Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2017, 07:33:25 AM
I'm not sure that's what he was getting at. I thought it was more to do with sensibilities changing into the future.
Most likely, but he seemed to be confusing sensibilities with sexuality, itself. I suspect bisexuality is a
lot more widespread than most people realise (if only because people fear being ridiculed if admitting it), but human beings generally don't do a complete 180 on who/what they find physically attractive just because they're on a long voyage. From what I remember, Scott's original quote heavily implied that he believed fluidity would be the norm.
QuoteI agree about the character development, but I often think that's just people who don't know any better bandying the term around to appear informed. Like the term 'plot hole'.
It does give us some insight into some characters though. The lacking in confidence 2IC, the judgy gossipy couple talking about McBride and his missus drinking - I don't think that counts as development. We'll appreciate its worth (or lack thereof) when we have the wider context of the rest of the film to compare it to.
Yeah, there are some slight insights into dynamics and stuff, agreed. Dynamics, sure. Development, no.
I'm still curious as to why they didn't feel they could have a mini-celebration to blow off steam until the Captain had disappeared. If anything was massively against protocol, it's logical the synth would have objected (or at least pointed it out). The guy didn't come across as strict or authoritarian.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Feb 24, 2017, 07:56:11 AM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Feb 24, 2017, 06:29:30 AM
Was OK, but nothing special. I'm genuinely confused at why some people are hyping this as some kind of amazing example of character development. There's zero character development. It's just a bunch of people talking over one another at a dinner table.
So was most of Alien. I think this is a good thing. And they still have more chemistry than all of the characters in Prometheus combined. Is it high art? No, but neither were the conversations between Parker and Brett. Why are people expecting something other than what the classic was?
I honestly doubt a good number of these characters will even be given names, let alone have much screen time.
I didn't see more chemistry here than in '
Prometheus'. There are similar things happening when the crew woke up in that one.
I'm not saying I
mind it, just that it puzzles me why so many people are acting like this is a good of good quality. It's a generic improvised dinner table scene.
QuoteQuoteThey really should have decided against the fake-out, mind you. That honestly made it feel like it was getting dangerously close to a parody (even including a dark punchline, of sorts). While I didn't think much of the TED talk piece, either, at least that felt like it had more of a point and set out the theme of the story to come. It retained a serious tone and was all the better for it.
It felt fine to me. I think the point of this footage was to parallel Alien and I think it works. I think it sets the tone of the movie, which, like Alien, includes horror and humor. So what is bad about that, exactly? Also, the TED talk was nothing like how Prometheus actually turned out. It felt very misleading as far as that goes. The question is, is this?
It didn't really mix humour and horror, though. It was almost exclusively light-hearted in tone.
The TED talk demonstrated the mentality and motivations of the character who was financing the mission. Relatively inconsequential to the later developing story, but it gave the film a believable foundation (and some useful insight to a prominent character, when rewatched with hindsight). This footage doesn't really do that. There are some ham-fisted nudge-nudge, wink-wink moments, like, "I've got your back," followed by a reference to the mission being further out than has been attempted before. Nothing in this will really add to the eventual film.
It's OK as a scene, just way too random for me to feel enthusiastic about.
QuoteQuoteHere? It's like someone couldn't come up with a better idea than having characters verbally f**k around, realised that would be underwhelming, then impulsively went, "Uhh... Pretend there's a birth scene - except not!" That's when it came across as hammy.
I think they were having someone choke on their dinner. Are you telling me you thought anyone really thought it'd be a "birth" scene? Of course not. It's just a nod, a wink. No harm, no foul, if you ask me.
The ones who thought it up (apparently Ridley scott) clearly thought it
would make some people believe we were going to see a hatching, yes. That was the entire point of why it was there - it's mirroring Kane.
I genuinely thought the character was going to burst into laughter and go, "Gotcha', you guys!" This old advert definitely came to mind:
QuoteQuoteDidn't even notice the gay couple, but in fairness, how do we know they aren't bisexual? Never quite understood the logic of Scott's assumptions that everyone on long space journeys away from home would automatically turn bisexual, however... Oil rigs and submarines don't generally lead to that, so spaceships wouldn't magically do so.
Ever heard the phrase, Any port in a storm?
That usually doesn't apply to a gender you typically have zero attraction to, though.
Especially if there are members of your preferred gender who
are around. Like I say, it generally doesn't happen on oil rigs and submarines. Same reason as you likely wouldn't have a gay man, who's surrounded exclusively by women for a year, suddenly become heterosexual. There have to at least be dormant bisexual inclinations for that to happen. If they aren't there, it won't happen.
QuoteQuoteThe one thing you don't want to do, when promoting a horror film, is to leave the potential audience with an impression of comedy.
Unless you want to catch them off guard, you don't. Maybe Scott has something up his sleeve.
But there were no hidden surprises. This was
it. It kind of ends on a vaguely solemn note, but viewers - rightly - are focusing on the most dramatic element (the fake-out), not the speech right at the end.