Prometheus - Part 8

[Destructus86]

But why does it have to br one or the other? I'm not asking to be spoon fed answers. But I just find his writing to be lazy. Basically it consists of "Wouldn't this be cool" moments without making sense logically in the overall story.

It only SEEMS like it's not logical because you havn't been given all the answers. That's where you let your imagination kick in.

 

[chaseter]

David caused Shaw to be impregnated and the rest of the crew knew about it. They knew you know who was on board and it's the reason why they wanted to put her in cryostasis...so they could extract and experiment much like when Ripley is pregnant and when in Aliens when the business guy lets those face huggers loose. Viable embryos are money. David knew she would have sex as most couples do.

Shaw then gets it removed at the same time you know who is being prepped to travel to the ship to see the engineer. That was the more pressing matter after Shaw escapes. They knew she went to the medpod. She gets a c-section and sterilizes the thing. She thinks it's dead, I assume they all think it's dead. They forget about it because it's dead. They all then make the trek back to the ship with you know who. You know how long that probably took? If its 8 hours for a sperm to become a baby inside Shaw, how long do you think it took for it to grow to that size? If all but the 3 drivers and Vickers who are in the cockpit monitoring the travel of the group, who would notice that thing is now big?

 

[danoyse]

Neither can I . There were some moments where I wanted the story to go in a different direction but that didn't hurt my enjoyment of the film. Some people are comparing it to Star Wars : The Phantom Menace , which is baffling.
This wasn't even near the level of anticipation that movie had.

This wasn't even close to Phantom Menace, I don't get where that's coming from at all and I don't even know where they expected it to be that kind of a prequel. It's not like Alien left burning questions that needed to be answered. The movie worked perfectly fine as a standalone, even with the mystery ship, especially when the bigger enemy turned out to be the company they worked for. At least that's how I always saw it.

I'm a huge fan of the first two Alien films and I really enjoyed this movie. After 20 years of awful sequels and spinoffs (I haven't enjoyed anything from this series since Aliens), it was nice just to see a more faithful return to that universe. I hadn't been following any of the viral stuff, so I didn't really know what to expect going in, and it's probably the best sci-fi movie I've seen in awhile.

I dunno, I guess I never expected some direct roadmap to Alien. I was content with a decent story that explored more about what space jockey was, and it certainly ended with so much left open that I would be willing to see another film continuing this story.

 

[Destructus86]

This wasn't even close to Phantom Menace, I don't get where that's coming from at all and I don't even know where they expected it to be that kind of a prequel. It's not like Alien left burning questions that needed to be answered. The movie worked perfectly fine as a standalone, even with the mystery ship, especially when the bigger enemy turned out to be the company they worked for. At least that's how I always saw it.

I'm a huge fan of the first two Alien films and I really enjoyed this movie. After 20 years of awful sequels and spinoffs (I haven't enjoyed anything from this series since Aliens), it was nice just to see a more faithful return to that universe. I hadn't been following any of the viral stuff, so I didn't really know what to expect going in, and it's probably the best sci-fi movie I've seen in awhile.

I dunno, I guess I never expected some direct roadmap to Alien. I was content with a decent story that explored more about what space jockey was, and it certainly ended with so much left open that I would be willing to see another film continuing this story.

People are just more cynical nowadays...

 

[DACrowe]

I see no problem with Lindelof's writing. He doesn't answer everything and makes you guess on some things and I guess that pisses people off. Do we need a line that states what the black goo does as it had different effects or do we interpret it ourselves. People herald Nolan for Inception that had a story that can be interpreted so many ways because he doesn't spoon feed us but people crucify Lindelof for not connecting the film exactly to Alien.

I think Prometheus is a mixture of not answering questions it should not have (why did the engineers make us and why did they destroy us) and Lindelof simply not paying off the basic narrative needs of the story (did anyone besides Shaw have any concern about the alien in the medical room? Why are there maps on Earth to this moon if it's jut a WMD manufacturing facility?).

Still, audiences dismiss it all because it is in the vein of Alien, Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey, which leave tons of brain teasing questions to the audience. All of those movies are better than Prometheus, but Scott's latest effort has more in common with those than Inception. While Nolan's film is superb and a better film, fanboys give it more credit for being challenging than it is. The movie holds your hand the entire way and explains EVERYTHING to you. Ellen Page's role in the film is simply to be spoonfed every concept and plot twist for the audience's benefit. The only thing left to interpretation is the final scene of the movie which is Nolan kind of trolling the audience.

Don't get me wrong, Inception is a much better movie, but audiences haven't seen a mainstream film that leaves a lot up to the audience in many years.

 

[Schlosser85]

There is no reason to be comparing Prometheus to The Phantom Menace.

There's no resemblance at all, in the movies, the anticipation beforehand, or what they were aiming to be.

 

[redhawk23]

Prometheus is a good film. I don't think it's a great film like BR or The Thing ('80s version), but it's a good one. And like BR, it has several plotting flaws that when coupled with astronomical hype and expectations for this particular movie, has led to a backlash. It could, unfairly, become the symbol of fanboy bitterness like The Phantom Menace or Spider-Man 3, but I hope it does not. There is a lot of good here and perhaps after people forget about their disappointment or unfulfilled hype/expectations, it will develop a fanbase for what good it does have. Which is quite a lot, in my opinion.

I think the film has been praised for exactly the elements that it deserves praise for, namely the visuals, a few of its ideas and Fassbender.

A lot of what has been criticized for I think is completely valid and not just do to hype.

Its not as if this film is some kind of critical or box office flop.

50 million for an R rated film is very respectable, and an RT score in the 70s isn't terrible.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the film was terrible, but overall I don't think it was great.

 

[redhawk23]

I think Prometheus is a mixture of not answering questions it should have (why did the engineers make us and why did they destroy us) and Lindelof simply not paying off the basic narrative needs of the story (did anyone besides Shaw have any concern about the alien in the medical room? Why are there maps on Earth to this moon if it's jut a WMD manufacturing facility?).

Still, audiences dismiss it all because it is in the vein of Alien, Blade Runner, and 2001: A Space Odyssey, which leave tons of brain teasing questions to the audience. All of those movies are better than Prometheus, but Scott's latest effort has more in common with those than Inception. While Nolan's film is superb and a better film, fanboys give it more credit for being challenging than it is. The movie holds your hand the entire way and explains EVERYTHING to you. Ellen Page's role in the film is simply to be spoonfed every concept and plot twist for the audience's benefit. The only thing left to interpretation is the final scene of the movie which is Nolan kind of trolling the audience.

Don't get me wrong, Inception is a much better movie, but audiences haven't seen a mainstream film that leaves a lot up to the audience in many years.

Leaving things open to the imagination is not the same as plot holes or elements that don't link up.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The thing they haven't wrapped up is possibly addressing

Spoiler

David infecting Holloway. Now I get he's a less advanced synthetic and might have done it as more of an experiment. But was it scientific or antagonistic ala Ash?

 

[E.NormusJohnson]

Why? The movie isn't about the engineers. The first Alien movie didn't explain everything TOMG!?

RS made this movie because he wanted to explore the idea of the SJ. So technically speaking the movie was supposed to be about the engineers.

why?

See above.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

The thing they haven't wrapped up is possibly addressing

Spoiler

David infecting Holloway. Now I get he's a less advanced synthetic and might have done it as more of an experiment. But was it scientific or antagonistic ala Ash?

Spoiler

There are two possibilities in my mind, either David was taking orders from Weyland, or it was just his curiosity which is shown throughout the film.

 

[DACrowe]

How about Lindelof actually explaining to us "anything" about the Engineers who were precisely why RS wen't back to make this movie?

My problems with Lindelof are he had too many needless twists in the second act and he had too many characters who were underdeveloped and there to die (a crew of 17? Why not a crew of 10-12? Like 7 of the crew members had no lines and 5 of them were just there to die anyway).

But "answers?" It worked for me. SPOILERS AHEAD:

We discovered that the ship from Alien was one (of apparently many) biological WMD research facilities made to create creatures to wipe out entire planets and species. The Space Jockeys were going to use this ancient one to wipe out Earth 2,000 years ago until something went wrong and their weapons turned on them (which we knew the last bit of from Alien) and the reason the shipped crashed was because Earthlings stopped it from being reused by a frozen Jockey about 40 years prior to the original film. The "distress signal" the Weyland Corporation sent the Nostromo after was likely a coded version of Dr. Shaw warning people not to come to this planet and "there is only death." The Jockeys also engineered life on Earth and thus viewed us as a failed experiment. Why did they create us and later want to destroy us? I actually agree with David, it doesn't really matter. No answer would satisfy such an existential question. Lastly, we discovered the "Xenomorph" eggs from the original movie were likely birthed by an alien that had a complicated process as it was created by a mixture of the SJ's bioengineering, human DNA and SJ DNA. That also goes back to the mysteriousness of the creature from Alien versus the rather dry, "There's a Queen Bug" from Aliens.

It actually answered quite a bit.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Regardless of what anyone says on here, Prometheus has alot in common with Blade Runner (being chastised for 'visuals over story'), and it's a great standalone Sci-Fi film that connects itself to the Alien franchise. Sure, the movie has its obvious flaws and several characters are wasted or ignored, but there were much larger elements at play here, in my opinion. Prometheus didn't please everyone or play to everyone's expectations regarding the answers and story but I sensed it wouldn't. I'm beyond pleased with what I received and I can't wait for the sequel.

 

[chaseter]

As for the why did Shaw do the autopsy...well the biologist was kinda not on board and a paleontologist knows anatomy. A paleontologist would be able to dissect a frozen mammoth. Plus the whole thing about it deteriorating.

Is there even a an Anatomist profession haha!?


Some of these complaints are silly. TOMG Alan Grant in Jurassic Park is a paleontologist. Why did he get invited to Jurassic Park as an expert on living creatures!? Ahhhh worst movie ever.

 

[redhawk23]

My problem with this movie isn't the things they left unexplained. Leaving elements open to interpretation is perfectly fine when done right. My problemm as I've posted here before are the elements that served little purpose to the story or the rest of the film. The way the characters themselves, rather the film, failed to address or react to so many things that should be a pretty big deal.

For example, the guy with mohawk having his face shrinkwrapped in acid burned glass only to show up later, ultra strong and crabwalking. For one thing, how does he still have a mostly in tact face after what we are shown? I don't really care that they didn't really explain what reanimated him, but the fact that after he his dead that this event is never remarked upon by any of the characters is somewhat ridiculous. It is completely forgotten immediately afterwards. It served no purpose to the story other than getting rid of a crew member.

Compare that to Alien where the crew comes across the Space Jockey. What the Space Jockey is or exactly what he was doing before he died is left as a complete mystery, it is un-explained, but that is fine. Find his ship, however it got there, is integral to plot of the film.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

As for the why did Shaw do the autopsy...well the biologist was kinda not on board and a paleontologist knows anatomy. A paleontologist would be able to dissect a frozen mammoth. Plus the whole thing about it deteriorating.

Is there even a an Anatomist profession haha!?


Some of these complaints are silly. TOMG Alan Grant in Jurassic Park is a paleontologist. Why did he get invited to Jurassic Park as an expert on living creatures!? Ahhhh worst movie ever.

Tell me about it.

A few of these criticisms are just asinine and hilarious.

 

[redhawk23]

As for the why did Shaw do the autopsy...well the biologist was kinda not on board and a paleontologist knows anatomy. A paleontologist would be able to dissect a frozen mammoth. Plus the whole thing about it deteriorating.

Is there even a an Anatomist profession haha!?


Some of these complaints are silly. TOMG Alan Grant in Jurassic Park is a paleontologist. Why did he get invited to Jurassic Park as an expert on living creatures!? Ahhhh worst movie ever.

Paleontologists study the anatomy and behaviorof dinosaurs based on available evidence. Living creatures at the very least have skeletons. Dinosaurs, specifically raptors were very much his area of expertise.

Paleontology is not the same thing as archaeology.

Someone who studies ancient human cultures would not be the person to call about xenobiology or comparitive genetics, computer aides or not.

Imagine if grant wasn't just the dinosaur expert but an expert in chaos theory and botany as well plus already knew the low down on genetics and cloning, in fact just clones the dinosaurs himself.



Its not really a major complaint its just a cliche that the film falls into.

 

[Pink Ranger]

As for the why did Shaw do the autopsy...well the biologist was kinda not on board and a paleontologist knows anatomy. A paleontologist would be able to dissect a frozen mammoth. Plus the whole thing about it deteriorating.

Even though I thought this movie was great, this was one of the things that bugged me and to me defied rationality. It wasn't just the dissection; Shaw's field of expertise seemed to change midway through the movie as the plot required it, as if she was a geneticist or biologist or physician in addition to being a paleo-archeologist.

 

[PWN3R]

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

This again? You're like the 4th person to post this. It's fine, but this guy reads too much into ideas that are not even present in the film.

He also keeps referring to the mural with the Engineer and their "torn abdominal." But if you look at any HD screen grabs, or hell, the art-book itself that is floating around right now, you'll see that it's merely a crack in the wall.

Pretentious ********. Sorry, dumb rant.

 

[DACrowe]

I think the film has been praised for exactly the elements that it deserves praise for, namely the visuals, a few of its ideas and Fassbender.

I think Rapace deserves high praise too.

A lot of what has been criticized for I think is completely valid and not just do to hype.

Its not as if this film is some kind of critical or box office flop.

50 million for an R rated film is very respectable, and an RT score in the 70s isn't terrible.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the film was terrible, but overall I don't think it was great.

You wouldn't tell that it got 70%+ good reviews by the Internet's reaction. It also had a big drop from Friday to Saturday which indicates the GA doesn't like it, the WOM is decidedly mixed and that it will probably have a bad second weekend. The Internet is acting like the movie killed their dogs.

I think it is not the masterpiece anyone hoped for, but it's a lot better than the overly negative backlash it is experiencing indicates. It's a good movie, that I'm seeing people write is worse than Alien: Resurrection or even Alien vs. Predator. That is stunningly crazy, in my opinion.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Edit

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Paleontologist study the anatomy and behaviorof dinosaurs based on available evidence. Living creatures at the very least have skeletons.

Paleontology is not the same thing as archaeology.

You do realize almost everything regarding Dinosaurs is based on minimal evidence and theories, right? Till this day, we can't even confirm what a T-Rex truly looked like 65 million years ago and whether or not a male and female raised the pup together.

So why did they need Dr. Grant? Jurassic Park had it's own researchers.

 

[chaseter]

Archeologists can recover skeletons and it was obvious Shaw knew her anatomy. They didn't go looking for bones so why would they bring a paleontologist? The only other person capable of a dissection was the biologist and he was was preoccupied.

 

[redhawk23]

I think Rapace deserves high praise too.



You wouldn't tell that it got 70%+ good reviews by the Internet's reaction. It also had a big drop from Friday to Saturday which indicates the GA doesn't like it, the WOM is decidedly mixed and that it will probably have a bad second weekend. The Internet is acting like the movie killed their dogs.

I think it is not the masterpiece anyone hoped for, but it's a lot better than the overly negative backlash it is experiencing indicates. It's a good movie, that I'm seeing people write is worse than Alien: Resurrection or even Alien vs. Predator. That is stunningly crazy, in my opinion.

I have not encountered tha it. I agree that is absolutely insane. My problems with the story aside, the film was extremely well crafted.


For those making Blade Runner comparisons consider this: A major part of the reason why Blade runner has become more esteemed with time is the influence it had on other film makers and films. "The Blade Runner look" has become a staple of science fiction films and animation. Its almost asinine to speculate the "importance" of a film 3 days after its release but really, how much influence could this film really have? What does it bring to the table that we've never seen in other films already, not to mention just the other Alien films.

The film does have very solid effects but are they really anything more than what we expect from a film with its budget and pedigree?

 

[redhawk23]

You do realize almost everything regarding Dinosaurs is based on minimal evidence and theories, right? Till this day, we can't even confirm what a T-Rex truly looked like 65 million years ago and whether or not a male and female raised the pup together.

So why did they need Dr. Grant? Jurassic Park had it's own researchers.

Yes our knowledge of what to expect would be very limited, so why wouldn't you want someone that knew as much as possible?


Besides that, the film lays out exactly why the three of them were brought along, simply for reassurance of the lawyer. Dr. Grant had the credentials as a "dinosaur expert" regardless of how useful he would actually be.

You see his role in the film was driven by and explained by THE PLOT.