Prometheus - Part 9

[Schlosser85]

I actually wanted more Weyland and Vickers development.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hmm. It really depends where the story is going, or where you want it to. You have complained endlessly that the film just sets up questions without answering them, which is a fair point. But can you envision a successful answer to all of the questions over the origin of our species, the history of the Engineers, our interrelation with them, how the Xenomorphs fit in etc, in 45 minutes? You might be able to compress something like a conclusion in there, but I would hardly be structurally pleasing, and the extra time would have to largely be exposition.

That is an assumption that I would write the same film. I wouldn't. But even given the same basic ideas, plot points and structure, I think it is very easy to get a much better film out of what is there, with some changes and an extra 15-20 minutes.

The point of my post however was to show that there is plenty of leg room if one needed it.

One of the nicer sequences in the film, which broadened the scope somewhat.

Not sure how it did that. The film could of cut from the opening to an exterior shot of the Prometheus without missing a beat.

In a bit of clumsy exposition. That was one of the weaker scenes. I would rather keep the cave exploration and just have the team know what they are doing already.

Fine by mean, though I think written well it an infinity better scene for introducing the information. After all you have everyone gathered together and it is a good way to follow up the coming out of stasis.

Fifield was a crappy stock character, so I am inclined to agree, but more was needed than Shaw's monstrous pregnancy to show the importance of the ooze and its uses. The loss of that whole section would remove much of the horror/suspense from the film. I would agree that it could have been better, but I don't think you could just pull it out without an even less satisfactory film. After all, we don't like are questions going unanswered, huh?

I could say finding them dead would of added far more horror and suspense. They could of retrieved the bodies and have them come back unexplained while in transport or on the ship.

Heck, have David use the dead bodies as his first test subjects even. See if the ooze reanimates.

I have the inkling of a suspicion that, had they done that, you would have called it "lazy writing".

No more lazy writing the what was there and it doesn't take up nearly the time. It also would have rid us of one of the dumbest scenes in the film.

It also touches on one of my problems with the film. There was a great mystery to be had with the ooze and David, but the film seemed far to in your face with it and David's use of it. David's intentions are exposed far too early.

For me, the storm was the most visually pleasing scene in the whole film, which gave a lot of physicality and believability to this distant planet. You could cut it, but then there would be no reason for anyone to get stuck in the temple with the ooze, and a lot of visual flair would be sacrificed for little gain.

There is a lot of ways to get someone stuck in the cave, if you think they need to be stuck in the cave.

Again, just suggesting something that could be cut if necessary.

Not a good scene but, again, the ooze is evidently key to the whole mythos, and you would just be leaving yet more of the dreaded "unanswered questions" if you didn't trouble to explore what it is or what it does. It's another scene that I wish was better, but not necessarily absent.

Not sure about your point here? It doesn't really tell us much about the ooze that we don't learn with other scenes.

What you suggest certainly makes for a lean film, but it is one shorn of much of its imagery or its already limited action. Basically, the team wake up and a presentation tells them what's going on. They land the ship and go to the temple. Nothing happens and they come back. David poisons Holloway, Shaw and Holloway have sex. Next day, they go back to the temple again. Holloway gets ill, and they go back. Flamethrower scene. Nasty pregnancy stuff. Wayland is woken up, and they all go to the temple again. The Kurgan kills all but Shaw, followed by the same denouement we all saw.

Again, I would change plenty about this film. Probably would of made it hell to get in and out of the cave in the first place.

That structure as it stands doesn't really work, because there is far too much to-and-fro from ship to temple. You could argue that it could be padded with whatever the next film intends to tell us, but I think it's safe to assume that the context needs to change to the Engineer's planet for that stuff to happen. I certainly doubt it could happen before the Kurgan awakes. And then you would have a lot of leaden exposition for the audience to contend with.

No it doesn't and I think they gave themselves the exact tools to work this out. David can read and understand their language. It was apparently some sort of military outpost. A mission briefing and a few lines from the Engineer solves a lot.

I know you really don't like questions without answers, but you wouldn't be very interested in a three hour question and answer session, would you?

It is not about answers, it is about the exploration of the question. I have said this countless times already. I would change the dynamics of the characters, write better dialogue and certainly not do the obvious Ripely ending. Basically, I would fix the script.

Just look at the Christmas set up. A perfect chance to have everyone of importance sit down and have Christmas dinner the night before they land. Allow for discussion on why they are there and who they are as people. Shaw basically ask Janek for the ultimate sacrifice, but she barely knows him. Shaw's interaction outside of the work is limited to her stupid boyfriend.

 

[dark_b]

darthskywalker are you and me using ''exploration of the questions'' in the wrong context?

 

[DACrowe]

"They creative"? Perhaps. I'm not sure "sophisticated" is a running theme. "Little dialogue" is a theme that applies to a few. You haven't yet managed to convince me that any of them are similar films to "Blade Runner".

I said that I didn't think that Blade Runner would get made today. You then listed a lot of other films in an attempt to contradict my supposition. That must mean that you think those films are very similar to Blade Runner. Fair enough. So, how was "There Will be Blood" similar?

Unless you just think that- like Prometheus- these are just 'movies for clever people' or something.

I think his point is there are many ambitious films made these days. I'd actually go so far as to argue there are more ambitious films made today than the 1980s because of the proliferation (at least between 1994 and 2008) of independent studios and independent filmmaking. This led to a new set of auteurs to become mainstream throughout Hollywood: Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, the Coen Brothers, etc. After Heaven's Gate bombed in the early 1980s, Hollwyood became very formulaic and rested on genre and movie stars for most of the decade (hence critics and film historians almost unanimously all picking Raging Bull from 1981, a film more in the 1970s-style, as the best of the decade).

Blade Runner was a fluke in the studio system. One that led to Scott either quitting or being fired on the project and five different cuts. It also bombed at the box office. While there is still big cookie-cutter studio moviemaking (superheroes instead of Ahnold and Stallone, Judd Apatow instead of John Hughes, etc.) there is more of a risk-taking choice or there was for the 2000s decade anyway. Hence movies like No Country For Old Men or The Hurt Locker winning Best Picture and challenging art house films like There Will Be Blood or Black Swan being relatively popular in the mainstream.

So, is it possible for BR to be made today? Not really as BR was so influential to filmmaking and is entirely a product of 1984. But is Hollywood unable to take a chance on a movie like that today? I'd say not necessarily. This is a Hollywood that gave the Batman franchise to the director of Memento and tends to have blockbusters with more on their minds than the '80s did. BR was an exception for that period (one that had the director removed and failed at the BO), not the rule.

Just a thought.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

darthskywalker are you and me using ''exploration of the questions'' in the wrong context?

Not sure. All I can say is how I interpret "exploration of the questions".

In many ways it was makes up the film as a whole. How the themes, questions and ideas are explored through narrative, individual scenes, dialogue and characters.

It is one thing to have an unoriginal theme and ideas. In fact, it is near impossible not to these days. But how you explore them can be fresh and unique.

I think his point is there are many ambitious films made these days. I'd actually go so far as to argue there are more ambitious films made today than the 1980s because of the proliferation (at least between 1994 and 2008) of independent studios and independent filmmaking. This led to a new set of auteurs to become mainstream throughout Hollywood: Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, the Coen Brothers, etc. After Heaven's Gate bombed in the early 1980s, Hollwyood became very formulaic and rested on genre and movie stars for most of the decade (hence critics and film historians almost unanimously all picking Raging Bull from 1981, a film more in the 1970s-style, as the best of the decade).

Blade Runner was a fluke in the studio system. One that led to Scott either quitting or being fired on the project and five different cuts. It also bombed at the box office. While there is still big cookie-cutter studio moviemaking (superheroes instead of Ahnold and Stallone, Judd Apatow instead of John Hughes, etc.) there is more of a risk-taking choice or there was for the 2000s decade anyway. Hence movies like No Country For Old Men or The Hurt Locker winning Best Picture and challenging art house films like There Will Be Blood or Black Swan being relatively popular in the mainstream.

So, is it possible for BR to be made today? Not really as BR was so influential to filmmaking and is entirely a product of 1984. But is Hollywood unable to take a chance on a movie like that today? I'd say not necessarily. This is a Hollywood that gave the Batman franchise to the director of Memento and tends to have blockbusters with more on their minds than the '80s did. BR was an exception for that period (one that had the director removed and failed at the BO), not the rule.

Just a thought.

Well put. One thing though. Blade Runner came out in '82.

 

[Matt Mortem]

You know, I was actually annoyed with Weyland and glad he didn't get much screentime. I hate hate hate actors acting super old and dilapidated. With the exception of that viral marketing, why was it necessary to get an young actor to play an old character? They could have forgone that Ted Talk and gotten an elderly actor and it would have looked and played much better IMO.

 

[bullets]

I thought the use of Guy Pierce meant we'd see a younger Wayland in flashbacks.

 

[akfj]

I think I read that was the original plan.

 

[CConn]

I think I read that was the original plan.

Did you just punch the keyboard when choosing your username?

 

[DyeLorean]

There's a big difference between plot holes, questions left deliberately unanswered and regular bloopers.

The machine being turned on for "male" is NOT a plot hole, there's no hole in any plot. Is just a random thing, there must be a reason for it, we just don't know it.

Same for other decisions they've made. Knowing Lindelof and his work, I'm pretty sure he and Scott thought very well each decision they made, but choose not to reveal anything, and leave things to be theorized. I like theories, so I really don't mind.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I am beyond impatient for the Director's Cut. I need in my life... NOW.

 

[akfj]

Did you just punch the keyboard when choosing your username?

Yeah, I type with my fists.

 

[CConn]

Yeah, I type with my fists.

That means you're cool cause you don't try, and cool people hate trying.

 

[akfj]

If only all those people out in the world who are trying would stop, they could be cool.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

There's something that's been bothering me since opening night. Towards the end of the movie, after shaw has evaded the engineer, she's staring up at the sky outside of the pod. Did anyone else notice that she doesn't have her suit gloves on thus making her helmet kinda of useless?

 

[xwolverine2]

I thought the use of Guy Pierce meant we'd see a younger Wayland in flashbacks.

as did i... i was forgiving the terrible old man make-up because i thought there'd be a young weyland somewhere.

he looked like E.T

 

[Schlosser85]

I wish his TED speech had been included in the movie.

 

[The Predalien]

.... it also manages to retain a great deal to appeal to the dumbos?

I`m just wondering what you consider to be a dumbo? What level of film comprehension ( for want of a better term ) do you feel is required to fit into the class of dumbo?

I don`t consider myself to be the most intelligent person in the world, yet I also don`t believe I`m stupid. Regarding films , there are people on this board that are very clever and articulate in their opinions, this is what I come here to read , there`s alot of stuff I find interesting.

For example, it would NEVER have occurred to me that the reason the engineers wanted to destroy mankind was because of what happened 2000 years ago ( I know this is kind of speculation, although it has been hinted at by Ridley Scott ), does that make me a dumbo? lol!

I don`t find your comment offensive, I have a friend who definately falls into that category regarding films ( no disrespect, its just how he is! ), I`m just wondering if there`s a kind of scale to film understanding and what films would be appropriate to what level lol!

Off to read the rest of this thread now......

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Of course a movie is about characters, storytelling, dialogue, cinematography, acting, score, art direction, so and so forth. That is how a director tells his story through the medium of film. I'd say it is ridiculous to even suggest otherwise. How else would one do it on film?

And no, there are more films today then ever that aren't mindless or rushed. You just need to be willing to watch them. They aren't hard to find. Theater and home video release dates are all over the internet.

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But there is a line between what's said with the characters, dialogue, and story and what's said through the cinematography, score...

They don't have to say the same thing. The first group is there to convey the story, the second group to convey the message. Most people don't get the message, because nowadays, most films don't have one.

Cinema should always be about the message, not the story. You can read a story in a book, in a painting, even in a song. Stories are everywhere. What's really important, what really sets apart a movie from a book or a song, is the fact that it has moving images.

If you don't use these moving images meaningfully, then you're not doing "cinema". Everybody can tell a story. What's really important is what's behind it.

My point was that most production company now use cinema only as a way to tell a story that children are too lazy to read in a book. Yes I know the Harry Potter, Twilight and so on films have allowed younger generations to discover the eponymous books, and that's all good. But that's not "literature" yet. And that's not "cinema". It does not make them think. It makes them enjoy a story.

Hopefully they can then move on to more meaningful works of art.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is more cinematic then bleedy Prometheus.

And you are so wrong. Movies are about telling stories. That is there very nature. It is simply a different medium for doing so.Songs, plays, books, films, pro wrestling, they are just different ways of telling stories. Messages are in stories. You know what you do with the images in a film? You tell a story.

I honestly don't even understand your argument. I have never even heard it before.

That's what I'm saying though. It takes a conscious effort to find them, because you have access to a lot more mindless movies than intelligent, well-crafted films today, if you don't actively seek them out.

There is more access today then ever before. I don't know your age, but if I had to guess you didn't attend movie theaters in the 40s, 50s, 60s 70s or even 80s. We are in a utopia in terms of access to quality film-making on a daily basis.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But there is a line between what's said with the characters, dialogue, and story and what's said through the cinematography, score...

They don't have to say the same thing. The first group is there to convey the story, the second group to convey the message. Most people don't get the message, because nowadays, most films don't have one.

Cinema should always be about the message, not the story. You can read a story in a book, in a painting, even in a song. Stories are everywhere. What's really important, what really sets apart a movie from a book or a song, is the fact that it has moving images.

If you don't use these moving images meaningfully, then you're not doing "cinema". If you don't understand what the director says through these moving images, then you're not understanding the film. Everybody can tell a story. What's really important is what's behind it.

My point was that most production companies now use cinema only as a way to tell a story that children are too lazy to read in a book. Yes I know the Harry Potter, Twilight and so on films have allowed younger generations to discover the eponymous books, and that's all good. But that's not "literature" yet. And that's not "cinema". It does not make them think. It makes them enjoy a story.

Hopefully they can then move on to more meaningful works of art.




That's what I'm saying though. It takes a conscious effort to find them, because you have access to a lot more mindless movies than intelligent, well-crafted films today, if you don't actively seek them out.

It's all a matter of proportions. You say that there are more intelligent films than ever. Of course there are. There are more movies than ever. But in the past, 90% of the films coming out were intelligent films. Nowadays, I'd say barely 20%.

What? You should watch more older cinema if you believe this. A lot, and I mean a lot of the nostalgic look back on older films has everything to do with the cream rising to the top over the years. The crap is all but shunned, forgotten and some not even available.

But I am really, really curious where you got your percentages.

 

[Mandalore464]

Edit : Deleted

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Story is how you deliver meaning. It is the essence of meaning. Without story, you simply have nothing. Labeling something "art" does not change what it is.

Abstract meaning cannot exist without the story, because it is devoid of context. Why does the unicorn matter to Deckard? What is the meaning of Roy Batty and the dove? What does "You are the blade, blade runner" mean without bleeding context? Hell look at your Prometheus and Shutter Island "meanings". All hinge of the story and the context it provides. The characters and the plot. There is no meaning without story.

But, lets say the story doesn't really matter. Take the exact same two films. Now replace all the lead male characters with Power Rangers and all the female leads with Roger Rabbit. Have them all talk in baby talk or better yet, complete gibberish. And instead of walking they all back flip everywhere. Doesn't really matter, because according to you it doesn't change the "meaning" of what is going on.

Also, none of this abstract thought or meaning matters, if the basics of the film are so heavily flawed. Much like Prometheus. It is hard to care about your metaphor when your characters, dialogue and structure are so under-par? You bring up parenthood, but it is so clumsy handled in the film, the meaning is left to die on the floor.

It is no different then fables and stories that have been passed down for thousands of years. Saying a film has "abstract meaning" is no different then saying a fable has moral or a novel has a "point". When you tell your little girl with red hair and glasses stories about a young red fox who needs glasses to see, it has abstract meaning.

By the way, your Shutter Island example is perfect example of being pretentious. Looking for abstract meaning in a film 5 minutes in is not what the director wants. I guarantee you that Scorsese didn't want anyone without previous knowledge to not take it at face value. The movie is a mystery. That is the point of the film. Those are things you go back and look at and think, well now I get it. Personally, I went in hoping it wasn't fake as the trailers all but said it was. Still enjoyed the film though.





As to your second point. You conclude these films mean nothing. The Hunger Games, Twilight, Transformers, Harry Potter, the Marvel film collection, etc. They clearly mean something to those that make them and watch them. Just because you don't find a message or meaning in them, isn't their fault. That doesn't make them hollow.

My mother, a grown woman nearly 60 cried when Harry saw his parents in DH Part 2. It held meaning and purpose to her. You do not get to legislate what meaning and emotional value a film carries. There need not be an intricate analogy or clever camera work to deliver meaning. Having a half eaten fruit be a euphemism for lost virginity does not make something better. Just different.

Furthermore, you completely missed the point again. There are countless terrible westerns, musicals, war films, dramas, murder mysteries, comedies, etc. from the past eras. We just don't see them. They have been lost in time, leaving only the films that caught on to survive. You think people are going to be talking about the "Hottie and the Nottie in 50 years"?

Every studio wanted A Gone with or the Wind or Wizard of Oz. The idea that they didn't is ludicrous. And they tried, oh did they try. The difference is that now you don't even have to live in a big city or even leave your home to see the best cinema out there. It is glorious time to be alive for a fan of cinema.

But considering you are so into the idea that everything use to be 'better" I suggest watching Mad Men, to understand how completely off this suggestion is. Watch Don Draper listen to The Beatles Revolver. His reaction.

In the grand words of Roger Sterling-

"I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."

Finally. I am still curious where you got those numbers from.