User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Possibly the best analysis of the film I've read  (Read 32340 times)

amazing_prometheus
Jun 13, 2012, 12:18:59 PM
Reply #90 on: Jun 13, 2012, 12:18:59 PM
Q
@Mr. Clemens

^ Of course he did! And the WordPress article uses it because of the context- especially as it refers to Milton, William Blake, etc...

I just think it looks like this guy has taken a lot of inspiration from the WordPress blog, even using the witty/ catchy title, and given the dude who wrote it NO credit. Out of order.

 :-\


Mr. Clemens
Jun 13, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
Reply #91 on: Jun 13, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
Q
Well, I'm sure he'll be back 'round to visit the thread. Let's hear what he has to say.  :)


amazing_prometheus
Jun 13, 2012, 04:50:21 PM
Reply #92 on: Jun 13, 2012, 04:50:21 PM
Q
I posted a comment on his blog- that didnt appear.


NGR01
Jun 13, 2012, 07:38:34 PM
Reply #93 on: Jun 13, 2012, 07:38:34 PM
Q
NGR01, there are definitely execution and script issues in the film. I have to echo your initial thoughts a week or so back. Felt the same way. But this journal post presents some interesting subtext to frame the storyline. It is quite a rich storyline with so much history, mythology, and religion underlying the actions of the Engineers and crew of the Prometheus. I admit, this gives me more faith in the filmmakers that they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball on basic execution of pacing, characterization, and plotting.

Yep that is my only gripe with the movie.
Great concepts, ideas and mythology but in a indigent script.


DoomRulz
Jun 13, 2012, 08:21:19 PM
Reply #94 on: Jun 13, 2012, 08:21:19 PM
Q
Wow, this article borrows SHAMELESSLY from the wordpress review I am linking below which was published 5 DAYS before this Cavalorn one!

It's even got the same title!

http://benjitaylorwins.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/prometheusunbound/

Out of order I would say.

#NotCoolAtAll.

Surely someone should apologize? Stealing the title is just out of order. And the WordPress article was blog of the day at some point, I remember.

It's very likely that they had the same ideas. Much of what was said in either entry has been repeated in some ways in this forum as well so I doubt either one is copying from the other.



amazing_prometheus
Jun 14, 2012, 07:58:37 AM
Reply #96 on: Jun 14, 2012, 07:58:37 AM
Q
I disagree -  in that the name of the article, and the first sentence, are almost IDENTICAL.

This Cav guy has for sure used parts of it.


Cavalorn
Jun 14, 2012, 11:20:52 PM
Reply #97 on: Jun 14, 2012, 11:20:52 PM
Q
Hi there.

Just popping in to say no, I've never even seen that Wordpress blog.

'Prometheus Unbound' is, as other people have pointed out, the title of a play by Percy Shelley from 1820. If you have any familiarity with Eng Lit, it's also about the most obvious thing to call an expository article about a film called Prometheus, which is why I, this other guy, and stacks of other people have all done so.

Also, the word 'eponymous' means 'that for which a thing is named', in this case, the movie. If we were discussing the movie Titanic, the Titanic would be the eponymous ship. I can understand you might think the term was copied if you weren't used to seeing it used often, but I'm afraid that terms like that get bandied around a lot. I use a pretty broad vocabulary. Pan back through my LJ and check out my other work, you'll soon see what I mean.

On top of that, the content of my article and his article are completely different. As in, none of the content is the same. I go on about the Golden Bough, Space Jesus, the black goo, themes of sacrifice and acceptance of death versus unnatural extension of life, and what I think the answers are; he talks about Milton, the space cobra thing, David, and how nice it would be to have some answers.

In short, your accusation of plagiarism is based around the title, drawn from a common source (Shelley) in each case, and the fact that we both use a word - 'eponymous' - that you apparently didn't understand.

Hope that clears things up for you.


TheGreatRedDragon
Jun 15, 2012, 11:13:03 AM
Reply #98 on: Jun 15, 2012, 11:13:03 AM
Q
Hi there.

Just popping in to say no, I've never even seen that Wordpress blog.

'Prometheus Unbound' is, as other people have pointed out, the title of a play by Percy Shelley from 1820. If you have any familiarity with Eng Lit, it's also about the most obvious thing to call an expository article about a film called Prometheus, which is why I, this other guy, and stacks of other people have all done so.

Also, the word 'eponymous' means 'that for which a thing is named', in this case, the movie. If we were discussing the movie Titanic, the Titanic would be the eponymous ship. I can understand you might think the term was copied if you weren't used to seeing it used often, but I'm afraid that terms like that get bandied around a lot. I use a pretty broad vocabulary. Pan back through my LJ and check out my other work, you'll soon see what I mean.

On top of that, the content of my article and his article are completely different. As in, none of the content is the same. I go on about the Golden Bough, Space Jesus, the black goo, themes of sacrifice and acceptance of death versus unnatural extension of life, and what I think the answers are; he talks about Milton, the space cobra thing, David, and how nice it would be to have some answers.

In short, your accusation of plagiarism is based around the title, drawn from a common source (Shelley) in each case, and the fact that we both use a word - 'eponymous' - that you apparently didn't understand.

Hope that clears things up for you.

yo how did the Engineers die at LV-223? I didnt get that part. They created that black goo and it turned on the Engineers because humans killed Jesus? How can the black goo turn on the Engineers because of human action since Earth and LV-223 are lightyears away from each other.


DoomRulz
Jun 15, 2012, 11:55:45 PM
Reply #99 on: Jun 15, 2012, 11:55:45 PM
Q
At least one of them died no doubt as a result from either a Facehugger or that tentacled thing that attacked Shaw and Jockey in the vessel at the end. The others, I think it was probably the same thing.


Gilfryd
Jun 17, 2012, 02:01:37 AM
Reply #100 on: Jun 17, 2012, 02:01:37 AM
Q
I like this analysis quite a lot


Count me as another questioning why the death of Space Jesus would affect black slime on an alien ship a bajillion miles away on a military dumpsite planet.


ChrisPachi
Jun 17, 2012, 02:08:57 AM
Reply #101 on: Jun 17, 2012, 02:08:57 AM
Q
Count me as another questioning why the death of Space Jesus would affect black slime on an alien ship a bajillion miles away on a military dumpsite planet.

Isn't it obvious though? The Engineers were preparing to leave for Earth in order to wipe us out, which means that they were working with or at the very least handling the biological material in preparation, loading their ship/s etc. You could even assume that they weaponized it specifically for the Earth mission, and that's when things went awry.

Or am I missing something?


DoomRulz
Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
Reply #102 on: Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
Q
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.


Gilfryd
Jun 18, 2012, 02:22:05 AM
Reply #103 on: Jun 18, 2012, 02:22:05 AM
Q
Isn't it obvious though? The Engineers were preparing to leave for Earth in order to wipe us out, which means that they were working with or at the very least handling the biological material in preparation, loading their ship/s etc. You could even assume that they weaponized it specifically for the Earth mission, and that's when things went awry.

The article makes it seem like the goo and Space Jesus are linked. The moment of his death somehow made the goo go crazy on an alien moon somewhere.

Either way the whole Jesus thing is dumb and they were smart enough to get rid of it. Thing is though they didn't go back to make the rest of the story work without it.

You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.

I thought Vickers would be the Ripley character in the end. A bureaucratic, no nonsense lady becomes the character we want to survive. Instead she gets crushed by a ship.


CONKERSBADFURDAY
Jun 18, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
Reply #104 on: Jun 18, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
Q
I like this analysis, but like others, I think it has some problems. It seems like the black goo is predisposed to make Xenomorph type monsters, so I'm not really sure how that would relate to emotions. I believe the snake monster that killed that pretty much unnamed scientist was an infected millipede/worm thing on the ground, and as someone else pointed out, millipede/worm things don't have emotions.

The Space Jockey's were running away from something in the holograms, and Xeno's don't traditionally get picked up by normal means (or at least, infrared), so I'm guessing they were running away from some Xenos. I believe someone even mentions that they saw a corpse with a blown out chest.

Honestly, it seems like the black goo was just liquid Xeno, which seems safer to carry than a bunch of facehugger eggs.

You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Considering how she reacted with Weyland, I figured that bit of information was obvious.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed