Prometheus - Part 8

[Infinity9999x]

Don't worry Kane. Mommy and Daddy will stop fighting soon.

 

[CConn]

That's because over time people have come to look past the flaws of those films and truly appreciate the themes and subtext, in Alien, and the innovative special effects and action, in Aliens. Over time, and with the directors cut, people will look back at Prometheus with fondness of its ideals and philosophy, not at its minor nitpicked flaws. At least I hope so...

Also, I think new and less knowledgable viewers have lower expectations.

I didn't watch Alien for the first time expecting to be some deep allegorical horror masterpiece. I watched it because I heard it was good, and I let the film coalesce from there.

However, when you've seen the sequels and prequels and have all of these ideas of what the movie "should be", you approach watching it from a different angle.

 

[Figs]

And I hate saying this (because it seems dismissive to those who didn't enjoy it), but it always seems like subtle or very allegorical films often suffer from a great amount of criticism initially. As someone else pointed out, Blade Runner was quite panned originally.

I dunno, I'm not at all saying everyone will love Prometheus in 20 years, but it is a shame most people don't seem to judge these kinds of films in quite the same way as they do others.

What DACrowe said has me curious in regards to what the reaction to Alien would have been if the internet existed back then.

Part of me thinks some people just got too hyped up for the film and were expecting perfection from Scott.

That's because over time people have come to look past the flaws of those films and truly appreciate the themes and subtext, in Alien, and the innovative special effects and action, in Aliens. Over time, and with the directors cut, people will look back at Prometheus with fondness of its ideals and philosophy, not at its minor nitpicked flaws. At least I hope so...

That would be great if that happened but I think with the internet giving everyone a soap box to stand on where they know numerous people will see their opinions and more and more people seemingly becoming more cynical and judgemental as time goes on, I don't see that happening.

 

[DACrowe]

Here jmc I translated CConn's real meaning for you.

"So let's see...

Are we supposed to listen to guys like DA who agree with me?

Or should we listen to guys like you who dare to disagree with how awesome I think Prometheus was?!

That's a real tough call to make. "

No, that's the thing...

I don't really agree with DA's feelings on the film at all.

He criticizes the film for a lot of things that I don't, and he enjoyed it a lot less than I did.

The point is, DA both gives pretty well stated points on what he didn't like, and even if I don't agree with them, I respect his understanding and viewpoint. It's well stated, it's thorough, and it's concise.

Again, what I will always criticize is thoughtlessness and laziness. Not differing opinions.

I think this DA guy's a dick.

 

[DACrowe]

No, you're trying to come across as being better than others. I don't care how many comparisons you can make with whatever religion, a flawed movie is still a flawed movie.

True. But sometimes, when you see the bigger picture of what a film is trying to do and that leaves audiences totally to their own devices to figure out, one develops a greater appreciation for it. The movie is flawed, I've listed my problems with in close to a half-dozen posts. However, the fact that it has so much meat on the bone and can generate hours of discussion, and it is visually stunning, and it has at least two great performances along with a half dozen very good ones, etc. means to some that it's attributes are greater than its weaknesses and flaws.

I see your POV, but I do disagree. And I imagine that this film will have a long life after theaters when people discover it not as a summer tentpole they were breathlessly anticipating, but rather as a moody and fascinating sci-fi movie with a lot on its mind. In time, its flaws may just be overlooked by people who like the bigger questions it raises to couple with its technical beauty. After all, it's worked for Blade Runner over the years.

 

[Spider-Gnome]

Possibly the best analysis of the film I've read

Spoiler

]

This seems to make sense. Where is it from?

And wait, no one discussed this because it's too long? I thought the point of this thread is discussion.

Spoiler

1. Was I the only one disappointed that the Space Jockeys were human-like, and not actually elephant-like? The reveal of the "mask" was a total let-down!

I was. I mentioned it many many pages back. It's hard keeping up with this thread.

I remember another "nitpick" I had. Despite how cool all those display screens looked on the ship, particularly in 3D, it made the technology look more advanced than in Alien, that takes place after this film. Again, I know it's a nitpick, like having Shaw running around like she does [BLACKOUT]after a c-section.[/BLACKOUT]

But, I think I'm coming around on this movie.

 

[CConn]

True. But sometimes, when you see the bigger picture of what a film is trying to do and that leaves audiences totally to their own devices to figure out, one develops a greater appreciation for it. The movie is flawed, I've listed my problems with in close to a half-dozen posts. However, the fact that it has so much meat on the bone and can generate hours of discussion, and it is visually stunning, and it has at least two great performances along with a half dozen very good ones, etc. means to some that it's attributes are greater than its weaknesses and flaws.

I see your POV, but I do disagree. And I imagine that this film will have a long life after theaters when people discover it not as a summer tentpole they were breathlessly anticipating, but rather as a moody and fascinating sci-fi movie with a lot on its mind. In time, its flaws may just be overlooked by people who like the bigger questions it raises to couple with its technical beauty. After all, it's worked for Blade Runner over the years.

Your opinion has actually seemed to shift quite drastically over the past few days.

I agree wholeheartedly. As you said, there's a lot of very legitimate complaints about the film, but it also has that extra something that makes us able to overlook those flaws more than we would normally. If that makes sense.

 

[DACrowe]

This seems to make sense. Where is it from?

It was an interesting read (I kind of skimmed it given it's length ) and I find the ideas of tying it into Christianity very interesting. However, I disagree that the black ooze is essentially the "mood slime" from Ghostbusters II, like he seems to suggest. It also makes no sense how human kind's energy would effect it 35 light years (trillions of miles) away. I think it's part of the picture. The bigger part is from Sumerian mythology.

I posted a blog post about that stuff a few pages back and it is very convincing.

Your opinion has actually seemed to shift quite drastically over the past few days.

I agree wholeheartedly. As you said, there's a lot of very legitimate complaints about the film, but it also has that extra something that makes us able to overlook those flaws more than we would normally. If that makes sense.

I tend to think the entire second act could be rewritten for the film (other than the amazing "show-stopper" of Shaw versus her kid ).

I don't get why people don't like the ending other than the middle of the movie is awkward. I still think much could be done to improve the pacing, but it is a movie that I've now seen twice (once again tonight) and have thought quite a bit about. The more informed you become about its attributes (see above quote) the more one appreciates it. I still think it's not a great one. But is still good and despite all its flaws, quite fascinating.

 

[CConn]

And, for those who don't understand it (which I can understand why people wouldn't)...

I think the reason why I can - and do - overlook technical story writing flaws in favor of allegorical quality is, well, it's like wine tasting (yes, that's pretentious as ****, but it's an apt comparison), the whole point of filmmaking (and subsequently, movie watching) is to experience new, different, and inventive things.

As good as very straightforward and well-written movies may be (The Avengers for instance - perfectly executed, but I didn't enjoy it as much as Prometheus), the ultimately begin "tasting" very similar. Very good, but similar. With movies of Prometheus, you get an entirely different "flavor" that really makes you stop and dissect what you've just experienced. And hell, it might not taste as good as the straightforward stuff, but the fact that you actually had to stop and think for a bit, is an extremely experience all it own.

 

[chaseter]

I see your point.

Such as, when she does become pregnant, and how this somewhat reflects the miracle of the virgin Mary, and David even fills the place of angel Gabriel - and that IS ambiguous, and we may never make that connection without the prior references to christianity and that she's supposed to be infertile.

I just feel that this information could have been delivered in a better way. Like it could have been set up that she was infertile way earlier in the film, in a different way that didn't seem so forced. It's the dialogue that's mainly the problem - it just isn't natural. She just comes out with this infertility stuff from practically nowhere.

You have me blocked because of me calling you out in the political forum but once again...her mentioning she is infertile doesn't come out of no where. Charlie was talking about creating life and the creation of life and their creators. That then leads to her saying she cannot create life. I can't remember the whole convo. Some of the complaints make some of you seem like you didn't watch the movie or care about what was going on.

There are some legitimate complaints though:
Vickers running in a straight line, why the guy's acid helmet face just looks like he has face boils, why the squid baby grew to 9 feet high, and what were the engineers running from if the black goo just kills them?

 

[Kane52630]

Welp....time to abandon thread. I feel like this thread has been going in circles for the past 4 or 5 days.

 

[chaseter]

Why would that door break into 3 pieces and not just into 1? What if one of the charges failed..the rest of the door wouldn't break open!? So many plot holes.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

No chance he gets one for this movie, but Michael Fassbender deserves a damn Oscar, it's such a Shame he didn't even get nominated last year!

Also, I think new and less knowledgable viewers have lower expectations.

I didn't watch Alien for the first time expecting to be some deep allegorical horror masterpiece. I watched it because I heard it was good, and I let the film coalesce from there.

However, when you've seen the sequels and prequels and have all of these ideas of what the movie "should be", you approach watching it from a different angle.

One of the many reason I love the original Alien is my first viewing, I went into it knowing nothing about the film except it's title. Needless to say, when you have no clue what's going on, Alien is terrifying. Only appreciate it more on repeat viewings.

I'm sure that when the Blu Ray comes out discussion will be still be strong, because with screencaps and the Director's Cut, we'll have a lot to talk about. The discussion it creates is one of the main reasons why I love this movie.

What DACrowe said has me curious in regards to what the reaction to Alien would have been if the internet existed back then.

Part of me thinks some people just got too hyped up for the film and were expecting perfection from Scott.



That would be great if that happened but I think with the internet giving everyone a soap box to stand on where they know numerous people will see their opinions and more and more people seemingly becoming more cynical and judgemental as time goes on, I don't see that happening.

If there was internet back then, and it was exactly like it is now, it would get ripped apart for being slow and hiding the Xeno for the most part. It would've faded into obscurity like The Thing prequel, or Pandorum. The internet sadly has changed the way we remember movies

 

[Spider-Gnome]

It was an interesting read (I kind of skimmed it given it's length ) and I find the ideas of tying it into Christianity very interesting. However, I disagree that the black ooze is essentially the "mood slime" from Ghostbusters II, like he seems to suggest. It also makes no sense how human kind's energy would effect it 35 light years (trillions of miles) away. I think it's part of the picture. The bigger part is from Sumerian mythology.

I'm still not sure about the black ooze, but I thought it was interesting the tying into Christianity, the continued motif of Prometheus (life giver with opened abdomen), and the ideas of the Engineers self-sacrifice to create life vs. man's sacrifice of others to keep their own life and that connection to the Alien.

I posted a blog post about that stuff a few pages back and it is very convincing.

I still have to read that when I get time.

 

[spider-neil]

And, for those who don't understand it (which I can understand why people wouldn't)...

I think the reason why I can - and do - overlook technical story writing flaws in favor of allegorical quality is, well, it's like wine tasting (yes, that's pretentious as ****, but it's an apt comparison), the whole point of filmmaking (and subsequently, movie watching) is to experience new, different, and inventive things.

As good as very straightforward and well-written movies may be (The Avengers for instance - perfectly executed, but I didn't enjoy it as much as Prometheus), the ultimately begin "tasting" very similar. Very good, but similar. With movies of Prometheus, you get an entirely different "flavor" that really makes you stop and dissect what you've just experienced. And hell, it might not taste as good as the straightforward stuff, but the fact that you actually had to stop and think for a bit, is an extremely experience all it own.

I think I'm right there with you. I initial viewing of Avengers was far more enjoyable than Prometheus but Prometheus has left more of an impression on me and I've thought about Prometheus way more than I've thought about Avengers.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think I'm right there with you. I initial viewing of Avengers was far more enjoyable than Prometheus but Prometheus has left more of an impression on me and I've thought about Prometheus way more than I've thought about Avengers.

That's how I feel. I love Avengers. But it was Indiana Jones old school movie fun. It was a thrill ride and had some sequences that left you smiling from ear to ear. It was just...fun! I use the Indy comparison a lot because it made me feel the same way I did when I watched Indy for the first time. It really captured that adventure escapism.

Prometheus made me think. It's not perfect, but I was willing to overlook it's flaws for the most part. And whatever people view it, no one can deny it's ability to spark a conversation.

 

[TheOnlyOmega]

Interesting thing I found from a different forum.
In the trailer, it's the bowl that had the goo in it from the beginning

But in the movie, it is replaced by a green rock. Ridley puts meaning behind everything, so what does it mean?

 

[dark_b]

I honestly feel like there are two groups dividing over this film that are overstating their arguments. The first is the group who insists that the film is shallow, or stupid or without merit because of its problems in the script. The second is the group that kind of dismisses it's problems as irrelevant because it is a movie full of big ideas and themes.

I kind of disagree with both. This movie does have its problems. I think most of it stems from a screenplay that tries to do too much. I think if [blackout]Charlie Holloway[/blackout] had been the sole one infected and they let him on the ship and he slowly degrades to the point where he starts attacking the crew, as opposed to having him [blackout]commit suicide by Vickers's flames[/blackout] and then a second infected character come in with no build-up, that it would have focused the horror of the film.

Despite having a messy, even muddled middle section of the movie, I do not believe that it's a bad movie, just because it is not a great one. Even with the flaws, it explores interesting concepts of us meeting our makers and the cynical scientific solution versus religion. It doesn't give answers and that makes it more engaging. In matters of creation (or also in the movie's case, destruction) no answer can really satisfy our cravings, but a small taste of forbidden knowledge to something much bigger can torment the mind and haunt one more. Audiences hate not being given everything these days, but it is a testament to this movie people are arguing about why the aliens would kill us after creating us and what their motives are. Like that of God, it should be beyond human comprehension. These argument we're seeing shows that it did work as intended in that regard.

Also, it does ignore the visual craft of what Ridley did in creating this world that is the most eerily creepy alien world we've seen in a long time. Also, the performances from Rapace and Fassbender are fascinating to me in the sense of dread and existential angst they both create for themselves and the audiences. Anyone who wasn't on the edge of their seat during the [blackout]abortion scene[/blackout] is probably lying.

I know people want to compare this to Alien this or Aliens that. And while I do think it is thematically more interesting than the latter, it really can't match either film because those were flawlessly executed and this was not. What I consider a better comparison is Blade Runner. Like Prometheus, BR taps into some really amazing ideas and concepts in a broad and visceral way. However, narratively it is somewhat generic in its use of noir clichés and a very simple detective story. But it teases the mind to much bigger ideas and despite all the problems BR did have, it is both visually and intellectually stunning. They don't give the viewer all the answers and leave you wanting and questioning more, but what is there, despite some narrative/script problems, is pretty fascinating.

Just a thought.

my english is bad . so i would need to spend somewhere around 10 posts to explain my opinion. i will just use this post because its 70% close to what i think.

my biggest problem is the narrative. i think that a movie should always have a clear narrative. and then the writter and director can add scenes that ask questions that dont get an asnwer. but the main story and and narrative need to be clear.

its Lindelof. its because of him. after Lost and Prometheus its very obvious was he is doing. he is designing scripts where he is asking questions without giving answers. and the scripts are designed so that it makes it look like its on purpose and makes you think. his is doing this to have 2 groups of fans. people who want answers and people who like movie as open as possible. this is the last season of Lost and this is Prometheus.

 

[bullets]

There is a possibility some of these open questions will be further explained in the sequels.

 

[dark_b]

There is a possibility some of these open questions will be further explained in the sequels.

a sequel that will happen if i pay money to watch the first movie ?

''thanks for paying money for this movie. if you have any questions come back in 2 years. thanks ''

you should watch the sequel to find out where Shaw and David land. but in no way should you watch the sequel to get answers to the prometheus story and narrative.

whats more important question at the end of Alien 79. where is Ripley's ship flying or why did Ash attack Ripley and the crew? what was Ash doing on the computer. ohhh you know everything you need to know about Ash. because its in the movie. you didnt need to know what will happen with Ripley in space and you didnt need to know why the alien has acid as blood. this is my problem hours after Prometheus.

every hollywood writter dreams to be able to writte movies where the fans will come up with answers,explaining plot holes and explaining the deep meaning that is not in the movie. this is what Lindelof is doing. and he is very good at it. he is creating two groups who will fight over his scripts. i bow down to him.

 

[dark_b]

was this in the movie ?

Spoiler

i dont remember any attack on the prometheus ship when Wayland and the crew go to the engineer

 

[Liam_H]

Isn't that when the [BLACKOUT]zombified Fifield comes back? [/BLACKOUT]

 

[Gianakin_]

[BLACKOUT]I think it's when zombie-Fifield attacks.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[CConn]

my english is bad . so i would need to spend somewhere around 10 posts to explain my opinion. i will just use this post because its 70% close to what i think.

my biggest problem is the narrative. i think that a movie should always have a clear narrative. and then the writter and director can add scenes that ask questions that dont get an asnwer. but the main story and and narrative need to be clear.

I found the narrative perfectly clear.

I understood what was going on plot-wise the entire film.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Yeah it was easy to tell exactly what was going on throughout the story. Although I do have a gripe with one certain part of the film because it doesn't make too much sense to me:

Spoiler

Shaw enters that room where David, Weyland and the other guys are and they act as if nothing has happened.