P R O M E T H E U S |OT| Ridley Scott goes back to Building Better Worlds

Status
Not open for further replies.
oatmeal said:
Soooo...you're making the leap that because those timelines are somewhat similar (about 60-70 years off) that they're related?
Click to expand...

Yup because it's literally not explained so people have to come up with their own ideas based on the lack of anything.

oatmeal said:
Awesome, thanks man.



Thanks for linking as well.

Very cool...it would be impossible to draw that conclusion without the interview. So if people consider that a negative...then that's weird.

I guess this explains
why Jesus is depicted as white :)
Click to expand...

Jesus is depected as white because christianity is primarily a white religion
 
For those IMAX viewers who got the posters, have any of you found any frames that will properly fit them? The ones I found were usually too short and too wide. I've never framed a poster before, but the Prometheus one is too nice to just stick to the wall.
 
I'm sure it's been asked a billion times, but it's buried . . .

Why did David poison/infect what's his face -- the guy who impregnated Elizabeth?
 
Just got back from seeing this.

It's a shame that such a beautiful (in a manner of speaking) and largely well-acted film had to be ruined by inane writing and shallow characters. I wish I had more to say, but there really isn't any getting away from these characters' mind-boggling stupidity.

Also,
Patrick Wilson was thoroughly underutilized. :(
 
I absolutely did not expect to like this movie, but I really did. The cinematography was gorgeous, and the beautiful sweeping vistas made me wish I had seen the film in IMAX. There are some nice intense moments in the movie, and the Giger-inspired visuals and environments were fuck awesome, just like they were in Alien.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most people disliked the movie because it shit all over their Alien fan fiction/nerd theories.

Also, did any of you get a preview for the movie The Watch? There's a part in the trailer where a character touches some green goo and claims that it smells and tastes like cum. Needless to say, quite a few people in my audience laughed when Michael Fassbender's character touches a similar-looking liquid in Prometheus.
mSXI7.gif
 
hateradio said:
I'm sure it's been asked a billion times, but it's buried . . .

Why did David poison/infect what's his face -- the guy who impregnated Elizabeth?
Click to expand...
There is no definitive answer. Everything in this movie was written with the intention of generating as much speculation as possible.
 
hateradio said:
I'm sure it's been asked a billion times, but it's buried . . .

Why did David poison/infect what's his face -- the guy who impregnated Elizabeth?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that
David was acting under the orders of Mr. Weyland. Weyland only had a few days of life left, and he wanted to discover as much as possible before he died. After all, David was the property of Weyland Industries, so it makes sense that he would be programmed to obey Mr. Weyland. Remember at one point where Charlize Theron asked David, "What did he say?" and David responded, "Try harder"? That was Weyland commanding David to do whatever it took to get some answers regarding the engineers. The crew was expendable to Mr. Weyland (a great example of the selfishness that the engineers despised in humanity). Thus, having already surmised that the black goo would react somehow with a human host, David chose Holloway as his test subject.
 
hateradio said:
I'm sure it's been asked a billion times, but it's buried . . .

Why did David poison/infect what's his face -- the guy who impregnated Elizabeth?
Click to expand...

My interpretation is that David was simply curious about what it would do. He was an android programmed to interact with humans, but his curiosity trait overcame his programmed duty to protect. That, and he is an early android model, and we know that even future models are faulty (Ash in Alien). I understood David's behavior the same way HAL9000's - seemingly evil, but in fact a decision made purely by logic conclusions that did not include compassion for human life
 
Erigu said:
I wasn't aware ideas had been explored.
Click to expand...

Nope, it was one big metaphor that kept on repeating itself (sometimes during scenes that made no sense at all to be included in the metaphor). With a better script and a more... subtle... use of symbology, it would have been a much better film.

Because, seriously, the general concept of the film
(God Species coming to kill us all because we killed JESUS who was one of them)
is awesome.
 
HP_Wuvcraft said:
Because, seriously, the general concept of the film
(God Species coming to kill us all because we killed JESUS who was one of them)
is awesome.
Click to expand...

Wait, did I miss something? I saw this movie a few days ago but I don't remember this being explored at all. I don't even remember the movie hinting at this theory. Can someone refresh my memory?
 
HP_Wuvcraft said:
Because, seriously, the general concept of the film
(God Species coming to kill us all because we killed JESUS who was one of them)
is awesome.
Click to expand...

What crazy leaps of logic did it take to get to that?
Is it because the magic 2000 years ago was mentioned?

Anyway, I'm starting to have a problem with the damage control from the creators (lol) of this movie. It seems like we should be taking everything at face value, that the human characters are reliable narrators and that there really is no ambiguity to be found in the movie.

Scott and Lindelof should have expected tremendous nerd rage, and should have shut up. But to come out and try and explain the movie is disappointing. Still a good film: great effects, set design, cinematography etc, but its second half is a mess of cutting room frivolity, and its post-release firefighting has been even messier.

What a shame.
 
Summary Man said:
Wait, did I miss something? I saw this movie a few days ago but I don't remember this being explored at all. I don't even remember the movie hinting at this theory. Can someone refresh my memory?
Click to expand...

Ridley Scott said exactly this in an interview.

And honestly. With all the symbolism in the movie about virgin births, saviors being torn open, Gods dying to produce new life, etc., it's not that far a leap.
 
HP_Wuvcraft said:
Ridley Scott said exactly this in an interview.

And honestly. With all the symbolism in the movie about virgin births, saviors being torn open, Gods dying to produce new life, etc., it's not that far a leap.
Click to expand...

Wow, I can't believe that's actually canon. Eh, I'll just act like I never heard this, just like what I do with the Star Wars Extended Universe. If it's not in the movie, it doesn't exist! :p
 
daviyoung said:
So...bad. Why can't he just leave his movie to be his mouthpiece. Man, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Because the premise doesn't stand up to scrutiny, therefore neither does the film stand on its own merits no matter how beautiful it looks.

It's built on quicksand, and everything in it from the characters to their motives fall down because of it. It was my worry from leaving the cinema onwards, why it couldn't be pieced together satisfactorily, and now confirmed by Ridley himself.
 
Agent Unknown said:
WOW. Seriously? I totally agree, that's lame. And very lame on Lindelof's part as well. That's the BEST response he could write? It's like OK, Ms. Shaw, then WHY
DO you CHOOSE to believe? Is it because you personally feel life and genetics are too complex to have come about by chance events and you think that you're seeing signs of higher engineering, ect.? Do you feel the aliens' experiments validate your viewpoint somehow? Scientists who have come to believe in God have really detailed reasons and cite the things they have seen while studying in their fields that have lead them to this conclusion, yet all Lindlelof can have her say is she just decided to choose to believe? Who the heck wants to debate something or respects someone who simply "chooses" their viewpoint? STUPID. What a missed opportunity for what could have been a scene filled with some meaty dialogue and discussion between the characters.

Anyways, thanks for that minor spoiler, very helpful. I already knew to keep my expectations low for the symbolism ect. but that clinches it. Probably gonna see the movie tomorrow, I'll just remember that scientists who believe in God don't come off as lame as long as they're not written by Damon Lindelof. :p
Click to expand...

Right, I didn't intend to be condescending toward religious scientists in any way, I know they're out there and I have no problem with it because I know they don't let it get in the way of their job. I specifically had an issue with Shaw's character because
she justifies the trip into space and the entire investigation using the same words her father used to justify his belief in heaven.
That specifically pissed me off and it is not how a legitimate scientist would conduct business. It completely destroyed any solid grounding her character had the potential for. I couldn't care for her because she was incapable of being the character she needed to be.
 
Summary Man said:
Wow, I can't believe that's actually canon. Eh, I'll just act like I never heard this, just like what I do with the Star Wars Extended Universe. If it's not in the movie, it doesn't exist! :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is exactly why I didn't like Book of Eli.

Eli was a great film with a wonderful concept (after the Apocalypse, people are sent out to retrieve the last remaining copies of holy texts from all of the religions and bring them to the last library on the planet), great visuals, and decent acting. However, it was marred by treating the Bible as if it held some mystic knowledge that grant you superpowers, and it didn't even reveal that there were more books until the final scene, making the movie seem more preachy than it was trying to be. There was even one scene where a blind woman puts her hand on random words from the Braile version of the Bible, and instantly smiles.

There's a way to make a movie with religion as the MacGuffin without it becoming a preachy fuckfest.
 
DECK'ARD said:
Because the premise doesn't stand up to scrutiny, therefore neither does the film stand on its own merits no matter how beautiful it looks.

It's built on quicksand, and everything in it from the characters to their motives fall down because of it. It was my worry from leaving the cinema onwards, why it couldn't be pieced together satisfactorily, and now confirmed by Ridley himself.
Click to expand...

The second half of the movie was put together like the editor found fragments of film on the floor and put them together as quick as he could because he had spent too long on the first half and the rent on the room was running out. The plot was a house of cards to begin with, but it had the right type of ambiguity for it.

Now these dudes are trying to slot in extra cards to support the structure. It's a waste. The post-hype for this is worse than the pre-hype. I'd rather ambiguous stupidity than obvious, explained stupidity.
 
daviyoung said:
The second half of the movie was put together like the editor found fragments of film on the floor and put them together as quick as he could because he had spent too long on the first half and the rent on the room was running out. The plot was a house of cards to begin with, but it had the right type of ambiguity for it.

Now these dudes are trying to slot in extra cards to support the structure. It's a waste. The post-hype for this is worse than the pre-hype. I'd rather ambiguous stupidity than obvious, explained stupidity.
Click to expand...

Definitely, the film is a lesson in explaining too much that didn't need to be explained or even gone near and not enough of what did need to be explained.

That is carrying on even still, and doing even more damage. It does give the impression the whole thing was doomed from the beginning really, ill-conceived and poorly executed.

If I had to file Prometheus under anything, I think it would now be a vanity project unfortunately.
 
7/10

Design and 3D was amazing. It had both an old school feel and new technology. I really dug it. Fassbender was great too (I love this guy and it's good to see him do the Hollywood takeover). And it warms my heart as an Idris Elba fanboy to see some good scenes with the dude in a high profile film like this.

Film was clearly rushed in the second half though and while it had some cool horror/monster scenes I was barely engaged in the plot. I don't know how anybody in their right mind can prefer this to either Alien or Aliens. I hate to pull this argument out but I guess it's cool to hate on Cameron now after the dullness of Avatar, so people are shitting on his masterpiece.

And no, it's hard to not draw comparisons to the series here. That hack Lindelof and Ridley Scott can keep saying this is loosely tied to the films but EVERYTHING is there.

the fucking film practically ends in the same situation too, sigourney weaver lookalike is in a damn escape pod alone with the creature, just when we think she's safe. Not to mention the damn end scene of the Alien itself. This is a prequel, to hell with what they say

I liked it more than District 9 and Moon. And I loved the design aesthetic of the film, has me yearning for more movies like this once again. But the film itself is....mediocre. Scott's seriously a hollow shell of what he once was. I feel like all he cares about is the visual side of things now, because a director in full control would not allow this messy film to happen (nor KOH which needed a bloody Director's Cut to get it's point across).

P.S. The main theme felt inappropriate at times, it felt like it belonged to a different film/series. Something more uplifting and hopeful.

- Damon Lindelof AND Jon Spaihts better not be involved with the sequel

- Fassbender is a damn splitting image of Peter O Toole's T.E. Lawrence. Should the remake sadly ever happen it's obvious who to cast.

- I hope the Blade Runner project falls to pieces. He shouldn't revisit his greatest film.
 
Jack Scofield said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that most people disliked the movie because it shit all over their Alien fan fiction/nerd theories.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, what the fuck is this? Who has Alien fanfiction on here? No we're rippin apart the movie but the script is fucking garbage.

daviyoung said:
So...bad. Why can't he just leave his movie to be his mouthpiece. Man, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

I hope he keeps talking so he can prove he didn't know what he was doing.
 
I think my score will drop if I watch this again, it's just not that good aside from some scenes and performances. I did love the general design of the film though a lot.

It's fucking weird that I liked John Carter more than this. I would have never expected that to happen months ago.
 
NotTheGuyYouKill said:
She should have said "Well, we'll find out, won't we?"
Click to expand...
She was using the words that her father used after she asked him where people go when they die. Scientists often do have theories that they choose to believe until they find evidence that discredits those theories (and sometimes they'll hang onto those theories regardless).

Not that she was a great character.
 
Hold up... Prometheus is rated R in the USA? In Taiwan it's a PG-13.

There's no way I saw a cut version. It was still quite a gory movie.
 
As long as the film is profitable FOX doesn't give 2 shits about writing complaints. Anyone expecting them to bring in David Mamet or Charlie Kaufman to pen Prometheus 2 is going to be sorely disappointed. Intstead, you'll probably get Orci/Kurtzman or David Koepp.
 
loool at Orci/Kurtzman and Lindelof having a go at the sequel. Seriously, Star Trek was a fun summer movie and the sequel will be even better with the inclusion of Benedict Cumberbatch but the sooner these guys are out of work the better.
 
Watched this on Saturday IMAX 3D with the wife. We were both pretty "meh" about the movie. The visuals were the best thing about it for me.

I did like the concept of the movie, I just don't it was pulled off very well.
 
Are we really using the fact that a scientist believes in God is a plot loophole or some sort of issue with the movie's plot?
 
Gui_PT said:
A bit, yes.

"-Why do you believe that? - Because I choose to"

That's a nice way for a scientist to think
Click to expand...

I would wager there are lots and lots of scientists who would answer that question the same way. I understand athiests or agnostics may not believe in any form of intelligent design and think it's "dumb" to do so, but that doesn't mean that there aren't lots of very smart people who do believe in it. Faith can trump anything for some people -- and that isn't limited to Christians.
 
Meier said:
Are we really using the fact that a scientist believes in God is a plot loophole or some sort of issue with the movie's plot?
Click to expand...
Not the fact that she chooses to believe, no, but rather that this is all she expresses as rationale. You've just traveled trillions upon trillions of miles across the galaxy on the strength of your findings and you can't give a more professional answer to a colleague's legitimate question than "I choose to believe"?

The sad thing is there's no reason why the question about Darwinism has to be brushed off here. Just because we may have been engineered initially doesn't mean evolution isn't at play once we were created. It doesn't take a PhD to explain such a concept succinctly and in a fashion that a movie audience could easily digest.
 
Meier said:
I would wager there are lots and lots of scientists who would answer that question the same way. I understand athiests or agnostics may not believe in any form of intelligent design and think it's "dumb" to do so, but that doesn't mean that there aren't lots of very smart people who do believe in it. Faith can trump anything for some people -- and that isn't limited to Christians.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a question posed in the movie about religion though.
It was a logical question about how they came to their professional opinion that the cave paintings were an invitation to visit beings who created humanity. There's nothing in the story at that point which suggests such a specific theory, and her best answer is "because I choose to believe that". Pretty fucking unprofessional and dumb if you ask me.
 
Starting to wonder if the backlash against the writing by the majority of people out there, or at least the loudest ones, will be revised in time. In other words, wondering if this will be accepted to be a brilliant movie in 20-30 years. Time (and the Director's Cut to flesh things out) will tell.
 
Jack Scofield said:
I absolutely did not expect to like this movie, but I really did. The cinematography was gorgeous, and the beautiful sweeping vistas made me wish I had seen the film in IMAX. There are some nice intense moments in the movie, and the Giger-inspired visuals and environments were fuck awesome, just like they were in Alien.

I have a sneaking suspicion that most people disliked the movie because it shit all over their Alien fan fiction/nerd theories.

Also, did any of you get a preview for the movie The Watch? There's a part in the trailer where a character touches some green goo and claims that it smells and tastes like cum. Needless to say, quite a few people in my audience laughed when Michael Fassbender's character touches a similar-looking liquid in Prometheus.
mSXI7.gif
Click to expand...

Really the only post I agree with in this entire thread. I have no idea what you guys were watching, or expecting. I thought it was excellent, and a visually beautiful. I left very satisfied. I continue to believe that Scott is one of the top 3 directors of all time.

Wow at an R rated movie making 90 Mil worldwide.
 
andycapps said:
Starting to wonder if the backlash against the writing by the majority of people out there, or at least the loudest ones, will be revised in time. In other words, wondering if this will be accepted to be a brilliant movie in 20-30 years. Time (and the Director's Cut to flesh things out) will tell.
Click to expand...

No. Most of the complaints with the writing aren't about ambiguity of meaning, they are about character behavior/motivation, leaps in logic, plotholes, weird character deaths, dramatic beats that don't work etc. It's not about a lack of understanding.
 
INDIGO_CYCLOPS said:
So is it worth seeing this in IMAX 3D? I only ask because I have glasses and the last thin I saw was a bit of a hassle ...
Click to expand...

3D is one of the better things about the movie, and it was pretty unobtrusive. I have glasses as well, and it's sometimes a problem for me, but this wasn't one of those times.
 
JB1981 said:
No. Most of the complaints with the writing aren't about ambiguity of meaning, they are about character behavior/motivation, leaps in logic, plotholes, weird character deaths, dramatic beats that don't work etc. It's not about a lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

My main point is whether a director's cut will flesh out all of your complaints above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, an underrated masterpiece, was released 20 years ago today
30
554
Madflavor replied
Sweden makes paying for e-thots illegal
2
77
1K
Wimbledon replied
Reading Lord of the Rings again, and Tolkien is just a master of world building
43
454
jason10mm replied
Ridley Scott interview - sharks in the colosseum, Maximus returning from the afterlife to kill Jesus Christ, asleep at the wheel for Prometheus
45
3K
dem replied
Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven is an overwhelming spectacle
32
4K
aerts1js replied
Top Bottom