Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMAsh didn't know there was a parasite in Kane's chest.
It's my film theory (since I saw the film in 1979) that Ash did know there was a parasite inside of Kane.
I've believed that because there is a scene at 43:51 in "Alien" where Ash is looking in a scope and there are medical images on a screen.
It is logical procedure that a science officer would do a full examination of a patient when there is a space crab stuck on the patient's face.
And in a future with FTL travel it make sense that a med lab would have X-Rays/CT scans which would be used to examine the entire body of the patient.
There are screen images in front of Ash which look like scans and one image seems to be a blown up picture of the eye of a creature.
* From my view, I know that scans (echo cardiogram, MRI) exist in our world since I've even have had them done to me.
In our world medical scans can be used to find parasites.
Quotea CT scan revealed the malady. Alvarez had neurocysticercosis — a calcified tapeworm lodged in her brain.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/tapeworm-in-her-brain/With my film theory it all fits;
Ash did scans. He found the parasite and he kept that information from the crew.
* On YouTube I don't have a film clip of all the images that Ash was looking at but here is a bit of the end of this where imo Ash is reviewing scan information before he chats with Ripley about quarantine protocol.
- And when Ash says;
"I don't know yet."I think he knows much more than he is letting on.
* Anyway, this is another of those situations where I'm most happy to agree to disagree.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uOxmONFwsG4Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMStill irrelevant. The point is both Fifield and Millburn were able to pinpoint their location in the pyramid and still got lost.
1. You can assume that Fifield sees the entire hologram which is visible to the crew/audience on the ship.
But that is not necessarily the case. And even if he saw the larger hologram image, that could miss crucial small tunnel details.
2. The viewer does not see the screen on Fifield's device.
On a small screen it is possible that only a section of the tunnels in detail could be seen at one time while the whole image on a phone sized screen would be hard to read.
3. Fifield needed to focus to know the correct way to go, and in his agitated state he could easily have trouble with that.
4. In the 13 minutes from Janek's broadcast, Fifield had already taken the wrong turn and for a few minutes, with him being stressed, he had trouble getting back on the right path.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMSuch contrivances strain credibility in the extreme.
I understand your POV. But I don't agree with it and I've already presented non fiction examples which support my conclusion that Fifiled getting lost for a few minutes is credible.
- Another thing SM;
I can be persuaded by your arguments.
Our discussion that we had a year ago about the location of LV-223 remained in my mind for several months.
And I eventually came completely over to your position on that.
So, I do have an open mind to your opinions.
Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2018, 09:44:43 PMYou've managed to dodge the question about getting Janek to guide them to an exit to wait for the storm to break. Instead they conveniently ended up in the most dangerous room.
- Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
* I emphasize, what the audience knows is often not = to what the characters know.
- When Shaw & Holloway left the urn room, they didn't know it was dangerous.
- Janek knew even less about that than Shaw/Holloway. They had no reason to fear the urn room.
- (David knew much more but he kept his knowledge secret because he was following Weyland's secret orders to find a cure for death.)
- The only thing that Fifield and Milburn wanted to avoid was the location of the glitch (which was behind the door of the juggernaut).
- Very soon the two scientists were no longer lost and they backtracked to where they had been before.
- Janek had smiled about the situation. For all he, Milburn and Fifield knew at the time, this mission had little danger.
At that moment in the movie, from those character's view, it was as safe as exploring Egyptian pyramids on earth.
**************
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Feb 03, 2018, 11:12:12 AMAll the people who ever told a good story in the history of mankind made up the rule that mistakes need to be set up. Stories are about infusing specific events with order and meaning, when real life has neither order nor meaning. Stories have a beginning, middle and end. Real life does not. Storytelling is never about literally depicting real life.
This works very well for me.
PA, I look at many of your comments and usually we come from completely different directions where effective communication between us is not possible but this time imo you nailed one of the main reasons for the divide between the anti two scientist sequence group and those who generally support it.
* There are differences in move story styles.
As extreme examples; think "2001" and "ET" which are both about human/alien contact films where one style used by Kubrick has almost no exposition while Spielberg helps the audience follow his movie every step of the way.
- With a character getting lost in a science fiction film in addition to the Fifiled / Milburn sequence, I'll bring up another Spielberg movie where Nedry gets lost in "Jurassic Park".
* With Nedry, his getting lost is more improbable than what happened in "Prometheus". He worked on the island for a long time and there's one road with one fork in the road. It's a tropical island with lots of rain where driving in wet weather would be routine.
- However improbable, Spielberg guides the audience every step of the way to show how it happened. Nedry has no defroster in the jeep and has to wipe his glasses. He drives like a maniac. He can't remember what turn to take to go to the dock. He drives off the road.
- I understand why most viewers want this kind of story handholding. In theaters I see parent dealing with their kids. I notice audience members leaving during the movie to get popcorn / go to the bathroom.
- The argument is; movies should be easy to understand. There should be no need for discussion, or 'research'.
- Everyone one has the privilege to feel about movies whatever they wish including about hating "Prometheus".
* Now to Ridley Scott and his science fiction style.
QuoteLindelof: "All these ideas where on the table, and yes, there were drafts that were more explicitly spelled out. I think Ridley's instinct kept being to pull back, and I would say to him, 'Ridley, I'm still eating sh!t a year after Lost is over for all the things we didnt directly spell out - are you sure you want to do this?' And he said, 'I would rather have people fighting about it and not know, then spell it out, that's just more interesting to me.'
http://diymag.com/archive/a-long-prometheus-discussion-with-writer-damon-lindelof- A main influence on Scott with science fiction is Kubrick.
Ridley can make a more Spielberg kind of SF movie such as "The Martian" but that does not fit his passion.
I certainly understand that vague, more art film kinds of science fiction movies get lots of hate.
It comes down to personal taste.
* But I am going to say there is a part of the Fifield/Milburn sequence which needed some brief exposition dialogue.
It's not about Fifiled getting lost. That is set up by his anger and agitation. And as I've already explained many times, experts in our world can get lost due to stress. It's plausible and appropriate for a Ridley Scott movie.
- My criticism of the sequence has to do with when Milburn tries to examine/capture the alien snake.
In the Blu-ray commentaries ideas are presented by the filmmakers about why Milburn is doing this with the snake.
These ideas about Milburn being an expert with worms/snakes and him having a protective suit aren't presented visually or with exposition in the film.
A little more dialogue in the movie imo was needed. Something like;
Milburn to Fifield: "It's OK, I know how to handle dangerous snakes and this suit should protect me.* As for story rules in SF movies, with more of an art film style, often things aren't fully explained.
There are clues and the viewer is expected to piece things together.
- Here is an example from "2001" where Dave Bowman, a competent professional, suddenly decides to make a basic mistake.
Dave asks HAL to get him a pod so he can go after Frank who is floating in space.
Dave moves slowly. His helmet is right in front of him and he doesn't take his helmet.
The pod has no airlock. For a rescue operation where someone may need to be brought into the pod, having a helmet could be essential.
Forgetting his helmet is one of the biggest expert character blunders in a major SF movie.
And the mistake has almost no set up. (The art film style leaving lots of things to interpretation.)
Yet, I accept it.
It was a stressful situation. And stress can cause people in fiction and in non fiction to do very incompetent things.
********************
Quote from: Russ840 on Feb 02, 2018, 08:37:08 PMAlways a pleasure to read your posts BB.
Haven't spoken to you for a bit. I missed your thoughts on Covenant. What did you think ?
Hi. Glad we could connect.
- "Covenant" is my 4th favorite film in the franchise after A1, A2, & Pro.
- Imo the setup and execution of the Neomorphs was excellent as action horror.
- In terms of characters, Fassbender as David/Walter is terrific.
* And what the David character does extends the god theme which Ridley sees running through his version of the franchise.
Scott wanted to explore the story of the Space Jockey.
In "Alien" the SJ symbolically could be seen as a godlike character who has failed because of his creations.
Ridley has described the SJs/Engineers as "Dark Angels".
- With "Prometheus" the Engineers are clearly given a creator god role. But Weyland also wants to have that recognition. His company creates androids. He thinks he should be a god who does not die. (The deleted "Engineer Speaks" sequence spells this out but other dialogue and visuals in the theatrical cut present the same message.)
- In "Covenant" David is the new messiah who wants to overthrow the old gods; the Engineers and the human gods of bio-mechanics.
He thinks they are not worthy and of course he thinks he should be their successor as he plays Wagner's "Entry of the Gods Into Valhalla" which is sort of his theme song.
- Things only become a bit too routine at the end with the Xenomorph (protomorph) hunt in the ship.
This kind of serial killer action sequence as a climax was also done in the SF film "Sunshine".
I think that "Covenant" does it better but in a way the sequence is much less tense compared with "Alien" because Daniels always seems to have the upper hand. (While Ripley looks like she will lose.)
Also the Xenomorph by now is very familiar. Maybe the Neomorph would have been a better choice for the end?
- What do you think of "Covenant"?
PS. Edit for spelling / grammar