Prometheus - Part 7

[KenK]

It's a film with a lot of good ideas that just don't come together all that well.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's a film with a lot of good ideas that just don't come together all that well.

Are they really good ideas though?

- Who created us?
- Mortality.
- Religion v. Science.
- Morality.
- What comes after?
- Man's own power to create.

There is a lot of basic sci-fi philosophy here, which isn't presented in the most ambitious or well put together manner.

Holloway was one of thing that I really disliked about this movie. He not only seems to lack sense, but there is no reason to empathize with him or any of the crew really. The scene where [BLACKOUT]David infects him[/BLACKOUT]. Who talks like that?

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Just got back from seeing it. I really enjoyed it but the rushed third act, script problems, and blatant sequel bait bring it down a bit. There's also a BIG lack of common sense from the characters in the film. The lack of answered questions is just bull**** in the long run. It does maintain a good air of mystery that wants me to to see the sequel though. It was also a visually stunning film (that opening was gorgeous).

I know I'm sounding negative but I really did enjoy it. Noomi and Fassbender were really damn good and I really enjoyed Idris. The characters never bothered me with their lack of development cause they all served their purpose. I'm going to have to do a lot of thinking and reading regarding this film now.

4/5.

 

[mclay18]

I don't understand why a lot of people were expecting it to be the next coming of Alien or Blade Runner... since those were 30-33 years ago -- and Scott's style has changed dramatically since then. That said, it's one of Ridley Scott's better films in the past several years. Some of the problems I had are the same that you guys had, but I didn't feel cheated or underwhelmed by the end.

But Scott does recapture that slam-bang suspense and shocks from Alien. That scene when Noomi Rapace

Spoiler

has the automated surgical machine do the C-section to remove the alien uterus had me on the edge of my seat. Same near the end when her character goes back to refill her oxygen tank, and is ambushed by the Engineer and the alien

. That was pure RS filmmaking.

And the 3D visuals are gorgeous. Like Hugo and Avatar, there's incredible depth and very immersive. The movie plays well in either format, but if you have extra money, the 3D is worth it.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

I honestly loved it, mainly for its aesthetics and the ideas put forth. But the lack of answered questions and the sequel bait sorta bummed me out a tad. I always thought this should have just been a stand-alone story, self-contained, with the only logical continuation being Alien. The characters were also a bit weird as far as their development and motivation, particularly Vickers. And Weyland, I thought, could've used a tad more backstory, considering his involvement in the 3rd act. Overall though, it was incredibly suspenseful, and Rapace and Fassbender were both pretty awesome, so I give it 8/10.

 

[moviedoors]

I'm so conflicted. I love the look of it. I love Fassbender. I want to get the bluray so I can gawk at it and dig into behind-the-scenes stuff.

Since people are rabid about avoid spoilers, I'll just go ahead and issue a SPOILER WARNING.

But man what a narrative failure. All the much ballyhooed talk of science vs. faith was nothing but window dressing. It never amounts to anything. Most of the characters are literal nobodies or plot robots ie one minute two scientists just want to get the hell away from whatever life form might be out there, the next they're trying to make friends with a terrifying penis-vagina-snake (what did that thing do anyway? I'm not sure where it fit into the life cycle or if was a part of it at all). Characters figure things out seemingly at random. Sacrifices are made that have no dramatic weight because we know next to nothing about these characters. One death is played as a deserved comeuppance, but I didn't think that person was all that bad. Easily half a dozen of these characters could have been cut. Why not hire an actual old guy instead of making Guy Pearce look like a frog? What the hell was that black stuff? It seems to do whatever the plot demands depending on the scene. I'm all for leaving things to the imagination, but this is just plain old lazy screenwriting.

It sure was purdy though.

Meh!

 

[Solidus]

This film is not ambiguous. Where are all these ideas and layers people are talking about? It is pretty straightforward, but tries to put on the guise of being something "deep". It just isn't that smart and has some of the worst character work you could hope for.

And it isn't just the minor characters, it is also the likes of Holloway, Shaw, Vickers and Janek. David and arguably [BLACKOUT]Weyland [/BLACKOUT]are the only two characters that work.

A lot of what works is the surprise. If anything, on multiple viewings the film will lose steam.

Well I disagree.

Like I said it will take me a whlie to collect all my thoughts on multiple viewings but the main characters do work. Some of the other scientists not at all but the main do work.

The way I saw it was and this is just scratching the surface of thoughts in my head is

Spoiler

The whole movie is based on faith of where our origins come from. Vickers represented the cold calculator of business, that cares for self preservation, isolation and does not care about others only the dollars and cents. Her maker "her father Weyland" does not care for her, and sees her as imperfect, her jealousy of David is interesting to me. She is the failed child of her creator, and so she cares nothing about it, and focuses just on her self and material as seen of her life boat area and it's nice features.

With Weyland you have the man like many in this world that want to believe in something, whatever it may be because they fear death, they don't want to die they want to believe in some kind of afterlife or eternal being. Weyland wants to go to his maker so he can live forever. Fear drives him.

With Shaw you have the person that has faith, but hers is focused around the nature of some people wanting to know why, why something works why something is. That is why she wants to go to the main home world and not home, and why she wants to talk to the creator, Weyland wants life, she wants answers. Which is why some run to many faiths around the world.

To a lesser extent you have Holloway who does not fully believe in much, Shaw has convinced him but he clearly is not a man of faith, he does not believe much of the engineers Shaw has to keep reaffirming him. He represents the type of person that has to see it to believe it, and wants to believe but is incredibly skeptical. That is why his anger went all out when he did not find any alive Engineers. And his discussion with David at the pool table further delved into what he wanted out of it.

David is the most interesting and hard to pin down. There are various things I want to say about him but I will keep it brief because I don't have a lot of time right now. David is almost omnipresent in a way, he really does not care, but his network with the other characters is interesting. He finds it fascinating that all these people are looking for different answers from the engineers. And his creators he sits with every day. The frustration of the humans is amusing in a sense to him, because humans have found their creators are disappointed in them, and possibly have found out that the engineers may have been created as well. Which is funny to David because his creators (humans) have met their creators, and there may be creators above that. David is disappointed in his creators as is the humans and the mirroring of that on him is interesting.

There is much more I could go into but I won't right now. So I fully disagree this film has lots of depth, I know people that say 2001 has no depth and to them there may not be any at all. It is all perception. Prometheus has great depth, is it perfect no. But it is one of the more intriguing sci-fi's I've seen in a while.

The film really looks at why people obsess over their origins, we do. Science does, religion does, even parental conflict (like some one I mentioned above) does. It is one of the cornerstones of humanity, and this film really lays it out.

EDIT: Also the black slime was important and not just doing whatever it needed to do. It was a bio weapon, some one had a great post about it, and pretty much figured it out what it was. It is all there, that part is not ambiguous, it is just subtle in it's exposition of it.

 

[Poeman]

This film is a sci fi geeks wet dream...I love ridley Scottsdale films and this was absolutely on the money. I agree the first half was stellar, pure classic in the making. The action did pick up and the edit got a bit rushed...which leads me to believe there will be a directors cut....ooo yeah.

Btw wasn't hardy supposed to be in this? That guy looked exactly like him. The girl playing Shaw was perfect casting. I can see ridley chose her because of how she did in the Swedish dragon tattoo films...feel like watching alien franchise movies now....I still have tons of questions that I will need to research

 

[hitmanyr2k]

I'm so conflicted. I love the look of it. I love Fassbender. I want to get the bluray so I can gawk at it and dig into behind-the-scenes stuff.

Since people are rabid about avoid spoilers, I'll just go ahead and issue a SPOILER WARNING.

But man what a narrative failure. All the much ballyhooed talk of science vs. faith was nothing but window dressing. It never amounts to anything. Most of the characters are literal nobodies or plot robots ie one minute two scientists just want to get the hell away from whatever life form might be out there, the next they're trying to make friends with a terrifying penis-vagina-snake (what did that thing do anyway? I'm not sure where it fit into the life cycle or if was a part of it at all). Characters figure things out seemingly at random. Sacrifices are made that have no dramatic weight because we know next to nothing about these characters. One death is played as a deserved comeuppance, but I didn't think that person was all that bad. Easily half a dozen of these characters could have been cut. Why not hire an actual old guy instead of making Guy Pearce look like a frog? What the hell was that black stuff? It seems to do whatever the plot demands depending on the scene. I'm all for leaving things to the imagination, but this is just plain old lazy screenwriting.

It sure was purdy though.

Meh!

You said everything I wanted to say about this movie. It was a very pretty film to look at and had its moments but the majority of the characters, the narrative, and the uneven pace fail this film. I can put up with the dumbest cardboard characters and their "why are you doing something so stupid" moments in the typical Friday the 13th or Halloween sequel because those movies are never trying to be much but I can't forgive said moments in a film that has so much going for it.

 

[CConn]

This film is not ambiguous. Where are all these ideas and layers people are talking about?

It is pretty straightforward, but tries to put on the guise of being something "deep". It just isn't that smart and has some of the worst character work you could hope for.

Off the top of my head, and in no particular order...

1. David's motivations. Just how human is he? Why does he seem to react so emotionally every time they distinguish him as a non-human? Why does he show so much genuine curiosity throughout the film? Is it because that's what his creator programmed into him, or is it something more?

2. The parental angle. What exactly was all of the talk about lineage and parenting about? From Shaw's inability to have a child, to Weyland's relationship with David, to David's apparent resentment of Weyland, what was the actual philosophical point?

3. The parental/creation angle. Furthermore, how does the parental subplot tie into the overall concept of genetic engineering and creation? Is David supposed to represent a parallel between the Engineers and mankind? And if so, what does that mean, exactly? What are the statements being made about humanity, man's parentage?

4. The Robot Principles. David's character, as well as Weyland's quest for immortality and discovery play heavily into the many subtexual and philosophical statements very inherent in the classic Asimov and Dick stories of the 20th century. It a lot of ways, Weyland and David can be viewed in the same light as Roy Batty and Tyrell in Blade Runner, but how does their relationship differ? Again, what does it say about humanity and non-humanity in general? Is there any difference at all?

5. Shaw's need to discover our origins. What did it stem from? Was it the loss of her parents? Her own inability to bear a child? What drove her so profoundly to seek out our beginning?

6. Shaw's religion. How did it play into the very scientifically-based basis of the movie? Was it an endorsement of religion in our modern, scientific society, or was it to show just how pointless and meaningless religion is in the face of absolute answers? And what did her beliefs mean for Shaw herself? How did they relate to both her scientific and emotional wants and needs?

7. Weyland's quest for immortality and knowledge. What exactly made Weyland - an extremely intelligent and extremely old man - so desperate to reach the Engineers? Did his own brilliance and achievements create an almost god-like complex in his head where he literally felt as though he was too great to ever die? Is that what he even sought from the Engineer? Or was it that he was just obsessed with discovery, and the reason for existence was the last frontier for him to cross? And what does that even mean? Is that a worthwhile pursuit? Or just an endless road without end?

Those are just some off the top of my head. And I'm not even really trying that hard, so there's probably even more in depth questions about those points that I didn't even pose.

Ironically, they all have to do with the characters themselves and their characterization in the film. So much for "worst character work you could hope for" (btw, that sentence doesn't even make any sense. who would "hope" for bad characterization?).

Honestly, I really can't fathom how some people such as yourself fail to even grasp the tip of the iceberg that is this movie's depth and subtext. You most work on an entirely different cognitive plane than myself.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

The film raises a lot of questions that even hours after seeing it, I'm still thinking about it. I guess that shows that the film did something right.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Off the top of my head, and in no particular order...

1. David's motivations. Just how human is he? Why does he seem to react so emotionally every time they distinguish him as a non-human? Why does he show so much genuine curiosity throughout the film? Is it because that's what his creator programmed into him, or is it something more?

2. The parental angle. What exactly was all of the talk about lineage and parenting about? From Shaw's inability to have a child, to Weyland's relationship with David, to David's apparent resentment of Weyland, what was the actual philosophical point?

3. The parental/creation angle. Furthermore, how does the parental subplot tie into the overall concept of genetic engineering and creation? Is David supposed to represent a parallel between the Engineers and mankind? And if so, what does that mean, exactly? What are the statements being made about humanity, man's parentage?

4. The Robot Principles. David's character, as well as Weyland's quest for immortality and discovery play heavily into the many subtexual and philosophical statements very inherent in the classic Asimov and Dick stories of the 20th century. It a lot of ways, Weyland and David can be viewed in the same light as Roy Batty and Tyrell in Blade Runner, but how does their relationship differ? Again, what does it say about humanity and non-humanity in general? Is there any difference at all?

5. Shaw's need to discover our origins. What did it stem from? Was it the loss of her parents? Her own inability to bear a child? What drove her so profoundly to seek out our beginning?

6. Shaw's religion. How did it play into the very scientifically-based basis of the movie? Was it an endorsement of religion in our modern, scientific society, or was it to show just how pointless and meaningless religion is in the face of absolute answers? And what did her beliefs mean for Shaw herself? How did they relate to both her scientific and emotional wants and needs?

7. Weyland's quest for immortality and knowledge. What exactly made Weyland - an extremely intelligent and extremely old man - so desperate to reach the Engineers? Did his own brilliance and achievements create an almost god-like complex in his head where he literally felt as though he was too great to ever die? Is that what he even sought from the Engineer? Or was it that he was just obsessed with discovery, and the reason for existence was the last frontier for him to cross? And what does that even mean? Is that a worthwhile pursuit? Or just an endless road without end?

Those are just some off the top of my head. And I'm not even really trying that hard, so there's probably even more in depth questions about those points that I didn't even pose.

Ironically, they all have to do with the characters themselves and their characterization in the film. So much for "worst character work you could hope for" (btw, that sentence doesn't even make any sense. who would "hope" for bad characterization?).

Honestly, I really can't fathom how some people such as yourself fail to even grasp the tip of the iceberg that is this movie's depth and subtext. You most work on an entirely different cognitive plane than myself.

: : :

 

[hitmanyr2k]

Off the top of my head, and in no particular order...

1. David's motivations. Just how human is he? Why does he seem to react so emotionally every time they distinguish him as a non-human? Why does he show so much genuine curiosity throughout the film? Is it because that's what his creator programmed into him, or is it something more?

2. The parental angle. What exactly was all of the talk about lineage and parenting about? From Shaw's inability to have a child, to Weyland's relationship with David, to David's apparent resentment of Weyland, what was the actual philosophical point?

3. The parental/creation angle. Furthermore, how does the parental subplot tie into the overall concept of genetic engineering and creation? Is David supposed to represent a parallel between the Engineers and mankind? And if so, what does that mean, exactly? What are the statements being made about humanity, man's parentage?

4. The Robot Principles. David's character, as well as Weyland's quest for immortality and discovery play heavily into the many subtexual and philosophical statements very inherent in the classic Asimov and Dick stories of the 20th century. It a lot of ways, Weyland and David can be viewed in the same light as Roy Batty and Tyrell in Blade Runner, but how does their relationship differ? Again, what does it say about humanity and non-humanity in general? Is there any difference at all?

5. Shaw's need to discover our origins. What did it stem from? Was it the loss of her parents? Her own inability to bear a child? What drove her so profoundly to seek out our beginning?

6. Shaw's religion. How did it play into the very scientifically-based basis of the movie? Was it an endorsement of religion in our modern, scientific society, or was it to show just how pointless and meaningless religion is in the face of absolute answers? And what did her beliefs mean for Shaw herself? How did they relate to both her scientific and emotional wants and needs?

7. Weyland's quest for immortality and knowledge. What exactly made Weyland - an extremely intelligent and extremely old man - so desperate to reach the Engineers? Did his own brilliance and achievements create an almost god-like complex in his head where he literally felt as though he was too great to ever die? Is that what he even sought from the Engineer? Or was it that he was just obsessed with discovery, and the reason for existence was the last frontier for him to cross? And what does that even mean? Is that a worthwhile pursuit? Or just an endless road without end?

Those are just some off the top of my head. And I'm not even really trying that hard, so there's probably even more in depth questions about those points that I didn't even pose.

Ironically, they all have to do with the characters themselves and their characterization in the film. So much for "worst character work you could hope for" (btw, that sentence doesn't even make any sense. who would "hope" for bad characterization?).

Honestly, I really can't fathom how some people such as yourself fail to even grasp the tip of the iceberg that is this movie's depth and subtext. You most work on an entirely different cognitive plane than myself.

Are those really "ideas" and "layers" or just questions you would have about a bunch of under-developed characters? You could seriously lay out the same kind of questions for a movie like Event Horizon if you tried hard enough

 

[CapedCrusader14]

David was such a marvelous character by the way. He has such an air of mystery surrounding him regarding his motives and his true intentions.

I have a feeling that if this indeed does become a trilogy, I believe that we will slowly learn the truth behind David and the reasons why Shaw wants to know about our origins.

 

[CConn]

Are those really "ideas" and "layers" or just questions you would have about a bunch of under-developed characters?

Um, no. They're real questions.

You can't pose questions that complex and obviously intentional (seriously, as I already pointed out, there's a lot of Dick and Asimov-inspired character points) to underdeveloped characters.

Again, you're being so dismissive towards it, and it really doesn't even seem as though you comprehend the extremely obvious and blatant influences that the movie is filled with.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

No one else saw the little "Life of PI" teaser?

 

[Solidus]

Another thing that I found interesting and very cool

Spoiler

Weyland has two children he has created. One is Vickers, the other is David. It is clear that he loves David more, Vickers even says so. It is an interesting mirror to the engineers. They created us, and clearly were unhappy with us because they were coming to eradicate us. They created another lifeforms that was suppose to be more perfect but backfired. So like the engineers Weyland is disappointed with the biological creation he made, and does not care for it.

Now when the engineer rips off David's head, he looks at him for a second. And I kinda can tell that what has happened is the engineer is afraid. Just like the gods were after Prometheus gave us fire. Because now, we the created have made an artificial version of our own that is quite perfect. And could be a threat to the Engineer and everyone of them. So in a sense they fear what we have created and we could turn on them.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Just got back from watching this - that movie was ****ing brilliant. Two gripes, Logan Marshall-Green's acting was a little over the top at times, and I think I caught a continuity mistake; however, the questions the film raised, the cinematography, the sound design, the music, the art direction... it all pushed this film to a whole new level.

9.9 for me.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Another thing that I found interesting and very cool

Spoiler

Weyland has two children he has created. One is Vickers, the other is David. It is clear that he loves David more, Vickers even says so. It is an interesting mirror to the engineers. They created us, and clearly were unhappy with us because they were coming to eradicate us. They created another lifeforms that was suppose to be more perfect but backfired. So like the engineers Weyland is disappointed with the biological creation he made, and does not care for it.

Now when the engineer rips off David's head, he looks at him for a second. And I kinda can tell that what has happened is the engineer is afraid. Just like the gods were after Prometheus gave us fire. Because now, we the created have made an artificial version of our own that is quite perfect. And could be a threat to the Engineer and everyone of them. So in a sense they fear what we have created and we could turn on them.

I think they made more than just one kind of life form. It seemed to me that they made several kinds, and one of them broke lose.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Are those really "ideas" and "layers" or just questions you would have about a bunch of under-developed characters? You could seriously lay out the same kind of questions for a movie like Event Horizon if you tried hard enough

If you choose to believe they were poorly written characters, I won't challenge you. Several characters got the short end of the stick but Vickers, Shaw, David and in some instances Holloway were not products of mistreatment.

After my second viewing, i can positively state that Prometheus contains a large quantity of symbolism and philosophy, and while it hands out a few answers, it also raises more questions. Ultimately, it's up to the audience to come up with a 'thesis' or their own answers.

Shaw chose hers.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

The scene is unnecessary.

Spoiler

The movie ends with Shaw and her decision. The scene feels tacked on just by the nature of where it lands in the film.

Also, we still don't know what the liquid does. It continues to change depending on who and why they were exposed to it.

and I've already explained this.

 

[Solidus]

I think they made more than just one kind of life form. It seemed to me that they made several kinds, and one of them broke lose.

Oh yea.

Spoiler

I think they created lots of life around the galaxy, for what reason it is unknown to me at this time. But they started to fear us, clearly they kept tabs on us, we saw them as gods during ancient times. But now they fear us. To me him ripping David's head off proved that, we were the gods now, and they did not want that. Because they lose control if we can create things better possibly then they can.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

Are they really good ideas though?

- Who created us?
- Mortality.
- Religion v. Science.
- Morality.
- What comes after?
- Man's own power to create.

There is a lot of basic sci-fi philosophy here, which isn't presented in the most ambitious or well put together manner.

He said good ideas.

 

[DieSmiling]

I had very mixed feelings on the film. I was very impressed technically (the visuals and 3D were incredible) and the film obviously presents some interesting ideas and characters... But like others have said it doesn't seem to come together and deliver anything substantial and almost comes of anti-climatic at the end.

Admittedly, there were a few things I didn't really understand.

Spoiler

1. What exactly were the holograms of the engineers and why were they shown? Was David consciously showing them to the crew? Did the engineer that was still alive sick the snakelike creatures (that Janek likened to WMDs) on them because they didn't want to wipe out Earth? I didn't get that.

2. What are David's motivations? His character was extremely interesting but confusing. Why exactly, other than resentment, did he poison Hollaway? Was he always serving Weyland's interests?

3. How is Charlize Theron Weyland's daughter? She's like 1000 years younger than he is. And did she bang Janek? Why? What a weird scene thrown in there.

Also, I'm obviously in the minority, but I don't see the end as sequel bait. Does anyone really think they're going to make a movie about Shaw and David going to the home of the engineers? I think it's just a somewhat inconclusive ending to stick with the general theme of Shaw's arc.

 

[Hit-Girl]

Are those really "ideas" and "layers" or just questions you would have about a bunch of under-developed characters? You could seriously lay out the same kind of questions for a movie like Event Horizon if you tried hard enough

Good point. You can sit and ponder deeper meanings for just about anything. Why are the pores on this sponge arranged this way? Is it random, or a pattern? Is some higher being trying to communicate with me through this sponge?