Prometheus trailers

[Super Existence]

I find it hard not to go on a rant these days.

I don't think it was the worst film ever. If it had nothing to do with alien I would say it was six out of ten but for me it was the biggest let down ever which is what makes me rant.

Yes the film was a hit but that's because most of the cinema going public can't imagine what the movie could have been.

The film was aimed at Alien fans plain and simple but halfway through they decided to make a completely different kind of movie but couldn't leave the alien ties behind leaving this very tenuous link between them. If they'd have cut ll ties and made an independent sci-fi movie it wouldn't have caused the uproar that it did, a movie that is neither one thing nor the other. It has no target, it tantalises one thing but acts like another and doesn't deliver on either.

[*Jess♥]

I must say, I had a bit of trouble thinking about how this could be a set up for alien since the engineer had gotten out of the space jockey and so how could he have had a chest burster from that position.

but then i recently saw on some promo material that this is not the same moon/planet that was in alien. so it seems there is some parts missing. I think it's important that these parts are missing because when a director tries too hard to weave things together into a fine mesh, there inevitably develops plot holes. I think the director did a good job at avoiding plot holes as it could have been a lot worse. I think plot holes are more legitimate criticism than general vagueness.

The original alien did such a good job suggesting strongly that these were genetically engineered bio-weapons, without saying it outright, I love the way Ash talks about the face hugger it when he examines it. "tough little son of a bitch" I think this is a great lead in to that and is not too dissimilar to the story for Guyver.

I really liked the way Ridley Scott used the premise that has been established for the aliens adapting to the host they find themself in. like in Alien 3, the alien sort of became a 'dog alien'.

I felt like the cylinders the black liquid is contained in echo jurassic park nicely, and the black liquid is quite a formidable biological weapon. it analyses the host and undergoes an accelerated evolution in order to become the most efficient hunter. since the engineers seeded earth life from their own DNA, it seems to me the bioweapon was ultimately meant to be used against other engineers.

I love this about some films. I think some of the best films are the ones that leave a good framework and have me really thinking about them afterwards.

Alien was great at that. I always find myself thinking about how Alien is. so many films that are made, after they are watched, they are then forgotten. because there is nothing in them really. they are like a still pond that is 1ft deep all across.

[Salkafar]

I so disagree with you, Ryuki.

[*Jess♥]

I so disagree with you, Ryuki.

care to elaborate?

I addressed specific points that you made.

I know you're not obligated to reply about this, but you did tell me that i should be finding this movie dumb.

I think you owe it to me to either prove my replies wrong or accept that i shouldn't have to find the movie dumb?

otherwise it's a little rude...

[Salkafar]

This article does a better job.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/fictional-science-100-glaring-logical-issues-with-prometheus/

[*Jess♥]

ok, I had a look and i wrote a response to every issue that person made. up to a point.

I am responding to *his* issues so my response should not be taken as a personal reply to yourself. I would very much like it though if you would consider my points.

-----------------

1. the planet is earth. blatantly stupid point.

2. this can be the origin of life on earth if the predicted time scale is wrong. in terms of this ovie where life doesn't spring up on its own but is given a headstart, it is perfectly reasonable to assume this may not be the Archean era.

3. pointless. it is earth. there is not denying this, any stupd person can easily say this is earth. the visual narrative is very clear on this fact.

4. our DNA is not a perfect replica of the engineers, they made it quite clear that the DNA matches because the engineers contain ALL DNA. "oh my god, it's us, it's everything"

5. this is so stupid it makes my head hurt. I can no longer see an antenna on my phone, does that means it's nt there? give me a break, they have advanced technology, it would be easy for them to have created a propulsion system that is not easily identifiable by a human being.

6. 'character's opinion' does not equal 'logical inconsistency'. I understand why she would think that. becaue there is a pictographic representation like a map. if somebody left me a map, I would assume they wanted me to go there.

7. assuming that current scientific methods apply to all situations in the possible future. many years ago we used to measure things in yards and feet. does that mean if a film doesn't show measurements in yards and feet, it has a 'logical inconsistency'?

8. because this is a film. it would be a pretty shitty director who decides to throw out the entire catalog of film techniques because a person was viewing a dream.

9. this is a golden record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

10. person appears to be unaware of the phonomenon known as momentum and what would happen if a ship decelerated upon arrival. red lights give a visual alert in case conscious crew members were deaf. lights flicker to remind disoriented crew members of direction to command centre.

11. david stated quite clearly he is made to appear human. he would appear very human if he was unable to expel air from his mouth.

12. his surprise at teh word casualties does not indicate that he does not know the word. this is anothe stupid point. he question her use of the term because everyone was in hyper sleep and david obviously never expected there to be a malfunction. it is human to not trust a system such as hypersleep but david is not human so he doesn't expect that type of question.

at this point i find these 'logical points' to be childish and ignorant.

I'm going to stop there.

anyone who WANTS there to be an issue will find any amount of things to pick at, and anyone who thinks about them properly can come up with a perfectly reasonable answer, as I just demonstrated. what I want to know is, what is the REAL issue.

edit:

I decided to try and keep it together enough to address further issues... probably a waste of time, but what the hey!

13. If I had two people sat before me, A was a renowned geologist motivated solely by money and the other was an ok geologist who didnt care about oney but was eager to get teh job done... I would choose the man who can do the job. who gives a crap if their motivation was money or socialising or refinement of their art. you pick the best man for the job.

14. it's not really a 'logical issue' with the film is it? it's a casting decision. there could be a few reasons. people will age differently in hte future due to advanced medical science. guy pearce was already cast for a young peter weyland in the TED viral video.

15. humans are capable of predicting what the stars will look like in the future. is it really so hard to believe that the engineers predicted this star formation? or does this person seriously think that the cave paintings were the result of the cavemen looking into the sky. yes. of course. with their advanced telescopes. obviously the engineers gave this information to the ancient cultures by other means. perhaps by visitation. yes the universe is vast... I'd love it if somebody could show me the exact formation of the constellation of orion in another part of the night sky. besides, it was the presence of a 'm class planet' that made them take notice.

16. I can't believe i have to spell it out. it's a system within a galaxy. it's really not that hard. and if the term sounds odd, let us reasonably assume that the future scientists may have found systems outside the galaxy?

17. yes. there seemed to be - 'a planet, just one planet with a moon capable of sustaining life'. we shall all be damned for using our language so flippantly!!!!!

18. if somebody left me a map, in multiple places, I might assume it is an invitation. once again though, it is a characters opinion. why repeat the same issue twice?

19. person seems to be blatantly ignoring the glaring obviousness of the lines that shaw says very clearly in english "I don't, but it's what i choose to believe".

20. oh wait

21. no, person clearly heard that line but is incapable of tying these things together. without a shred of proof? I guesss they didn't just show the cave paintings showing a very specific star formation then? and giant beings? oh well...

22. what? I can't believe i am still reading such stupidity. who are they contacting? uhm, I dunno, THE ENGINEERS?!?!? no they weren't targeting a specific point on the planet. transmissions generally go out in all directions and cover a wide area. unless directed. in which case i am pretty sure they directed it over the whole moon.

ugh... I can't believe i actually chose to continue with this, it's like arguing with a two year old.

[*Jess♥]

This article does a better job.

evidently it doesn't

to be honest, I was more interested in hearing your opinion. since you originally told me I will find the movie dumb on second watch and you told me why. I responded to those points. but it's ok. no worries.

seriously, if you don't like the movie, I'm fine with that, but I'd prefer to know why you dislike it, not some internet moron who can't put 2 and 2 together to make 4.

and if you can't put your finger on the reason you didn't like it, no problem

[Salkafar]

I rest my case.

[*YoungGuyver]

I think the article DOES make a few good points.

I mean, taking their helmets off would contaminate the alien environment. Even NASA is worried about that when they send probes into space.

If there are techno fixes to these problems in this scifi, then the movie should hint at them. Otherwise all bad movies must be argued with the same point. In bay's version of transformers, the comics were needed to even remotely make sense. In other words, someone else had to come along and fill in the holes. From what I know about Ridley Scott on 'Legend', the man is creative. He will come up with a million ideas a minute. But he needs other people to help edit them down. Is there a failure of that system here?

Personally I want to see the movie before making my own judgement. But I see so many people complaining about the same thing, and only one defending it. Oh well

[*Jess♥]

thanks youngguyver.

the way I see it, they are not from NASA or a large responsible organisation, they are essentially a mercenary crew funded by a private organisation. I don't think contamination procedures are that important to them.

yes, I hope you watch it and i hope you

can appreciate the directors vision. I know you like mise en scene and the film is note worthy for that alone.

yes there appears to be only one person defending it on this forum. but look at my earlier post... it was 'liked' by lordspleach so I like to think he agrees with me that this is a good film.

it is true the internet seems to be split by this film. the comments section on the article salkafar linked to is full of conflicting opinions.

[Salkafar]

Ryuki, they may not be NASA, they are still supposed to be professional scientists. Archeologists, and at least one biologist. They are the first people EVER to set foot in an alien habitat, and they have just travelled YEARS through space, cost: $1,000,000,000,000,-, to do so. This kind of behaviour is not merely stupid, it is completely insane. It is insulting to scientists, and, since I paid money to see the flick, it was insulting to me. Taking off their helmets added NOTHING to the movie - they never took them off in 'Alien', for instance - except a little sting of "Look at how stupid these characters are".

It's a beautiful movie. Not a good movie. The ideas, characterization, dialogue and plot are all pretty dumb.

[*Jess♥]

Thanks Salkafar.

this is the kind of dialogue I can appreciate. this is your personal opinion and I can totally respect that.

I'm not sure about whether i agree with it or not. I mean, holloway was an archaeologist. he is used to 'getting his hands dirty' so to speak. He would be used to going into ancient tombs that may harbour god knows what kind of dormant bacteria. He wouldn't be concerned about getting his body contaminated for a start and in regards to the alien environment, he may simply have been too excited and wants to get up close as many archaeologists do.

I can understand if he was a biologist or a chemist, he might not behave that way.

the other members of the team clearly objected, but once he had taken his helmet off it was too late. so there wasn't much sense in them worrying about contamination any more.

I understand it was insulting, I don't see it that way. I guess i would like to know if after reading my take on it, are you willing to change your stance or are you very strong in your opinion?

[Salkafar]

Ryuki, I think I have made it very clear that I don't agree with you at all regarding Prometheus.

[*Jess♥]

saying it like that makes it sounds like you are specifically prejudiced against me and my opinion.

is that what is going on here? if so, why?

after all we DO agree that the movie is beautiful. so....

I do feel you are treating me very unfairly with your comments, you come into the thread, make some challenging points, then when I respond, you essentially cut me off and stone-wall me. if you dislike the movie that's fine but that's not my fault please stop treating me this way.

[*YoungGuyver]

thanks youngguyver.

the way I see it, they are not from NASA or a large responsible organisation, they are essentially a mercenary crew funded by a private organisation. I don't think contamination procedures are that important to them.

Um, anyone working in something that big and dangerous should have extensive training. Just handling a class A 3000KW water tube boiler, along with two independent 1000KW fire tubes sends you into various safety classes once every six weeks. In space, if you screw up, you die. What company would send screw ups on a mission that expensive? You argued they wanted the best, and the best can't remember and follow their training?

Sorry, I have to give in to the logic of the group on that one. A flaw is a flaw. Perhaps Mr Scott is just giving in to the formula of the horror genre? Who knows. Oh well. So few movies are perfect, no biggie

[Super Existence]

You should watch the making of the movie, it's about four hours long but I think it' a bit of an eye opener. It's amazing how much Ridley refuses to capitulate to anyone else's opinion on what works. Guys got way too much authority now.

[Salkafar]

saying it like that makes it sounds like you are specifically prejudiced against me and my opinion.

I am not prejudiced against you or your opinions. I do completely disagree with your opinion on Prometheus, however. And I am even surprised at your love for it. Even aside from my gripes, viewed as a movie completely on its own, it wasn't that good.

When I said it was beautiful, I meant it looks very pretty - the visuals are kick-ass. But that's all.

You should watch the making of the movie, it's about four hours long but I think it' a bit of an eye opener. It's amazing how much Ridley refuses to capitulate to anyone else's opinion on what works. Guys got way too much authority now.

Sounds like George Lucas. I haven't watched all of 'The furious Gods' yet, but I intend to.

I think the problem is that these guys want to be Stanley Kubrick, but Kubrick was a perfectionist who would never have allowed mistakes as obvious as those in this movie to pass him by.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Salkafar

[*Jess♥]

Youngguyver, thanks, I understand completely the point you are making. I guess I still maintain that he was merely way too excited, but I accept that the premise was flawed. to be honest, I did think he took his helmet off way to readily when i watched that part. I just don't think the movie should be condemned because of what i view as a nitpick which can potentially be explained by any number of things.

salkafar, I'm sure there are many films that you enjoy thoroughly that display issues, some of which could be explained and some of which can't. a lot of people are big fans of lord of the rings films, but those have glaring issues. the one that always gets me is how samwise attacks one of the nine on weather top. he should have been paralysed like in the book. I like the film because of the way it makes me feel. the atmosphere and the premise ad the visuals.

Super Existence, yeah I have the furious gods documentary. I have watched about 10 minutes so far. seems like good stuff. maybe i will have a different opinion after watching it all?

[Super Existence]

I've seen most of Ridley Scotts BTS doco's and in the majority of them Ridley makes a stupid decision that is over turned by someone else, all through his career he had someone telling him 'no' until he got to gladiator.

[*Jess♥]

I always thought it was the hollywood producers who were bad for that kind of thing?

I'll have to watch that documentary soon to see if i can spot anything that might have been better left out of prometheus. at the moment, I can't think of anything that I would take out.. but maybe the line by charlize theron where she calls him father. it seems a bit out of place like it's supposed to be a big shock, but it has zero consequences in the story so it just sticks out like a sore thumb. I've tried to place it into context somehow, but I'm struggling with that part so I would have to call foul on that line.

[Super Existence]

Back in those days producers were less bothered about elements of story and more on how much money was being spent. I think RS goes off on mad tangents. Seems like he used to listen but wont take anyone on now.

Some good examples are:

In alien he wanted to see a form halfway between chestburster and adult that looked like an egg with feet, waddling around the ship (like Dark Star)

In legend he came up with the idea of making cruise's forest boy jack have green lizard skin until the writer shot him down.

[*YoungGuyver]

Someone has an interesting interpretation of Prometheus:

Basically he thinks the planet was an experiment by the humans, whom developed time travel and inadvertantly changed history so many times that they changed evolution. We are the engineers, and the only way to close the time loop was to commit suicide.

[*Jess♥]

Thanks

I really enjoyed that!

I love his honest, exploratory and thoughtful critique.

I don't have the academic background for the ideas he refers to, but it all sounds very interesting.

the ancient spaceman theory? not familiar with it, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

I think I was with him most of the way through until he started talking about the butterfly effect.

I think the time travel thing is taking it a bit too far. it's not really suggested in the film as far as I could tell. there doesn't seem to be any real signposts.

well apart from the maps being accurate to our present day knowledge. could have been artistic license, or it could have been time anomalies... but to be honest, i don't buy it.

[Aether]

well, sorry to drag this seemingly bad memory of a topic up but i actually wacthed this last night and wanted to register my dissapointment, well.... that was until i watched the above video posted by YoungGuyver (thanks!)

why was i dissapointed?

not because i am an alien fan - ive seen them all i think at various times and enjoyed them but i am by no means a 'fan' of them, and this is perhaps where my dissapointment and anger came from.

i didnt give a heck about the stuff connected to Alien. i saw some threads and just thought so thats it thats the answer oh great! what peed me of was that they had hinted on something that really caused a paradigm shift in my life over a decade ago which was the ancient astronaut theory (and there are many different examples other than von danikens chariots of the gods)...

finally, i thought ,someone exploring this topic, and when the film just spiralled downwards into what i felt was a poor imitation of an alien film it just angered me that the ancient astronaut theory was not given a fair exploration or expanded upon and was kind of just forgotten.

i am actually surprised that you say you didnt know about this theory before Ryuki, im sure i mentioned it at sometime in the theories and ideas section but i think it was within another topic, and it does actually relate to Guyver in a few ways, however i like to just leave Guyver in its own realm, i like to just enjoy it for what it is rather than attach it to bizzare real world theories, which is why i have never pushed the issue.

anyway to the dudes video - anything like this esoteric review does make me wonder if the reviewer is actually more intelligent than the writer or if they are just especially sharp!

there were things in the film that just didnt make sense to me at the time, i think i noticed them but they just seemed random at the time, but with those things in mind pointed out, and thinking oh yeah, now i would like to try and piece them together myself.

things that stood out were the whole David thing, he was a dick, but now i see he was a dick for a reason. i was reading it as a reflection of him being a creation and his relationship with his creators, and the crew embarking to do the same thing. like when he asks the dude 'how would you feel if you asked them why they made you and they just said because they could?' etc.

first thing i thought when i saw the circular tunnel was particle accelerator. wether that extends to the time travel thesis, i dont know but given enough thinking it might make sense.

what i dont understand is the beginning, why is the engineer destroying himself? unless he was creating us? was that it? in a christ type way... for you all to live i must die?

anyway the real revelation that the above video gave me was the bible passage connection. i guess it shouldnt have surpised me that their was christ and god /satan symbolism in here but to my ignorance at the time i overlooked it.

what i instantly think of is that this angry god was displeased that his creation had dared to be in his presence and thus killed everyone. even though the reviewer above said she survived because she was a believer lets not forget that he did go to kill her once his ship had crashed.

bah i dont know, but really if all this symbolism is in there deliberately surely it would have just been better in a stand alone film with nothing to do about the aliens of Alien? but then i guess not as many people would even think about going to see it..

whatever, but all i do know is that the next time (if i find time for a next time) i watch this i will watch it again with a more open mind and look at things differently, i will not be focusing on it for what i wanted out of it and take it for what is actually there, that way i wont get disapointed or peeved off.

if i had the time or inclination i would go over it with a fine tooth comb, but alas i dont have the motivation -after all its only a film and my 100% understanding or perception of it wont change my overall thinking in anyway, anyway!

Edited February 10, 2013 by Aether

[*Jess♥]

I'm not really aware of the ancient astronaut theory because any time I heard of it, probably sounded like those alien conspiracy theories, abductions etc. I don't really buy into any of that, it just sounds like paranoia.