Prometheus (Alien Prequel)

[Danny]

I disagree. Sort of. There could have been more answers written into the film itself, but thinking beyond what's laid out in front of the audience is half the fun of science fiction. no its not, that what makes something space fantasy. Science fiction is called that because it uses 'grounded and explained' plot devices that are fully explained- hence science, but also dont necessarily have to exist- hence science fiction, not science fact. Its a specific type of film where, even if its asspulled bullshit, there is rhyme and reason that is explained. its why things like star wars are called 'space opera' instead of science fiction. Because you can explain the force with a half shrug and 'eh'. This was billed as science fiction, hard sci fi in the words of lindeloff. Well setting it on a another planet doesnt make it hard sci-fi if nothing has any cause and effect. Pretty much everything bar the space ships and the one robot in this movie is pretty much "a wizard did it" in terms of resolution. Why does X exist? they wont ever tell you and it doesnt serve any purpose bar being in the movie for the sake of it, so a wizard did it. Why X do Y when they are meant to be scientists not roughnecks? a wizard did it. There is a world of difference between 'enjoy the mystery' - which ALIEN did absolutely fine, hell its why we watched this at all, and this. A mystery done right is just that. Its a mystery, it draws you in. You want to know more and that is exactly the point. With plot holes like these they just are. Because of the writers incompetence. Not for mystery, or for provoking intelligent self reflection upon finishing the film. The writer just put down some 'oh man wouldn't it be cool if-' plot points from a 1980's slasher movie only there wasnt any tension to back it up. Theres intrigue, then there is the story just not making sense. -- -------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ---------- Aye, I understand the throwback to the Greek/Roman myths, but the scene is still as dumb as a box of bricks. My real irk, is having her jaunt about after such brutal and invasive "surgery". That really was just silly. She may have given herself painkillers etc, but she physically would not have been able to move after that ripping. It just either didn't need to be there, or it should have been written much, much better. right off the top of my head: -make the captain get infected by the android instead. -he already sleeps with therons character so that solves itself -the med bay was hers so naturally she would go there. -she dies as the alien 'births itself', waiting for the female lead to find unawares, giving it a greater shock value. -the captain is clearly infected and dying so therefore his suicide run at the end is more natural. bam, simple. gives theron a reason to exist and doesnt need all the 'there is no way she could walk after that bollock'. I mean she only existed to be squashed and eat up scene runtime anyway.

[bassman]

no its not, that what makes something space fantasy. Science fiction is called that because it uses 'grounded and explained' plot devices that are fully explained I'm going to have to disagree, sir. This may be the "official" definition that some film school teacher would use, but most great science fictions do not treat the audience like teenagers and spell out every detail. Half the fun of scifi is the mystery and questions raised. Ridley Scott is still saying that a sequel was always planned and he sounds like he truly intends to make it: "From the very beginning, I was working from a premise that lent itself to a sequel. I really don't want to meet God in the first one. I want to leave it open to [Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace)] saying, 'I don't want to go back to where I came from. I want to go where they came from.'" "Because [the Engineers] are such aggressive f*ckers, I always had it in there that the God-like creature that you will see actually is not so nice, and is certainly not God. I'd love to explore where the [Dr. Shaw] goes next and what does she do when she gets there, because if it is paradise, paradise can not be what you think it is. Paradise has a connotation of being extremely sinister and ominous." I would probably rather see this than another Blade Runner.

[krakenslayer]

I'm going to have to disagree, sir. This may be the "official" definition that some film school teacher would use, but most great science fictions do not treat the audience like teenagers and spell out every detail. Half the fun of scifi is the mystery and questions raised. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Take the archetypal science-fiction film of the late 20th century - 2001: A Space Odyssey - virtually nothing is explained about what's going on in that movie. The difference between sci-fi and fantasy is not whether things are explained, but whether they can be explained. Or to put it another way, whether the the more fantastical plot elements are treated as being truly mystical and supernatural (for example, "the force"), or instead as things which, however outlandish, can supposedly be related in some way to the observable laws of science as they exist in our universe (regardless of how abstract/advanced the science, how poor the writers' grasp of real science might be, or whether or not the answers are actually given). Thus in 2001, even though we are never fully educated as to the nature of the obelisk, we do come to understand that it is an artifact of alien technology, albeit one so far in advance of our own that its purpose and structure is completely incomprehensible to our comparatively low intellect, and this treatment is what makes it a science-fictional creation, as opposed to fantasy one. If that seems pretty nebulous and vague, then that's because it is: the difference is purely philosophical.

[Danny]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Take the archetypal science-fiction film of the late 20th century - 2001: A Space Odyssey - virtually nothing is explained about what's going on in that movie. The difference between sci-fi and fantasy is not whether things are explained, but whether they can be explained. Or to put it another way, whether the the more fantastical plot elements are treated as being truly mystical and supernatural (for example, "the force"), or instead as things which, however outlandish, can supposedly be related in some way to the observable laws of science as they exist in our universe (regardless of how abstract/advanced the science, how poor the writers' grasp of real science might be, or whether or not the answers are actually given). Thus in 2001, even though we are never fully educated as to the nature of the obelisk, we do come to understand that it is an artifact of alien technology, albeit one so far in advance of our own that its purpose and structure is completely incomprehensible to our comparatively low intellect, and this treatment is what makes it a science-fictional creation, as opposed to fantasy one. If that seems pretty nebulous and vague, then that's because it is: the difference is purely philosophical. I'm not talk the vague mysteries that act as end goals here, otherwise id be bitching about the whole 'black goo' scene from the start. I mean the hows and whys that push it along. Basic story progression and coherent reasoning in its development. Like in 2001 HAL losing his mind. It is part of the narrative structure for a clear and concise reason. Its gets things to a point and makes sense in the films universe without you going 'well how the hell did X happen?' later. not things you 'need to read in on rather than getting it spelled out' like some kind of subtextual content you are expected to read into but the written narrative equivalents or jump cuts with nothing in between where there should be some form of plot to fill that gap.

[krakenslayer]

I'm not talk the vague mysteries that act as end goals here, otherwise id be bitching about the whole 'black goo' scene from the start. I mean the hows and whys that push it along. Basic story progression and coherent reasoning in its development. Like in 2001 HAL losing his mind. It is part of the narrative structure for a clear and concise reason. Its gets things to a point and makes sense in the films universe without you going 'well how the hell did X happen?' later. not things you 'need to read in on rather than getting it spelled out' like some kind of subtextual content you are expected to read into but the written narrative equivalents or jump cuts with nothing in between where there should be some form of plot to fill that gap. What you are talking about, though, are plot holes. Plot holes are not a deliberate feature of any genre, sci-fi, fantasy, drama, whatever. Anyway, there are some plot holes in Prometheus, it's far from being a perfect film, structurally speaking (I get the sense that has been trimmed for running time: why did no one chase Noomi into Weyland's quarters when she was running for the autosurgeon?), but some people seem to be confusing these few small gaps in logic with larger, dramatic witholdings (why did David spike Noomi's squeeze?), and bigger things that are deliberately left unexplained both to promote thought/discussion and to leave room for a sequel (why do the Engineers hate us now?). Again, I am not calling this a classics, but beneath its faults and people's misunderstandings, there is a greatly enjoyable, vaguely-intelligent sci-fi movie that isn't all about the 'splosions, and that's a rarity these days.

[Neil]

Aye, I understand the throwback to the Greek/Roman myths, but the scene is still as dumb as a box of bricks. My real irk, is having her jaunt about after such brutal and invasive "surgery". That really was just silly. She may have given herself painkillers etc, but she physically would not have been able to move after that ripping. It just either didn't need to be there, or it should have been written much, much better. I agree 100%. If the machine had been seen to be, or announced it was, doing a muscle reconnection etc etc. But instead it just implied it threw a few staples in her, and off she went for the rest of the film. 5 seconds more screen time and a bit of thought with the script could have solved this! -- -------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ---------- **SPOILERS** A couple of things that frustrated me:- 1) The ship was unnecessarily huge! There seemed to be huge amounts of wasted space everywhere, which all equates to weight, which all means more fuel, especially when landing on a planet! 2) So they have to leave two crew mates in the alien structure over night... There's detections of movement... And no one cares? So much so that they leave them unattended over night whilst they get killed? 3) All that technology and there's no recordings of the unattended pair of crew mates trying to contact the ship? No video footage either? They couldn't spage a few meg of ram to record this stuff 24/7? 4) No location trackers on their crew mates? ie: They have to search for them (after they've been killed)? Really? 5) Seemingly little or no amazement at the first encounter with alien life. The most historic moment in human history and we get... Myeh! 6) Guy Pearce! Big casting mistake! It looked daft! 7) After David infected Logan, half a day later he basically immediately asks Elizabeth, "did you have sex?"... oh and look, you're pregnant!? What are the chances of that?! Did he give them both aphrodisiacs too? And why is sperm more important than saliva? He didn't ask had they kissed? No, he new exactly the right thing to ask straight out... Hmmm! 8) The comic book run away from the rolling alien ship after it crashed. You can get away from the thing by rolling 10ft to the right (as demonstrated).... But no... Let's all run hundreds of feet in the direction it's falling so it can still crush us. None-the-less, I enjoyed the flick, and thought the visuals (in 3D) were amazing. Would be interested in seeing them in 2D now!

[shootemindehead]

4) No location trackers on their crew mates? ie: They have to search for them (after they've been killed)? Really? It's gas isn't it. We have that technology now for christ's sake. Not only that, one of the guys wears glasses. Glasses! I would have thought that by 2090 wotsit, we would have sorted out laser eye surgery to a relatively simple process. Sure, I know people now with nearly 20-20 vision, when not 3 years ago they were lumbered with Heinrich Himmler specs. 6) Guy Pearce! Big casting mistake! It looked daft! I thought his makeup wasn't bad, but they forgot his hands and feet. Really...that's day 1 stuff. Dick Smith came up with a simple formula for aging. It's a solution that drys the skin surface and wrinkes it. Simple, but effective. I don't know why they just couldn't have hired an old guy for the part. 8) The comic book run away from the rolling alien ship after it crashed. You can get away from the thing by rolling 10ft to the right (as demonstrated).... But no... Let's all run hundreds of feet in the direction it's falling so it can still crush us. I LOL'd and Sadfaced...all at the same time.

[bassman]

A lengthy look into the creation of the special effects. It's a good watch if you're into these kidns of things: Also some interesting photos from the opening of the film. Something for the extended cut?

[Neil]

^^ Oooohs at image!

[MinionZombie]

I'll be sure to check that video out. As for the "extended cut", I saw a video on Collider and I couldn't decipher whether it was going to only be 20-30 mins of deleted scenes on the home video release, or those PLUS an extra 20 minutes in a new cut of the movie itself. Scott's chosen words seemed to rather obfuscate the issue.

[Neil]

Thinking back over the film, I do have very mixed feelings about it. Overall I did enjoy it. There's some great bold science fiction in it, but there's also some pretty daft roll your eye moments that burst the bubble every now and then. Could have been truly great, but as it is, it's good. I hope some extra footage might join some of the dots togethor better and make it an even grander story telling experience... But it won't be able to get rid of some of those needless eye rolls.

[MinionZombie]

One deleted scene I'm rather looking forward to seeing is...   The one Scott spoke of where Shaw has an axe fight with the Engineer - it totally makes sense why they didn't include it, from Scott's explanation, but I still would really like to see it. When the Engineer burst into that escape pod and chased Shaw, that - for me at least - was the scariest part of the movie, because you really got a sense of how huge and powerful the Engineers were ... and I did think at the time "shouldn't there be a fight scene here?", but Scott's explanation that fighting this huge beast of a thing with a conventional human weapon dimished the might of the Engineer makes total sense. Strange how they didn't figure that out long before they even shot it, mind, as they could have re-worked the scene... -- -------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ---------- Found this chucklesome .gif that someone made regarding the role of David.

[Danny]

welp i was dragged into seeing this again with some mates who hadnt seen it before. They knew nothing about it, i said nothing to them to colour their opinion because i like to watch my friends reactions if i know some big scenes coming up and i was surprised, even for all the complaints i had, that with 30 minutes to go they all just stood up and said 'this is fucking asinine' and walked out. What was more surprising is 3 other groups of people all left AT THE SAME TIME when theron interacts with the captain and ends the scene with that atrocious writing. Bear in mind im the sort of guy who will sit through any bad film to the end- the only exception being that piece of dogshit the lawnmower man- and i've never walked out on any film before. Hell ive never seen walk outs before but in this one showing i saw about 15 people leave muttering how terrible the story was. I cannot recall EVER seeing that kind of dramatic reaction during a film that has half an hour or more left before. Overall i think theres 3 kinds of reactions to prometheus. 1: People who love the alien films can overlook the terrible writing in favour of the gorgeous camerawork, set design and fassbenders performance. 2: people who love the alien films and consider it a travesty with things like the 'Johnny knoxville in his old man make up in jackass' guy pierce cameo and its myriad plot holes being completely unignorable and rendering the film garbage. 3: people who have never seen alien and dont see what the fuss is about either way. Like i said before. its a 'legacy' film that cannot escape its origins and they really colour the viewers reception for good or bad.

[Neil]

Can't understand why people would leave? It's hardly that bad surely? But there are a couple of very silly/dumb bits of the script, which given the high level of scifi it's trying to reach, really stand out! TBH, the script just wasn't up to it!? ie: It was trying to be big bold scifi, which means there shouldn't be daft/silly action in places.

[rongravy]

I finally saw Alien for the first time the other day. I know, I know... What cave have I been hiding in all this time? Pretty decent, and the commentary was enlightening during a rewatch. My kid wants to take me to see this tomorrow but I'm going to get superbaked first.