New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS

Started by Qwertify, May 20, 2012, 06:44:42 AM

Author
New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS (Read 157,069 times)

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#600
Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 06:18:46 AM
I have to throw this out there:  You guys and all of your mad fiendish talk of being so upset by Ridley's 'science' comments, like the one he makes about "walking around the truth," and Lindelof's comment, etc...  Uh, to me that's obviously a brilliant angle to spin this movie on.

The whole 'found footage' bullshit and 'maybe this could be possibly real or was once in some way' Fourth Kind bullshit are steaming hot right now, culturally speaking.  Those are frankly brilliant things to say from a movie marketing perspective, as you can get away with them and entice even more moviegoers that are suckers for the whole what-if, found-footage type of thing.

As long as it's treated seriously, which you can obviously tell that it is, the masses will come running.

Brilliant, I say. :laugh:  You guys put the anal in over-analysis.

That's all well and good Rage, but they aren't talking about the found footage angle, at all. This movie isn't shot documentary style where that applies. This is a conventional movie where actors playing characters as scientists are going to representing their respective fields. It would be nice if thousands of years worth of cultivated research was at least acknowledged. I really hope there is some kind of a scene that is in there that will at least say "We were designed to evolve in an environment that was built for us. It was predetermined. - Here's some proof. " Some attempt to appreciate Evolution, natural selection, et al. Science is important when dealing with science fiction, to a degree. Smart science fiction is good science fiction, and imho, it isn't something we honestly get these days. We get movies with technomagic mostly. :)

SpeedyMaxx

SpeedyMaxx

#601
It's a movie.  Alien featured sound in space.  Who cares?

RagingDragon

RagingDragon

#602
Kind of what I thought, which is why I've been avoiding the entire topic.  I also don't have as much information on the film as has probably been available...

I have my own thoughts on it, and to each their own.  This movie looks to be great science-fiction, whether it acknowledges the academic definition of human evolution or not.  I really fail to see what it has to do with the potential Prometheus storyline.

I'm sure there are some skeptics and hardliners in the film, I mean that's kind of what some of the core character elements are that are being contrasted.

The hard SF you refer to, OpenMaw, is much easier to find in literature.  Films aren't that way and never really have been, imo.

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#603
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on May 25, 2012, 06:44:49 AM
It's a movie.  Alien featured sound in space.  Who cares?

I do. It honestly didn't need it, as many contemporary science fiction shows have shown - You don't need sound in space for it to be dramatic or interesting.  :)

SpeedyMaxx

SpeedyMaxx

#604
No, but they used it anyway, for dramatic license.  Because it was a scary movie in space, not a Carl Sagan doc.  Same here.

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#605
Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
I'm sure there are some skeptics and hardliners in the film, I mean that's kind of what some of the core character elements are that are being contrasted.

To me, so far, It really doesn't sound like this is going to be addressed. "We were made by them." "Oh shit" - end of conversation. Which is disheartening because this movie keeps being... Projected, by the film makers as a "2001", and a film about questions... And as far as I can see, for the many faults of 2001, it gave space in particular a very deep realism.

I mean, if they're going to say things like that, that basically  put them in the league with 2001, and compare what they're trying to achieve with their film, i'm going to expect that the facts are at least passively known.

Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
The hard SF you refer to, OpenMaw, is much easier to find in literature.  Films aren't that way and never really have been, imo.

I'm just saying, it will be very unfortunate if the scientists don't even pay some simple lip service to basic evolutionary theory and all the things we know. If it simply goes "All that shit was simply wrong." And we don't have any characters actually having some air knocked out of them over it, ya know, their life's work just being totally shaken to it's core, i'm going to be disappointed in that respect. If anything it would make for some very compelling character moments.

So far the focus is on these Engineer characters, "they're real", and then Shaw has a crisis of her faith in them. "we were wrong." Nothing seems to be even remotely indicated about the fossil record, or evolution, or anything like that, and going by Ridley Scott's reaction to this kind of criticisms, they simply don't give a damn.

If i'm alone in this regard. So be it.

Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on May 25, 2012, 07:10:50 AM
No, but they used it anyway, for dramatic license.  Because it was a scary movie in space, not a Carl Sagan doc.  Same here.

There's more than just two extremes. I'm not asking for a documentary. I'm asking for acknowledgement. There is plenty of character based drama to draw from it, too.

It seems like any time someone tries to be critical of the science in this film, people swing to the "Oh JESUS, you want this to be a boring movie" No I don't. I just want the film makers to be honest with themselves. Either you're doing hard science fiction with a high level of realism, like 2001, or you're doing an epic space adventure that is ultimately a what if fantasy about our origins. Pick one. You cannot be about both. Here's why, if the movie is asking questions, and therefore expecting the audience to, if they(the audience) actually bother to research anything they're going to find the film is severely flawed in it's fundamental logic. So in my view, you have to decide what you want the movie to be, and make a stand. Don't try to be both.

Hey, Cosmos is a wonderful series. Ridley Scott seems to be awe struck by some very long known basic scientific speculation. If he had watched that 13 part story going into Prometheus, I bet things would be quite different.

SpeedyMaxx

SpeedyMaxx

#606
I am not knocking Sagan, I just think there's a time and place for that.  This film was never it.

Prometheus can certainly probe these questions while still telling an entertaining story.  Nor was 2001 the only film out there - before or since, I believe - to play with those big ideas in a variety of different ways.  Kubrick chose to tell Clarke's story a certain way; Scott has other options.  I don't agree that it's either/or at all.  This movie is trading on a classic sci-fi premise, asking some questions and then playing it up for thrills and chills.  And that's fine (with me, anyway).

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#607
The references to 2001 come from Ridley, and people involved with the film. Not me. It's in one of the interviews.

But, ask yourself this, why are we as an audience asking questions? What's the point of putting those in there? The director puts questions in the movie because he wants the audience to think. Now, at least in my world, asking questions, and thinking, generally means you should be aiming for somewhere in the neighborhood of "truth."

If the questions are not to be answered. Or if the audience doesn't give a damn about the truth, what's the point of these questions? Idly pondering them is... Dubious, if the truth is basically uninvited because "it gets in the way of the fun."


Don't get me wrong. The cast is great, the scenery and effects look great, the acting looks mostly good, and the horror looks terrific. The only hang up I have is the dodgy science.

SpeedyMaxx

SpeedyMaxx

#608
I think it's simply that the film's answers are much more in the vein of pulp sci-fi than hard science.  That may or may not be accurate - we'll see how much actual science they put in - but I don't have a problem with them glossing over the nuts and bolts too much in favor of a good story.  I do think there will be some science put forth.

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#609
OpenMaw.......Ridley just said it himself, it's a movie, not a science class. If the science is going to ruin the film for you,you're going to see it for all the wrong reasons.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#610
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 25, 2012, 07:07:26 AM
You don't need sound in space for it to be dramatic or interesting.  :)
Funnily enough, that's exactly why Ridley said he used it. And Star Wars... very dramatic and interesting. But yes, a movie, not a class, here. And Ridley has invoked myth just as numerously, if not more so, than he has 2001.

ChrisPachi

ChrisPachi

#611
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 25, 2012, 11:06:57 AMRidley just said it himself, it's a movie, not a science class.

And judging by his recent rambles I say thank f**k for that.  ;D

Qwertify

Qwertify

#612
Quote from: Valaquen on May 25, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 25, 2012, 07:07:26 AM
You don't need sound in space for it to be dramatic or interesting.  :)
Funnily enough, that's exactly why Ridley said he used it. And Star Wars... very dramatic and interesting. But yes, a movie, not a class, here. And Ridley has invoked myth just as numerously, if not more so, than he has 2001.

Yes. This is absolutely correct.

I have also heard George Lucas mention the importance of "audio montage" where you combine all the sounds of an area into one. So just because space does not transmit the sound from one spaceship to the next - the combination of both is intuitive to the audience. For instance, when one ship is shooting lasers, those lasers vibrate the hull of both the ship shooting them and the ship getting hit. One ship can only hear one of those sounds however. When the ship you hit with you lasers blows up - you cannot hear it. Likewise, if you are the ship that gets hit - you don't hear the lasers being hired up on you. However - to get the whole story - you can combine the shots.

It is as intuitive as cutting from one cockpit to the next as if you were in both ships. Lucas said that it would be pretty silly to say being in two places at once is impossible in terms of the cinema. We cut through vast distances of space and time frequently. If people want to cry foul over the space sound issue - then all one can say is that should be hardly audible in comparison to all the other rules cinema is always breaking. 

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#613
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 25, 2012, 11:06:57 AM
OpenMaw.......Ridley just said it himself, it's a movie, not a science class. If the science is going to ruin the film for you,you're going to see it for all the wrong reasons.

Let me repeat back. I know it's not science class. I'm asking simply for basic scientific things to at least get some lip service. That's it. Especially if the movie is going to pretend it's smart.

Ya know, like that classic movie everyone loves about making dinosaurs? How it addressed the science behind it all in great, entertaining, detail, and played it out as a central theme of the movie? All the while asking big ass questions about playing God, nature, etc?

What I want, but I probably won't get. But, something like this:


INT. PROMETHEUS - BRIEFING

The holographic images of the glyphs flicker by, Holloway concludes his briefing. Milburn raises a hand.

MILBURN
Waitaminute, you two are full of shit! We have records going back thousands of years that show exactly where we came from. This "discovery" of yours sounds like a load of Von Daniken bollocks. This brings evolution, and just about every other fundamental scientific theory on biological and our own history into question. How do you reconcile that with what you're saying? Where's your proof beyond some vague cave paintings?

Holloway and Shaw exchange a look. There's more to their story. He pushes more buttons on his holocube. A strand of human DNA appears, rotating in the light beautifully. A small smile forms on David's face.

HOLLOWAY
"Using the new blah blah Weyland tech, blah blah, we discovered a series of things that indicate our evolutionary path may have been coordinated and calculated over the course of millions of years. We're talking macro science and engineering on a scale previously unimaginable. They left a signature in our genetic code. Something that up until a few years ago was undetectable. They planned everything, very carefully.

The group exchange breathless looks. The two young adventurours have rattled some of their most firmly held views about our origins.



"Oh God, it's science classs... Augh. Terrible." Please...  :laugh: How silly of me to expect science in a science fiction film.

You cannot be high brow and intellectual and "f*ck it, it's a movie" at the same time. That's skitzo. Either you're going to research the background of what you're delving into, and be faithful to that, or you're just pulling shit out of your ass and there is no point in "asking questions." Because there never were any legitimate answers. The movie sets out with a farce agenda in that regard.



Quote from: Valaquen on May 25, 2012, 11:13:27 AM
Funnily enough, that's exactly why Ridley said he used it. And Star Wars... very dramatic and interesting. But yes, a movie, not a class, here. And Ridley has invoked myth just as numerously, if not more so, than he has 2001.

Ridley has evoked a lot of stuff, and frankly, he's gone to both ends of the bell curve. Brilliance, and silliness.

I'm not really sure of your point in saying "that's why he did it." I can think of a dozen examples of space based situations where no sound in space has produced one hell of a dramatic moment. That one is more down to choice, and i've never felt there was a right choice in that regard. Either way works from a dramatic stand point. It's merely how you do it, and frankly it's rather irrelevant to Prometheus since they spend most of their time inside a planetary atmosphere anyway.

Also, that one doesn't bother me because everybody pretty much knows that there's no sound in space these days. It's one of those tropes that is simply understood and accepted. Evolutionary theory, Darwinism, the fossil record. Those kind of things are not necessarily nearly as well understood by the general audience, and it would be nice if this movie was used as an opportunity to at least throw the facts as they are currently understood in there, to contrast with what the movie is trying to say, so far, i'm not seeing that even the slightest.

Vepariga

Vepariga

#614
I think picking apart a film that no one has seen yet is kind of redundant.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News