Prometheus - Part 8

[CConn]

Then lay off the personal attacks.

I apologize if you took offense.

I more meant "baseless hyperbole." If that sounds better.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'd say mixed rather than massive disappointment.

 

[CConn]

Now that's acceptable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Off the top of my head, and in no p...hen a half a dozen books and films. :awesome:

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

There is nothing wrong with having expectations.

There is when you go into a movie thinking it will be a masterpiece, nothing but setting yourself up for disappointment.

Someone on IMDb posted a complete list of Prometheus' plot holes and inconsistencies. I can't post it here due to language, but it's not hard to find.

It's hilarious, infuriating, and depressing all at once.

I found it, while he does list a few legitimate holes, half of the "plot holes" he mentioned start out with the phrase "there is no way..." and say how so and so is impossible, like the two dudes getting lost in the cave. This is an actual quote
"There is no way for Fifield and Millburn to get lost in the alien cave."

They're in a ******* alien cave, of course it possible to get lost in there even if you have tech.

He mentions the squid aging rapidly, which shows he obviously doesn't remember a chestburster becoming fully grown in about 30 minutes in the first Alien.

While he doe mention some valid complaints, the dude obviously went into to the movie wanting to hate it and pick it apart.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Subtext does not automatically make a movie deep or interesting. Its not whats there, its what you do with it.

Exactly.

When I brought up the Two-Face example, I didn't mean that I thought it didn't work within the context of the film. I think it works wonderfully. My issue with it was that Nolan had to basically cut out a large amount of potential from the charcter of Two-Face (again, Two-Face, not Harvey Dent.) As a film, it's works very well. But as a comic fan, I was sad that I saw one of my favorite bat-villains only used to a fraction of his true potential. I could go in-depth about the multiple ways and elements I would have loved to see explored with his character on film, but I dont' want to derail this thread any further.

Except, Nolan used the character how he felt he would be best utilized in his series of films.

Found a quote that nicely sums up my view of this film:


http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/06/a...+Everything%29

Bam! That is the stuff right there.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Man, I hate to use this comparison, but this is the exact reaction that Blade Runner and Alien received from the critics and audience (the music, characters and script were all hammered). Critics of the films proclaimed that the story (Blade Runner) took a beatseat to the visuals.

Thirty years later though, the characters are entertaining and done well, the music was creative and ingenious and the plot had depth -- filled with substance.

 

[Boom]

There is when you go into a movie thinking it will be a masterpiece, nothing but setting yourself up for disappointment.


I found it, while he does list a few legitimate holes, half of the "plot holes" he mentioned start out with the phrase "there is no way..." and say how so and so is impossible, like the two dudes getting lost in the cave. This is an actual quote
"There is no way for Fifield and Millburn to get lost in the alien cave."

They're in a ******* alien cave, of course it possible to get lost in there even if you have tech.

He mentions the squid aging rapidly, which shows he obviously doesn't remember a chestburster becoming fully grown in about 30 minutes in the first Alien.

While he doe mention some valid complaints, the dude obviously went into to the movie wanting to hate it and pick it apart.

They had the majority of the ground-level mapped out by the time the two of them wanted to head back to the ship. They at the very least had the entrance mapped out. So why didn't they simply contact the ship and say, "Yeah, um, how do we get out?"

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which is what I've been saying for a while now.

The people who don't enjoy it are the ones who aren't grasping (or, rather, don't care about) the subtext.

It is not "subtext" when it is blatant.

 

[Schlosser85]

Just from the TED conference viral alone, I think it's pretty clear Weyland had a god complex. He even says "we are the gods now".

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Man, I hate to use this comparison, but this is the exact reaction that Blade Runner and Alien received from the critics and audience (the music, characters and script were all hammered). Critics of the films proclaimed that the story (Blade Runner) took a beatseat to the visuals.

Thirty years later though, the characters are entertaining and done well, the music was creative and ingenious and the plot was deep and filled with substance.

Didn't the original Blade Runner have the slap you in the face V.O.? I would of hated on that version of the film to.

 

[Schlosser85]

Which is what I've been saying for a while now.

The people who don't enjoy it are the ones who aren't grasping (or, rather, don't care about) the subtext.

Or maybe they just didn't enjoy it.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Except, Nolan used the character how he felt he would be best utilized in his series of films.

Exactly. That was precisely my point. Nolan approaches every film as if it will be the only film in that series (or so he says.) So he ties up everything. Harvey Dent's story was tied up nicely in TDK. At the expense of having Two-Face not really be the Two-Face we know from the comics, but merely Harvey Dent with a few of Two-Face's traits. It was still done wonderfully, and I love the film, but as a fan of the comics, I was saddened that Two-Face was so underutilized.

But again, that's the compromise I was talking about.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just from the TED conference viral alone, I think it's pretty clear Weyland had a god complex. He even says "we are the gods now".

So I have to watch virals now to get the story?

Exactly. That was precisely my point. Nolan approaches every film as if it will be the only film in that series (or so he says.) So he ties up everything. Harvey Dent's story was tied up nicely in TDK. At the expense of having Two-Face not really be the Two-Face we know from the comics, but merely Harvey Dent with a few of Two-Face's traits. It was still done wonderfully, and I love the film, but as a fan of the comics, I was saddened that Two-Face was so underutilized.

But again, that's the compromise I was talking about.

It is not about compromise. Harvey is like Scarecrow. They are used in specific roles for specific reasons. It is why Nolan didn't use the lame Joker imitation known as the Riddler.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

They had the majority of the ground-level mapped out by the time the two of them wanted to head back to the ship. They at the very least had the entrance mapped out. So why didn't they simply contact the ship and say, "Yeah, um, how do we get out?"

That one dude was probably stoned out of his mind and didn't think about it.

Also, you have to think, we see them at the time they realize they are lost, and by that time the storm was coming in iirc.

Also, I opened a few threads on the Prometheus IMDB. There is one dude convinced that everyone who likes the movie online is under Fox's payroll Glad I stay away from there mostly.

 

[Infinity9999x]

They had the majority of the ground-level mapped out by the time the two of them wanted to head back to the ship. They at the very least had the entrance mapped out. So why didn't they simply contact the ship and say, "Yeah, um, how do we get out?"

That's probably the biggest plot hole I've seen thus far. And they could have done something to explain it away fairly easily. Say the storm messed up the signal and they lost their naviagation temporarily...anything. Just a quick explanation would have worked.

 

[Boom]

That one dude was probably stoned out of his mind and didn't think about it.

Also, you have to think, we see them at the time they realize they are lost, and by that time the storm was coming in iirc.

Also, I opened a few threads on the Prometheus IMDB. There is one dude convinced that everyone who like the movie online is under Fox's payroll Glad I stay away from there mostly.

Janek contacted them twice during the storm seemingly without issue.

 

[CConn]

It is because that is how he is programmed. David was no Roy Batty. He is not complex, he is very simple. He tells you his purpose and every last scene in the film supports this.

Still, Fassbender elevates the material and that is why he is the one thing that truly works in this film.

Then why does he reply so snidely whenever anyone says anything about him being a robot?

Yes, Fassbender's performance is what delivers that message and question, but it's damn obviously from the dialogue that he didn't just throw that in himself.

You can tie it all back to "our" search for "our" parents. The problem with this "idea" is it is half baked and comprised of a few throw away lines from the characters.

Spoiler

- Shaw is sterile. Not as if this have ever been seen before. But here it is a throwaway. They don't even explore the fact that she "rids" herself of her only possible child.

- Vickers hates her pappy because he won't die and leave her his company. Except we really only get a bout two lines of dialogue touching on this and the rest is left blowing in the wind. They even used a cliche. t:

- David/Weyland I did find interesting, but barely explored. I did find the journey line surprisingly moving.

I think Shaw's arc was explained with just enough depth that the remaining questions kept her motivations intriguing.

I do agree with Vickers' story not being delved into enough. That strikes me as something that got lost in the editing room.

I don't think you really need to explore it in depth. If you were to, it would make the movie drag. I will say, it did throw so many concepts around throughout the film, that in order to keep the pacing right, it had to limit just how introspective it was.

At the same time, that's not always a bad thing. If you go too far with the explainations, you end up with movies like Batman Begins where the word "fear" is said eighty million times.

What kind of question is this? They literally state it in the film. It means exactly what they say it means. Those that create do so because they can. Again, very straight forward.

Our motivations towards creating robots are - sure - but it raises questions about the Engineer's intents.

Weyland is Lord Voldemort, without the compelling backstory. Or is he the Emperor? Or perhaps Captain Jack Sparrow?

Sorry, that doesn't even make sense to me.

His foundation and backstory are pretty evident in the film (and if you need it handed to you, there's an entire website detailing it. ), yet his exact motivation is still a question. Yes, it has been done before. But, for me, I've yet to see it done in the particular way they did it in Prometheus. This is my personal preferences, but I'm a fan of that type of archetype that Weyland represents.

I don't know. They didn't tell us. She just seemed entitled.

I would like to mention at this point, my whole goal was to show that the film had depth. The fact you admit that these questions even exist prove it had depth. Now, you could argue that it wasn't done in a quality fashion, but you didn't. You just said it wasn't there at all. More hyperbole.

Her religion is barely explored and is used in a very cliched manner. Oh, let have the little "science v. religion" rivalry.

I find cliche comes from the conclusions not the questions. And they didn't answer the question in any cliched way, which was a big win in my book.

Her religion seems to have little true meaning for her, but it is hard to tell considering how little it is truly touched upon. Throwing in the scene where she ask for her necklace back does not count as "DEEP"!

Her religion was mentioned numerous times in the film.

This is like a list of what they did wrong. A bunch of cliches that are barely explored and put together in a uninteresting way.

Again, that statement right there, I can't vehemently disagree with. Because it's an opinion that I can understand (disagree with, but still understand). But again, if that's the case, I ask for the why to it (which you have done in this post, don't get me wrong).

According to your line of thought you can make a film consisting of quotes about religion, science, creation and other philosophical topics and it would be complex and DEEP!

No, not at all. It's deep because I felt their quotes about religion, science, and creation raised questions and intrigue in my own head.

If it they were as meaningless as you infer, I would've just walked out of the movie theater and forgotten about them. For me, that didn't happen at all. It was the exact opposite, actually.

Yep, one filled with life forms that have read and watched more then a half a dozen books and films.

Shouldn't that be hundreds or thousands?

 

[Infinity9999x]

That one dude was probably stoned out of his mind and didn't think about it.

Also, you have to think, we see them at the time they realize they are lost, and by that time the storm was coming in iirc.

Also, I opened a few threads on the Prometheus IMDB. There is one dude convinced that everyone who likes the movie online is under Fox's payroll Glad I stay away from there mostly.

Not the craziest thing I've heard. Way back when on the Chamber of Secrets Forum (I'm a Potter nerd as well) there was a person who was claiming that she thought JKR suppored forced abortions in China because she sold the film rights to Potter to WB. And apparently the head of WB is in support of lessening the global population. Therefore, JKR must support forced abortions in China....Yeah.

However, this was also the same time book readers pretty much found out that Harry was not going to end up with Hermione, and this person was a Harry/Hermione shipper. So at the end of this extremely long explanation of why JKR is a bad person for wanting to kill babies, she also added that Harry and Hermione should have ended up together.

Yeah...only on the internet.

 

[CConn]

Or maybe they just didn't enjoy it.

But like I said, no one was really saying why until DS' post.

When everyone answers a question with "Eh, I dunno," it infers that there's a lack of comprehension.

 

[jmc]

There is when you go into a movie thinking it will be a masterpiece, nothing but setting yourself up for disappointment.

That assuming people were expecting a masterpiece.

 

[jmc]

But like I said, no one was really saying why until DS' post.

When everyone answers a question with "Eh, I dunno," it infers that there's a lack of comprehension.

Um, no it doesn't, it's called taste.

 

[Infinity9999x]

That assuming people were expecting a masterpiece.

Eh, even just getting too hyped can really ruin an experience. Spider-man 3 is a great example. People were ridiculously hyped for that. The only film that's beaten the incredible hype SM3 had was TDK. Now, as we all know, the film was lacluster. But honestly, putting it in the spectrum of comic movies, it's about average. However, you had people saying it was one of the worst comic films ever made, which is just silly when you think of movies like Steel, the Punnisher Films, Supergirl, Electra, Howard the Duck, and many more.

I actually had an enjoyable time in the theatre when I watched SM3 because I wasn't really a fan of SM2 and I had low expectations. I didn't love it, I didn't even like it all that much, but it was a fairly enjoyable night at the movies with my friends.

 

[CConn]

Um, no it doesn't, it's called taste.

No, being able to explain how you feel about something isn't a matter of taste, it's a matter of either intelligence or comprehension. And I obviously am not going to call anyone unintelligent.

And I don't even mean that in an insulting way. That's just fact. There's opinion in one column, then there's your ability (or want, or need, whatever the case may be) to explain your opinion in another column.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

Eh, even just getting too hyped can really ruin an experience. Spider-man 3 is a great example. People were ridiculously hyped for that. The only film that's beaten the incredible hype SM3 had was TDK. Now, as we all know, the film was lacluster. But honestly, putting it in the spectrum of comic movies, it's about average. However, you had people saying it was one of the worst comic films ever made, which is just silly when you think of movies like Steel, the Punnisher Films, Supergirl, Electra, Howard the Duck, and many more.

I actually had an enjoyable time in the theatre when I watched SM3 because I wasn't really a fan of SM2 and I had low expectations. I didn't love it, I didn't even like it all that much, but it was a fairly enjoyable night at the movies with my friends.

SM3 is the exact reason why I'm never getting crazy hyped for a movie again. I've come to expect suckage from most movies I see, which just makes the good ones better.