Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 25, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Sep 24, 2012, 05:06:43 PM
I find nothing is as scary since being an uninitiated pre-Alien young person. But there are plenty of hipster-larva out there that are unable to hide their squeamishness caused by seeing a vagina/penis eel infiltrate the security of a space suit and orally rape it's occupants. Same thing with the Med-pod scene. Pound for pound there was more iconicly creepy/disturbing scenes in Prometheus. It's the perceived success rate per individual fan that calls into question whether it worked or not. (and deconstructed ad nauseum online.)
We're clearly going to have to agree to disagree.
The best possible outcome really. If only all disagreements could end in such a way.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 25, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
Hammerpede stuff was brutal, but I go to watch a 'Predator' film for brutality. I go to see an 'Alien' film for nightmarish viciousness. Ultimately, the famous advert with the reversed audio on it turned out to sound a heck of a lot more disturbing than what we actually got - which I think I predicted would be what might happen. Either way, I didn't find it scary and the sight of it going in the mouth cuts away relatively quick. It looks like instant death.
The
concept of the scene was chilling, but had I been in charge there would have been no music. Just the close, intimate sound of the struggle and suffocation. I do agree with you that the reverse audio left a lot more to the imagination. And mine imagined something a lot more creepy than what we ended up with.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 25, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
Compare that with, say, the insectoid pit in the remake of 'King Kong'. Remember how the guy dies by being gradually consumed by giant maggot-like creatures? There was a whole bunch of stuff in that scene which was scarier by several magnitudes than anything we saw in 'Prometheus' - and that goes for the Hammerpede scene, too. It's violent, yes. Not disturbing/scary.
I just thought the insect pit scene was awesome. Scary never entered my mind. I suppose for a younger audience member, sure. I did love the slow, hopeless consumption of Lumpy the cook. It was disturbing because it made you feel what it would be like. Credit to the actor and the effects team ... and for having the balls to go in close and linger on the proceedings. The music also was low key and hauntingly serine for what was unfolding on screen. By and by I thought both scenes were sufficiently chilling but again, I can't say either was truly scary.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 25, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
The 'abortion' scene was better, but again... Relatively clean. It wasn't nearly as tense as I thought it might be. The most alarming thing about it seemed to be the precarious hold of the robotic device on the creature, rather than the removal, but nothing happens with that.
It could have been bloodier. I especially liked the calm, inquisitive "it's finally out" beat ... where it seems mostly a benign little tumor thing ... then the sac breaks and all that amniotic fluid splashes down into the gaping incision in her belly. Alarming and nasty to say the least. Again, the concept of what is happening is just perfectly insane and a welcome addition to the other iconic scenes through out the series.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 25, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
But as I've written elsewhere, none of this would have necessarily mattered if the production team had been honest and said they were just going to try and do the best they could. Instead, Ridley Scott warned in several interviews that there would be things which would make Lambert's death pale by comparison, said he was going "to scare the shit" out of us and that there was supposedly no way to make the original Alien design effective - with HR Giger, himself, on set - only to apparently perceive that the Deacon looked miles better.
That's why 'Prometheus' ends up being a bit of a disappointment on the horror film front - which is precisely what it was being hyped up as (when not having the emphasis placed on how supposedly revolutionary, epic and full of hard science it would be).
But you can always trust Ridley to be Ridley on the subject of the crazy things that quite frequently come flying out of his mouth. He is almost a carnival barker. He's trying to get you to go into the tent. He's also writing checks against Alien and having to deal with the scare conversion between 1979 and 2012 audiences.
I was never convinced that Ridley felt the original Alien design worked as a man in a suit. The way he shot the creature worked wonderfully because he didn't want to show too much. I have no idea what he was thinking with Deacon. It worked for me because it was just enough an alien ... yet not at all.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 25, 2012, 06:05:56 AM
Like I said a few posts back, the changes from the original Alien to other creature designs could have made sense if there was a legitimate plot reason for that, but it honestly looks like the reason for that was change for the sake of itself. They broke the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it rule.
I felt there was enough reason for the change. There were no eggs to be found. No facehuggers. So it stands to reason that the very unique process that led to the Deacon would result in such a unique creature.
I'm actually more worried for future episodes where Trilobites and Deacons will be the new facehuggers and Aliens. I hope the film makers honor what feels like an intentionally different looking beast and not fall back on them as 'the new normal.'
What alarms me the most is that the Deacons cry at the end is virtually the same as the cry we heard in the tunnel right before we saw the holographic video images of the Engineers running for their lives.