's still rough. It fits a lot better though by the end and you understand just how exhausted Shaw must have been and Weyland's motivations being more clear
Appreciate the love and effort put into fancuts but personally I prefer when the movies cores are respected; not mixed & cut but to just blend the relevant deleted scenes/extras in of which both films have a fine side platter of. If you add the David&Weyland scene into Prom' does that mean it wouldn't be in your AC cut if you made one?
Workprint & the Evanus Extended AC edit are the best at the moment imho coz it just fleshes out & keeps the feel of the Directors vision
Sure there's a second that can be snipped off, spliced in here & there but I'd at least wait until the prequels story arc is complete before condensing the films as I've seen with other fun but undefinitive versions
Quote from: SM on Feb 03, 2018, 08:25:54 PM
QuoteIt's my film theory (since I saw the film in 1979) that Ash did know there was a parasite inside of Kane.
Personally, I'll take the deleted scene where they notice a stain on Kane's lung that the autodoc scanner can't penetrate over a theory.
I decided to come back to this topic not to argue that I am right.
- Instead I can now see that there are two main interpretations of "Alien" based on which writer's version the viewer chooses to go along with.
- And both views are valid imo.
* Just as with "Blade Runner" where there is the writer's view and Ridley's explanation;
- With "Alien" there is the Dan O'Brannon version/view and the David Giler/Walter Hill version/view.
*** With "Alien" a person can lean towards O'Bannon's POV.
And I'm most willing to agree to disagree about that.
- In the 2003 "Alien" commentary (of the Ash attack on Ripley sequence), O'Bannon states his hate for the subplot of Ash being a company spy.
* Any viewer who minimizes Ash's prior knowledge of the Xenomorph in the film is closer to O'Bannon's view.
- The deleted scene with the stain on the scanner comes from the O'Bannon "Starbeast" script. Of course in that version Roby/(Ash) is not a company spy and would not know about the danger of this alien parasite and would be completely puzzled about what is happening with Broussard's/(Kane's) lungs.
* But since I lean towards the Giler/Hill version, even with just the film and Special Order 937, Ash knows quite a bit about what is coming and what's going on.
With Ash manipulating the situation, such as breaking quarantine, using the slant from the Giler/Hill view, Ash's role in the entire movie changes from clueless about the creature to knowing that the creature is a dangerous parasite to Kane's body while the android lets things happen.
* A source outside of canon, a deleted scene, was brought up which supports the O'Bannon view of the film;
- I'll use another outside of canon source; quotes from the "Alien" novel published in 1979.
- The book is fully on the side of Giler/Hill's view of "Alien".
* From the novel;
1. The company knew about the transmission before the Nostromo arrived at LV-426.
2. As explained by Ash, from the transmission the company knew about the creature and that it would be dangerous.
3. Bringing a dangerous alien life form to human settled planets and earth is strictly prohibited.
This idea would be used later by Cameron for "Aliens".
- This is why the Nostromo was chosen to deal with the creature so it would look like the Xenomorph was brought back to earth by accident.
4. Ash knows the creature is a parasite.
5. Ash doesn't care much about being a good science officer or even a good spy. He's detached from that, only being loyal to discovering the "truth" as he puts it.
He's quite a bit like David from "Covenant".
QuoteShe (Ripley) glanced up at Lambert; "Who assigns personnel to the ships?... And who would be the only entity capable of secretly slipping a robot on board, for whatever purpose?"
Lambert no longer looked confused; "The company."
"Sure." Ripley smiled humorlessly. "The company's drone probes must have picked up the transmission from the derelict. The Nostromo happened to be the next company vessel scheduled to pass through this spacial quadrant. They put Ash on board to monitor things for them..."
... Ash reacted with sufficient speed to show that his cognitive circuits were indeed intact.
"In essence my orders were as follows... I was directed to reroute in the Nostromo. Or make sure that this crew rerouted it from its assigned course so that it would pick up the signal. Program Mother to bring you out of hypersleep and program her memory to feed you the story about the emergency call. Company specialists already knew that the transmission was a warning and not a distress signal... At the source of the signal," Ash continued; "we were to investigate a life form, almost certainly hostile, according to what the company experts distilled from the transmission, and bring it back for observation and company evaluation of any potential commercial applications. Using discretion of course."
"Of course." agreed Ripley, mimicking the machine's indifferent tone. "That explains a lot about why we were chosen, beyond the expensive sending of valuable exploration team in first.
She looked coldly pleased at having traced the reasoning behind Ash's words.
"Importation to any inhabited world, let alone earth, of a dangerous alien life form is strictly prohibited. By making it look like we simple tug jockeys had accidentally stumbled on to it, The company had a way of seeing it arrive at earth unintentionally. While we maybe got ourselves thrown in jail, something would have to be done with the creature. Naturally company specialists would magnanimously be standing ready to take this dangerous arrival off of the hands of the customs officers. With a few judicious bribes pre-paid just to smooth transition..."
(Ash) "How can you not admire the simple symmetry it presents. An interspecies parasite capable of preying on any life form that breathes..."
(Ash) "I am loyal only to discovering the truth. Scientific truth..."
"Alien" (A Novel by Alan Dean Foster) p. 261 (released March 1979)
(YouTube; "Alien #1 Official Movie Novelization Alan Dean Foster Audiobook": beginning at 7:16:23 & 7:19:36)
All the above hinges on an assumption of the level of Ash's knowledge.
We don't know how much he knows.
I think David will prove to have a direct influence on Ash
Quote from: SM on Apr 13, 2018, 09:27:19 AM
All the above hinges on an assumption of the level of Ash's knowledge.
We don't know how much he knows.
* Yes, the question is; What did Ash know?
- From O'Bannon's script and his commentaries and from the novelization influenced by Giler / Hill; imo the viewer can see quite a bit about what each writer wanted in terms of Ash's knowledge.
* In the O'Bannon view, Ash has the absolute minimum knowledge until he encounters it.
* In the Giler / Hill view (as reflected in the novelization) Ash knows plenty about the company's plans and the creature before getting on the Nostromo as I listed in my previous post.
- I'll add that Ripley's theory of the company's elaborate plan to get the creature past customs (quoted in my earlier post), was confirmed by Ash in the novel, again supporting his knowledge of the entire company plan.
From the novel's sequence (partly quoted in my previous post) of the discussion between Ash and the crew;
QuoteAsh explained with cold logic; "Company policy required your unknowing cooperation. What Ripley said about your honest ignorance fooling customs was quite correct."
- Imo the audience has choices to make depending on which writer's slant the viewer wants to accept about Ash;
- Minimal knowledge (O'Bannon).
- Extensive knowledge (Giler / Hill).
* Bottom line; I'm fine with viewers of "Alien" who lean towards Ash having minimal knowledge.
- There are different valid ways to interpret "Alien".
;)
The novelization is a little contradictory on what Ash knows. In one passage he says some details are specific, in a different passage he says the life form was 'almost certainly hostile'; which isn't that specific.
Quote from: SM on Apr 13, 2018, 10:06:06 PM
The novelization is a little contradictory on what Ash knows. In one passage he says some details are specific, in a different passage he says the life form was 'almost certainly hostile'; which isn't that specific.
Agreed SM.
Here's my interpretation for that.
- Ash as a science officer would try to be as accurate as possible with this explanation.
- What the Space Jockeys found was lethal.
- What the Nostromo crew would find on the moon wasn't completely certain.
Would that human exploration team run into another unknown creature which was more friendly?
Almost certainly not; still in theory it could happen (by unlikely chance) with a space tug crew wandering around, doing a non-expert investigation, on an unexplored moon/planet with unknown lifeforms.
* More quotes to show the difference between what happened to the Space Jockeys and what might happen to the Nostromo crew.
* This part of the novel has the bit of speculation; that the crew would find something "almost certainly hostile".
Quote...sneered Ripley, she thought a moment, said; "You've already told us that our purpose in being sent to that world was to investigate a life form almost certainly hostile, and that the company experts knew all along that the transmission was a warning and not a distress signal."
"Yes." Ash replied./
- The next part of the novel gives details from the Space Jockey warning about the creatures from the pods being lethal.
(This also gives a glimpse of earlier drafts of the script where the Space Jockeys are not at first carrying Xenomorph eggs on the derelict ship as cargo but find them on the moon/planet itself.)
QuoteAsh replied..."The signal itself was frighteningly specific, very detailed. The derelict spacecraft we found had landed on the planet apparently in the course of normal exploration. Like Kane they encountered one or more of the alien spoor pods. The transmission did not say whether the explorers had time to determine whether the spoors originated on that particular world or if they had migrated there from somewhere else. Before they all were overcome, they managed to set up the warning to keep the inhabitants of other ships that might consider setting down on that world from suffering the same fate.
(YouTube; "Alien #1 Official Movie Novelization Alan Dean Foster Audiobook": beginning at 7:22:40)
* More thoughts;
- The basic idea of the investigation of the Space Jockeys and their deaths reminds me of the Covenant crew having almost the same fate.
;)