Prometheus is one of the greatest Sci-Fi movie because primarily its a Concept-Rich movie. It expanded the Alien universe & explored many ideas on several scales and delivered an intriguing adventure drama more than a thriller/horror action. Prometheus was full of these alluring things:
A. The Visuals and the virtual experience; as Ridley Scott said "the cast could have slept and effectively "lived" on the Prometheus interior set during initial filming, this didn't happen due to health and safety precautions.", we all know the ship interiors and visuals of the movie were mesmerizing. This alone let the audience right into the crews' shoes. Ofcourse 'Alien' also gave a similar experience.
B. David. Unlike a unidimensional character, Scott carved a complex robot with vibrant emotions & actions. From bearing curiosity of child to nobility towards his master to cunningness towards someone who he dislikes. Fassbender pulled it off such a way that with his limited moves of facial expressions, one can readily relate to his emotions.
C. Imaginative futurist concepts which we never seen before: Prometheus spaceship, Lifeboat, Weyland's hologram recording, the Medpod, Pup scanners, Escape pods, Rovers etc. all of them beautifully designed. All of these took the audience even closer to the experience and adventure.
D. Layered characters & story. From Vickers' greed of taking over the company, her disdain from not being a wishful daughter, David & Vickers' sibling rivalry to Shaw and Holloway's different outlook on faith and god etc. All of this in an alien movie! Hats off to Scott!
The events of the story were consequences from the clash of different agendas of the characters. Vickers didn't recruit the best of the scientists (except a great Pilot, the decision which ultimately backfired at the end to her own self) because she wasn't wholeheartedly supporting her father's mission, a demanding Weyland, Fifield who was only there for money and was more of a puppet of Vickers and David who deviced his own rules to explore the place for his curiosity as well as reaching Weyland's goal.
You may term it whatever you want, may be a projection of human hubris or neo-norisque cynical archetypes, Prometheus had more memorable & unique characters than any other Alien movies.
E. Space Jockey & the Juggernaut. None of the sequels ever tried to explore the Space jockey world. All they did was deal with Xenomorphs and Xenomorphs only.
We all know that the scene with David exploring the hologram of engineer's navigation system itself is one wonderful moment of the movie. This is were we should realize why Scott sweep away the Xenos from the script and filled it with such alluring moments with only subtle reference to Alien like the Hammerpede, a very well designed off-wordly creature - just a simple worm mutated with Xeno DNA.
F. The Med-pod scene. Nuff said!
G. Rolling spaceship scene
H. The whole biological lifecycle madness resulting from the dangerous black goo mutant accelerant. David spiking Holloway --> Holloway's sperm mutated ---> Having sex with Shaw ----> Shaw conceiving a tribolite ---> Engineer getting facehugged ----> Chestburst of a deacon, an end with the iconic reference to Alien.
It also expands Alien universe to many consequences & possibilities pushing the overplayed classical Xenomorph as just one of the many diversions.
I. The mysteries and questions to discuss & ponder upon. The movie & its ambiguity has triggered lot of discussions which even today people engage in.
Unlike 2001: A Space Odyssey which ends with a big answer (next step of human evolution), Prometheus unapologetically ends with a big question.
People who dislike it are labelling it as an 'incoherent mess' just because they didn't get answers or are the ones who also happen to not have paid attention to so many things (for instance, Vickers and Shaw turning a sharp 90 degree turn at one moment and not just running in straight line) or are downright stupid (such as expecting the 2094 medicines to today's standards)
J. Finally, the movie's ability to render better repeat-viewing experience.
You're seven posts in and you've already decided that the best course of action is to be condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. Not a great start.
The film is full of poorly sketched characters, terribly dodgy editing -- especially at the end -- and rather than address its "big question" in any meaningful way, it diverts to spend what precious little running time is left to a monster in a closet ending. Ending on a Big Question is fine. Leaving a mystery is fine. But Prometheus doesn't know what to do with its Big Question, so it doesn't do anything. It raises it, then immediately does what it can to avoid having to address it.
2001 gives a vague, ambiguous, head-scratching Big Answer that leaves you with genuine food for thought. It follows through on its central question, but resolves it in a way that leaves you feeling like there's so much more out there.
Prometheus just shouts its Big Question at you halfway through the film, then waves its hands in front of your face until it's time for the credits to roll. It's not satisfying, intelligent, or particularly well executed. It's more akin to The Andromeda Strain, which abruptly abandons the threat of the alien organism in the last act for the threat of the nuclear countdown.
QuoteBut Prometheus doesn't know what to do with its Big Question, so it doesn't do anything.
It raises a big question and lets the audience to discuss, ponder upon and form their own interpretation. I have my own interpretation.
And for guys like you, wait for Alien: Covenant, brother! It may give insights to the answers to that big question and make it more apparent, if not A:C then the sequels to A:C will
QuoteIt raises it, then immediately does what it can to avoid having to address it.
How can you say that it diverts to the chest bursting scene to cut away from answering the question. The movie ended when we see Shaw & David taking off in the Juggernaut with Shaw's last words 'And I am still searching!'.
The chest burst scene was an Epilogue. Just to tie in with Alien universe completely.
Quote2001 gives a vague, ambiguous, head-scratching Big Answer that leaves you with genuine food for thought. It follows through on its central question, but resolves it in a way that leaves you feeling like there's so much more out there.
2001 was a bright & happy ending. Prometheus had a dark ending. 2001 ended with a big answer. Prometheus ended with a big question. Both movies leaves you with lot of food for thought.
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 02, 2017, 11:28:19 AM
And for guys like you, wait for Alien: Covenant, brother! It may give insights to the answers to that big question and make it more apparent, if not A:C then the sequels to A:C will
I'm fine with open-ended questions. I'm not fine with Prometheus' handling of this. Why must you resort to talking down to others?
QuoteHow can you say that it diverts to the chest bursting scene to cut away from answering the question.
I couldn't -- and didn't. They have the chance to ask the question to the Engineer, but instead of an answer he Hulks out on them.
That's them diverting from the question. They had a person with questions and a person capable of asking and understanding the answers, and instead he just starts murdering people.
Quote2001 was a bright & happy ending. Prometheus had a dark ending.
Prometheus ends with Shaw and David flying off into the stars full of hope at finding their answers. There's nothing dark about how it's handled in the movie.
There are some days I love 'PROMETHEUS' and other days where I loathe it. I've never felt such a polarised opinion of a movie like this before. It looks great, sounds fantastic, the art and design of the whole production is amazing and when it hits it's narrative mark it comes close to a bulls eye.
On the other hand, the times where it misses the target completely are just as common. Some of the f**khead characters really drag it down for me. Yeah. They're memorable, sure, but being memorable for the wrong reason is not a positive aspect of the movie. Then there's some of the ludicrous scenarios that are more convenience without any rationale. The exploding head is a good example. It adds nothing to the movie. except "Ooooh, lookie! Exploding head scene! How gross..." but beyond that, it's just a senseless scene.
'PROMETHEUS' big problem is it's uncertain of its audience. It's too intellectually driven to satisfy your average popcorn fueled, spectacle seeking audience; and yet, on the other hand, it is too stupid for a more demanding audience seeking stimulating material. People discuss this movie just for its grand scope and preparedness to embrace big ideas. They also discuss its failings as well. Hardly good grounds to call it a great Sci Fi film.
In this regard, it's not really that much different from your average episode of 'Star Trek'. Popular, sure. Average, you bet. But it's not necessarily representative of what the genre offers at its best.
'Andromeda Strain' is still considered to be a film - for the greater part - that accurately depicts scientific processes in a fictional narrative framework. Something that 'PROMETHEUS' is completely devoid of.
-Windebieste.
A. The Visuals and the virtual experience
agreed
B. David
agreed... good acting and interesting character.
C. Imaginative futurist concepts
Only the medpod caught my eye. The rest ...meh
D. Layered characters & story
Nope... nothing to see here. Sloppy script, lazy development. Too much randomness and unexplained shite. Horrible imo. I still don't know everyones names tbh hahaha.
E. Space Jockey & the Juggernaut
Mja... it's ok. But not as spectacular as you describe it imo. Sorry. Part of the original mystery around the jockey got degraded to a guy in a suit. Shame.
F. The Med-pod scene
Good concept...for an Alien movie.
G. Rolling spaceship scene
Still cracks me up. I know Vickers isn't running in a straight line, but still... such a lazy way of getting rid of her and it looks really stupid.
H. The whole biological lifecycle madness
Black goo feels lazy a underwelming imo. And damages the lifecycle imo. "ALIENS! Because of FLUIDS!"
Wish they went a different direction, but we have to live with it now. Each their own.
I. The mysteries and questions to discuss & ponder upon.
Pretty sure more people talk about why this movie did not deliver and what went wrong, lol. It promised to answer questions and it totally did not... It only raised more.
J. Finally, the movie's ability to render better repeat-viewing experience.
Only because folk want to see were things went wrong. It's a frustrating watch for most.
Starting to wonder if you seen the same movie haha.
Love how you whiteknight the entire movie though, and I realise it's impossible to even try to convince you. And that's fine, because of internets and all. It's ok that you love the movie, but to claim everyone who doensn't is stupid...well... isn't very progressive. It's an opinion, just like mine.
Different strokes for different folks. :-*
Prometheus rocks. Oohrah!
Well not much more to add then that. I still remember the utter mediocre feeling I had leaving the theater at 2 am. However I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Prometheus took one of my favorite films and said, hey there's a lot more f**ked up shit out there waiting to be discovered.
And I play ACM form time to time...lol. (sometimes just walking in mp maps alone blurting out taunts with my Hudson character)
Nothing wrong with guilty pleasures, as long as you realise that it's nothing more. And I agree Prometheus did show us there is more. But beyond that, it's kinda empty and shallow.
BUT HEY!! Sometimes you just have to try something different to realise that what you had wasn't that bad after all. :P
Prometheus blew chunks.
It stole / hijacked concepts from the Alien universe to drag in the fans and then didnt expand on it at all as everyone was hoping / expecting it to do so.
For great sci-fi go watch 2001 & 2010 space osyssey films, now they have imaginative concepts.
First of all
QuotePeople who dislike it are labelling it as an 'incoherent mess' just because they didn't get answers or are the ones who also happen to not have paid attention to so many things (for instance, Vickers and Shaw turning a sharp 90 degree turn at one moment and not just running in straight line) or are downright stupid (such as expecting the 2094 medicines to today's standards)
No. This is just untrue. There is a case to be made for Prometheus being labelled an incoherent mess even if you recognise its qualities, even if you're not stupid, even if you've paid attention and don't mind that some things are left for you to deduce.
I'd call Prometheus a decent movie. It's got a good premise, a great set piece ( the medpod scene ) and great visuals but it also has some big flaws.
It's been discussed to death, but the character logic in this movie is very distracting. It's a scientific mission to try and meet our creators. It's a big sic-fi adventure that could change the history of mankind and our understanding of life. As a result, with stakes that high, it's very distracting when scientists start acting unlike scientists... Holloway's actions throughout the movie are extremely problematic when you're trying to take the movie seriously ( which is required for the movie to be effective ).
First of all, the fact that Holloway insists to go and visit the pyramid straight away after Janek says there's only a couple of hours of sunlight left is just dumb. They have been sleeping for years, they're about to go through the biggest science mission of their lives, it doesn't make sense to rush a mission this important, when you take into account that they are so far away from Earth and that they don't know what they could find.
Yes, I get it, they want to show that the character is impulsive. But he's neither alone on the mission nor in charge, so for his impulsiveness to endanger the mission several times in the movie is very annoying, all the more given that he's supposed to be an archeologist ( which, believe it or not, is a field of science that does require patience ).
Yes, the air is clean in the pyramid. Doesn't mean that there couldn't be pathogens that human beings wouldn't have defences for in their immune system. Once again, it's meant to show Holloway's impulsiveness, but it's just really difficult to take the mission seriously with a scientist taking such risks.
Then there's Holloway getting drunk WHILE his companion is working on the Engineer's head. It makes zero sense at that point in the mission for an archeologist to get drunk and be disappointed WHILE they're in the middle of a successful mission ( they did find Engineers, they did find dna samples to prove the ancestry, and as the rest of the movie proves there ARE still live Engineers in there ).
So yeah, you can make sense of Holloway's actions by just dismissing him as an impulsive person, but then it just doesn't paint him as a serious scientist, and not having a serious scientist in a mission like this makes zero sense. Which makes immersing yourself in the movie a bit difficult at times.
It also makes it really hard at times to understand how Holloway and Shaw can be a couple... the chemistry isn't there - although maybe other people do think they have chemistry? - and he doesn't seem to have much regards for her opinions and for her work. So the problem that stems from there is that it's difficult to feel much of anything when Holloway gives her a rose or when Shaw witnesses him being burnt alive. It doesn't help that she doesn't really seem to grieve his death very much afterwards... there are a couple of references to him afterwards but that's about it. She breaks down at the end, but it seems to be more about everything she's gone through than about Holloway.
Putting Holloway aside, the other main problem I have with this movie is the mutated Fifield sequence. Not only does it serve to dispatch a big portion of the crew, most of whom had barely uttered three words throughout the movie ( which makes the whole scene feel a bit... like filler ), but the way it's edited with Shaw running out of the medpod is very awkward. These two scenes were clearly not meant to be happening at the same time - further evidenced by Shaw being the one originally running Fifield over - and the whole succession of events in these few minutes doesn't come together at all. It doesn't help that the effects on Fifield are really quite underwhelming. I suppose that's something else that's subjective, but compared to the Hammerpedes, the Engineers and Cuddles, Zombie Fifield just doesn't really feel like it belongs in the same movie.
Anyway, I could actually go on and on but these are my main issues with Prometheus. The issue is that these specific problems I have addressed can't really be solved by extra scenes, answers of any kind, or heavy thinking. They're just flaws. I don't know if Holloway was badly rewritten in the final stages of production ( he was fine in Spaiths script ), or if he was just badly miscast, or both, but that character really kills parts of the movie for me.
That said, there are also lots to love in Prometheus, but I can't call a movie great when some moments take you out of the movie completely. As a viewer you suspend your disbelief, but the movie is supposed to help you do that. Having an archeologist on the most important mission for mankind act the way Holloway does is too distracting... for me at least ;)
Quote from: windebieste on Mar 02, 2017, 11:48:26 AM
'PROMETHEUS' big problem is it's uncertain of its audience. It's too intellectually driven to satisfy your average popcorn fueled, spectacle seeking audience; and yet, on the other hand, it is too stupid for a more demanding audience seeking stimulating material.
This. Exactly. Couldn't agree more.
EDIT : Something else that makes zero sense for the characters is that at no point in the movie does any of the crew comment on the fact that there are several domes lined up one after the other although we can perfectly see them right before landing. Why wouldn't anybody comment on something like that! How does it come as a surprise to Shaw at the end when David tells her there are other ships? Is David the only one of them with eyes and a brain on this scientific mission?
Just for references, pasting something that I mentioned on a different board:-
Not all the character were morons. Only Milburn & Fifield. You should remember that half the crews were recruited by Vickers. When it came to pilot, she hired the best one, which ultimately back-fired her at the end. When it came to scientists, she hired mediocre ones as she seemingly didn't want to have expert advice for the expedition and have her dad's agenda succeed. Shaw & Holloway were obviously not her recruits. And neither did they act stupid (Except if you want to nitpick on Holloway, to have his helmet removed after both David and Ford confirming that the air was much cleaner). A hint was already given in the movie when Vickers tried to mandate Shaw & Holloway to report back to the ship once they find any beings down there. So if Milburn & Fifield were Vickers' puppets, its obvious that she gave the same instructions to both of them even; and that's what happened, both Milburn & Fifield opted out - to report back to ship after they found the dead alien being and got lost.
That's the only stupid act I see: getting lost; yet not completely stupid. People say that Fifield had the whole maps and stuffs. Yes, but the Pups were activated from one particular point after entering the Dome. And from there, the pups went hovering inside the dome. None of the pups went out. So the route from the point where the pups were activated to the exit wouldn't have mapped. So Fifield & Milburn would have gotten lost after reaching the point where the pups were activated.
I think what stroke me the most was how messy the script / edit was done in the end.
Especially the "transition" between act 2 and act 3.
There's in a gap of 8 minutes in the film, Shaw moaning her loss, getting betrayed by david, getting a CSec, Fifield going all mutant thing and Weyland that reveal with Vicker being her daughter.
8 MINUTES in a 2 hours film.
So yes, the film is filled with a battalion of stuff that raises questions that are not very relevant to the narrative of the action.
I think the film also opens with a major spoiler killer i.e. the SJ giving birth to life.
It should have been there to mean more than just a few set of unanswerable questions like "is it earth? is he creating humans? why is he doing this?"
The thing is, since the opening of the film, you see what an engineer looks like and what they do.
So when the moment finally arrives when they "meet their maker" sort of speak, it feels completely unimpressive.
But yeah, like SiL, definitely an editing problem in the film, I'm sure there's either a good 30 minutes that is either too much or not actually there.
Janek had access to giant space map and knew damn well where they were. The storm hadn't hit using that as an excuse won't work. It was simply put...stupid. A plothole by some bad writing.
And it wasn't just Fifield and Milburn.
QuoteShaw takes out an alien octopus from her belly. She lets him/her/it/wtf inside the machine and does not try to kill it herself or ask the crew to bring a flamethrower in the surgery room if they have a craving for squid rings with an after-state of placenta.
In order for Shaw to access the surgery room and make her own custom caesarian, she had to hit 2 other crew-members on the head with a blunt metal object. Those two crew-members will 2 hours later join Shaw for another mission in the alien cavern and none of them will ever mention that Shaw used to have an alien baby in her stomach, that they were savagely attacked, or that they can't walk straight anymore since their brains started to leak from their nostrils.
Putting aside the previously mentioned problem of Shaw not telling anyone about her hentai-potent child, it is shocking to see no one did anything about it either.
Most of the crew were stupid imo.
It's entertaining though, watching all those obvious mistakes unfold on screen.
When the credits roll, I only have 2 words on my mind: "Nice try"
I agree.
I was watching it last night and another part that confuses me is how does Janek figure out that LV-223 is a military station? Where did he get the information from?
It was a deus ex machina type moment.
It's not like it's a massive leap though (even taking the deleted scene that helps explain it out of the equation).
Oh, I forgot about the deleted scene. I'll need to watch that again.
Quote from: SM on Mar 02, 2017, 09:05:42 PM
It's not like it's a massive leap though (even taking the deleted scene that helps explain it out of the equation).
Still... It has that "oh shit we need to explain this quick or we will lose the audience" vibe... It lacks subtlety.
But yes, it was obvious where things were going.
Quote from: Hemi on Mar 02, 2017, 01:50:50 PM
Janek had access to giant space map and knew damn well where they were. The storm hadn't hit using that as an excuse won't work. It was simply put...stupid. A plothole by some bad writing.
Bad assessment on your part. Janek had the map based on the scan done by the pups. And the Pups didn't map the exit route from the point of its activation. Not a plothole.
QuoteShaw takes out an alien octopus from her belly. She lets him/her/it/wtf inside the machine and does not try to kill it herself or ask the crew to bring a flamethrower in the surgery room if they have a craving for squid rings with an after-state of placenta.
After getting out of the medpod, Shaw pressed a button and gassed the Tribolite until it was immobilized i.e. presumably dead. That was enough for sensible audience. If you want to still nitpick, you can surely do it,
QuoteIn order for Shaw to access the surgery room and make her own custom caesarian, she had to hit 2 other crew-members on the head with a blunt metal object. Those two crew-members will 2 hours later join Shaw for another mission in the alien cavern and none of them will ever mention that Shaw used to have an alien baby in her stomach, that they were savagely attacked, or that they can't walk straight anymore since their brains started to leak from their nostrils.
Everybody on the ship knew what happened to Shaw. Ford & Shaw would have had a confrontation also, just like Lambert & Ripley. It was just not shown in the movie. The film-makers thought of not spoon-feeding inessential details and extend the runtime to bore the smart audience.
David also commented 'Excellent survival instincts'
Quote
Putting aside the previously mentioned problem of Shaw not telling anyone about her hentai-potent child, it is shocking to see no one did anything about it either.
They would have seen it still dead and were busy in preparations for Weyland's visit to the Pyramid. They would have surely dumped the dead baby, had they all survived and returned back to the ship. But during that gap in time, the gas dissipated and the Trilobite got conscious and grew larger in size.
QuoteMost of the crew were stupid imo.
Who?
Nice try!
QuoteBad assessment on your part. Janek had the map based on the scan done by the pups. And the Pups didn't map the exit route from the point of its activation. Not a plothole.
Fifield released the PUPs just after they entered the structure. Are you suggesting Janek couldn't read a map to direct them to the exit?
QuoteThey would have seen it still dead and were busy in preparations for Weyland's visit to the Pyramid. They would have surely dumped the dead baby, had they all survived and returned back to the ship. But during that gap in time, the gas dissipated and the Trilobite got conscious and grew larger in size.
Why would they dump a unique alien organism?
Quote
Fifield released the PUPs just after they entered the structure. Are you suggesting Janek couldn't read a map to direct them to the exit?
They activated the pups much after entering the place and not exactly at the entrance. On their return, Fifield could have missed the exit as you know that entrance was pretty small, such that they had to bend down to enter.
Quote
Why would they dump a unique alien organism?
Just saying 'dump'. I mean whatever they wanted to do with it, had they all survived and returned back to the ship.
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'most of the crew are stupid'; but Fifield and Milburn deserve derision:
Fifield, the expedition's Geologist, goes to another planet and fails to pick up a single rock. ...er, really? He should be champing at the bit to get outside as soon as they land and spend 10-15 minutes collecting samples just outside the ship. Yet, nope. For a man who later declares he 'loves rocks', there's really no indication of any of his geological profession, interest or skills.
Milburn is such a pussy for a biologist. He sees a headless Alien corpse and runs away. He then wants to go play with some space snake thingy that for all intents and purposes is displaying aggressive behavior without any means of snaring or properly collecting it as a sample. Just pet the f**king thing, idiot. Some biologist you got there. Darwin award material. He's so f**king stupid, he probably wouldn't understand that phrase and how appropriate it is to him in so many ways. lol.
Both of these characters are weak. Neither of them fulfill any expectations that someone in those professions would properly demonstrate if they were in those roles as perceived by the audience. A pair f**kheads like that should never be considered appropriate for their place on board the 'PROMETHEUS'. They'd be more at home in a shitty Asylum movie.
Those 2 are the worst cases; but Holloway has occasional moments of 'Too Stupid to Live' as well.
-Windebieste.
QuoteI wouldn't go so far as to say 'most of the crew are stupid';
True. And that too they were deliberately recruited. Do you think Vickers, who was not in support of her dad's agenda and who wanted to succeed him as Chairman of the company, would ever recruit whole-heartedly ?
Give some imagination. Imagine Vickers on Earth going through files of applicants who were ready to sign for a 4 year mission and after looking at these two mediocre ones, she says ' yeah, now these two jerks are good enough!' Obviously, she wouldn't want expert scientist who'd provide useful insights to the expedition leading them to discover what Weyland was searching for.
She wanted puppets who're there just for money and who'd secretly work for her. Imagine how she would have instructed both of them during their sign-up for the mission.
Quote
but Fifield and Milburn deserve derision:
Fifield, the expedition's Geologist, goes to another planet and fails to pick up a single rock. ...er, really? He should be champing at the bit to get outside as soon as they land and spend 10-15 minutes collecting samples just outside the ship. Yet, nope. For a man who later declares he 'loves rocks', there's really no indication of any of his geological profession, interest or skills.
Yes, He was there just for money and had least interest in rocks
QuoteMilburn is such a pussy for a biologist. He sees a headless Alien corpse and runs away. He then wants to go play with some space snake thingy that for all intents and purposes is displaying aggressive behavior without any means of snaring or properly collecting it as a sample. Just pet the f**king thing, idiot. Some biologist you got there. Darwin award material. He's so f**king stupid, he probably wouldn't understand that phrase and how appropriate it is to him in so many ways. lol.
Vickers did try to mandate both Holloway and Shaw to report back to the ship once they find beings down there. So obviously she would have instructed the same thing to Milburn & Fifield, And that's what happened. When they found a dead alien body, they opted out and to go back to the ship. Milburn just pretended to be scared. Infact he was sitting close to the dead body. Fifield on the other way was genuinely scared (as we seen him nervous entering the dome also).
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 03, 2017, 08:05:07 AM
QuoteI wouldn't go so far as to say 'most of the crew are stupid';
True. And that too they were deliberately recruited. Do you think Vickers, who was not in support of her dad's agenda and who wanted to succeed him as Chairman of the company, would ever recruit whole-heartedly ?
Give some imagination. Imagine Vickers on Earth going through files of applicants who were ready to sign for a 4 year mission and after looking at these two mediocre ones, she says ' yeah, now these two jerks are good enough!' Obviously, she wouldn't want expert scientist who'd provide useful insights to the expedition leading them to discover what Weyland was searching for.
She wanted puppets who're there just for money and who'd secretly work for her. Imagine how she would have instructed both of them during their sign-up for the mission.
Quote
but Fifield and Milburn deserve derision:
Fifield, the expedition's Geologist, goes to another planet and fails to pick up a single rock. ...er, really? He should be champing at the bit to get outside as soon as they land and spend 10-15 minutes collecting samples just outside the ship. Yet, nope. For a man who later declares he 'loves rocks', there's really no indication of any of his geological profession, interest or skills.
Yes, He was there just for money and had least interest in rocks
QuoteMilburn is such a pussy for a biologist. He sees a headless Alien corpse and runs away. He then wants to go play with some space snake thingy that for all intents and purposes is displaying aggressive behavior without any means of snaring or properly collecting it as a sample. Just pet the f**king thing, idiot. Some biologist you got there. Darwin award material. He's so f**king stupid, he probably wouldn't understand that phrase and how appropriate it is to him in so many ways. lol.
Vickers did try to mandate both Holloway and Shaw to report back to the ship once they find beings down there. So obviously she would have instructed the same thing to Milburn & Fifield, And that's what happened. When they found a dead alien body, they opted out and to go back to the ship. Milburn just pretended to be scared. Infact he was sitting close to the dead body. Fifield on the other way was genuinely scared (as we seen him nervous entering the dome also).
Dude. You are just adding you own fan fiction to flesh out the story and support your agument that your opinion should be universal and if other don't agree.... then they are dumb.
Quote
Dude. You are just adding you own fan fiction to flesh out the story and support your agument that your opinion should be universal and if other don't agree.... then they are dumb.
Not fan-fiction, dude but logical conjectures. If you can't deduce the cause of an event by simple common sense, its your bad.
Its a kind of a movie which doesn't spoon feed you with the obvious. I wonder how people would laugh at you if you keep sayin' 'fan-fiction' 'fan-fiction' 'fan-fiction' at discussion boards of movies like Shutter Island, There will be blood, The 39 Steps, The Third Man etc. just because something which is obvious and deduced by information coming from the movie & which is not shown in the movie.
You should better pop into the AVP & AVPR forums. That's your kind of movie it seems.
Fanwanking is very different from using smart thinking to connect the dots.
Connecting the dots in Prometheus would be for example deducing that the Hammerpedes are mutated worms. The transformation is not shown happening, the audience is required to put two and two together. There are worms in the goo+the goo mutates organisms = the worms mutated. There is quite a bit of connecting the dots required in Prometheus, and that is a good thing.
Fanwanking is inventing explanations to try and ignore flaws and errors in continuity. That's what you're mainly doing.
And don't get me wrong, fanwanking can involve smart thinking, if it makes the movie better for you that's great, it just doesn't make it a de facto great movie, and your explanations may work for you but they're not actual facts that should be deduced by smart audiences. In fact, the more you have to fanwank when watching a movie, the less "great" and "smart" the movie is. And there's a LOT of fanwanking required to enjoy Prometheus, as you are proving.
Let's take that example :
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 03, 2017, 07:00:16 AM
Everybody on the ship knew what happened to Shaw. Ford & Shaw would have had a confrontation also, just like Lambert & Ripley. It was just not shown in the movie. The film-makers thought of not spoon-feeding inessential details and extend the runtime to bore the smart audience.
I don't even know where to start with that one. How is it inessential to witness the reunion of two people when one of them was almost responsible for the other's death following the orders of a robot, all the more when said reunion is so they can go on another mission together with the same robot?! Because it should take seconds if these two supposedly SMART people had a confrontation for them to figure out something is wrong with David. So if a confrontation did happen you'd think a smart movie would have taken on a different path following that, given that Weyland relies so much on David.
Ford seems like a nice person and has actually worked with Shaw ( Engineer's head scene ), I actually would have been very interested in seeing her realise the full horror of what Shaw went through and how she was a part of it ( all the more that the actress is really good, just saw her this week in The Witch, made me all the more disappointed at how underused she was in Prometheus ).
So what you are deeming "inessential" is for me something that makes a movie worth watching. Seeing characters interact and having to go through complicated, tough situations and emotions is a big part of the fun when watching a smart movie. The aftermath of Shaw's C-sec shouldn't have been one line by David "impressive survival skills". Not showing anybody being concerned by the movie's protagonist being almost naked, bloody and stapled isn't smart. We need these people to show realistic human emotions to relate to them and actually feel involved when they die.
See, in Alien I actually cared about Lambert, because of all the scenes she had, and all the confrontations she had with the crew. She was acting like a realistic fragile person crumbling under pressure. So I was really into the movie and sad for Lambert when she died. That is good film making. And yet Lambert's death scene still has a "connect the dots" element to it as the clues are there for a smart audience to deduce that the Alien raped her. Smart filmmaking is knowing what to show and what not to show. The truth is that some of Prometheus is just NOT smart.
For you a confrontation between Shaw and Ford was inessential, and yet the result of your inessential scene not being there is that when Ford died I really didn't care or give a f**k ( and neither did Shaw ). Ripley being concerned for Lambert was a nice touch in Alien... but then again Alien IS a great movie.
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 03, 2017, 09:24:48 AM
Quote
Dude. You are just adding you own fan fiction to flesh out the story and support your agument that your opinion should be universal and if other don't agree.... then they are dumb.
Not fan-fiction, dude but logical conjectures. If you can't deduce the cause of an event by simple common sense, its your bad.
Its a kind of a movie which doesn't spoon feed you with the obvious. I wonder how people would laugh at you if you keep sayin' 'fan-fiction' 'fan-fiction' 'fan-fiction' at discussion boards of movies like Shutter Island, There will be blood, The 39 Steps, The Third Man etc. just because something which is obvious and deduced by information coming from the movie & which is not shown in the movie.
You should better pop into the AVP & AVPR forums. That's your kind of movie it seems.
Please don't insult me. I was not rude to you so don't be to me. You are again insinuating that another fan is stupid because they do not think the same as you. I do understand not being spoon fed. To be clear here. I don't hate on Prometheus. I like the ideas. I love the presentation. I think the execution is lacking. I certainly am not a fan of AVP or AVPR. Do not presume to know my preferences and again, do not be rude to me for no reason.
I am a huge fan of the films ( the ones which I have seen ) you have mentioned as examples of film that I clearly do not have the cognitive ability to digest.
I don't understand your problem with other people's opinions. Care to explain why you converse with people in such a 'dick' manner ?
Quote from: Beardomorph on Mar 03, 2017, 10:59:19 AM
Fanwanking is very different from using smart thinking to connect the dots.
Connecting the dots in Prometheus would be for example deducing that the Hammerpedes are mutated worms. The transformation is not shown happening, the audience is required to put two and two together. There are worms in the goo+the goo mutates organisms = the worms mutated. There is quite a bit of connecting the dots required in Prometheus, and that is a good thing.
Fanwanking is inventing explanations to try and ignore flaws and errors in continuity. That's what you're mainly doing.
And don't get me wrong, fanwanking can involve smart thinking, if it makes the movie better for you that's great, it just doesn't make it a de facto great movie, and your explanations may work for you but they're not actual facts that should be deduced by smart audiences. In fact, the more you have to fanwank when watching a movie, the less "great" and "smart" the movie is. And there's a LOT of fanwanking required to enjoy Prometheus, as you are proving.
Let's take that example :
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 03, 2017, 07:00:16 AM
Everybody on the ship knew what happened to Shaw. Ford & Shaw would have had a confrontation also, just like Lambert & Ripley. It was just not shown in the movie. The film-makers thought of not spoon-feeding inessential details and extend the runtime to bore the smart audience.
I don't even know where to start with that one. How is it inessential to witness the reunion of two people when one of them was almost responsible for the other's death following the orders of a robot, all the more when said reunion is so they can go on another mission together with the same robot?! Because it should take seconds if these two supposedly SMART people had a confrontation for them to figure out something is wrong with David. So if a confrontation did happen you'd think a smart movie would have taken on a different path following that, given that Weyland relies so much on David.
Ford seems like a nice person and has actually worked with Shaw ( Engineer's head scene ), I actually would have been very interested in seeing her realise the full horror of what Shaw went through and how she was a part of it ( all the more that the actress is really good, just saw her this week in The Witch, made me all the more disappointed at how underused she was in Prometheus ).
So what you are deeming "inessential" is for me something that makes a movie worth watching. Seeing characters interact and having to go through complicated, tough situations and emotions is a big part of the fun when watching a smart movie. The aftermath of Shaw's C-sec shouldn't have been one line by David "impressive survival skills". Not showing anybody being concerned by the movie's protagonist being almost naked, bloody and stapled isn't smart. We need these people to show realistic human emotions to relate to them and actually feel involved when they die.
See, in Alien I actually cared about Lambert. She was acting like a realistic fragile person crumbling under pressure. So I was really into the movie and sad for Lambert when she died. That is good film making. And yet Lambert's scene still has a "connect the dots" element to it as the clues are there for a smart audience to deduce that the Alien raped her. Smart filmmaking is knowing what to show and what not to show. The truth is that some of Prometheus is just NOT smart.
For you a confrontation between Shaw and Ford was inessential, and yet the result of your inessential scene not being there is that when Ford died I really didn't care or give a f**k ( and neither did Shaw ). Ripley being concerned for Lambert was a nice touch in Alien... but then again Alien IS a great movie.
Nicely put mate.
This is what happens now that IMDB's message boards are closed I guess.
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 03, 2017, 09:24:48 AM
You should better pop into the AVP & AVPR forums. That's your kind of movie it seems.
You've made a really good early impression. Since you seem incapable of putting across your own opinions without coming across as a condescending ass, please use the 7 days that I'm removing your ability to post to rethink how you put yourself across on these boards.
Quote from: Beardomorph on Mar 03, 2017, 10:59:19 AM
Ford seems like a nice person and has actually worked with Shaw ( Engineer's head scene ), I actually would have been very interested in seeing her realise the full horror of what Shaw went through and how she was a part of it [...]
Hmmm...now that you mention it, that would have made for good drama. I sometimes get so caught up in the "shiny-pretty" of the sets, I miss that kind of cue. Nice suggestion! :)
Quote from: SM on Mar 02, 2017, 09:05:42 PM
It's not like it's a massive leap though (even taking the deleted scene that helps explain it out of the equation).
On the bluray, do you remember deleted scene where this is referenced at?
The one where Janek talks to Vickers (after she torches Holloway) about how a weapons factory was compromised and obliterated while he was in the military.
I don't expect others to share my personal taste since I believe we all have the privilege to like what we wish and not be criticized for it.
For my personal taste, "Prometheus" is a top 20 all time science fiction film. Not in my top 10 but still very good.
In looking at the criticisms of the movie in this thread, it is true as one person mentioned, that these topics have been argued to death (on IMDb for instance). So, I won't go into the details.
- I'll only say this; if I put my nitpick microscope on "Prometheus", then I'll find about 6 flaws imo.
- But I'll also add that if I put my same nitpick scrutiny on even the great "2001", I can find a couple of flaws. (On the IMDb "2001" board they were never refuted.)
No movie is perfect imo.
I'm a huge fan of the Alien franchise (having seen "Alien" in a theater when it was first released). And one thing that "Prometheus" explored for me was Ridley's Scott's long held view of the Space Jockeys.
For instance;
QuoteRidley Scott in his director's commentary for the first Alien DVD, is that the Engineer ship in Alien was a "bomber" and that they used them as biogenic weapons to fight an ancient war against an unknown foe.
http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer (http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer)
Imo there is a multitude of clues in "Prometheus" about what the Space Jockeys/Engineers are involved in.
As a movie/TV science fiction fan ("Blade Runner", "2001", Star Trek, Babylon 5), I was intrigued by all the added information about the Alien franchise.
- I realize that for many, the fatal flaw with "Prometheus" is that it did not have a monster hunt as seen in the rest of the Alien franchise. I understand the disappointment and I don't criticize anyone for that.
- But I came in with an open mind about what Ridley Scott would do with "Prometheus"; and what I saw was a blend of "2001" images, an adventure like "Jurassic Park" and a mystery idea often found in Sherlock Holmes stories.
Since I like all of those things, "Prometheus" was my kind of science fiction movie.
Imo at least, ;)
Anyone who'd been paying attention to the pre-release publicity and then went into Prometheus expecting an Alien film has oly themselves to blame.
I also saw Prometheus as going for a more cerebral big question sort of feel. But where 2001 never verbally voiced any questions - it visually gave us clues, then visually pointed us towards answers, and left us to arrive at conclusion that may or may not have been Clarke and Kubrick's intention, but still could work for the individual viewer.
As has been said, Prometheus flat out asks a question, answers it, asks another question, then really doesn't go anywhere with it (both figuratively and literally in terms of the constant toing and froing between ship and temple).
Quote from: SM on Mar 06, 2017, 03:04:19 AM
I also saw Prometheus as going for a more cerebral big question sort of feel. But where 2001 never verbally voiced any questions - it visually gave us clues, then visually pointed us towards answers, and left us to arrive at conclusion that may or may not have been Clarke and Kubrick's intention, but still could work for the individual viewer.
As has been said, Prometheus flat out asks a question, answers it, asks another question, then really doesn't go anywhere with it (both figuratively and literally in terms of the constant toing and froing between ship and temple).
Here is my view of this. Of course I do not expect anyone to agree with me. I'm just sharing.
* Big question science fiction movies/TV can be seen as being symbolic of primal forces in the universe.
- With "2001" the space aliens who are represented by the monoliths can be viewed as a creative power.
The apes in The Dawn of Man sequence are shown to be helped along in their evolution by the space aliens/monolith.
At the end of "2001" Dave Bowman is transformed, in a sense reborn.
- All this points to an ultimate power of creation.
- Culturally in our world this is seen, as a positive creative force.
- This is a message which can be understood by a Western audience.
- But there is an opposite to creation which is destruction which is seen as an evil.
In "The Thing" (1982) the alien is an unrelenting infection which seems to be unstoppable.
It takes over, it mimics and by its nature is destructive.
This leads to a message of evil.
- Imo "Prometheus" is ultimately outside of that.
I'll begin with a question.
QuoteShaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
Naturally since Shaw's character is a Christian, she would want to know why the Engineers did this.
And much of the audience want to put the Engineers in the buckets of either creator (good) or destroyer (bad).
- However, the audience is given an answer which many of them may not have seen or may not want to accept.
From David;
QuoteDavid: The answer is irrelevant. Does it matter why they changed their minds?
And the statement which Ridley believes is key to "Prometheus";
QuoteDavid: Sometimes to create, one must first destroy.
* What is this? It is a concept of ultimate power in the universe which is foreign/strange to many westerners.
In Hinduism there is a creator (Brahma), a preserver (Vishnu) and a destroyer (Shiva).
It simply is the way of things from that tradition.
* In an interview, Ridley Scott covers a lot of ground including about the Engineer who sacrificed himself in the beginning of "Prometheus".
QuoteIf you parallel that idea with other sacrificial elements in history – which are clearly illustrated with the Mayans and the Incas – he would live for one year as a prince, and at the end of that year, he would be taken and donated to the gods in hopes of improving what might happen next year, be it with crops or weather, etcetera.
http://www.fandango.com/movie-news/interview-sir-ridley-scott-explains-prometheus-explores-our-past-and-teases-future-alien-stories-716238
* While some viewers are focused on getting an answer that is consistent with Christian or Jewish religion, Ridley wanted to go beyond that.
From Damon Lindelof;
QuoteYeah it's interesting, because one of the things we kept coming back to, and what Ridley really wanted to do, was how do we take creation myth? This is something that is in Christian-Judeo culture is Garden of Eden, God creates Adam and Eve, etc, etc. He was like, prior to that, I'm interested in Greco-Roman creation or Aztec creation where there are many gods and these gods basically make man out of themselves. This idea that they sacrifice themselves or take a piece of themselves and create man in their own image. I think that's very interesting. Can we do that on a sci-fi level? And so the opening of the movie is basically this idea of dissolving one's self, sacrificing one's own protoplasm or genetic material in order to become the birth of a new life form.
http://diymag.com/archive/a-long-prometheus-discussion-with-writer-damon-lindelof/
* Imo certain viewers are looking for an answer in "Prometheus" which is not intended by Ridley to be there.
- The Engineers create and destroy. That is who they are.
That is what David is pointing to where Shaw with her background cannot understand it.
- And the cultures that Ridley was referencing in the film; Greco-Roman, Aztec, Mayan, Inca; death is part of life, and destruction is part of creation.
This is why the Engineer does not respond positively to Weyland's speech in the extended / deleted version of the encounter or with David's explanation.
For the Engineers on LV-223, it was time for the humans on earth to die/be transformed.
* Many people I've discussed this with on IMDb have disagreed with me.
But that's how I see these issues in "Prometheus".
Imo at least. ;)
The point is though, Shaw wants to know why. The answer isn't irrelevant to her. Nor, by that point is it irrelevant o the audience. We want an answer, but don't even really get a hint.
"In order to create, one must first destroy" is a lazy cop-out of an answer. If they'd showed some other lifeform on the planet being killed after drinking from the river, that answer might've worked because it would show the Engineers wiping something out in favour of the new lifeform they've seeded.
I'm perfectly aware of the various faiths that have creation/ destruction cycles as I'm sure are many others, but I still find David's responses to be unsatisfying. With any luck there will be some more insight in Covenant. Even David and Shaw finding all the Engineers dead, leaving us with no answer, and thus leaving the meaning of our existence to be unknowable, would be a more satisfying denouement than the end of Prometheus. (A film I enjoy despite its shortcomings)
'PROMETHEUS' certainly has its merits. Enough to make it rewatchable - but it does demand preparation from the viewer to accept that it isn't a straight up and center 'ALIEN' movie. The tangents it takes us on are valuable expansions to the Universe and the symbolic and pseudo intellectual content breaths a much needed dimension into what would otherwise be another ho-hum space adventure.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it dovetails into the new 'ALIEN' movies. One of 'PROMETHEUS' apparent weaknesses is its sense of incompleteness. I am hoping when 'ALIEN: Covenant' is released, 'PROMETHEUS' can be appreciated in context a lot better, making it obvious it's a Prologue of sorts, difficult to fully appreciate on its own simply because we have yet to witness its further reaching implications.
While I doubt 'PROMETHEUS' can be considered a great Sci-Fi film on its own, once Scott and company have finished with this new trilogy, we may yet to see the 'ALIEN' saga become the greatest Sci-Fi movie series of all time.
It's just not enough to appreciate 'PROMETHEUS' strength when clearly its relevance to the series is not yet able to be fully appreciated by any audience. There's something much deeper and richer ultimately being offered here.
'ALIEN': Covenant' may end up being a blood bath of a movie but I suspect every drop of blood spilt in this upcoming movie will have meaning. Scott is a wily fox. He's reaching the end of his career. He's not going to settle for just another space slasher movie. He'll want to invest all of his philosophies, ideologies and symbolism into this epic so the world will appreciate him and these movies on his terms.
That started with 'PROMETHEUS' and it sure as Hell hasn't abated with this new movie, either.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: SM on Mar 06, 2017, 05:35:17 AM
The point is though, Shaw wants to know why. The answer isn't irrelevant to her. Nor, by that point is it irrelevant o the audience. We want an answer, but don't even really get a hint.
"In order to create, one must first destroy" is a lazy cop-out of an answer. If they'd showed some other lifeform on the planet being killed after drinking from the river, that answer might've worked because it would show the Engineers wiping something out in favour of the new lifeform they've seeded.
I'm perfectly aware of the various faiths that have creation/ destruction cycles as I'm sure are many others, but I still find David's responses to be unsatisfying. With any luck there will be some more insight in Covenant. Even David and Shaw finding all the Engineers dead, leaving us with no answer, and thus leaving the meaning of our existence to be unknowable, would be a more satisfying denouement than the end of Prometheus. (A film I enjoy despite its shortcomings)
As you wrote
"With any luck there will be some more insight in Covenant."The release date is May 17 this year. There won't be long to wait.
We will see what that movie says about the Space Jockey mystery.
In the meantime, we don't need to agree about the ending of "Prometheus".
Imo at least. ;)
PS. I have a reply to Windebieste which will have to wait until someone posts another comment to this thread.
Go for it bb-15
First, thanks to Russ840 for giving me the opportunity for my reply to Windebieste. :)
Quote from: windebieste on Mar 06, 2017, 07:57:04 AM
'PROMETHEUS' certainly has its merits. Enough to make it rewatchable - but it does demand preparation from the viewer to accept that it isn't a straight up and center 'ALIEN' movie. The tangents it takes us on are valuable expansions to the Universe and the symbolic and pseudo intellectual content breaths a much needed dimension into what would otherwise be another ho-hum space adventure.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it dovetails into the new 'ALIEN' movies. One of 'PROMETHEUS' apparent weaknesses is its sense of incompleteness. I am hoping when 'ALIEN: Covenant' is released, 'PROMETHEUS' can be appreciated in context a lot better, making it obvious it's a Prologue of sorts, difficult to fully appreciate on its own simply because we have yet to witness its further reaching implications.
While I doubt 'PROMETHEUS' can be considered a great Sci-Fi film on its own, once Scott and company have finished with this new trilogy, we may yet to see the 'ALIEN' saga become the greatest Sci-Fi movie series of all time.
It's just not enough to appreciate 'PROMETHEUS' strength when clearly its relevance to the series is not yet able to be fully appreciated by any audience. There's something much deeper and richer ultimately being offered here.
'ALIEN': Covenant' may end up being a blood bath of a movie but I suspect every drop of blood spilt in this upcoming movie will have meaning. Scott is a wily fox. He's reaching the end of his career. He's not going to settle for just another space slasher movie. He'll want to invest all of his philosophies, ideologies and symbolism into this epic so the world will appreciate him and these movies on his terms.
That started with 'PROMETHEUS' and it sure as Hell hasn't abated with this new movie, either.
-Windebieste.
I appreciate the insights;
"The tangents it takes us on are valuable expansions to the Universe and the symbolic and pseudo intellectual content breaths a much needed dimension into what would otherwise be another ho-hum space adventure."This is the way I looked at it. I know for some that it was painful to sit through more of a science fiction / Star Trek type of adventure than a more focused monster hunt film. However, "Prometheus" did what the previous franchise follow ups were not able to do; it greatly opened up the Alien universe in terms of time and distance.
"There's something much deeper and richer ultimately being offered here."Absolutely, as I posted before about Scott's long held insights into the backstory of the Space Jockey;
QuoteRidley Scott in his director's commentary for the first Alien DVD, is that the Engineer ship in Alien was a "bomber" and that they used them as biogenic weapons to fight an ancient war against an unknown foe.
http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer (http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer)
Ridley's vision about "Alien" is pretty vast. The only thing comparable which quickly comes to mind in popular dramatized science fiction is the Babylon 5 backstory with the Vorlons and the Shadows.
"Scott is a wily fox... He'll want to invest all of his philosophies, ideologies and symbolism into this epic so the world will appreciate him and these movies on his terms.""Prometheus" certainly sets the stage for that. The view of the Space Jockeys/Engineers is now not boxed in; such as with the War of the Worlds trope of greedy aliens which is carried on with Independence Day.
- The Engineers are certainly antagonists but not in an easily recognized form.
Ridley can bring back the murderous Xenomorphs (and possibly Deacons) in Covenant but at the same time touch on grander ideas concerning what the history of the galaxy is about in this franchise.
Imo at least. ;)
QuoteConnecting the dots in Prometheus would be for example deducing that the Hammerpedes are mutated worms. The transformation is not shown happening, the audience is required to put two and two together. There are worms in the goo+the goo mutates organisms = the worms mutated. There is quite a bit of connecting the dots required in Prometheus, and that is a good thing.
Same goes with 'Vickers knowingly recruits incompetent scientists'.
-Vickers being negative towards her Dad's intention of living longer
-Vickers saying 'For those of you I hired personally, it's nice to see you again' during the mission briefing scene
-Vickers asking Shaw & Holloway to not report back to the ship once they find 'beings' down there (pyramids)
-Milburn & Fifield opting out after they found a dead alien 'being' and to go back to the ship.
Now, connect the dots.
And what the hell is 'Fanwanking' ?! That's what I call insulting.
I'm not saying David went to Mars to get an upgrade before joining the mission, while Ford got a divorce because her husband wouldn't let her sign for the misson and stay away for 5 friggin' years and that Vickers was a Replicant specially designed by Tyrell as a gift to Weyland and stuffs like that! That's what you could call 'Fanwanking'
QuoteAnd don't get me wrong, fanwanking can involve smart thinking, if it makes the movie better for you that's great, it just doesn't make it a de facto great movie, and your explanations may work for you but they're not actual facts that should be deduced by smart audiences. In fact, the more you have to fanwank when watching a movie, the less "great" and "smart" the movie is. And there's a LOT of fanwanking required to enjoy Prometheus, as you are proving.
If forming logical deductions & conjecture based on the information coming from the movie, is what you call 'Fanwanking', I'm glad that you're happy in the world of your personalised dictionary.
QuoteFor you a confrontation between Shaw and Ford was inessential, and yet the result of your inessential scene not being there is that when Ford died I really didn't care or give a f**k ( and neither did Shaw ). Ripley being concerned for Lambert was a nice touch in Alien... but then again Alien IS a great movie.
Situation in Alien and Prometheus was different. Lambert/Ripley confrontation occurred in the first half and the pacing was slow. Shaw/Ford dispute arose in the second half just when the movie gained its full pace. Weyland's surprise occurred and the movie's focus went to meeting with the Engineer. It was important to take care of other quick layers like Janek indicating Shaw that he will not let the black stuff reach Earth at any cost (hence balancing his character motivation when he chose to do a suicide attack, otherwise the audience would've gone WTF!) and David revealing Shaw that the Engineers were heading for Earth etc. A confrontation between Shaw and Ford would have been out of the way and decreased the tempo. Its not as essential like Chewbecca not hugging princess Leia at the end of Star Wars: TFA, because Ford wasn't that of a focussed character to care for.
Scott is great at making movie 'universes'. You can
fanwank your confrontation scene in your mind, it won't be hard for you.
Whereas, for those who liked Prometheus, we got what was
needed to be shown in the film.
Great. Your back and being rude again. Also mistaking your opinion for fact again.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 06, 2017, 05:16:51 AMQuoteShaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
Naturally since Shaw's character is a Christian, she would want to know why the Engineers did this.
This is ultimately the essence of the movie and the most superficial part of the film. Ridley Scott in his later years seems to be asking questions that have already been raised and answered in much more profound and elegant ways. Prometheus did comparatively little with this concept. The Book of Job gives a much better scenario and account than Prometheus, and answers this most basic of questions in a significantly more meaningful way than Ridley Scott could ever do.
Foxcatcher; I'm going to just focus on this fanwanking claim compared with explanations by filmmakers.
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 25, 2017, 12:37:11 PM
QuoteAnd don't get me wrong, fanwanking can involve smart thinking, if it makes the movie better for you that's great, it just doesn't make it a de facto great movie, and your explanations may work for you but they're not actual facts that should be deduced by smart audiences. In fact, the more you have to fanwank when watching a movie, the less "great" and "smart" the movie is. And there's a LOT of fanwanking required to enjoy Prometheus, as you are proving.
If forming logical deductions & conjecture based on the information coming from the movie, is what you call 'Fanwanking', I'm glad that you're happy in the world of your personalised dictionary.
There is a difference between speculations by fans / viewers and people bringing up explanations which are based on what happened in the film and backed up by the movie's filmmakers in interviews / film disk commentaries and movie disk documentaries.
Such film explanations are not fan fiction ("fanwanking").
- Example with "Blade Runner"; there is a book about it called "Future Noir" (I own a copy). In that book Ridley Scott gives his explanations about BR.
Repeating the BR explanations by Ridley is not fan fiction ("fanwanking").
- Another example; "2001"; Kubrick did interviews about it and the co-writer of the script, Arthur C. Clarke, wrote a "2001" novel while the movie was being made. Referencing explanations about "2001" which agrees with Kubrick / Clarke is not fan fiction ("fanwanking").
- An example from this "Prometheus" board in the thread titled; "LV-223 and LV-426 Orbit the same planet!!". The claim in the thread title is supported by Ridley Scott and the Fox studio in their websites and comics. That thread title is not fan fiction ("fanwanking").
** My point has nothing to do with whether someone dislikes "Prometheus" or not. Everyone has the privilege to their own personal taste and if that leads to a dislike of "Prometheus", so be it.
- My point has to do with how comments about films are labeled and knowing the difference between fan fiction and explanations which are backed up by the filmmakers.
Imo at least. ;-)
PS. I see that Olde has just quoted one of my comments in this thread. I'll reply after someone makes another post here. ;)
If you have to explain it afterwards to your viewers then your movie is flawed. A normal person has not seen the comics/websites and probably never will. That is why most view the movies as "canon". It has to make sense with the first view. Why would anyone see a movie a second time because he didn't get it the first?
I think you are "white knighting" Prometheus a bit too much. But if you personally enjoy it more after these "explanations" then power to you. I rather forget it...
Ergo, Vis a Vis, Concordently... Imo at least :P
QuoteWhy would anyone see a movie a second time because he didn't get it the first?
I have. If I watched a film and thought I was missing something I'd watch it again. I watched 2001 a number of times before it clicked. I only 'got' Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now at a surface superficial level when I first watched them. I've tried Eraserhead a couple of times but that's quite enough...
I do agree with your first sentence though.
Thinking you missed something is not what I mean. I also enjoy watching movies that don't sink in first viewing, multiple times.
BR / Apocalypse now / 2001 are great movies, even if you don't get all the things happening on screen. Pacing / story telling etc it feels like a complete picture. Prometheus does not.
"Interesting, I would like to know more about this development. Maybe it has something to do with events earlier in the movie. I would have to rewatch it." VS "why the fck is this character acting so bloody weird, it's like something got cut from the movie and I am missing something."
The first is explained by rewatching it, the second is explained by either commentary / comics / fanboys and white knights. (not the right way of doing things...)
IMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEHHHhhhh
Prometheus is another one I watched a few times (and still watch).
In that instance though, yes, after multiple viewings I realised I hadn't missed anything.
Quote from: The_Foxcatcher on Mar 25, 2017, 12:37:11 PM
And what the hell is 'Fanwanking' ?! That's what I call insulting.
Stroking one's phallus to a work of art. Is it still insulting?
Quote from: Olde on Mar 25, 2017, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 06, 2017, 05:16:51 AMQuoteShaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
Naturally since Shaw's character is a Christian, she would want to know why the Engineers did this.
This is ultimately the essence of the movie and the most superficial part of the film.
There is more to the "essence" of "Prometheus" than this statement by Shaw which I explained in the my post which you quoted from (for instance with David's statements).
Quote from: Olde on Mar 25, 2017, 09:20:11 PM
Ridley Scott in his later years seems to be asking questions that have already been raised and answered in much more profound and elegant ways. Prometheus did comparatively little with this concept. The Book of Job gives a much better scenario and account than Prometheus, and answers this most basic of questions in a significantly more meaningful way than Ridley Scott could ever do.
1. There is a difference between a religious/philosophical book and a film.
Movies, especially science fiction films, are a visual medium which because of that, can only briefly touch on philosophical ideas compared with books.
- For instance the excellent "2001" can only briefly reference Nietzsche's ideas on evolution and the 'Overman' through music and disconnected sequences. "2001" is no equal in depth to Nietzsche's writings on these topics.
- "Blade Runner" can touch on what it means to be human but is not a complete philosophical statement regarding this which has been written about for thousands of years.
2. Considering the limits of film, still a movie can be consistent with concepts which are mentioned in a book.
- Olde points to the Book of Job and states that it
"answers this most basic of questions in a significantly more meaningful way".
And yet the answers from David in "Prometheus" are consistent with some of the ideas in the Book of Job.
- From the Book of Job (which I have read BTW);
QuoteGod speaks from a whirlwind...
"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Job makes a brief response, but God's monologue resumes, never addressing Job directly.[14] In 42:1–6 Job makes his final response, confessing God's power and his own lack of knowledge "of things beyond me which I did not know".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
* The questions addressed here and overall in the Book of Job are;
- Why is God at first good to Job and then why does God allow calamities to be brought down upon this man?
This is the question debated in the Book of Job which is echoed in Shaw's question;
QuoteShaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
* What are some of the answers in the Book of Job?
- First, what God does is beyond human comprehension. (And Job accepts that.)
This is not contradicted by what David says in "Prometheus".
One idea which David presents (in his reply to Shaw) is that the Engineer's motivation is not worth knowing.
One reason for this is because David realizes that the motivations of the Engineers cannot be known (echoing this part of the Book of Job).
Another reason (which I discuss below) is that the motivation of the Engineers can be underwhelming which is consistent with another part of the Book of Job.
QuoteDavid: The answer is irrelevant. Does it matter why they changed their minds?
- Second, in the Book of Job, God was involved in a debate (with Satan) about Job as part of a test of faith.
The result of the debate essentially sets up an experiment; will Job remain true if everything is taken away from him?
God decides to make Job suffer to see what this human will do.
Again from Wikipedia;
QuoteSatan answers that Job is pious only because God has blessed him; if God were to take away everything that Job had, then he would surely curse God. God gives Satan permission to take Job's wealth and kill all of his children and servants,
This idea of God as the experimenter is not a comforting answer. It is underwhelming, almost trivial. Yet it is part of what takes place in the Book of Job.
- And this idea of an uncomforting answer to the motivation of a godlike being is consistent with David saying that knowing the Engineer's motivations was irrelevant (because it's trivial) and David also tells Holloway that the motivation of the Engineers may be disappointing;
QuoteHolloway: What we hoped to achieve was to meet our makers. To get answers. Why they even made us in the first place.
David: Why do you think your people made me?
Holloway: We made you because we could.
David: Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?
- Godlike beings doing things because they are curious, because they want to see what happens, that is a core idea in doing experiments.
Lindelof brings up the experimenter idea in the writer's commentary (on the Blu-ray from about 1:38).
QuoteLindelof; And David just basically gives his own theory which is, well, in order to create, we must first destroy. And so whether they were experimenting, the petri-dish theory,...
And this is consistent with the Book of Job.
3. Looking at it as a whole, one final answer from the Book of Job is that God is a creator and God is also a destroyer.
God in the text points to the mysteries of existence and the universe.
And the reality of life and the universe, which God is pointing to, is that it involves creation and destruction.
They go hand in hand.
And this fits David's summary of the efforts of the Engineers.
QuoteDavid: Sometimes to create, one must first destroy.
4. Finally, I'll again point out; Films do not replace libraries of books about religion and philosophy.
Movies can only touch on religious / philosophical topics due to the nature of the medium.
But the brief references in a movie can be consistent with the more extensive exploration of ideas in a book.
That is the situation between the Book of Job and "Prometheus". The film is consistent with the book.
Imo at least. ;)
PS. For a video essay which discusses concepts about God which can be considered based on what is brought up in "Prometheus", (as I mentioned in another thread), I recommend going to the "Renegade Cut" YouTube channel and watching its video about "Prometheus".
PPS. Hemi has responded to one of my comments. I'd be most happy to reply in a post about that as soon as there is a comment in this thread after this one. ;)
Pull the trigger dude.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2017, 10:19:58 AM
QuoteWhy would anyone see a movie a second time because he didn't get it the first?
I have. If I watched a film and thought I was missing something I'd watch it again. I watched 2001 a number of times before it clicked. I only 'got' Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now at a surface superficial level when I first watched them. I've tried Eraserhead a couple of times but that's quite enough...
I do agree with your first sentence though.
Eraserhead is more of a mood piece than anything, you either feel it or not. I watched it first in 2006 or 2007, it immediately grabbed me and never let go.
is a good movie with some great moments, is not terrible and is not filled with plot holes like some people think, and it needs the deleted scenes back in, but all around is a good movie, not great, not bad
How would the deleted scenes improve it?
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM
Quote from: Olde on Mar 25, 2017, 09:20:11 PM
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 06, 2017, 05:16:51 AMQuoteShaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
Naturally since Shaw's character is a Christian, she would want to know why the Engineers did this.
This is ultimately the essence of the movie and the most superficial part of the film.
There is more to the "essence" of "Prometheus" than this statement by Shaw which I explained in the my post which you quoted from (for instance with David's statements).
Is there? Is there is more to the "essence" of
Prometheus than the fundamental question of human existence, "
why are we here?"? A question that by your own admission is out of place for a movie to even answer because of the limitation of the medium? Oh please do go on. Because a number of other stupid things, such as geologists smoking pot, a fossilized head exploding after being poked with electrical prods, and a giant tentacle monster faceraping a giant albino could possibly be contributing more to this essence of the movie and I wouldn't want to overlook them.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM
1. There is a difference between a religious/philosophical book and a film.
Movies, especially science fiction films, are a visual medium which because of that, can only briefly touch on philosophical ideas compared with books.
- For instance the excellent "2001" can only briefly reference Nietzsche's ideas on evolution and the 'Overman' through music and disconnected sequences. "2001" is no equal in depth to Nietzsche's writings on these topics.
- "Blade Runner" can touch on what it means to be human but is not a complete philosophical statement regarding this which has been written about for thousands of years.
True, but it goes to my fundamental point that if the medium is unable to actually meaningfully address these questions, merely asking or evoking them is unacceptable. It cannot act like a smart film if at the very least it doesn't even offer an original interpretation of an answer. I do not dispute your claim:
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM
2. Considering the limits of film, still a movie can be consistent with concepts which are mentioned in a book.
This is true. The 1997 film Starship Troopers is a much smarter film than people give it credit for, as it offers a bleak and sad interpretation of what life might be like under a totalitarian, fascist regime that praises violence as its solution to problems. It's not a great film, but it does what it sets out to do (answers a question).
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM- Olde points to the Book of Job and states that it "answers this most basic of questions in a significantly more meaningful way".
And yet the answers from David in "Prometheus" are consistent with some of the ideas in the Book of Job.
The answers are consistent because the Book of Job is a profound work of literature (some would say scripture) in a more poetic, philosophical, and meaningful way, and Ridley Scott and other non-nihilists don't know how to offer an interpretation that both answers mankind's most basic question and is also original (e.g., strays from the answer offered in the Book of Job).
One of the key differences between
Job and
Prometheus is that Job actually gets an answer. Shaw doesn't.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM* The questions addressed here and overall in the Book of Job are;
- Why is God at first good to Job and then why does God allow calamities to be brought down upon this man?
This is the question debated in the Book of Job which is echoed in Shaw's question;
QuoteShaw: They created us. Then they tried to kill us. They changed their minds. I deserve to know why.
Two things. 1) While that is the question in
Job, a more basic and not inconsistent reading is Job and his friends'
desire to know why God does what He does. The situation is analogous to Shaw, who wants to know why the Engineers created us (i.e., why God created Man, or why God punishes Man, why God punished Job, etc.). 2) With five words, Shaw completely misses the entire point of
Job, when she says, "I deserve to know why." Saying she deserves to know why is the same as playing God. Who gave her, or anyone for that matter, the right to know why God did what He did? This is the underlying message of
Job, that mortals do not deserve to know divine answers. This is the key difference. Human existence may be just an experiment by God, but His reasoning is not for us to know.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM* What are some of the answers in the Book of Job?
- First, what God does is beyond human comprehension. (And Job accepts that.)
This is not contradicted by what David says in "Prometheus".
One idea which David presents (in his reply to Shaw) is that the Engineer's motivation is not worth knowing.
Shaw doesn't seem like the kind of person who would ever latch on to that idea.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PMOne reason for this is because David realizes that the motivations of the Engineers cannot be known (echoing this part of the Book of Job).
While this of course does echo
Job, it doesn't make for good entertainment, or an original interpretation (as I said before).
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PMAnother reason (which I discuss below) is that the motivation of the Engineers can be underwhelming which is consistent with another part of the Book of Job.
QuoteDavid: The answer is irrelevant. Does it matter why they changed their minds?
I'm going to skip a beat and bring in another David quote on a similar subject.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PMQuoteHolloway: What we hoped to achieve was to meet our makers. To get answers. Why they even made us in the first place.
David: Why do you think your people made me?
Holloway: We made you because we could.
David: Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?
I have a real problem with this line, which it seems that many viewers have a hard-on for, as it pretends to be smart. First of all, do I even need to address the question of how or why David knows what disappointment is? He's a computer, he follows programming. How does he know what "disappointment" is? His retort to Shaw indicates that he
himself is disappointed or dissatisfied with the answer instead of taking it in as data. His response is making an ethical judgement on her information, that "because we could" is not a valuable enough reason. He could have equally reacted with gratitude. Or he could have accepted it neutrally, with neither acceptance nor dissatisfaction, because he's a frickin' robot who has no emotions.
Secondly, even if David did have emotions (which he doesn't, because he's a machine), it also assumes that humans would also react in disappointment, even though millenia of human history have proven that people make up their own
raisons d'être. In fact, the film not only shows that there's nothing preventing Shaw from refusing this answer (since she is a Christian, after all), but actively tells us that
she would create her own answer, in the form of one of the film's pivotal lines "It's what I choose to believe." On separate occasions, she has been shown that even if she's unhappy with information, she can just choose to believe whatever she wants (for instance, the fact that she's still a Christian even though by the movie's logic, she should by all accounts be an atheist).
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PMAnd this is consistent with the Book of Job.
I don't have a problem with the movie's "consistency" with the Book of Job, because I've read it before. I'd like to experience something new, different, and original, though.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM3. Looking at it as a whole, one final answer from the Book of Job is that God is a creator and God is also a destroyer.
God in the text points to the mysteries of existence and the universe.
And the reality of life and the universe, which God is pointing to, is that it involves creation and destruction.
They go hand in hand.
And this fits David's summary of the efforts of the Engineers.
QuoteDavid: Sometimes to create, one must first destroy.
This is another thing people point to. It's more in line with some religions than others, but there is no real point of it in Prometheus. Remember, at a certain point in the movie, they have to have yet another race against the clock to stop some big bad aliens from coming to Earth to destroy it (it was already old in Alien: Resurrection). The problem is we never get a reasoning for not only humanity's creation, but also its destruction. Maybe the creation was because it was an experiment, that's fine, but that's not reason enough for its destruction. You can't just pose these questions as facts and expect the viewer to just accept any old arbitrary answer. Because we're smarter than that. We know that it's to create movie tension. You can't just tell the viewer the intentions and expect them to go along with it because we know that there has to be some kind of dramatic tension to keep the plot moving, otherwise it's a boring movie. And it still is, because humanity's destruction doesn't mean much when the director just posed these existential questions and answered them by having a tall albino arbitrarily rip an android's head off in response.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 27, 2017, 07:17:49 PM4. Finally, I'll again point out; Films do not replace libraries of books about religion and philosophy.
Movies can only touch on religious / philosophical topics due to the nature of the medium.
But the brief references in a movie can be consistent with the more extensive exploration of ideas in a book.
That is the situation between the Book of Job and "Prometheus". The film is consistent with the book.
Imo at least. ;)
If a film cannot and
will not answer, or at least
offer an interesting, original interpretation of pivotal questions that, yes, border on the religious (religion is partly founded on answering these questions), then it should not bring them up in the first place. If it does, it certainly should not be rewarded or praised for simply asking the question "Why?" and then evading any answer. If it is going to be entertainment, then it must entertain. If it is going to pose serious questions and take itself seriously, it must be prepared to be compared to one of the big boys: religious and philosophical texts.
Prometheus does neither: it takes itself seriously in an intellectual masturbation session until it has to actually contend with much more intelligent works, at which point people find any reason they can to excuse it from comparison. If it's not going to take itself seriously, then why should I? It should be treated it for what it is: a masturbatory space novella.
Lastly, nothing you said contradicted or rebutted what I said. I said that the Book of Job answered some of humanity's oldest and most fundamental existential questions in a much more interesting and elegant way. I will also say now that it does so in a much more believable way than in the scenario offered in
Prometheus, regardless of one's beliefs in God. That
Prometheus suggests similar possibilities for these answers as in
Job shouldn't be a mark of excellence or even adequacy. What few answers it has, but more often than not its mere diversions to actual answers, are mediocre and sub-standard, which is why the movie will be remembered more as a failure to reach its potential than as any kind of accomplished film.
David knows what disappointment is without actually feeling it.
Alien Covenant will make Prometheus better. Im a big fan of Prometheus, shortcomings aside, its one of the best looking films ever made imo. Love it or hate it, you can't deny its one of the most thought provoking and talked about movies in recent years for sure
Quote from: SM on Mar 28, 2017, 07:21:36 AM
David knows what disappointment is without actually feeling it.
How do you know? As I said, his response seems to indicate that he
feels disappointment; he could have equally reacted with gratitude, wonder, amazement, confusion, anger, sorrow, joy, or pretty much any other emotion. But he highlights disappointment. Why? He's a machine.
QuoteHow do you know?
Because he says so and he's correct. It would be disappointing for there to be some sort of creator who just made us because he could.
There was also the David ad where he says he understands human emotions even though he doesn't feel them himself.
Quote from: Hemi on Mar 27, 2017, 09:35:58 AM
If you have to explain it afterwards to your viewers then your movie is flawed.
I agree this is true for some viewers. And for viewers who want a clearly understood main story, the Alien movies (without Prometheus") and the AVP films fit that description.
But personal taste can be different depending on the individual.
There is a kind of science fiction movie where the main story can have parts which are not clear.
Some people like these kinds of science-fiction films where a person will have questions after the first viewing.
"Prometheus" is that kind of film. And it is the first of this kind in the Alien franchise.
Examples of these kinds of more vague science-fiction films include; "2001", "Blade Runner" (both major influences on "Prometheus"), "Solaris", "Brazil", "12 Monkeys", "Matrix Reloaded", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Inception".
QuoteA normal person has not seen the comics/websites and probably never will...
It has to make sense with the first view. Why would anyone see a movie a second time because he didn't get it the first?
LOL! ;D
I'm not going to touch this "normal" label.
- I'll just say this. A lot of people on this website are huge fans of the Alien franchise. And that includes me.
I have listened to all the commentaries for the Alien movies, I've checked out Blu-ray extras for all the Alien films, i've read interviews by the filmmakers of the Alien movies. I've checked out the artwork and production designs for the Alien films.
* And I know that many people on this website are much bigger fans of the Alien movies than I am.
I know that some people here know much more than I do about these movies.
- People who are huge fans of SF films usually ask questions about the story/characters. They explore the world of the SF franchise.
Same is true for me with "2001", "Blade Runner", the Matrix franchise, Star Wars and Star Trek.
QuoteThat is why most view the movies as "canon".
I'll clarify my previous comment and include canon.
1. The Alien films are canon. (That includes special editions.)
2. The extended universe (film maker's comments, studio websites and comics) can be canon if specific information about the films is given and is accepted as canon by the studio/filmmaker.
- For instance L-223 orbits the same planet as LV-426. That's canon even though it's not in any of the films.
Some EU stuff is not canon. It depends.
3. Filmmakers can also give their explanations about their movie's story in commentaries, interviews, Blu-ray extras. This is not fan fiction. These are filmmaker explanations. Kubrick, Clarke, Ridley Scott, Cameron and so on have done this.
4. Separated from all of that are viewer reactions to movies which may or may not lead to fan fiction.
5. Fan fiction are speculations by viewers about movies which are not supported by the film, the EU and the filmmakers.
An example is the claim that a film was all a dream when there is no clear evidence for that in the film, the EU or by the filmmakers.
QuoteI think you are "white knighting" Prometheus a bit too much. But if you personally enjoy it more after these "explanations" then power to you. I rather forget it...
It's all personal taste. Some people think that "Alien 3" is the best Alien movie. Some viewers didn't like it.
No one is right or wrong about their personal taste.
QuoteImo at least :P
Same here.
Imo at least. ;)
PS. I'm enjoying this thread. I expect more comments to follow and so I plan to post more replies. ;)
Quote from: SM on Mar 29, 2017, 12:31:13 AM
Because he says so and he's correct. It would be disappointing for there to be some sort of creator who just made us because he could.
There was also the David ad where he says he understands human emotions even though he doesn't feel them himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvXKN5Fz_OE
I disagree with pretty much everything you say there. Put I've seen enough posts to know that nothing I say will ever sway you so I'm not going to bother.
I'm open to having my mind changed if someone has something intelligent to add.
to Olde; with all due respect, this imo is the key to your POV.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
...it doesn't make for good entertainment...
If it is going to be entertainment, then it must entertain.
This is personal taste which points to an emotional reaction.
"Prometheus" didn't entertain you. You didn't feel right about it.
That's your privilege of course.
But a detailed argument (with facts / references) cannot be built very well on what emotionally feels right.
If emotion is the starting point, then arguments will follow which support that feeling even if the points being made are contradictory.
And that is what's happened here imo.
There really isn't much I can do in this discussion except point this out.
- When some basic facts have been established in our discussion, they get contradicted all in the service of "Prometheus" not being entertaining and so it must be bad. (No offense. Roger Ebert had this style of doing movie reviews. Lots of people do it.) ;)
* With these discussions it usually ends up with me agreeing to disagree and then moving on.
- But since you put in the effort, I'll post some responses even though imo it won't get very far.
1. Movies which just address philosophical questions are "unacceptable". Not true imo.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
True, but it goes to my fundamental point that if the medium is unable to actually meaningfully address these questions, merely asking or evoking them is unacceptable...
I said that the Book of Job answered some of humanity's oldest and most fundamental existential questions in a much more interesting and elegant way.
Imo that is a pretty harsh argument to be making against the film medium.
- "Blade Runner" (or "Solaris") can't fully address the question of what it means to be human; so by your reasoning that topic should not be brought up in "Blade Runner" (or "Solaris") and by extension, those films should not have been made.
- I do not see myself exaggerating here.
To me the world would be a poorer place if these kinds of questions were not asked in science fiction movies.
2. Films which reference complex philosophical questions really can't give original answers. The topics have been covered for hundreds to thousands of years in books about philosophy.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
...It cannot act like a smart film if at the very least it doesn't even offer an original interpretation of an answer.
This is another imo unrealistic expectation of the role of science fiction films (or even movies in general) compared with the great philosophical works.
- I don't see any movie coming up with a better interpretation of why bad things happen to good people than the Book of Job.
Some drama films have referenced the ideas in the Book of Job; like "A Serious Man" by the Coen brothers or "Crimes and Misdemeanors" by Woody Allen.
Again, "2001" cannot surpass Nietzsche's writings about the 'Overman' and evolution.
* The best that movies can do (especially science fiction films) is reference the great works of literature and philosophy.
3. There is a difference between repeating a historical trope and referencing a philosophy concept.
And repeating a historical trope is not original.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
This is true. The 1997 film Starship Troopers is a much smarter film than people give it credit for, as it offers a bleak and sad interpretation of what life might be like under a totalitarian, fascist regime that praises violence as its solution to problems.
Agreed. "Starship Troopers" is a good satire by Verhoeven about fascism.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
It's not a great film, but it does what it sets out to do (answers a question).
* That is an apples to oranges comparison.
- The oppression of fascism is a known fact in the history of our world.
"Starship Troopers" is not trying to explore one of the great philosophical questions like "2001", "Blade Runner" or "Solaris".
* And secondly, "Starship Troopers" is not original. The story of the film came from a novel.
And the glories of fascism existed in film before the book such as in the Nazi documentaries like "Triumph of the Will".
4. Both Job and Shaw get an answer.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
One of the key differences between Job and Prometheus is that Job actually gets an answer. Shaw doesn't.
Not correct.
- The motives (or lack of motives) of the Engineers are understood pretty well by David who can understand the Engineer language well enough to work their technology and communicate with an Engineer.
(The idea that David would understand the Engineers originally came from the beginning of script development by Jon Spaihts.)
- And David has given answers about the Engineers (which echoes the Book of Job) to Holloway and to Shaw.
- It is just that Holloway and Shaw don't want to accept those answers.
5. Both Job and Shaw believe they "deserve to know why".
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
2) With five words, Shaw completely misses the entire point of Job, when she says, "I deserve to know why." Saying she deserves to know why is the same as playing God.
I don't think that misses the points of the Book of Job.
There are many points in that book and Shaw's desire;
"I deserve to know why." is consistent with one of them.
From the Book of Job (chapter 6 v 11, chapter 10 v 2 and chapter 30 v 20) where Job's statements clearly show that he believes that he deserves to know why he has been mistreated by God.
Quote6
11 Therefore I will not keep silent;
I will speak out in the anguish of my spirit,
I will complain in the bitterness of my soul...
10
2 I say to God: Do not declare me guilty,
but tell me what charges you have against me.
30
20 "I cry out to you, God, but you do not answer;
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
This is the underlying message of Job, that mortals do not deserve to know divine answers.
First; That is not the only message of the Book of Job otherwise the book would be one sentence long.
The Book of Job is a dialogue by people who do think that they deserve to know why bad things happen to good people.
- Shaw's belief that she deserves to know is no different from the people in the debate in the Book of Job.
Second; the conclusion by God to Job is that humans cannot know the ultimate answers of creation and destruction.
- That is consistent with what David has told Holloway and Shaw.
Third; Importantly, only Job gets this message in the book. The reader does not know how the others in the book's debate would have reacted to God's words. Maybe some would have rejected it.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
This is the key difference.
There is very little "difference" (considering that one is a religious book and the other is a SF film).
The information given by David to Holloway and Shaw is consistent with the final message in the Book of Job.
6. The conclusion of the Book of Job is that it "is not for us to know" about the answers to the question of destruction. That is consistent with "Prometheus".
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
Human existence may be just an experiment by God, but His reasoning is not for us to know.
Which is consistent with what David tells Holloway and Shaw.
7. In science fiction it is theoretically possible that AI can detect human emotions and this idea in "Prometheus" is fairly original.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
First of all, do I even need to address the question of how or why David knows what disappointment is? He's a computer, he follows programming.
I could explain through psychology and AI how a computer could understand the responses of a person as well as a human therapist. (In science fiction the super advanced androids, at the end of the film "AI" by Spielberg, could understand certain emotions. The AI in "Her" was intuitive for awhile.) It's a possibility.
- Secondly, you have made the point that "Prometheus" should present things which are original.
The idea of an android being able to accurately detect human emotions is pretty original.
It doesn't fall into the common trope of AI being flawed in understanding humans or having evil intentions in studying humanity.
"Prometheus" brings something fairly new to the SF film genre.
8. The understanding of Holloway was pretty obvious and David's retort was appropriate.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
His retort to Shaw indicates that he himself is disappointed or dissatisfied with the answer instead of taking it in as data. His response is making an ethical judgement on her information, that "because we could" is not a valuable enough reason.
The retort is to Holloway.
In this science fiction world David has the ability to know what would disappoint Holloway.
- And from my experience, considering Holloway's drunk behavior and his pleading for answers, it doesn't take a brilliant therapist to figure out that what David said was correct.
- Also, there are many people in our world who would be disappointed with the idea that a supreme being just created life on earth on a whim or because of an experiment.
- David's conclusion is not difficult to make.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
Secondly, even if David did have emotions (which he doesn't, because he's a machine), it also assumes that humans would also react in disappointment, even though millenia of human history have proven that people make up their own raisons d'être.
This is not a difficult situation to understand and a very smart android would not need emotions to figure it out.
Again, it's Holloway. He's drunk. He's disappointed because he didn't get a mystical answer.
It's obvious imo.
9. Argument contradiction; the Book of Job has no "point" in the end in terms of an answer.
"Prometheus" is consistent with the Book of Job in that there is no "point" for God's destruction.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
This is another thing people point to. It's more in line with some religions than others, but there is no real point of it in Prometheus.
There is no "point" at the end of the Book of Job as you've admitted.
Your argument is not consistent.
You ask for something which you know is not there.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
Remember, at a certain point in the movie, they have to have yet another race against the clock to stop some big bad aliens from coming to Earth to destroy it (it was already old in Alien: Resurrection). The problem is we never get a reasoning for not only humanity's creation, but also its destruction.
That's not a problem at all.
The Book of Job also does not answer those questions as you've written.
You know there is no answer and yet you expect an answer?
- What are you looking for? "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" where a space alien that is pretending to be God asks for a starship?
- Again, you are contradicting your own argument.
There is no reasoning for destruction in the Book of Job. And if there is no reasoning for destruction, by extension, it undercuts any reasons for creation. The final answer from the book; It's all a mystery.
10. Space aliens are possible within the realistic natural laws of science.
A supernatural God / gods are outside of the boundaries of the realism of science.
God/gods are accepted by faith and not by the evidence and experimentation of science.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 28, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
I will also say now that it does so in a much more believable way than in the scenario offered in Prometheus, regardless of one's beliefs in God.
God comes out of the heavens to have a chat in the Book of Job and to you that is more believable than hostile space aliens?
The concept of super advanced space aliens has been considered by scientists for decades. (See the Fermi Paradox)
SETI has been a project to look for such advanced aliens for a long time.
That is part of the realism of science.
And hostile advanced aliens have been discussed by Stephen Hawking and other scientists.
** To Sum It Up; This argument which goes round and round and which contradicts itself comes back to one thing.
- You were not entertained by "Prometheus". You didn't like it. It didn't feel right to you.
That's your personal taste and we all have the privilege to believe what we wish.
And there's nothing more needed to add to that.
No one can argue with a person's feelings.
- Considering that, I think it's best that I agree to disagree and move on.
Imo at least. ;)
Just wanted to say that your posts are cool, bb-15. :) Thanks for sharing.
Quote from: Ragonk_Force on Mar 28, 2017, 07:50:37 PM
Alien Covenant will make Prometheus better. Im a big fan of Prometheus, shortcomings aside, its one of the best looking films ever made imo. Love it or hate it, you can't deny its one of the most thought provoking and talked about movies in recent years for sure
I pretty much agree with where Ragnonk is going here.
I'll focus on how that since "Prometheus" has been talked about so much, that it has brought reviewers of serious/art movies to take a look at the Alien franchise.
Since I saw "Alien" when it was first released, I know that I'm an older guy. ;)
I've always considered "Alien" and "Aliens" to be very good serious science fiction movies. And I think that the Alien and AVP film franchises are interesting as a whole.
- But the question remains, how to get new people to examine a couple of movies which were released 30 to 35+ years ago?
First, Ridley Scott's new involvement with the Alien franchise is going to bring people in. He's the director of the big hits "The Martian" / "Gladiator" after all.
Next, he created a very controversial movie with "Prometheus" that many people want to talk about.
All of this is bringing a new audience to the entire Alien franchise imo.
* For instance, there is a long running YouTube channel called Renegade Cut. It's written and presented by a former literature professor and it focuses mostly on serious/artistic movies.
This YouTube channel did a review of "Prometheus" which explored the topics presented in the film that dealt with views about God.
- There is also a new YouTube channel which wants to tackle entertainment/drama/art house movies. It's called The Long Take which is written and presented by an aspiring screen writer.
This channel has posted video reviews for "Alien" and "Aliens" as serious science-fiction movies. (They are interesting and delve into the intentions of the filmmakers and then go more to speculation beyond that.)
- These might been done without "Prometheus" / "Covenant".
But imo Ridley Scott's new Alien franchise movies would at least bring more viewers to these Alien franchise videos resulting in an incentive for people to post these kinds reviews.
To Sum It Up; Even if a person can't stand "Prometheus", more people being interested in Alien movies is a good thing for Alien franchise fans.
Imo at least. ;)
PS. Xenomorph, I also appreciate your comments. ;-)
Quote from: SM on Mar 29, 2017, 10:43:34 PM
I'm open to having my mind changed if someone has something intelligent to add.
I already did, and it was thoroughly ignored. I already said that a robot cannot feel. It therefore may be able to logically rationalize
that a person is feeling a certain way, but it will not be able to deduce the reasons why that feeling is there or be able to accurately predict or judge when someone feels what they do. The mock trailer doesn't make any sense. In one breath, David admits that he feels ("What
makes you sad?"), and in another he says that he merely understands them and doesn't feel. They literally could not be consistent in a two-minute fake trailer.
David's entire existence is nonsensical to me and should be nonsensical to anyone who understands robotics and coding, which I will admit I do not. Yet I do know that it is impossible to intentionally create a machine that operates illogically, that is, out of the purview of its code. Code binds a machine together. The machine only does what it is programmed to do. We are expected to believe that WY manufactured life in the form of David. I know this is a long-standing issue in the field of artificial intelligence hearkening back to an important fiction book, but the fact of the matter remains that an artificial "brain" will never take on the same emotional and subconscious characteristics as human ones.
In response to bb-15, I don't have time or the willpower to try to dissuade someone who thinks that Prometheus is great. It may very well be a great sci-fi film in your opinion but in the majority of people's opinions, it is average at best. I also personally think that Blade Runner is a pile of garbage, so take that as my permission for you to ignore everything I say. I hate movies that depict artificial intelligence taking on the characteristics of human intelligence (except comedies) because it's a ludicrous and nonsensical fantasy.
It will never happen, and it is one of the most important aspects of the film. At least everything in most of the other Alien films (excluding Resurrection) made sense in regard to androids. Neither Ash nor Bishop operated in particularly human-like characters. But Scott did everything in his power to make David act as little like a machine as possible, except in linguistic mannerisms. Sorry, I can't get into it. Robotic curiosity are two words that cannot go together for me, and as a result it ruins the movie for me.
Bummer.
I'm not "thoroughly ignoring". I can't argue with an opinion, particularly one I don't share, so I won't bother trying.
Though this part I find a little odd...
QuoteIn one breath, David admits that he feels ("What makes you sad?"), and in another he says that he merely understands them and doesn't feel. They literally could not be consistent in a two-minute fake trailer.
The David ad is explaining how robots have been programmed to mimic feelings, even ones they can't actually feel. Like David wearing a space suit, it's so they can blend in better. What makes him sad is what would make most people sad. I'm not seeing an inconsistency.
Quote from: Hemi on Mar 27, 2017, 10:41:24 AM
Thinking you missed something is not what I mean. I also enjoy watching movies that don't sink in first viewing, multiple times...
"Interesting, I would like to know more about this development. Maybe it has something to do with events earlier in the movie. I would have to rewatch it." VS "why the fck is this character acting so bloody weird, it's like something got cut from the movie and I am missing something."
The first is explained by rewatching it, the second is explained by either commentary / comics / fanboys and white knights. (not the right way of doing things...)
IMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEHHHhhhh
Your comment also helps me to understand your POV better (where you missed some of my intentions imo) and that allows me to clarify my responses.
* I do not need the Blu-ray extras to understand my view of "Prometheus".
- I understood my interpretation of "Prometheus" very well before the Blu-ray was released.
* Why did I bring up filmmaker extras in this thread?
* Because I was replying to the label of fan fiction ("fan wanking") here.
So, I am not a "white knight" as you put it (someone who depends on commentaries/comics).
- Also, I am not a fanboy.
I have a list of criticisms of "Prometheus" and I'd be glad to post that any time someone here requests it.
* Imo what is going on is this.
- Different people can see some things in a movie which another viewer might have trouble seeing.
That can apply to me. I don't always pick up clues in a movie.
* For instance, this happened to me once with "Blade Runner".
I saw it in a theater at release. When the Director's Cut was released (1992), I got it on VHS.
In the 1990s, while I knew BR very well, at the time
I did not see the clues that Deckard was a replicant.
- In the late 90s on AOL, I had a debate with some folks about BR and I insisted that Deckard was not a replicant and that there were no clues in the movie about that.
- Then a person calmly told me this; to check out a new book called "Future Noir".
* Using your argument I could have tossed labels at this guy;
- He's a "fanboy".
- He's a "white knight".
But I didn't.
I'm glad he pointed me to the book.
And starting in 1999 I'm also glad that several people on IMDb gave me factual information over the years which they found in movies.
I don't see people who share factual information in movies as "fanboys" or "white knights". People like that I see as informed when I wasn't as informed.
- And my response to them was; thank you.
Imo at least, ;)
Asking an android what makes it sad would simply trigger a pre-programmed, procedural reply drawing from a library of sad human phenomena; it wouldn't be authentically feeling those things autonomously. That's it. P.S. The Nexus 6 replicants in Blade Runner aren't androids; they're genetically engineered and for all intents and purposes are identical to humans sans their emotional responses and life spans (with combat models genetically selected for strength, etc); they're clones, essentially.
They are often referred to as machines though. I understood them as beings that had parts engineered (grown or constructed) like Chew's eyes, and then assembled. ie. Built from organic components rather than plastic like an Alien universe synthetic.
I don't really know the technicalities though.
to Olde, I appreciate your response because it helps me to understand some fundamental differences we have about science fiction and AI.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 31, 2017, 04:29:42 AM
I also personally think that Blade Runner is a pile of garbage, ... I hate movies that depict artificial intelligence taking on the characteristics of human intelligence (except comedies) because it's a ludicrous and nonsensical fantasy.
It will never happen, and it is one of the most important aspects of the film... But Scott did everything in his power to make David act as little like a machine as possible, except in linguistic mannerisms. Sorry, I can't get into it. Robotic curiosity are two words that cannot go together for me, and as a result it ruins the movie for me.
It's fine. That's what you believe. I get it. ;)
But that also leads to an impasse between us about what AI can possibly do.
You believe that programmed intelligence can never take on all the characteristics of human intelligence.
There's nothing much more to say.
- I think in science fiction it is appropriate to have androids do many things including being able to be aware of human feelings.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 31, 2017, 04:29:42 AM
I already said that a robot cannot feel. It therefore may be able to logically rationalize that a person is feeling a certain way, but it will not be able to deduce the reasons why that feeling is there or be able to accurately predict or judge when someone feels what they do.
In our world, a human therapist (with rare exceptions/former psychotic patients who became therapists) cannot know what schizophrenia feels like. Or what bi-polar disorder or multiple personality disorder feels like either.
But the therapist is trained to know symptoms, treatments and to made educated guesses about what it seems the patient feels.
Not because the therapist's feelings are = to the patent's feelings. Or that the therapist is in the mind of the patient.
A lot of treatment is guesswork based on years of training.
Quote from: Olde on Mar 31, 2017, 04:29:42 AM
David's entire existence is nonsensical to me and should be nonsensical to anyone who understands robotics and coding, which I will admit I do not. Yet I do know that it is impossible to intentionally create a machine that operates illogically, that is, out of the purview of its code. Code binds a machine together. The machine only does what it is programmed to do.
Imo how can I know what is impossible with the learning abilities of AI in a science fiction context?
I ask, what is the limit of AI? How can I know that AI cannot reach what a human can do including having a conversation about expectations such as with Holloway and David?
- And in science fiction AI has been portrayed as pretty much unlimited.
One example is "2001". Kubrick described the process/evolution of the aliens represented by the monoliths in the movie (from the Playboy interview).
QuoteThey may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities --
http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q12.html
What Kubrick describes here is that biological / human thinking could be coded and then downloaded into an android / a machine.
How can we know that human brain cells could never be coded into a computer matrix which is then able to learn like a human?
* Anyway, the idea of machines being able to do human learning / mimic human thinking, is a major theme in science fiction from Solaris to Star Trek to The Matrix. (And I see a lot of human like AI in the Alien franchise where androids easily pass as human to the crew in "Alien", to Ripley in "Aliens" and to the crew again in "Resurrection")
I accept that SF concept and you don't.
I do not criticize you for this.
It's just another reason for me to agree to disagree and move on.
Imo at least. ;)
bb-15, why do you always end your post with 'Imo of course' ?
I think that goes without saying. Sorry I'm not trying to sound like a dick. Just wondered why you feel you need to do that every time.
Mebbe it's a signature line?
Quote from: Russ840 on Mar 31, 2017, 09:26:38 AM
bb-15, why do you always end your post with 'Imo of course' ? Quote from: FenGiddel on Mar 31, 2017, 03:57:51 PM
Mebbe it's a signature line?
On other movie websites it is used as part of my signature. I hadn't yet done that here.
But with your posts, that got me to put in a signature line. ;)
The background of it? As I mentioned in this thread, I've been commenting on the web since the 90s. And in those early days some people pointed out that what I was writing about was just my opinion. That quickly led to my bottom comment/signature 'It's just imho, BB ;-)'
But eventually someone complained that I was not humble. LOL!
So there went the 'h' and it became just imo. ;D
The shooting star is a nice touch.
Quote from: bb-15 on Mar 31, 2017, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on Mar 31, 2017, 09:26:38 AM
bb-15, why do you always end your post with 'Imo of course' ? Quote from: FenGiddel on Mar 31, 2017, 03:57:51 PM
Mebbe it's a signature line?
On other movie websites it is used as part of my signature. I hadn't yet done that here.
But with your posts, that got me to put in a signature line. ;)
The background of it? As I mentioned in this thread, I've been commenting on the web since the 90s. And in those early days some people pointed out that what I was writing about was just my opinion. That quickly led to my bottom comment/signature 'It's just imho, BB ;-)'
But eventually someone complained that I was not humble. LOL!
So there went the 'h' and it became just imo. ;D
Lol cool dude.
For the record. Although I tend not to agree with you, I do like reading your posts. You put across nicely articulated arguments.
Still don't agree though. Regarding Prometheus lol.
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Mar 31, 2017, 07:06:30 AM
Asking an android what makes it sad would simply trigger a pre-programmed, procedural reply drawing from a library of sad human phenomena; it wouldn't be authentically feeling those things autonomously. That's it. P.S. The Nexus 6 replicants in Blade Runner aren't androids; they're genetically engineered and for all intents and purposes are identical to humans sans their emotional responses and life spans (with combat models genetically selected for strength, etc); they're clones, essentially.
Quote from: SM on Mar 31, 2017, 07:19:23 AM
They are often referred to as machines though. I understood them as beings that had parts engineered (grown or constructed) like Chew's eyes, and then assembled. ie. Built from organic components rather than plastic like an Alien universe synthetic.
I don't really know the technicalities though.
OK, I've got the time write about the replicants in "Blade Runner" and I'll also add a comparison between David and Ash.
(This is appropriate since "Blade Runner" was an influence on "Prometheus" and David can be compared to Ash.)
** Replicants are genetically engineered human clones (who are probably in some ways assembled) but "Blade Runner" tries to make that unclear.
1. The script in "Blade Runner" uses semantics and word play to blur the idea of a robot and a human.
- The introduction says that the Tyrell corporation was involved with robot technology.
QuoteEarly in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution into the Nexus phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a Replicant.
This begins the attempt in the story to deny what the replicants are, basically a kind of human which was artificially created.
Other examples;
- The Nexus 6 is not executed when killed. It's called retirement.
- Bryant calls a replicant a "skin job".
* This theme in "Blade Runner" imo is about propaganda. How a powerful company can brainwash a society to hide the truth.
- And by extension the movie uses a bit of that to make it harder for the audience to know what's going on.
- Ridley Scott sometimes uses this kind of vague story technique in "Prometheus".
2. Deckard describes replicants as a machine.
QuoteDeckard: Replicants are like any other machine...
But Deckard is is not a reliable expert on Nexus 6 replicants since Bryant has to describe them to Rick. Deckard has been retired. In his earlier career maybe replicants were so inferior to humans that they could be easily tripped up by a couple of questions and so he called them machines.
* Deckard's machine comment is again is part of the blurring of replicants with machines instead of saying they are human clones.
It's another example of the brainwashing of the society in the movie.
And it's part of Ridley's style to challenge the audience to figure out what is going on.
3. Tyrell is the expert and he explains the purpose of the replicants and that they are biological / genetically engineered humans.
QuoteTyrell: "Commerce is our goal, More human than human" is our motto
- Tyrell wants to make lots of money ("Commerce").
- And that is why imo in the past he switched from making mechanical robots to biological/engineered clones.
They are "More human". A better product for the business of creating slaves (which is a major theme in "Blade Runner").
- When Tyrell faces an angry Roy, it is no time for BS.
And in Tyrell's chat with Roy (about the inability to change the lifespan of a replicant), it is explained that replicants are biological organisms with DNA.
.
QuoteTyrell: The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established...
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again...
The body of the replicant is set into motion by a DNA coding sequence.
- Another person who would know about replicants is Roy Batty.
QuoteBatty: We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical
Not robots (as we know them in our world) which would have a computer brain (like an advanced PC) hooked up to a mechanical body.
But physical meaning, biological.
4. Are replicant 'parts' assembled into the body?
There is Chew's eye lab. Chew also says that Tyrell designed the Nexus 6 brain.
That makes sense but would not eliminate the human clone idea.
- The replicant body has a 4 year lifespan based on its DNA.
- Organs may be added like eyes, and the brain, but those would be like transplants in our world.
- Why do the blade runners use the Vight Kampff test? It's clumsy and tedious.
Why not take a quick blood sample?
Because a Nexus 6 replicant has the same blood as a human.
- It would probably take a deep scan like an MRI to discover a replicant but that would also discover some surgery on humans in our world.
- In the beginning replicants are limited with emotions due to genetic engineering (DNA).
But they can learn emotions like a human.
Rachel is a replicant. So is Deckard according to Ridley and they have learned emotions.
- Physically, without a deep scan, Rachel is indistinguishable from a regularly born human.
But she is a patented product. She is a slave to be sold.
---------------------------
** David and Ash;
1. David; I believe that Fassbender was following a style of android acting pioneered in Star Trek. The most famous example in that franchise is by Brent Spiner as Data.
Fassbender's performance therefore is that David is "other", separate from the humans in behavior.
- Still David can figure out Holloway by observation.
David doesn't need to be drunk or feel Holloway's emotions. David just needs to observe what is going on with Holloway and then react.
And in the scene between them, I think it's clear what Holloway was feeling.
- First, Holloway has been drinking since the team came back from the dome (pyramid), even during the experiments on the Engineer head.
Conclusion; Holloway is drunk.
- Second, David finds Holloway still drinking.
Conclusion; Holloway is still drunk.
QuoteDavid: Am I interrupting?
David: Thought you might be running low.
Holloway: Pour yourself a glass, pal.
David: Thank you, but I'm afraid it would be wasted on me.
Holloway: Oh, right. I almost forgot, you're not a real boy, huh?
Holloway is drunk and spews another insult at David.
But David wants to have a conversation (to distract Holloway from noticing that David is putting black goo into David's glass).
So, David picks on the topic of Holloway's obsession. The Engineers; The reason that the ship has gone about 40 light years, at great expense, to LV-223.
And David pretends that he is sorry that a living Engineer was not found which gets Holloway to respond.
QuoteDavid: I'm very sorry that you're Engineers are all gone, Dr. Holloway.
Holloway: You think we wasted our time coming here, don't you?
David: You're question depends on the understanding, what you hope to achieve by coming here?
Charlie Holloway: What we hope to achieve? Well, it's to meet our makers. To get answers. Why they...why they even made us in the first place.
Here Holloway is asking for some of the great answers in philosophy/religion. Why do we exist?
But David, who has read the Engineer's writing on the walls and has seen evidence of their culture in the Temple room, doesn't believe that the Engineers would give a profound answer.
And David tries to explain that to drunk Holloway.
QuoteDavid: Why do you think your people made me?
Holloway: We made you cause we could.
David: Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?
[Holloway laughs]
Holloway: I guess it's a good thing you can't be disappointed, huh?
David: Yes, it's wonderful actually.
David has given Holloway an answer which Charlie cannot accept and then Holloway tosses another insult towards David in his drunken stupor.
But it doesn't matter to David. He has told Holloway what he thinks the Engineers are about.
And David has also done what he set out to do, to get Holloway to drink the black goo.
- David does not have to pass for a human here. He doesn't need to feel emotions like a human.
David is a calculating machine. He has assessed the situation of the mission, Weyland's demands and Holloway's behavior.
David has calculated his responses based on this information, using his database of knowledge and programming.
- The situation of Holloway's disappointment and romantic view of the Engineers was obvious to David.
David was just putting into words what Holloway had planned to do there and noticing that Holloway got drunk because he didn't accomplish his grand plan of getting the answer to human creation.
2. Ash; played by Holm is a very different take on this android idea imo.
Ash's behavior is indistinguishable from a human.
- Ash has passed for human for weeks including before boarding the Nostromo.
- As a science officer Ash also acts as the ship's doctor, doing surgery for instance.
That requires being able to not only diagnose physical problems but also to assess emotional ailments.
- Ash also looks like he expresses emotion. He sighs with a clear exhale in the movie.
Emotion is expressed on his face which fits the situation including; satisfaction, anger.
* But Ash also has the independence of a human character (compared with David).
While Ash is under orders (from the Weyland/Yutani bio-weapons division) to get a xenomorph back to earth, he takes steps to sabotage that plan.
- He lets Kane eat with the crew with the chestburster parasite for instance instead of putting Kane into stasis. Again, Ash is acting independently.
- And once the xenomorph is loose on the ship, after Ash helps with a motion detector, he becomes more passive letting the xenomorph go on a killing spree which will sabotage the mission.
- Even when Ash is broken apart and the plans from the bio-weapons division of the company have completely failed, Ash revels in the situation.
Ash admires this killer (the
"perfect organism") and is pleased that all the crew, he believes, will be killed (or assimilated according to the Director's Cut).
* Ash's is like a science fiction serial killer using the xenomorph as his weapon.
- By contrast in "Prometheus", Weyland is the killer behind the scenes due to his delusion.
And David by design has to be the instrument of this delusional old man.
;)
PS. To Russ. Yup. It's cool. :)
Quote from: Olde on Mar 31, 2017, 04:29:42 AM
In response to bb-15, I don't have time or the willpower to try to dissuade someone who thinks that Prometheus is great. It may very well be a great sci-fi film in your opinion but in the majority of people's opinions, it is average at best. I also personally think that Blade Runner is a pile of garbage, so take that as my permission for you to ignore everything I say. I hate movies that depict artificial intelligence taking on the characteristics of human intelligence (except comedies) because it's a ludicrous and nonsensical fantasy.
Firstly, you are demonstrably wrong about how average people feel about Prometheus. Go sample data from any website that has user scores (or critics), and you will not be able to find any data that supports your claim. The majority of people voted that Prometheus is above average. A minority agrees with you that Prometheus is not a good movie. I don't know what the average user score on IMDB is, but it sure as heck isn't 7.0, and getting "generally favorable reviews" at Metacritic also isn't the norm. Prometheus out-grossed a lot of other franchise movies with lower ratings like X-Men: First Class, and cost less. On home video, it was one of the top-sellers of the year, ranking higher than it did at the box office and suggesting that it's popularity is increasing over time. Outside of the Alien fan base, Prometheus is generally considered a good movie. It was financially successful, was nominated for awards, given serious reviews by serious scholars, and got a sequel. I don't know what your bar for success is, but Prometheus is much more successful (and respected) than most films according to the usual benchmarks. We can assume by the home video sales that the movie has millions of fans and the critics gave the film mostly positive reviews, so we can't even say that people are exhibiting poor taste in supporting the film. All evidence points towards the movie being successful because it was a quality movie. In fact, we can even credit the movie with reviving the defunct Alien franchise, so we have much to appreciate.
Secondly, with regards to your stance on robots developing feelings: I think Scott is more interested in the parallels between humans evolving from inert matter into thinking, feeling beings, the possible involvement of some outside agency, and humans' current fascinating with creating artificial intelligence. If you can make the leap that humans came from inert matter and eventually developed feelings, the robot feelings thing is a fair premise for a fictional story to hinge a dramatic question on, as the case was with Blade Runner. With Prometheus, Scott seems aware of the difference between a programmed response and genuine free thought. In fact, I would argue that was one of the film's major points it was trying to make, which people tend to ignore. The movie is about free will vs. human nature, and the possibility that free will does not exist. David tries to free Shaw from the programming of her creator by teaching her about the paradoxes of creation. There is even a draft of the script where this was made explicit, but Scott prefers the implicit, because he's a classy gent like that.
QuoteI don't know what the average user score on IMDB is, but it sure as heck isn't 7.0
Yes it is. It's exactly 7.0. RT critic score is 72%. RT audience score is 68%. Which is still above average.
Quote from: SM on Apr 02, 2017, 09:18:17 PM
QuoteI don't know what the average user score on IMDB is, but it sure as heck isn't 7.0
Yes it is. It's exactly 7.0. RT critic score is 72%. RT audience score is 68%. Which is still above average.
Sorry, I misspoke. I know that Prometheus has a 7.0/10 user score on IMDB, and I was pointing out that I am certain that 7.0 is not the average score movies receive on IMDB. I think 7.0 is exceptional, in other words. I found one source that suggests 6.39 is the average, but I didn't check their math.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-average-rating-on-IMDB-for-a-movie (https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-average-rating-on-IMDB-for-a-movie)
Hopefully that settles the question of whether or not "in the majority of people's opinions, [Prometheus] is average at best", as Olde claimed. In the majority of people's opinions, it is above average, if only slightly. And we have to factor in that IMDB doesn't give equal weight to each number between 1 and 10. 1s and 10s are given less weight to prevent score manipulation.
QuoteI know that Prometheus has a 7.0/10 user score on IMDB, and I was pointing out that I am certain that 7.0 is not the average score movies receive on IMDB.
Oh, right.
QuoteHopefully that settles the question of whether or not "in the majority of people's opinions, [Prometheus] is average at best", as Olde claimed.
I wouldn't have thought so. ;D
Quote from: Protozoid on Apr 02, 2017, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: Olde on Mar 31, 2017, 04:29:42 AM
In response to bb-15, I don't have time or the willpower to try to dissuade someone who thinks that Prometheus is great. It may very well be a great sci-fi film in your opinion but in the majority of people's opinions, it is average at best. I also personally think that Blade Runner is a pile of garbage, so take that as my permission for you to ignore everything I say. I hate movies that depict artificial intelligence taking on the characteristics of human intelligence (except comedies) because it's a ludicrous and nonsensical fantasy.
Firstly, you are demonstrably wrong about how average people feel about Prometheus. Go sample data from any website that has user scores (or critics), and you will not be able to find any data that supports your claim. The majority of people voted that Prometheus is above average. A minority agrees with you that Prometheus is not a good movie. I don't know what the average user score on IMDB is, but it sure as heck isn't 7.0, and getting "generally favorable reviews" at Metacritic also isn't the norm. Prometheus out-grossed a lot of other franchise movies with lower ratings like X-Men: First Class, and cost less. On home video, it was one of the top-sellers of the year, ranking higher than it did at the box office and suggesting that it's popularity is increasing over time. Outside of the Alien fan base, Prometheus is generally considered a good movie. It was financially successful, was nominated for awards, given serious reviews by serious scholars, and got a sequel. I don't know what your bar for success is, but Prometheus is much more successful (and respected) than most films according to the usual benchmarks. We can assume by the home video sales that the movie has millions of fans and the critics gave the film mostly positive reviews, so we can't even say that people are exhibiting poor taste in supporting the film. All evidence points towards the movie being successful because it was a quality movie. In fact, we can even credit the movie with reviving the defunct Alien franchise, so we have much to appreciate.
Secondly, with regards to your stance on robots developing feelings: I think Scott is more interested in the parallels between humans evolving from inert matter into thinking, feeling beings, the possible involvement of some outside agency, and humans' current fascinating with creating artificial intelligence. If you can make the leap that humans came from inert matter and eventually developed feelings, the robot feelings thing is a fair premise for a fictional story to hinge a dramatic question on, as the case was with Blade Runner. With Prometheus, Scott seems aware of the difference between a programmed response and genuine free thought. In fact, I would argue that was one of the film's major points it was trying to make, which people tend to ignore. The movie is about free will vs. human nature, and the possibility that free will does not exist. David tries to free Shaw from the programming of her creator by teaching her about the paradoxes of creation. There is even a draft of the script where this was made explicit, but Scott prefers the implicit, because he's a classy gent like that.
Very informative post Elijah;
* Personal preference or the beliefs of a small group imo should be separated from larger measures of a movie's ranking like major professional critic polls or large movie viewer polls, like IMDb.
- Prometheus has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 72% ("certified fresh")
- The average IMDb rating (for those who don't want to click on the link you posted) is in two calculations of all the scores, 6.38 in 2009 and in 2015, 6.39.
"Prometheus" is above average at 7/10.
- As for "Blade Runner" (since its quality was mentioned in this thread), it is #139 on the IMDb all time top movie list.
Also, BR is listed on the prestigious professional critic movie poll, from Sight and Sound, which ranked it at # 69.
* But my bringing up major film polls is not a challenge to any viewer's personal taste.
Many people on IMDb have told me that they can't stand "Prometheus" and/or "Blade Runner".
And I'm not going to argue with that.
** Now to your discussion of artificial intelligence in Ridley Scott's movies;
Imo it follows up on Kubrick's depiction of this in "2001";
Where there is an overlap of machine intelligence and human intelligence in "2001", that an advanced computer can mimic human neurosis when trying to follow conflicting orders, paranoia about a flaw being discovered as well as helpless fear.
- With Ridley, in "Alien" he portrays a machine, Ash, that is completely effective in mimicking a human spy including having facial expressions which fit the situation.
Another movie which goes over this AI mimicking humans in detail is "Ex Machina". "Alien" has already taken those ideas and advanced it to the next level. An android who is out in society, doing a job but also is acting on their own which can be lethal to those around them.
* I agree with you about "Prometheus";
"Scott seems aware of the difference between a programmed response and genuine free thought." Yes. David explains to Shaw that he can only be
"free" when Weyland isn't around to control David's programming.
- As you explain your premise I'll focus on;
"The movie is about free will vs. human nature,"Imo it is part of human nature to have deep rooted personal beliefs. "Prometheus" touches on beliefs (based on various experiences), which underlies much of what people do.
A key moment in the movie imo about being programmed from the past and breaking free from that was Shaw's admission that she was wrong about her assumptions concerning LV-223 and the Engineers.
QuoteShaw: You don't understand, this place isn't what we thought it was. I was wrong. We were so wrong. We must leave!
- Continuing with what you wrote;
"David tries to free Shaw from the programming of her creator by teaching her about the paradoxes of creation."I would go further than just mentioning David and Shaw about this.
I agree that David challenges Shaw. But the entire experiment of going to LV-223 has challenged many of Shaw's assumptions including about advanced space aliens, the Engineers (and her initial view of the Engineers mimicking a loving God).
it was hard for her to accept some of the evidence on that moon when she finally admitted that she was wrong.
But Shaw's realizing that she was wrong gave her the freedom to see the Engineers in a new way and to take some action towards the awoken Engineer.
- Also David challenged Holloway. David at first reminded Holloway that he hadn't proven anything about the Engineers yet.
Later as I quoted, David challenged Holloway's assumption that the Engineers would have some profound answer about creation.
But Holloway was not able to seriously question his assumptions/beliefs/programming.
* And "Prometheus" goes further in challenging other character's beliefs.
- Darwin's version of evolution, was supported by Milburn, the biologist (and Fifield). That is not only challenged by Shaw but contradicted by the Engineer DNA (being a type of human DNA) and the creatures on that moon altered by the black goo.
But the two scientists can't accept the idea of planet wide genetic engineering.
- Weyland's belief that a super advanced alien would act like a friendly helper and cure a man from death is shattered by reality.
- Vickers thought no advanced alien life would be found on LV-223 which turned out to be wrong.
* With "Blade Runner", the programming of its society is the replicants are supposed to be evil machines.
But that turns out to not be true. The replicants are not evil (and the replicants are genetically engineered human clones).
- "Prometheus" shows deep seated beliefs of several characters about LV-223 which turn out to be wrong.
That could be a theme for many of the characters;
"We were so wrong.".
;)
Quote from: Protozoid on Apr 02, 2017, 11:36:24 PM
Quote from: SM on Apr 02, 2017, 09:18:17 PM
QuoteI don't know what the average user score on IMDB is, but it sure as heck isn't 7.0
Yes it is. It's exactly 7.0. RT critic score is 72%. RT audience score is 68%. Which is still above average.
Sorry, I misspoke. I know that Prometheus has a 7.0/10 user score on IMDB, and I was pointing out that I am certain that 7.0 is not the average score movies receive on IMDB. I think 7.0 is exceptional, in other words. I found one source that suggests 6.39 is the average, but I didn't check their math.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-average-rating-on-IMDB-for-a-movie (https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-average-rating-on-IMDB-for-a-movie)
Hopefully that settles the question of whether or not "in the majority of people's opinions, [Prometheus] is average at best", as Olde claimed. In the majority of people's opinions, it is above average, if only slightly. And we have to factor in that IMDB doesn't give equal weight to each number between 1 and 10. 1s and 10s are given less weight to prevent score manipulation.
It's just a count and since we know people can be wrong (A majority of people elected Hitler after all) this just becomes useless to make any point (in favor OR disfavor of the film, this can't be presented as an argument, ever.)
Of course it can be used. It represents a consensus, particularly if the sample size is large enough.
And just because Hitler ended up being awful didn't mean people didn't think he was the best man for the job when they voted, either.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 20, 2017, 11:36:48 AM
And just because Hitler ended up being awful didn't mean people didn't think he was the best man for the job when they voted, either.
Precisely, and this is why you can't reduce something to a count.
Quote from: SM on Apr 20, 2017, 11:30:23 AM
Of course it can be used. It represents a consensus, particularly if the sample size is large enough.
Consensus in the there and now.
Retro-actively, if you ask twice the people to vote now, statistics could largely change.
But it doesn't proves anything concerning the film itself, it's just algebra puts there and used by different parties to present an argument that doesn't escapes the "I have majority so I am right" when history is filled with examples showing how wrong people were.
---
Not saying it's a good or bad film, just that I wish there's substances in arguments and not just a tool of statistic brought here trying to make a point where you can't precisely make a "point" and close a debate with movies.
1 to 10 stars doesn't give much of an idea of what people think. Especially when some people consider 7 to be average while others think it's low and some others more demanding count is as very high. It's always a bad idea to reduce people/thoughts to a count.
People thought the film was above average. If you asked again, you'd probably get the same result.
Whether the film is shit or great is entirely irrelevant to the IMDb results; the point is whether people thought it was above average and they overwhelmingly voted that they did.
QuoteNot saying it's a good or bad film, just that I wish there's substances in arguments and not just a tool of statistic brought here trying to make a point where you can't precisely make a "point" and close a debate with movies.
The only point being made is that 476,000+ people voted and their scores averaged out to a 7 out of 10.
Votes Percentage Rating
39530 8.3% 10
49283 10.3% 9
108288 22.7% 8
123979 26.0% 7
73969 15.5% 6
35764 7.5% 5
17869 3.8% 4
10577 2.2% 3
6580 1.4% 2
10582 2.2% 1
Arithmetic mean = 7.0. Median = 7
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
Looking at the extremes, there's a big difference between those. Hence the median 7, of course.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2017, 11:52:19 PM
How would the deleted scenes improve it?
stuff like the cloaked Engineers with the one that sacrifice at the prologue or the Engineer speaking after waking up would improve the rhythm/pace of the movie and help fix what some wrongly call "plot holes"
In what way?
Quote from: D88M on Apr 21, 2017, 01:24:23 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2017, 11:52:19 PM
How would the deleted scenes improve it?
stuff like the cloaked Engineers with the one that sacrifice at the prologue or the Engineer speaking after waking up would improve the rhythm/pace of the movie and help fix what some wrongly call "plot holes"
Building on adding the 'cloaked Engineers' deleted scene to a cut, Ridley said that with the edit he wanted to make the Engineers more mysterious.
Some viewers disagree with Ridley. They prefer the deleted material about the Engineers be put into a cut. Such as;
- The cloaked Engineers sequence;
- The response by the Engineer to Weyland (after Weyland's speech to the Engineer).
- The Engineer taking his time examining the Lifeboat, and the extended sequence of Shaw fighting the Engineer.
Adding material to "Prometheus" doesn't matter to me but I understand the argument by some who want more about the Engineers in the film.
;)
I honestly believe, with a good amount of editing, te is a great movie in Prometheus. I watched it again last night. Still annoys me lol
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 21, 2017, 11:53:18 AM
I honestly believe, with a good amount of editing, te is a great movie in Prometheus. I watched it again last night. Still annoys me lol
A fan edit which has no reshoots is very limited.
- Take one "Prometheus" fan edit which puts the Weyland TED talk at the beginning of the film.
That choice misses the point of the core of the movie.
A lot of words is not going to answer the big issues about creation in the film and change "Prometheus" into a simple story.
Editing cannot drastically change the genre of a movie.
No edit can change a Star Wars film into "2001" or make "2001" become a Star Wars adventure.
Ridley and his team had a vision with "Prometheus".
It's a blend of "2001", "Jurassic Park", "Blade Runner" and a mystery put into the Alien universe.
- An editor would first imo need to accept what "Prometheus" is in terms of its style and story themes.
Then changes consistent with the genres in "Prometheus" could be made which support the goals of what Ridley was trying to do.
- But no edit can successfully make "Prometheus" into something which it is not.
- "Prometheus" is its own thing in the Alien franchise.
;)
PS. I have no problem with anyone who is annoyed by this movie. It's personal taste.
Quote from: bb-15 on Apr 22, 2017, 02:03:26 AM
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 21, 2017, 11:53:18 AM
I honestly believe, with a good amount of editing, te is a great movie in Prometheus. I watched it again last night. Still annoys me lol
A fan edit which has no reshoots is very limited.
- Take one "Prometheus" fan edit which puts the Weyland TED talk at the beginning of the film.
That choice misses the point of the core of the movie.
A lot of words is not going to answer the big issues about creation in the film and change "Prometheus" into a simple story.
Editing cannot drastically change the genre of a movie.
No edit can change a Star Wars film into "2001" or make "2001" become a Star Wars adventure.
Ridley and his team had a vision with "Prometheus".
It's a blend of "2001", "Jurassic Park", "Blade Runner" and a mystery put into the Alien universe.
- An editor would first imo need to accept what "Prometheus" is in terms of its style and story themes.
Then changes consistent with the genres in "Prometheus" could be made which support the goals of what Ridley was trying to do.
- But no edit can successfully make "Prometheus" into something which it is not.
- "Prometheus" is its own thing in the Alien franchise.
;)
PS. I have no problem with anyone who is annoyed by this movie. It's personal taste.
David is really what made Prometheus. He brought that undercurrent of dark humour. Especially that line; "It's not exactly a traditional fetus", and the way it was played by Michael Fassbender. Brilliant.
Quote from: bb-15 on Apr 21, 2017, 02:09:49 AM
Quote from: D88M on Apr 21, 2017, 01:24:23 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2017, 11:52:19 PM
How would the deleted scenes improve it?
stuff like the cloaked Engineers with the one that sacrifice at the prologue or the Engineer speaking after waking up would improve the rhythm/pace of the movie and help fix what some wrongly call "plot holes"
Building on adding the 'cloaked Engineers' deleted scene to a cut, Ridley said that with the edit he wanted to make the Engineers more mysterious.
Some viewers disagree with Ridley. They prefer the deleted material about the Engineers be put into a cut. Such as;
- The cloaked Engineers sequence;
- The response by the Engineer to Weyland (after Weyland's speech to the Engineer).
- The Engineer taking his time examining the Lifeboat, and the extended sequence of Shaw fighting the Engineer.
Adding material to "Prometheus" doesn't matter to me but I understand the argument by some who want more about the Engineers in the film.
;)
I disagree with this BB. With some clever cutting and reorganisation, the film would flow better. Also, some of the bits that annoy people can been altered. Take the head exploding scene. Trim it to remove the actual exploding piece and the scene is better. I personally would start the film from the scene where the prometheus first appears. It would have nicely paralleled Alien this way. I would then move to the scenes of David strolling around the ship, but removed the dream watching bits. This would require later scenes, like where david comments about having seen her dreams, being altered/removed. There is lots i would personally change and i am confident the film would be better for it. I think others would agree.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 22, 2017, 07:52:34 AM
Quote from: bb-15 on Apr 21, 2017, 02:09:49 AM
Quote from: D88M on Apr 21, 2017, 01:24:23 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2017, 11:52:19 PM
How would the deleted scenes improve it?
stuff like the cloaked Engineers with the one that sacrifice at the prologue or the Engineer speaking after waking up would improve the rhythm/pace of the movie and help fix what some wrongly call "plot holes"
Building on adding the 'cloaked Engineers' deleted scene to a cut, Ridley said that with the edit he wanted to make the Engineers more mysterious.
Some viewers disagree with Ridley. They prefer the deleted material about the Engineers be put into a cut. Such as;
- The cloaked Engineers sequence;
- The response by the Engineer to Weyland (after Weyland's speech to the Engineer).
- The Engineer taking his time examining the Lifeboat, and the extended sequence of Shaw fighting the Engineer.
Adding material to "Prometheus" doesn't matter to me but I understand the argument by some who want more about the Engineers in the film.
;)
I disagree with this BB.
I actually agree with some of the things you've written up to a point.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 22, 2017, 07:52:34 AM
With some clever cutting and reorganisation, the film would flow better. Also, some of the bits that annoy people can been altered.
Editing can change the 'flow' of a movie.
Whether the new flow is better or not comes down to personal taste.
- For instance, here is a YouTube channel dedicated to fan edits for the Star Wars prequels.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZENHLYZmLo
Edits which shorten a film can speed up its flow. But importantly some people have posted to this YT channel that they prefer the full length prequel films.
Again imo, it's personal taste.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 22, 2017, 07:52:34 AM
Take the head exploding scene. Trim it to remove the actual exploding piece and the scene is better.
That's not an example of pace / flow since the explosion takes only a few seconds. Imo that's an annoyance issue.
- Here is one of mine. I don't like Fifield howling in the tunnel once he has released the PUPs. Imo that doesn't fit his character being stressed once he entered the tunnels (until he gets stoned).
- A simple edit can take out short moments like that including when the head explodes.
- But is editing that out better?
It depends on the person. Someone may like howling Fifield.
And to me the exploding head is one of the clues that tells the viewer something about what happened to that Engineer.
- What's better or not with an edit again comes down to personal taste.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 22, 2017, 07:52:34 AM
I personally would start the film from the scene where the prometheus first appears. It would have nicely paralleled Alien this way.
I would then move to the scenes of David strolling around the ship, but removed the dream watching bits.
More would need to be taken out before the beginning of "Prometheus" mirrors the pace of the start of "Alien".
Yes, the credits can appear with the first appearance of the ship in space but after that, the sequence with David's learning and his investigations would need to be cut out to match "Alien's" pace.
David could shoot his basket, there could be a few shots of the ship's interior, and then the billiard table shot, with the balls moving, would be next showing that the ship was slowing down and then the crew wakes up.
What have we got? The start of "Prometheus" becomes a pale imitation of "Alien".
- "Alien" has ominous music throughout its beginning. This sets up horror science fiction.
- The ship in space in "Prometheus" has no music. And David by himself has mostly no continuous music soundtrack.
That is not the building of tension as with horror science fiction. Instead this remnant of "Prometheus" remains like art film "2001" & mystery science fiction.
- Someone could try to go to the trouble of remixing the soundtrack of "Prometheus" with new sinister music but it would likely be technically flawed.
Only the best fan editors could try to do this and where would they get the music from?
- The only person who could properly do a replacement of the soundtrack imo is Ridley Scott with studio money and that's not going to happen.
And that's only about the beginning. To make "Prometheus" into something like the horror SF of "Alien" would require a major reshoot which again is not going to happen.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 22, 2017, 07:52:34 AM
This would require later scenes, like where david comments about having seen her dreams, being altered/removed.
Without David's pervert spying on Shaw in the beginning there is no way to replace it later because Shaw doesn't go back into stasis. So, it's gone.
Now there's the issue of what David is doing later talking with someone in a stasis pod (who turns out to be Weyland).
Taking out large chunks of information removes meaning from "Prometheus" and makes it harder to understand an already vague film.
- Take out the recombining of DNA from the sacrificial Engineer and an illustration of a main idea from the film is gone;
- The archological bit with Shaw and Holloway (patterned after a similar sequence in "Jurassic Park") shows what their research was about.
- David's creepy behavior with him peeping into Shaw's dream is important in seeing a hostile side to David. It helps in understanding how he could decide to turn against Holloway later.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 22, 2017, 07:52:34 AM
There is lots i would personally change and i am confident the film would be better for it. I think others would agree.
You can certainly be confident of what would please you.
As for others Board critics of "Prometheus" here and on other websites, from my experience I expect their preferences would vary depending on individual personal taste.
In my debates about this movie and the reasons why some people can't stand it varies.
Many want more information put into the film, not less. For instance some believe that several deleted scenes should be in an edit.
- There is no one size fits all from the harsh critic side of the "Prometheus" debate.
;)
BB. Yeah, i was being vague and brief in what i would do. I did mention annoyance in my post so that was intended to cover the exploding head. I get that its all about an opinion.
For me, this is how i see the movie.
1. Amazing to look at. Just beautiful. For me, one of the best looking films there is.
2. Grand, interesting ideas.
3. Badly executed.
I have never found myself so frustrated by a movie before. I find it to be shoddy, for want of a better word and i would blame that on the changes to the movie throughout pre-production. Thats how i see it anyway.
I won't post here telling you that you are in anyway wrong in your posts, they are you opinions.
I really think that tighter movie is there and just needs a good edit.
I would love for Ridley to release a 'Special Edition' of Prometheus. I would love to see the deleted scene of the Engineer, in the life boat playing cat and mouse with Shaw, edited back in. The more R rated Med pod scene. The end scene with the F bomb. The Engineer speaking.
I couldn't tell you which Feifield scene i prefer so don't care which is there.
A bit of trimming and editing. I mean, come on, why did Peter Weyland have to pretend to be dead. A few changes to his scenes. Trims if you will, so there is no mention of his death prior to the mission.
Rework the scenes of Shaw after the operation and the hanger attack. They really don't work well, being spliced together, for me.
I have not the time to list everything I'd change.
There are some things that cant be avoided without damaging the movie, some of the things that most think stupid. That's fine. No film is perfect.
Out of interest BB. Can you give me a quick run down of your opinions of the other 4 movies from the series? Would you mind?
Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
In what way?
Well, the least I can think of, is that Millburn wouldn't have been made out to be such a doofus.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 23, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
Out of interest BB. Can you give me a quick run down of your opinions of the other 4 movies from the series? Would you mind?
No problem. My view of the Alien movies with "Prometheus" added in.
* "Alien"; I rank this #10 on my all time science fiction movie list.
A1 is the best SF horror film ever made imo. (Only the 1982 "The Thing" rivals it imo which I rank at #12.)
A1 is an excellent blend of ominous mood and tense acting.
* "Aliens"; I rank this #17 on my all time science fiction movie list.
A2 is a top notch action SF movie. I'd only put "The Matrix" (#8), "Total Recall" (#11) and "Terminator 2" (#16) above it.
- Cameron had long sequences of action in "Aliens" (creating the modern action style). And Sigourney and Carrie Henn play effective characters.
* After these triumphs, the Alien franchise ran into some problems imo.
1. Sigourney got script control of the later Alien films. She was not interested in expanding the Alien universe or developing longterm relationships between Ripley and other characters. Future films had to only focus on her character.
2. The Fox studio meddled in the later films but imo not in a good way. It was filmmaking by committee.
* "Alien 3"; I know several people think this is an excellent movie and some even think it's the best Alien film. Imo "development hell" is an apt description of the way it was put together.
David Fincher, an excellent director, was put in an impossible situation.
- As filming began much of the budget was already spent and the script wasn't finished. There were disputes over Giger's designs.
- Most importantly Fincher was not given control of the movie. He is so pissed off about A3 that he has disowned it. He has refused to do a director's cut of the film.
As a result, A2 theatrical or the Assembly Cut lacks the vision of a director who is put in charge compared with A1 and A2.
A3 is still interesting to watch.
* "Alien Resurrection"; this film had the talented Joss Whedon do the script but it had numerous rewites. Sigourney was now a producer of the film giving her even more control.
Jeunet became the director and he changed the ending of the script multiple times.
- Whedon believes the production did a poor job in casting, with designs and with the musical score.
- A4 has its good moments but it is not in the same class as Scott's outstanding "Alien".
* As for "Prometheus"; finally Sigourney was not in charge.
This allowed Scott to open up the franchise to the background of the Space Jockeys/Engineers, and explore their technology / culture.
- Also, Scott did not repeat the genre/styles of "Alien" and "Aliens" adding variety to the series.
"Prometheus" is a combination of art film SF ("2001"/"Blade Runner"), adventure SF ("Jurassic Park") and mystery SF (with some Sherlock Holmes moments).
I rank it #19 on my all time science fiction movie list.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 23, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
I would love for Ridley to release a 'Special Edition' of Prometheus. I would love to see the deleted scene of the Engineer, in the life boat playing cat and mouse with Shaw, edited back in. The more R rated Med pod scene. The end scene with the F bomb. The Engineer speaking.
Ridley may do that someday.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 23, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
why did Peter Weyland have to pretend to be dead.
This follows a famous mystery trope, the supposedly dead antagonist who is actually controlling things from behind the scenes.
The purpose of Weyland pretending to be dead is to give a reason for why the mission fails.
- In "Alien" the reason things go very wrong is because of sabotage by Ash.
Ash knows about the "creature". After Kane is infected, Ash allows Kane to eat with the crew with a giant, fast growing parasite inside of him.
Ash is pleased when the xenomorph gets loose. Ash doesn't care about getting the creature back to the Weyland/Yutani weapons labs on earth. Ash revels in the creature being free and killing/transforming the crew.
- In "Prometheus" the antagonist concept is similar. Weyland, like Ash is sabotaging the mission. Weyland's motive is different from Ash.
Weyland is selfish and wants to live forever. So, Weyland has David sabotage things to try to quickly find a cure for death.
- Weyland is hiding out in a stasis pod to stay alive since he is on the edge of death.
To sabotage the mission he has to keep things secret.
Only at the end once an alive Engineer is found, does Weyland reveal himself and take over the mission.
At that point the bodyguards have Shaw under Weyland's control.
It is also revealed that much of the crew have been Weyland's servants which includes David.
(The pilots and the captain are just company employees.)
* This is Ridley Scott doing a role reversal story idea which he also did in "Blade Runner".
- In BR the escaped replicants are at first evil killers.
By the end, the escaped replicants are not evil. Roy and the escaped replicants are freedom fighters.
They are slaves in a system led by the Tyrell Corporation which is evil.
- "Prometheus" has this kind of drastic role reversal.
At first Weyland in the hologram pretends that this is a scientific mission and that Shaw / Holloway are in charge. He is acting like a benevolent, generous figure.
- By the end Weyland's words in his hologram speech turn out to be a complete lie.
The entire mission and the $trillion is just about Weyland getting a cure for death.
Weyland doesn't care about anything else including the life of much of his crew.
David has been his pawn. Vickers has been under Weyland's control.
The entire mission is now being led with an iron hand by a desperate, irrational old man.
;)
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Apr 23, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
In what way?
Well, the least I can think of, is that Millburn wouldn't have been made out to be such a doofus.
I dunno. He seemed a like a doofus either way. Great that he's a biologist who has encountered new life forms - but put a bit of distance between you and that nasty looking snake thing.
And why even hang out in that room? Would've been simpler to have Janek guide them to an exit so they can wait out the storm.
I don't think there's a more gruesome version of the med pod scene. If anything, that version in the film IS the gruesome version, but they had a bloodless version ready. If they used that version the movie could have been PG-13.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Apr 23, 2017, 08:17:06 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 21, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
In what way?
Well, the least I can think of, is that Millburn wouldn't have been made out to be such a doofus.
I'll add my 2 cents about this which will be wordy since I'm a big fan of different kinds of science fiction films (including complex ones like "2001") and also have followed the NASA program from our world for a long time.
* "Prometheus" takes place in a time where up to that point, no complex alien life has yet been found.
No alien monsters have been seen yet.
- It is like NASA in our world where there are no weapons taken on NASA missions whether with human crews or with robot exploration.
- This no history of dangerous space aliens explains the casual attitude Janek had until after the storm.
No one had been killed by aliens in history yet.
There was no danger as far as he could see except for the storm and everyone was safe from that.
(David knew more but he wasn't telling Janek about the danger or Weyland's plans to sabotage the mission such as by poisoning Holloway.)
- The base seemed to have been abandoned for about 2000 years.
Shaw and Holloway had been to ancient sites on earth and those were not a danger in their minds.
* Milburn, the biologist, stated his complete support for the Darwin view of evolution, which proposes natural evolution that does not involve genetic engineering by space aliens.
Imo when Milburn saw the snake, he thought it was native to the planet and had naturally evolved.
In the Blu-Ray Scott and the writers say that Milburn is an expert about less advanced life (like a snake).
- Milburn believed he could handle the snake with his equipment. The idea that the suit would keep a person safe came from the Spaihts draft script. Spaihts spoke about this in the writer's Blu-ray commentary that the suit was supposed to provide protection.
- For some it might have helped to have Milburn say something about all of this. For instance;
Milburn to Fifield: "It's OK, I know how to handle dangerous snakes and this suit should protect me.While he doesn't say that, I accept that from Milburn's POV, he believed that he was not in danger.
* Importantly, once the body of Milburn was found by the crew, then the attitude of Janek changed drastically.
After this, Janek and Shaw were very tuned into the potential danger from that base which led to their actions at the end of the movie.
;)
PS. I'll add that there are some common science fiction cliches included in "Prometheus" (as well in the Alien franchise) which come up in discussions about the crew in the caves including with Milburn.
- For instance space explorers in big budget SF movies/TV hardly ever get sick from alien viruses. The trope is that people can take helmets off on alien worlds with no problem as long as there is enough oxygen to breathe.
- Another common big budget SF film/TV trope is that space explorers do not worry about contaminating alien planets with the crew's bacteria/viruses.
With the Alien franchise this is especially true where the terraforming of other planets is common and terraforming by its very nature is about contamination.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Apr 23, 2017, 11:43:17 PM
I don't think there's a more gruesome version of the med pod scene. If anything, that version in the film IS the gruesome version, but they had a bloodless version ready. If they used that version the movie could have been PG-13.
Yep. They might be able to make a version that lingered longer on blood and gore, but the nasty version is in the film and the tamer version was shot but unused.
QuoteI don't think there's a more gruesome version of the med pod scene. If anything, that version in the film IS the gruesome version, but they had a bloodless version ready. If they used that version the movie could have been PG-13.
That'd telegraph the fact he was about to die even more.
My bad. Been a long time since i watched the deleted scenes. I thought there was a more bloody version shot and the one we got was tame.
What I'm curious about - and I don't know if it was ever solved - is why they supposedly had scanned Kate Dickie's head into a computer or done a mold or something for the final scene with her about the juggernaut. Did she have some other fate in store?
Quote from: bb-15 on Apr 23, 2017, 10:38:15 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 23, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
Out of interest BB. Can you give me a quick run down of your opinions of the other 4 movies from the series? Would you mind?
No problem. My view of the Alien movies with "Prometheus" added in.
* "Alien"; I rank this #10 on my all time science fiction movie list.
A1 is the best SF horror film ever made imo. (Only the 1982 "The Thing" rivals it imo which I rank at #12.)
A1 is an excellent blend of ominous mood and tense acting.
* "Aliens"; I rank this #17 on my all time science fiction movie list.
A2 is a top notch action SF movie. I'd only put "The Matrix" (#8), "Total Recall" (#11) and "Terminator 2" (#16) above it.
- Cameron had long sequences of action in "Aliens" (creating the modern action style). And Sigourney and Carrie Henn play effective characters.
* After these triumphs, the Alien franchise ran into some problems imo.
1. Sigourney got script control of the later Alien films. She was not interested in expanding the Alien universe or developing longterm relationships between Ripley and other characters. Future films had to only focus on her character.
2. The Fox studio meddled in the later films but imo not in a good way. It was filmmaking by committee.
* "Alien 3"; I know several people think this is an excellent movie and some even think it's the best Alien film. Imo "development hell" is an apt description of the way it was put together.
David Fincher, an excellent director, was put in an impossible situation.
- As filming began much of the budget was already spent and the script wasn't finished. There were disputes over Giger's designs.
- Most importantly Fincher was not given control of the movie. He is so pissed off about A3 that he has disowned it. He has refused to do a director's cut of the film.
As a result, A2 theatrical or the Assembly Cut lacks the vision of a director who is put in charge compared with A1 and A2.
A3 is still interesting to watch.
* "Alien Resurrection"; this film had the talented Joss Whedon do the script but it had numerous rewites. Sigourney was now a producer of the film giving her even more control.
Jeunet became the director and he changed the ending of the script multiple times.
- Whedon believes the production did a poor job in casting, with designs and with the musical score.
- A4 has its good moments but it is not in the same class as Scott's outstanding "Alien".
* As for "Prometheus"; finally Sigourney was not in charge.
This allowed Scott to open up the franchise to the background of the Space Jockeys/Engineers, and explore their technology / culture.
- Also, Scott did not repeat the genre/styles of "Alien" and "Aliens" adding variety to the series.
"Prometheus" is a combination of art film SF ("2001"/"Blade Runner"), adventure SF ("Jurassic Park") and mystery SF (with some Sherlock Holmes moments).
I rank it #19 on my all time science fiction movie list.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 23, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
I would love for Ridley to release a 'Special Edition' of Prometheus. I would love to see the deleted scene of the Engineer, in the life boat playing cat and mouse with Shaw, edited back in. The more R rated Med pod scene. The end scene with the F bomb. The Engineer speaking.
Ridley may do that someday.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 23, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
why did Peter Weyland have to pretend to be dead.
This follows a famous mystery trope, the supposedly dead antagonist who is actually controlling things from behind the scenes.
The purpose of Weyland pretending to be dead is to give a reason for why the mission fails.
- In "Alien" the reason things go very wrong is because of sabotage by Ash.
Ash knows about the "creature". After Kane is infected, Ash allows Kane to eat with the crew with a giant, fast growing parasite inside of him.
Ash is pleased when the xenomorph gets loose. Ash doesn't care about getting the creature back to the Weyland/Yutani weapons labs on earth. Ash revels in the creature being free and killing/transforming the crew.
- In "Prometheus" the antagonist concept is similar. Weyland, like Ash is sabotaging the mission. Weyland's motive is different from Ash.
Weyland is selfish and wants to live forever. So, Weyland has David sabotage things to try to quickly find a cure for death.
- Weyland is hiding out in a stasis pod to stay alive since he is on the edge of death.
To sabotage the mission he has to keep things secret.
Only at the end once an alive Engineer is found, does Weyland reveal himself and take over the mission.
At that point the bodyguards have Shaw under Weyland's control.
It is also revealed that much of the crew have been Weyland's servants which includes David.
(The pilots and the captain are just company employees.)
* This is Ridley Scott doing a role reversal story idea which he also did in "Blade Runner".
- In BR the escaped replicants are at first evil killers.
By the end, the escaped replicants are not evil. Roy and the escaped replicants are freedom fighters.
They are slaves in a system led by the Tyrell Corporation which is evil.
- "Prometheus" has this kind of drastic role reversal.
At first Weyland in the hologram pretends that this is a scientific mission and that Shaw / Holloway are in charge. He is acting like a benevolent, generous figure.
- By the end Weyland's words in his hologram speech turn out to be a complete lie.
The entire mission and the $trillion is just about Weyland getting a cure for death.
Weyland doesn't care about anything else including the life of much of his crew.
David has been his pawn. Vickers has been under Weyland's control.
The entire mission is now being led with an iron hand by a desperate, irrational old man.
;)
I get all that but why bother with the cloak and daggers rubbish. There was no need. He was funding the mission. He can do whatever he likes. No need for the sabotage. For me its a bit of poor and cliché writing.
Loss of confidence in the Company and share price suffering if their founder and visionary is found out to be chasing God in deep space.
I don't mind him being there as a surprise. Thats fine. Why did he have to fake his death though? Thats my problem with it.
His death would have likely caused shares to drop as well. If thats what he was worried about. Faith could also be lost in the company.
Death is inevitable and can be planned for, considering his age. The state of his mental health could be harder to manage.
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Apr 24, 2017, 05:21:57 AM
What I'm curious about - and I don't know if it was ever solved - is why they supposedly had scanned Kate Dickie's head into a computer or done a mold or something for the final scene with her about the juggernaut. Did she have some other fate in store?
Face replacement of a stunt person if it was a digital model?
Quote from: SM on Apr 24, 2017, 07:48:55 AM
Death is inevitable and can be planned for, considering his age. The state of his mental health could be harder to manage.
Thats fine. My point is, why fake your death? Just make out that you were not going to go on this mission that your company is funding. I suppose you can argue that his age and failing health meant he was not going to live long enough to see the fruits of the mission.
So is that an element of the movie that you like then ? His faked death i mean ?
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
I get all that but why bother with the cloak and daggers rubbish. There was no need. He was funding the mission.
I don't think I've explained this well enough. I'll try again.
- Lying and hiding the truth is often essential to getting people to go along with horrible things in our world.
- And in the first two Alien movies, lying and hiding the truth is fundamental to the two main non monster antagonists.
Ash lies and hides his intentions.
Same with Burke.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
He can do whatever he likes. No need for the sabotage.
Actually, Weyland cannot do "whatever he likes". He has to do certain things.
1. Weyland had to be in stasis because otherwise he would be dead.
So, at least that explains why he is not around.
2. Weyland had to lie to get Shaw and Holloway to do what he wanted.
Weyland's plan was to go to LV-223 and;
A. Have David ignore scientific protocol.
What scientist is going to join such a mission which will almost completely ignore science? (Such as opening a door and taking an urn of black goo without permission.)
- But Weyland wanted the "true believers" as Vickers put it (who were Shaw and Holloway) to be part of the mission.
Weyland wanted qualified people who had studied the Engineer hypothesis to be on board.
- Result; pretend that Shaw and Holloway were in charge of a scientific mission.
B. Have David put the crew in danger to look for clues to a cure for death.
This also might include David experimenting on the crew which could kill crew members.
- Obviously, Shaw and Holloway would not have agreed to those terms.
Evidence for this is that Shaw is pretty upset when Holloway is killed (by one of David's experiments).
C. If Weyland was openly in charge from the beginning, then once David started screwing up, such as opening the door to the sculpture/shrine room without permission, then Shaw / Holloway could be pounding on Weyland's stasis pod yelling about David being out of control.
- Evidence for this possibility is in the movie.
Soon after Shaw sees that Weyland is alive, she says to David that he is under the control of Weyland's programming.
The mere presence of Weyland blows the ruse that he created.
* It was much better for Weyland to do it the way it was shown in the movie.
His lies to get Shaw and Holloway to be on board.
And Shaw thinks that Weyland is dead and so is puzzled why David is acting in strange ways.
- While Weyland is hiding, Shaw doesn't figure out what was wrong with this mission.
Result; Weyland's plan to hide and pretend he was dead was sound.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
For me its a bit of poor and cliché writing.
* Of course there is personal taste ("poor writing") but as for the mystery story cliches we are discussing they come from the same story which forms the basis of "Alien".
Which is "And Then There Were None" by Agatha Christie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None
It is a very influential novel (also called "Ten Little Indians")..
Quote"Ten Little Indians" is how director Ridley Scott described the plot of 'Alien' to actor Harry Dean Stanton (Brett) before he agreed to take on his role in this late seventies science-fiction/horror movie.
https://horrornovelreviews.com/2014/01/14/ridley-scotts-alien-an-exercise-in-existential-terror/
"Alien" shares cliches with "Prometheus" from the same source and the cliches in question in this discussion come from that same source.
;)
PS. From a later post;
QuoteJust make out that you were not going to go on this mission that your company is funding. I suppose you can argue that his age and failing health meant he was not going to live long enough to see the fruits of the mission.
Announcing that one is dead is much cleaner. Publically pretending to stay behind on earth could be checked and quickly found out to be a ruse.
'Where is he staying' the press could ask? 'He is not where he is supposed to be' could quickly be found out for instance.
QuoteSo is that an element of the movie that you like then?
I don't have to like or dislike every moment in a film. If a story idea is logical and is a commonly accepted story trope, I'll go along with that.
No. Im sorry. I dont agree with what you are saying. Weyland could have said that the trip was to cover more than one venture. Its up to him. He was funding the mission. He decides what happens. He could have told Shaw that thier part of the mission was to look for the Engineers. Other teams are there for geology and what not. He could have had a team doing whatever he wanted and he did not owe anyone a thing. So for me. This part of the movie is poor, ultimately unnecessary and played badly. That's just me though.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 10:11:59 AM
No. Im sorry. I dont agree with what you are saying. Weyland could have said that the trip was to cover more than one venture. Its up to him. He was funding the mission. He decides what happens.
No he doesn't. Weyland doesn't control what Shaw and Hollwoay do unless he's going to lock them up.
For Weyland to do what you suggest, he would have to lie.
Otherwise once David starts screwing up the mission, then Shaw will be going after Weyland who is frail and would not want to deal with that.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 10:11:59 AM
He could have told Shaw that thier part of the mission was to look for the Engineers. Other teams are there for geology and what not. He could have had a team doing whatever he wanted and he did not owe anyone a thing.
If someone's job is getting screwed over and your boss has your significant other killed, then that is a problem.
- You don't seem to realize that what you are telling me is that if your boss killed your significant other, then that would be OK because your boss does 'not owe anyone a thing".
- Sorry but that is not true in our world or in a fictional world of an Alien movie.
For instance in "Aliens" there is an intense argument between Ripley and Burke. According to your line of reasoning Ripley or no one else should complain to Burke because he represents the company and the company can do whatever it wants because a company does "not owe anyone a thing".
With all due respect but that is not the reality in our world or in the world of the Alien movies.
;)
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 24, 2017, 07:48:55 AM
Death is inevitable and can be planned for, considering his age. The state of his mental health could be harder to manage.
Thats fine. My point is, why fake your death? Just make out that you were not going to go on this mission that your company is funding. I suppose you can argue that his age and failing health meant he was not going to live long enough to see the fruits of the mission.
So is that an element of the movie that you like then ? His faked death i mean ?
It's not something that's ever been an issue really.
Quote from: bb-15 on Apr 24, 2017, 10:25:02 AM
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 10:11:59 AM
No. Im sorry. I dont agree with what you are saying. Weyland could have said that the trip was to cover more than one venture. Its up to him. He was funding the mission. He decides what happens.
No he doesn't. Weyland doesn't control what Shaw and Hollwoay do unless he's going to lock them up.
For Weyland to do what you suggest, he would have to lie.
Otherwise once David starts screwing up the mission, then Shaw will be going after Weyland who is frail and would not want to deal with that.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 10:11:59 AM
He could have told Shaw that thier part of the mission was to look for the Engineers. Other teams are there for geology and what not. He could have had a team doing whatever he wanted and he did not owe anyone a thing.
If someone's job is getting screwed over and your boss has your significant other killed, then that is a problem.
- You don't seem to realize that what you are telling me is that if your boss killed your significant other, then that would be OK because your boss does 'not owe anyone a thing".
- Sorry but that is not true in our world or in a fictional world of an Alien movie.
For instance in "Aliens" there is an intense argument between Ripley and Burke. According to your line of reasoning Ripley or no one else should complain to Burke because he represents the company and the company can do whatever it wants because a company does "not owe anyone a thing".
With all due respect but that is not the reality in our world or in the world of the Alien movies.
;)
The significant other was killed due to infection and Vickers not wanting him on the ship.
Weyland never told David to infect Holloway. Holloway indirectly gave David te permission for that.
I never said that Weyland controlled Shaw and Holloway but they were under his employ. If he said " we are going here, you can do this and that there, but ill will have other teams doing this, also" why would there be a problem.
Im not telling you that you are wrong. Im just saying i dont like it, it could have been handled in other ways, that j would have preferred. I think it was a poor element of the movie, among others.
Regarding your last part of the post where you tell me how the real works. Im not suggesting thaf Weyland can kill and do what he likes in that sense. I meant that it is his mission at the end of the day. That is not arguble. So he had overall power to dictate the terms and unless Shaw and Holloway were the most unreasonable pair in history, being that that had not stake other than weyland wanted them there, then why would they have a problem with Weyland having more going on than them looking for Engineers?
I think ill call it a day now with this line of discussion. You will simply have to accept that i am not fond of that aspect of the movie.
I know you will argue to the utmost in favour for this film. Thats fine. I have no issue with you loving it.
Ps, thanks for your thoughts on the other movies mate.
What about Predator. Do you hold that in high regard ?
Weyland may not have told David to harm or kill Holloway - but he effectively gave him carte blanche to do whatever it took to achieve Weyland's mission and everyone but Weyland was expendable.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 24, 2017, 08:13:13 AM
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Apr 24, 2017, 05:21:57 AM
What I'm curious about - and I don't know if it was ever solved - is why they supposedly had scanned Kate Dickie's head into a computer or done a mold or something for the final scene with her about the juggernaut. Did she have some other fate in store?
Face replacement of a stunt person if it was a digital model?
Yeah, most likely. Ah, I was so hoping an omniscient Engineer would make people's heads explode with its fearsome power.
Quote from: SM on Apr 24, 2017, 09:47:55 PM
Weyland may not have told David to harm or kill Holloway - but he effectively gave him carte blanche to do whatever it took to achieve Weyland's mission and everyone but Weyland was expendable.
Yeah i know that. Thats not my issue. Not much of what has been talked about the last page is. My issue is pretending to be dead. I think it was unnecessary.
I do think that if when David asked Holloway what he would do to get his answers, if Holloway had not have said 'anything' David would not have done what he did. Perhaps.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
I think ill call it a day now with this line of discussion. You will simply have to accept that i am not fond of that aspect of the movie.
I can see that is where our discussion is going which is fine with me.
I've enjoyed the exchange about the movie and I'm fine with eventually agreeing to disagree.
Still I have some more words to add. ;)
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
I know you will argue to the utmost in favour for this film. Thats fine. I have no issue with you loving it.
My argument is not based on a blind love for this film.
I have no problems with finding flaws with "Prometheus".
I can argue strongly to criticize this movie.
- But imo what you have presented is not a flaw.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
Im not suggesting thaf Weyland can kill and do what he likes in that sense. I meant that it is his mission at the end of the day. That is not arguble. So he had overall power to dictate the terms
* I am not persuaded by your argument. Of course an employer can dictate terms of employment within the law.
But what imo you have not seen in the movie is that part of Weyland's terms of employment is to have a servant poison an employee with no consequences.
- Considering that this is part of Weyland's unlawful work environment, you have not refuted my argument that criminals (like Weyland) can try to mask their identities to escape detection which is what Weyland did in the film.
Criminals may try to hide (change identities, fake a death) to escape from the consequences of their wrong behavior.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
Im not telling you that you are wrong. Im just saying i dont like it,
OK, but I'm answering your question, why does Weyland fake his death?
It isn't about liking or disliking imo. It's that what he does is logical imo.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
The significant other was killed due to infection and Vickers not wanting him on the ship.
I'll be more precise.
* What is imo the crime in the film?
- David, who is Weyland's property and is under Weyland's control, (as discussed by Shaw) poisoned Holloway causing a completely mutilating, inclurable disease/transformation.
- This crime occurred soon after David had a chat with Weyland where David was getting orders from Weyland.
- Vickers freaked out at this moment (afraid of what Weyland was up to) but Vickers could not stop Weyland's pawn, David, from following Weyland's orders.
- David then poisoned Holloway. David was manipulating a drunk Holloway and could get him to say whatever David wanted.
No matter what, David was going to poison Holloway.
* Who is legally responsible for this crime? Not David. He is a machine owned by Weyland and is under Weyland's control as stated in the film.
- Weyland is the legally responsible person involved and he would know that.
* In a crew situation there is always the danger of mutiny. And a leader giving orders which leads to the wrongful poisoning of a crew member could cause a mutiny.
- A criminal leader may want to escape detection in such situations which is what Weyland did.
That is why imo Weyland faked his death.
- This isn't about some gut level emotion on my part.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
Ps, thanks for your thoughts on the other movies mate.
You're welcome.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
What about Predator. Do you hold that in high regard ?
Yes I do. I like a lot of science fiction movies and "Predator" is #40 on my top ~50 list.
;)
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 25, 2017, 05:00:09 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 24, 2017, 09:47:55 PM
Weyland may not have told David to harm or kill Holloway - but he effectively gave him carte blanche to do whatever it took to achieve Weyland's mission and everyone but Weyland was expendable.
Yeah i know that. Thats not my issue. Not much of what has been talked about the last page is. My issue is pretending to be dead. I think it was unnecessary.
I do think that if when David asked Holloway what he would do to get his answers, if Holloway had not have said 'anything' David would not have done what he did. Perhaps.
Yep. "Anything and everything" gave David the opening he needed. And David was obviously taking advantage of Charlie being half cut.
Quote from: bb-15 on Apr 25, 2017, 06:51:09 AM
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
I think ill call it a day now with this line of discussion. You will simply have to accept that i am not fond of that aspect of the movie.
I can see that is where our discussion is going which is fine with me.
I've enjoyed the exchange about the movie and I'm fine with eventually agreeing to disagree.
Still I have some more words to add. ;)
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
I know you will argue to the utmost in favour for this film. Thats fine. I have no issue with you loving it.
My argument is not based on a blind love for this film.
I have no problems with finding flaws with "Prometheus".
I can argue strongly to criticize this movie.
- But imo what you have presented is not a flaw.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
Im not suggesting thaf Weyland can kill and do what he likes in that sense. I meant that it is his mission at the end of the day. That is not arguble. So he had overall power to dictate the terms
* I am not persuaded by your argument. Of course an employer can dictate terms of employment within the law.
But what imo you have not seen in the movie is that part of Weyland's terms of employment is to have a servant poison an employee with no consequences.
- Considering that this is part of Weyland's unlawful work environment, you have not refuted my argument that criminals (like Weyland) can try to mask their identities to escape detection which is what Weyland did in the film.
Criminals may try to hide (change identities, fake a death) to escape from the consequences of their wrong behavior.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
Im not telling you that you are wrong. Im just saying i dont like it,
OK, but I'm answering your question, why does Weyland fake his death?
It isn't about liking or disliking imo. It's that what he does is logical imo.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
The significant other was killed due to infection and Vickers not wanting him on the ship.
I'll be more precise.
* What is imo the crime in the film?
- David, who is Weyland's property and is under Weyland's control, (as discussed by Shaw) poisoned Holloway causing a completely mutilating, inclurable disease/transformation.
- This crime occurred soon after David had a chat with Weyland where David was getting orders from Weyland.
- Vickers freaked out at this moment (afraid of what Weyland was up to) but Vickers could not stop Weyland's pawn, David, from following Weyland's orders.
- David then poisoned Holloway. David was manipulating a drunk Holloway and could get him to say whatever David wanted.
No matter what, David was going to poison Holloway.
* Who is legally responsible for this crime? Not David. He is a machine owned by Weyland and is under Weyland's control as stated in the film.
- Weyland is the legally responsible person involved and he would know that.
* In a crew situation there is always the danger of mutiny. And a leader giving orders which leads to the wrongful poisoning of a crew member could cause a mutiny.
- A criminal leader may want to escape detection in such situations which is what Weyland did.
That is why imo Weyland faked his death.
- This isn't about some gut level emotion on my part.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
Ps, thanks for your thoughts on the other movies mate.
You're welcome.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 24, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
What about Predator. Do you hold that in high regard ?
Yes I do. I like a lot of science fiction movies and "Predator" is #40 on my top ~50 list.
;)
I honestly dont believe you have blind love for the film. You like it on its merits and defend what you like.
The question as to why fake his death was more rhetorical lol. I know why and have the same the thoughts as you do as to why he does this. I just dont like this part of the movie.
Cool. We shall agree do disagree.
Its nice to have a healthy debate about something without having childish comments and rudeness so thank you for that.
Im interested in how you rank the movies overall. Could you list me, from best to worst in your opinion, all the movies frpm the series including the AvP's and Predator flicks.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 25, 2017, 09:10:30 AM
Its nice to have a healthy debate about something without having childish comments and rudeness so thank you for that.
Yes, that's what I prefer.
There were only two critics of "Prometheus" on IMDb where we were able to keep things cordial over the years and we parted on good terms.
It has been much easier exchanging opposing views about the movie on this site.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 25, 2017, 09:10:30 AM
I just dont like this part of the movie.
Cool. We shall agree do disagree.
And that's fine.
The two IMDb critics of the film that I mentioned also were very familiar with the Agatha Christie source material ("And Then There Were None") and adaptations of the idea such with Sherlock Holmes movies/TV.
But their conclusion was the same as yours, they just didn't like that story idea being used in "Prometheus". ;)
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 25, 2017, 09:10:30 AM
Im interested in how you rank the movies overall. Could you list me, from best to worst in your opinion, all the movies frpm the series including the AvP's and Predator flicks.
Fine.
I've already mentioned my ranking order of;
1. "Alien"
2. "Aliens"
3. "Prometheus"
4. "Predator"
* Below those I bunch together 3 movies with about the same rating.
5. "Alien 3: Assembly Cut"
6. "Alien: Resurrection" (theatrical cut)
7. "Predators"
- I've already commented on the 2 Alien movies.
With "Predators" I thought the cast was good. I appreciated the outer space setting instead of Los Angeles in "Predator 2".
This allowed a reveal of more of the Predator culture. And that fits my enjoyment of exploring the world of science fiction/fantasy franchises.
- That said; "Predators" doesn't come close to the tense hunting in "Predator".
* Next level imo are 2 films.
8. "AVP: Aliens vs Predator"
9. "Predator 2"
I put these together for opposite reasons.
- AVP has a top notch story with poor execution; subpar direction, cast, special effects, story location.
- P2 by contrast does a lot of things right but the story/dialogue is often poor.
Still AVP is a guilty pleasure. I'd much rather watch it over P2. AVP has ideas from the production of "Alien". (Some of these same ideas were used in "Prometheus".) AVP also has details of the Predator culture (though putting the pyramid in a different place would have been better imo).
Also, to me Paul W.S. Anderson is not a very good director (though "Event Horizon" was decent horror SF). I've never been a fan of his "Resident Evil" movies for instance.
- Cameron and Scott turned down directing AVP. This shows the need for a top notch director who has control for this kind of film to succeed imo.
10. "AVP: Requiem";
A person on IMDb rated the AVP movies higher than "Prometheus".
AVP2 uses the teenage slasher/B movie, monster in a small town trope.
That just doesn't interest me unless it is in a classic film. And AVP2 is no classic imo.
* Feel free to share your views about the Alien, Predator, AVP franchises.
;)
Nice list.
Mine is as follows. Similar to yours in that I group them together.
The top three are amazing. I love them all. They are in order of liking and are all in my top 5 movies ever. They are not seperated by much. Alien ever so slightly creeps above Aliens.
1. Alien
2. Aliens
3. Predator.
The next teir
4. Predator 2
5. Alien 3
6. Prometheus
I think these are good films with many flaws. Again in order of preference. Prometheus and Alien 3 are very close and i would say they can swap places depending on my mood lol.
7. Alien Resurrection
8. Predators.
Still good movies in my opinion. I treat Resurrection as its own thing. Its not part of Ripley's story in the first three. To me it plays and feels like an Alien comic come to life. I appreciate it on this merit. I love comics.
Now the last two, for me are where the series is bad. I really dislike them. Everything up till now is good or better.
9. AvP.
Such a let down. Should never have been on earth. Soft and misguided.
10. AvP R
I consider this to be an insult to human intelligence lol. I cannot watch it. Just awful fan fiction.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 26, 2017, 06:29:32 AM
9. AvP.
Such a let down. Should never have been on earth. Soft and misguided.
The island in Antarctica never worked for me. I was thinking of different places of where to put the island but none of my ideas are as good as yours.
Putting AVP on another planet is a good solution. It reminds me of "Stargate";
- On another planet the Predators can build as many pyramids as they want (nuke as many xenomorphs as they want) to play their war games and run their experiments.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 26, 2017, 06:29:32 AM
10. AvP R
I consider this to be an insult to human intelligence lol. I cannot watch it. Just awful fan fiction.
Yes, it's so silly it's like a spoof of an Alien/Predador movie; it could be made for laughs and called, 'Scary Movie Meets Alien'.
Quote from: Russ840 on Apr 26, 2017, 06:29:32 AM
I treat Resurrection as its own thing. Its not part of Ripley's story in the first three. To me it plays and feels like an Alien comic come to life. I appreciate it on this merit. I love comics.
I can agree with this for the theatrical cut of "Resurrection". The Special Edition goes too far with the Terry Gillium style of humor which the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, loves.
The theatrical version can feel like a comic. The horror element often isn't that strong and the details of the xenomorph aren't well developed and the world building is limited. I can enjoy it as long as I go with the humor, the odd nature of it and keep my expectations low.
* Thanks for the list.
;)
What in the Special Edition tipped it into Gilliam?
Quote from: SM on Apr 27, 2017, 09:53:43 AM
What in the Special Edition tipped it into Gilliam?
For the connection I suggest first;
- Look at the trailer (on YouTube) from "The City of Lost Children" co-directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa7oVPru4J8
- The influence of Gilliam's "Brazil" is very strong with Jeunet's movie imo.
Here is the beginning of "Brazil" on YouTube.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=04BMSMHuyEs
- Go to one of the first scenes in "Brazil" at 2:19 to 2:42.
It has an actor trying to hit a bug and finally crushing it. The bug's guts land inside a printer.
- Then go to the start of "Ressurection Special Edition" for the credits scene.
We see a bug and an actor crushes it and then uses the bug's guts as a spit ball which go through a straw and land (splat!) against a window.
Similar comic idea from "Brazil" which doesn't help set the right creepy tone of "Ressurection".
- With the "Ressurection" theatrical cut, the credits are put over what looks like distorted flesh with body parts emerging. That represents the radical genetic manipulation done at the government base. It's more effective to me.
;)
I'm quite familiar with the films of both Terry G and JPJ; I didn't find the gunner spitting on the window was especially Gilliamesque though.
I do think there is a bit of a Gilliam-esque influence to Jeunet's work, his sensibility and his aesthetic. But I also think it's all his own - he's a gorgeous visualist. There's a lot of the French genre guys like that. I think it rubbed people the wrong way but I have a lot of love for his work and for AR, warts and all. You can't say they didn't try something different.
Alien is what happens when all the right creative people are in a room together on the right project. Resurrection is what happens when all the wrong people are together on the wrong one.
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Apr 27, 2017, 06:42:52 PM
There's a lot of the French genre guys like that. I think it rubbed people the wrong way but I have a lot of love for his work and for AR, warts and all. You can't say they didn't try something different.
I'm glad you brought up the controversy over the reaction to "Resurrection".
Chris Stuckman's review of AR is a continual repetition that the entire film is terrible which to me is unfair.
As you put it AR tries something different with the Alien franchise. And imo with the theatrical cut, the film pretty much succeeded.
- One of the things that AR does is introduce some more science fiction ideas into an Alien movie, specially genetic engineering/manipulation.
In AR that involves xenomorph/human hybrids.
- That SF idea connects a bit to "Prometheus where the Engineers show great skill with genetic engineering with the manipulation of life on planets and using a substance to quickly change a worm, a human (or a human egg) into a monster.
;)
PS.
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Apr 27, 2017, 06:42:52 PM
I do think there is a bit of a Gilliam-esque influence to Jeunet's work, his sensibility and his aesthetic. But I also think it's all his own...
Agreed. Whatever influence Gilliam has with Jeunet, Jean-Pierre has taken his own path as a filmmaker.
It would better without David imo. His big bouncy fringe and flip-flops are completely at odds with the dark, edgy vibe of the series. The most pansy character in all the movies. Get rid.
Quote from: TizerisT on May 03, 2017, 03:56:48 PM
It would better without David imo. His big bouncy fringe and flip-flops are completely at odds with the dark, edgy vibe of the series. The most pansy character in all the movies. Get rid.
David is one of the most interesting characters in the whole series and is the best thing about Prometheus imo.
Quote from: TizerisT on May 03, 2017, 03:56:48 PM
It would better without David imo. His big bouncy fringe and flip-flops are completely at odds with the dark, edgy vibe of the series. The most pansy character in all the movies. Get rid.
"pansy"? What is this - the 1970s?
Quote from: TizerisT on May 03, 2017, 03:56:48 PM
It would better without David imo. His big bouncy fringe and flip-flops are completely at odds with the dark, edgy vibe of the series. The most pansy character in all the movies. Get rid.
Seriously, pansy? There's no need for that. Let's interact like mature folk please.
Quote from: SM on Apr 27, 2017, 11:03:10 AM
I'm quite familiar with the films of both Terry G and JPJ; I didn't find the gunner spitting on the window was especially Gilliamesque though.
That's fine. It's just a difference in interpretation.
I can still enjoy "Alien: Ressurection" as comic/horror film with some different twists from Jeunet.
I just believe that the theatrical cut is more effective.
The TC has a more consistent tone without getting too silly (which to me the opening of the Special Edition does).
Also, the SE adds some dialogue which isn't essential and slows down the movie imo.
And I don't think that what seems like multiple endings works well.
That's just my view and I'm most willing to agree to disagree.
;)
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 03, 2017, 10:54:20 PM
Seriously, pansy? There's no need for that. Let's interact like mature folk please.
Sure, let's do that. It's still true though.
That was mature....
QuoteAlso, the SE adds some dialogue which isn't essential and slows down the movie imo.
It does, but it also has the extended chapel scene, which I find to be one of Weaver's best scenes in any Alien film.
Not sure what you mean by multiple endings.
Quote from: TizerisT on May 04, 2017, 05:22:30 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 03, 2017, 10:54:20 PM
Seriously, pansy? There's no need for that. Let's interact like mature folk please.
Sure, let's do that. It's still true though.
Since you're incapable of doing so, I've removed your ability to post for the time being. If, after the ban ends, you can't behave like the age you have to be to have registered an account here, I'll make it permanent. :)
Quote from: SM on May 04, 2017, 05:32:18 AMThat was mature....
Cool.
Quote from: SM on May 04, 2017, 05:32:18 AM...the extended chapel scene, which I find to be one of Weaver's best scenes in any Alien film.
Sigourney's performance in A4 has gotten a lot of negativity but I don't agree with that reaction.
She is supposed to be playing a half human, half animal being.
I accept the idea and her performance. And part of that are glimpses of her memories of her human self which emerge in her cloned mind.
Her simple statement in the SE about remembering a girl who had bad dreams is one of Ripley's best moments imo. Wish it had been in the TC.
Quote from: SM on May 04, 2017, 05:32:18 AMNot sure what you mean by multiple endings.
When the Betty is flying in the clouds and the music swells in feels like we are very close to an ending imo.
The music continues with the kiss between Johner and Vriess and in the theatrical cut Call and Ripley see earth through a window, say a few words and that's it. It feels pretty seemless.
In the SE like the TC the music climax signals the ending but the SE moves on to the landing of the ship. At that moment the soundtrack climax is over and the music changes. When Call says "So, this is earth" it feels like another ending to me.
;)
I think both of them work fine in terms of cutting and soundtrack.
The tone though is quite different. In the TC Earth looks like a beautiful blue planet that's worth saving. In the SE, not so much (the Sulaco wreck in the background is cool though).
There is another reason for Weyland being in stasis: he's dying. I got the impression that he had days or even just hours to live, and went into stasis out of desperation. Vickers sabotages him by hiring a cut-rate crew, but Weyland is doing this to save his own skin from immanent death and he has no time to waste. That's why David let's him sleep until the last possible moment.
This also references and unused idea from Blade Runner that Tyrrell was a replicant and the real Tyrrell is in stasis in the pyramid.
Also, in my experience, wealthy people lie a lot about their wealth, whereabouts, business plans, etc. They are often extremely paranoid.
Quote from: Protozoid on May 04, 2017, 04:23:18 PM
There is another reason for Weyland being in stasis: he's dying. I got the impression that he had days or even just hours to live, and went into stasis out of desperation. Vickers sabotages him by hiring a cut-rate crew, but Weyland is doing this to save his own skin from immanent death and he has no time to waste. That's why David let's him sleep until the last possible moment.
This also references and unused idea from Blade Runner that Tyrrell was a replicant and the real Tyrrell is in stasis in the pyramid.
Also, in my experience, wealthy people lie a lot about their wealth, whereabouts, business plans, etc. They are often extremely paranoid.
Yes, Elijah;
- If the viewer accepts that Weyand is on the edge of death, then Weyland being in stasis is his only option to stay alive.
- Agreed about Vickers' hiring. She didn't believe in Shaw's / Holloway's theory about Engineers being on LV-223. Vickers thought the entire mission was a waste of time and money. So, she hired a biologist and a geologist who shared her views that there would be no Engineers on that moon.
To support that idea, the geologist wanted nothing to do with the mission once the dead Engineer was found and both scientists thought the Engineer theory was BS during the crew presentation.
- Nice catch about the unused "Blade Runner" idea of Tyrell being in stasis. Makes sense since Lindelof said that he based some of the Weyland / David subplot on "Blade Runner".
* Good point about all the eccentric super wealthy people in history. From Howard Hughes to Willaim Randolf Hearst, there have been some very strange characters in actual history which would fit the obsessive/selfish behavior of Weyland.
;)
bb-15, when are you going to see Covenant dude ?
Quote from: Russ840 on May 06, 2017, 07:24:53 PM
bb-15, when are you going to see Covenant dude ?
May 19th Russ (with my son). I like to watch Alien movies as soon as possible to reduce the chance of spoilers.
How about you Russ, when will you see it?
;)
Quote from: bb-15 on May 07, 2017, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on May 06, 2017, 07:24:53 PM
bb-15, when are you going to see Covenant dude ?
May 19th Russ (with my son). I like to watch Alien movies as soon as possible to reduce the chance of spoilers.
How about you Russ, when will you see it?
;)
Friday 12th. Cannot wait. Would love to expose my little girl to the films but she is only 3 lol.
This is my first 'real' Alien movie at the cinema. Was a little to young to get into Resurrection when it was playing. I dont include the AvP's.
Did catch Prometheus though.
Cool that you get to watch it with your son, dude.
Quote from: Russ840 on May 07, 2017, 08:07:30 PM
Quote from: bb-15 on May 07, 2017, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on May 06, 2017, 07:24:53 PM
bb-15, when are you going to see Covenant dude ?
May 19th Russ (with my son). I like to watch Alien movies as soon as possible to reduce the chance of spoilers.
How about you Russ, when will you see it?
;)
Friday 12th. Cannot wait. Would love to expose my little girl to the films but she is only 3 lol.
This is my first 'real' Alien movie at the cinema. Was a little to young to get into Resurrection when it was playing. I dont include the AvP's.
Did catch Prometheus though.
Cool that you get to watch it with your son, dude.
Great you can see it the 12th Russ. (I guess you are in Europe?)
In the US it is coming out the 19th.
Your little girl needs at least 10 more years to see a horror movie. ;)
My son is in his 20s and we made a deal.
I will see Guardians #2 with him and he will see Covenant with me.
An Alien movie in a theater is a trip with the large screen and the loud sound system. It really helps make the film work imo.
Have fun.
;)
Quote from: bb-15 on May 08, 2017, 01:59:11 AM
Quote from: Russ840 on May 07, 2017, 08:07:30 PM
Quote from: bb-15 on May 07, 2017, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: Russ840 on May 06, 2017, 07:24:53 PM
bb-15, when are you going to see Covenant dude ?
May 19th Russ (with my son). I like to watch Alien movies as soon as possible to reduce the chance of spoilers.
How about you Russ, when will you see it?
;)
Friday 12th. Cannot wait. Would love to expose my little girl to the films but she is only 3 lol.
This is my first 'real' Alien movie at the cinema. Was a little to young to get into Resurrection when it was playing. I dont include the AvP's.
Did catch Prometheus though.
Cool that you get to watch it with your son, dude.
Great you can see it the 12th Russ. (I guess you are in Europe?)
In the US it is coming out the 19th.
Your little girl needs at least 10 more years to see a horror movie. ;)
My son is in his 20s and we made a deal.
I will see Guardians #2 with him and he will see Covenant with me.
An Alien movie in a theater is a trip with the large screen and the loud sound system. It really helps make the film work imo.
Have fun.
;)
I was 9 when i first watched Alien, back in '92. But yeah. I dont think My Fiancé will allow it till at least another 10 years lol.
Are you not a Marvel fan? I enjoyed Guardians 2.
Agreed on the big screen and sound being a great edition to the experience.
Yes, England is where I am. We do temd to get a lot of films earlier than you guys. The ones i want to watch anyway.
I really do hope that Covenant strengthens Prometheus for me. I think it will.
Hope you enjoy it when you get to see it dude.
Quote from: Russ840 on May 08, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
I enjoyed Guardians 2.
Good to know. I'll be seeing it in about 3 hours.
Quote from: Russ840 on May 08, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
Are you not a Marvel fan?
I see all the MCU movies. (I need to because they are all related.)
I like Iron Man a lot.
But I might have waited a couple of weeks or more before seeing Guardians 2.
My son however, is a huge Marvel fan so, we are making it happen today.
Quote from: Russ840 on May 08, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
Agreed on the big screen and sound being a great edition to the experience.
Definitely helps with horror. I remember seeing "Aliens" in a theater at release close to the screen. I was with a friend and we both got freaked a lot.
Quote from: Russ840 on May 08, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
Yes, England is where I am. We do temd to get a lot of films earlier than you guys. The ones i want to watch anyway.
Lucky you and to the UK. ;)
Quote from: Russ840 on May 08, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
I really do hope that Covenant strengthens Prometheus for me. I think it will.
Hope you enjoy it when you get to see it dude.
Thanks, same to you.
I'm really looking forward to AC.
;)
Prometheus is a great popcorn flick, but intellectual? Hell no. Everything is extremely simplified. Even Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy had a more intellectual plot than Prometheus. It does nothing with all the big questions it raises (and they aren't very big to begin with) and it refuses to answer them. Shaw holding up a DNA card and matching it with the Engineers is considered intellectual? I dare you to watch a real intellectual movie, like Stalker, Solyaris, Cosmopolis and A Dangerous Method. Your head will explode like the dead engineer's.
Prometheus is a masterpiece to me.
Actually, PROMETHEUS(3D) and THE MARTIAN(3D) are My Favorites Science Fictions of the Last 30 Years.
Masterpiece? Jesus.
Quote from: Ingwar on Aug 28, 2017, 08:56:27 PM
Masterpiece? Jesus.
I'm assuming you did not like it.
Now I'm not saying it's perfect film. It does have some problems, but for me I can overlook that and the fan edits really do make it a better film overall to me.
A vary few it seems, including me, do regard it as a Masterpiece. IMO, I think Prometheus will be held in higher regard in time. It seemed vary original story wise, has great concepts. I really love the score, music, cinematography, effects. Characters were great too imo. I really only disliked a couple and that was Holloway and Weyland. I hated the way Weyland was such a Nihilist. I love the fact Guy Pierce played him though and he did a fantastic job. Have you seen the TED Talk viral with Guy Pierce. He was intimidating as hell in that to me. He portrayed a rich, intelligent and powerful man vary well. Guy rocks. I highly recommend the Fan edit on this site. It has almost all the deleted scenes in it and it also has the Virals in it too. Way better then the theatrical cut. Well I could go on and on for pages about why I loved it. Care to explain why you don't like it?
Quote from: Ingwar on Aug 28, 2017, 08:56:27 PM
Masterpiece? Jesus.
Everyone hated 2001, Alien, Blade Runner, and Predator when they came out, and look at how they're perceived now.
With Prometheus, I would have included the deleted scene of Milburn becoming ecstatic after finding those worms, though.
Getting mixed reviews doesn't mean 'everyone hated them'.
Quote from: bleau on Aug 28, 2017, 09:31:43 PM
I highly recommend the Fan edit on this site. It has almost all the deleted scenes in it and it also has the Virals in it too. Way better then the theatrical cut.
Ruins the pacing for me. The theatrical cut is better. I'd rather watch the virals and deleted scenes as extras.
Quote from: bleau on Aug 28, 2017, 09:31:43 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Aug 28, 2017, 08:56:27 PM
Masterpiece? Jesus.
I'm assuming you did not like it.
I like
Prometheus but calling it a masterpiece is ... I don't know what to say.
It would take some black goo tinted glasses to view Prometheus as a masterpiece.
Prometheus was a very, very beautiful film.
I worked as D.P. and Photographer so I love Visuals over anything else.
By my parameters, Prometheus is a Masterpiece in Terms of Visuals, D.P. and Cinematography.
Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 29, 2017, 09:56:14 PM
Prometheus was a very, very beautiful film.
I worked as D.P. and Photographer so I love Visuals over anything else.
By my parameters, Prometheus is a Masterpiece in Terms of Visuals, D.P. and Cinematography.
It's beautifully looking movie but it doesn't make it masterpiece. Visuals are not everything. Movie is about characters and plot ... storytelling if you prefer.
If you have a very specific and unique definition of masterpiece, then it's a masterpiece...
Quote from: SM on Aug 29, 2017, 11:19:50 PM
If you have a very specific and unique definition of masterpiece, then it's a masterpiece...
There is nothing specific and unique about visuals as part of a movie. Masterpiece (regarding films) is considers as something more than that. Movie is not a painting.
Mona Lisa is a very boring painting, I've seen better on deviantart.
Quote from: Ingwar on Aug 29, 2017, 11:51:15 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 29, 2017, 11:19:50 PM
If you have a very specific and unique definition of masterpiece, then it's a masterpiece...
There is nothing specific and unique about visuals as part of a movie. Masterpiece (regarding films) is considers as something more than that. Movie is not a painting.
I was being sarcastic.
Quote from: SM on Aug 29, 2017, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Aug 29, 2017, 11:51:15 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 29, 2017, 11:19:50 PM
If you have a very specific and unique definition of masterpiece, then it's a masterpiece...
There is nothing specific and unique about visuals as part of a movie. Masterpiece (regarding films) is considers as something more than that. Movie is not a painting.
I was being sarcastic.
You sounded very ... convincing :)
Quote from: Scorpio on Aug 29, 2017, 11:54:34 PM
Mona Lisa is a very boring painting, I've seen better on deviantart.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
To each their own.
To me, it's a masterpiece.
You two could be sarcastic with your friends.
Alien was a hit when released
Quote from: SiL on Mar 02, 2017, 11:14:59 AM
You're seven posts in and you've already decided that the best course of action is to be condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. Not a great start.
That's stupid, you are the one doing the exact same thing. I liked Prometheus and I liked OP's thread.
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Aug 30, 2017, 10:43:54 PM
Alien was a hit when released
Prometheus will never beat Alien though, that film was a classic!
His post literally said 'If you don't like the movie you either didn't get it or are an idiot'.
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Aug 30, 2017, 10:43:54 PM
Alien was a hit when released
Just as some extra fun info - https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/bad-alien-reviews/
QuoteAlien is, along with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and George Lucas' Star Wars, a science-fiction landmark; the rod by which all subsequent sci-fi horror movies (and subsequent Alien sequels) are measured. It's funny to think that, as a landmark film, its critical reception upon release was not as positive as those gushed upon it by modern media and fans. In fact, critical response was quite mixed. Here are some of the best of the worst reviews.
Quote"It would be very convincing to say that there's no hope for movies – that audiences have been so corrupted by television and have become so jaded that all they want are noisy thrills and dumb jokes and images that move along in an undemanding way, so they can sit and react at the simplest motor level. And there's plenty of evidence, such as the success of Alien. This was a haunted-house-with-gorilla picture set in outer space. It reached out, grabbed you, and squeezed your stomach; it was more gripping than entertaining, but a lot of people didn't mind. They thought it was terrific, because at least they'd felt something: they'd been brutalized. It was like an entertainment contrived in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World by the Professor of Feelies in the College of Emotional Engineering."
Pauline Kael.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forig11.deviantart.net%2Fdef7%2Ff%2F2010%2F196%2Fa%2F8%2Femo_corner_by_ramenonfire.jpg&hash=9f920f070163c4627c61281fd14a36f8449d737b)God what terrible reviews
QuoteHis post literally said 'If you don't like the movie you either didn't get it or are an idiot.
Quote
People who dislike it are labelling it as an 'incoherent mess' just because they didn't get answers or are the ones who also happen to not have paid attention to so many things (for instance, Vickers and Shaw turning a sharp 90 degree turn at one moment and not just running in straight line) or are downright stupid (such as expecting the 2094 medicines to today's standards)
What's wrong with this he isn't being specific.
Quote from: Iron Infililtrator on Aug 31, 2017, 11:34:18 PM
Quote"It would be very convincing to say that there's no hope for movies – that audiences have been so corrupted by television and have become so jaded that all they want are noisy thrills and dumb jokes and images that move along in an undemanding way, so they can sit and react at the simplest motor level. And there's plenty of evidence, such as the success of Alien. This was a haunted-house-with-gorilla picture set in outer space. It reached out, grabbed you, and squeezed your stomach; it was more gripping than entertaining, but a lot of people didn't mind. They thought it was terrific, because at least they'd felt something: they'd been brutalized. It was like an entertainment contrived in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World by the Professor of Feelies in the College of Emotional Engineering."
Pauline Kael.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forig11.deviantart.net%2Fdef7%2Ff%2F2010%2F196%2Fa%2F8%2Femo_corner_by_ramenonfire.jpg&hash=9f920f070163c4627c61281fd14a36f8449d737b)God what terrible reviews
QuoteHis post literally said 'If you don't like the movie you either didn't get it or are an idiot.
Quote
People who dislike it are labelling it as an 'incoherent mess' just because they didn't get answers or are the ones who also happen to not have paid attention to so many things (for instance, Vickers and Shaw turning a sharp 90 degree turn at one moment and not just running in straight line) or are downright stupid (such as expecting the 2094 medicines to today's standards)
What's wrong with this he isn't being specific.
Right there at the end of that quoted paragraph.
Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 29, 2017, 09:56:14 PM
Prometheus was a very, very beautiful film.
I worked as D.P. and Photographer so I love Visuals over anything else.
By my parameters, Prometheus is a Masterpiece in Terms of Visuals, D.P. and Cinematography.
Yes it looks great, really liked the opening credits and the Orrery/holograms.
Hi, bit late to the party.
At first I was disappointed with the movie.
I was expecting an proper Alien prequel or at least something less vague.
But over the years I've come to love it.
Thing is, I think you have to be a more than average movie lover, willing to put the time into research(The minimum being googling for answer, the max I don't know. Maybe registering to this forum :)) and there's always the matter of personal taste.
I got a certain interest in mythology, archaeology and exploration. I love animal/nature documentaries.
Since Earth has been entirely mapped and science explains almost everything, the exploration of unknown, even if fictional, worlds interests me.
And I like reading up on subjects that I like. If I really like a band, I watch their documentary and read their books.
In the case of the movie, reading the script, seeing concept art and knowing what could've been,...
Overal, I'm glad this movie got made. But I can totally understand if people don't like it.
One of the beautiful things about Prometheus is that it even makes sense s a sequel to Alien Resurrection. The only thing you would have to change is the year that it takes place in. That alone makes is an amazing film.
Right, that alone makes it an amazing film. That's like saying Bambi 2 makes sense after Bambi 1, ergo Bambi 2 is an amazing film.
Bambi 2 isn't a real sequel because it went straight to video. When Fox starts releasing Alien movies straight to video they won't be real sequels either, they'll just be part of the expanded universe.
Quote from: Ash 937 on Sep 17, 2017, 05:30:15 AMOne of the beautiful thijngs about Prometheus is that it even makes sense s a sequel to Alien Resurrection. The only thing you would have to change is the year that it takes place in. That alone makes is an amazing film.
Lol wut?