So once again we have survived.

Prometheus

Okay, we’ve had high hopes for this movie for a long time. We’ve tried to avoid finding out too much about it. We have a sense of trust because of its connection to an all-time great movie by this same director but we also hope this is gonna be something new we’ve never seen before. So it has this weird combination of known quantity and total mystery.

Well, it’s a little more familiar than I was hoping but I also think you should just see it fresh so come on man, don’t read this review until you’ve already seen it. This is gonna be all SPOILERS.

Turns out at the end that Jonesy was behind the whole thing.

I remember years ago we would talk about what another ALIEN movie should be about. I always thought it would be cool if it was about the “Space Jockey,” which is the nickname for the unexplained giant dead skeletal guy they find sitting in that big gun. Not a prequel about how he got there, but a story about that race, these big clunky elephant-faced skeleton men battling with the Aliens. No English. Maybe subtitles. Mel Gibson could direct. Or some guy that does nature documentaries.

Then there was a point where Ridley Scott and James Cameron were in talks to team up as director and writer of an ALIEN 5, and Scott said it would in fact be about those guys. Sounds amazing! So the the studio hung up the phone and called the director of RESIDENT EVIL to do a shitty ALIEN VS. PREDATOR movie that nobody liked.

A decade later, here we are. The AvP franchise has been dead long enough that Scott agreed to come on for an ALIEN prequel. Then during development they proudly stated that it had turned into something else, a standalone sci-fi movie that takes place in the same universe as ALIEN, but is not a prequel. The best possible outcome.

Except, come on dude, this is an ALIEN prequel. It has the Weyland Corporation (Weylan-Yutani in ALIEN, Weyland-Yutani in ALIENS). It has a creepy corporate-lackey robot with milky white goo inside him. It has the space jockeys. It has the space jockey gun. It has their space ship. It has H.R. Giger interiors. It has a sculpture and another thing that look an awful lot like Aliens. It has vases in a chamber laid out just like the Alien eggs. It has cryo-chambers and a crew of working class people in it for the money who go to a weird planet referred to by LV dash (number) where they go to explore something with helmet-cams like in ALIENS and they discover some dangerous monstery shit that they didn’t bargain for and there’s a dissection scene and an argument about quarantining somebody and a blowtorch used as a weapon and a scanning for lifeforms in a tunnel and an underestimated woman in her underwear has to fight to escape without bringing something bad with her and it ends with narration that’s one of many deliberate references to ALIEN.

Let’s face it, it’s SPACE JOCKEY ORIGINS: PROMETHEUS

a.k.a. ALIEN MINUS PREDATOR MINUS ALIEN

And I really liked it but I think that is its weakness – it’s based on the ALIEN template, so just like ALIEN 3-4 you’re forced to compare it to a flawless movie that it could never live up to. Plus it has that unique prequel issue of ruining the mystery – is it really a good idea to show us what that space jockey dude was? Well, I feel like I’m okay with it right now. It’s kinda what I thought was going on, but with some interesting nuances, and it remains creepy and mysterious. (I reserve the right to change my mind when I watch ALIEN again in a while. I watched it last week and by the way I don’t know if anybody’s noticed this but it looks fuckin good on the blu-ray.)

So my favorite part of PROMETHEUS actually is the very opening, the most un-ALIEN-like and least explained part of the movie. It starts with a series of stunning overhead shots of natural land formations, strange rocks, roaring waterfalls – basically, helicopter shots from an Imax documentary on another world. And then a strange otherworldly muscleman comes out and… does something. If we were supposed to later figure out what exactly happened there I didn’t catch it, and I’m okay with that. For those few minutes I really felt like I was witnessing something I’d never seen before.

(I won’t be able to resist reading explanations of that scene, but for now I like that there are some mysteries left, like the Space Jockey was up until now. I will also have to wonder what that cool red robosuit thing was that she walked past on Prometheus toward the end.)

Before we continue, I want to note that I just saw an ad for PROMETHEUS that cut directly from an H.R. Giger set to a holographic can of Coors. It was one of those hybrid movie/product commercials. Enjoy PROMETHEUS and Coors. Drink responsibly.

The technical aspects of the movie are flawless. It looks gorgeous, it looks real, you feel like they filmed it on location on the real LV-223, not green screens (or even LW-328, where alot of LV stuff gets shot because of tax breaks). There are some non-human entitites in the picture and while they are not as groundbreaking design-wise as Mr. Giger’s original Alien, they are state of the art creations. I’m gonna assume it’s the motion capture and the digital animation and what not because of how well they move, but they seem to have the tactile quality of good animatronics or actual alien monsters. Also the space ships, the suits, the computer displays, everything is very slick and cool looking. The 3D (actual 3D!) looks good (although not essential in my opinion). A standout is when it’s used for degraded or dot-matrixy type 3D holograms. (Also hat’s off to the 3D-ified Scott Free production company logo at the beginning.)

So it does what a great science fiction movie does, it whisks you off to another world, makes you feel like you’re really experiencing it. Although limited to a crew of 17 on the ship it has something of a sweeping epic type of feel. Maybe that’s why the robot David (Michael Fassbender, excellent as always) is obsessed with LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. (His other interests include Clone Ripley-style trick basketball shooting. He’s real good at it, partly because he’s a robot, partly because he’s got years to practice while the humans sleep.)

Unfortunately, somewhere in the middle after I’ve been whisked away and all that I did start to be bothered by things the characters did that I had trouble buying. The big one is Dr. Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), boyfriend of our heroine Shaw (O.G. Girl With Dragon Tattoo Noomi Rapace) and archaeologist. Their discovery in a cave on Earth led to this mission in far off space, where they discover corpses and constructions of an alien race that they believe support their theory that man was created by an alien race. This is by far the biggest discovery in human history, one that changes everything, but instead of being excited, instead of being in awe, instead of being horrified… the motherfucker gets all mad that there are no living ones to talk to. He goes to drink vodka and sulk.

I’m willing to forgive smaller ones like Shaw being an archaeologist who also knows all about surgery – maybe they have better education 75 years from now – but the way Holloway acts makes him both less likable and less believable than the characters we love from ALIEN. In fact, I gotta say that in general these characters oughta be more impressed by what they’ve discovered here. But maybe people are real jaded in the future.

The ice queen boss Vickers (Charlize Theron) has some overly obvious motives, but I like that she’s not completely one dimensional, she does sometimes do the right thing, I think. But each of these characters have a memorably bad line. Holloway’s is when he whines something like, “But I wanted to talk to them, baby!” Vickers’s is something that ends with “(dramatic pause)… father!” Like we didn’t figure that out at the beginning when she looked mad that old man Pearce said David was the closest thing he ever had to a son. We’re way ahead of you, lady.

Some of the stronger characters (especially Idris Elba’s Janek) are not really complex but work well as people who are not always happy but do have a sense of humor that they use to try to get through the job and do the best they can. Too bad we don’t get more time with them.

Shaw I think is a worthy heroine though. She earns our sympathy mostly by battling through some extreme circumstances – especially the horrifying high-tech self-surgery scene, one of my favorite parts. (Is it fair to read that as a statement about the state of American health care, with this woman having to commandeer a system designed only for men and rejigger it to save her life?) But she also adds a small amount of thematic depth with her faith, symbolized by a crucifix necklace she got from her father, exemplified by her not-yet-proven belief that humans were engineered, and also by her willingness to still leave open the possibility of a God who created the space jockeys. I love that after David has put her through basically the worst shit possible he puts salt on her wounds by confiscating her cross (in case of contamination) and putting it in a plastic vial like a urine specimen, or biological waste, or crack.

But she doesn’t really hold a grudge, because he’s just a fuckin robot. In that sense she might be more enlightened than Ripley.

A couple notes for exploring this planet:

1. Always carry a giant Ziploc bag in case of severed space jockey head discovery.
2. Do not pet the mouth-raping alien dick monsters.

The movie really gets crazy in the last chunk, where Holloway turns kinda SUNSHINE and Shaw has to deal with a monster impregnation and David is trying to introduce his creator to his creator’s creator. Basically there are two overlapping instances of all hell breaking loose. (I guess it’s all hell breaking loose but with one half in one location and the other half in a second location.) This is probly the most narratively messy part of the movie but I kinda like that because it’s the part that feels less like it’s following the ALIEN formula. And it’s a great concept for what indulgent things the super-rich could try to do in the future. I never saw THE BUCKET LIST, but I bet he has those guys beat with what he does here.

The bit at the end where a pre-Alien type monster is formed is well-done but to me a little too “okay, you want to see one of those Aliens, so here ya go guys.” But the crowd I saw it with (who by the way applauded at the end of the movie) seemed very excited by it.

I bet this will be the less popular part of the movie, but I like the absurd way it ends, with Shaw suicidally heading for the home of the God Race (like Prometheus defying Zeus, maybe), accompanied by her sidekick, the Peter O’Toole-idolizing severed head who betrayed her. That’s a movie I would love to see, and that they should probly never make.

VERN has been reviewing movies since 1999 and is the author of the books SEAGALOGY: A STUDY OF THE ASS-KICKING FILMS OF STEVEN SEAGAL, YIPPEE KI-YAY MOVIEGOER!: WRITINGS ON BRUCE WILLIS, BADASS CINEMA AND OTHER IMPORTANT TOPICS and NIKETOWN: A NOVEL. His horror-action novel WORM ON A HOOK will arrive later this year.
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 9th, 2012 at 1:43 am and is filed under Reviews, Science Fiction and Space Shit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

758 Responses to “Prometheus”

  1. Good balanced review. Buddy of mine reckones that the sequel was set up to be a mismatched buddy version of CONTACT, except with far more mouth-raping dick monsters.

    Which we all want to see, no doubt.

  2. This movie had the worst scientists ever. I mean, they NEVER use the scientific method at all. They just spent a trillion dollars to send the ship to this planet, and years of their lives asleep, then utterly fail to document or preserve any of their trillion dollar discoveries! And they all take their helmets off? Gee, good thing that this planet that we think has humanoid life just happens to have…no germs or viruses. Why didn’t the fuckin’ space jockeys (wow, that sounds racist) just give the old man a blanket when he asked for immortality and finish off the humans that way.

    There was no ticking clock, so the horrible, horrible decisions that our idiot scientists make are totally unmotivated. And I have no idea how the alien slime works. And I donno why the old guy was even ON the space ship. And I donno what he actually wanted the Space Jockey to do, or why he thought that the Space Jockey could/would do whatever it was that the old guy wanted done. What the hell was up with those Space Jockey Holograms? Why would that even…why would that exist? And why is no one on board excited about THE COOLEST SPACE MISSION EVER?

    I know this sounds really knit-picky, but hear me out: the dream viewing sequence isn’t just sloppy and pointless exposition, it’s also a logic breaking device that ruins the entire thesis of the film. Normally the philosophical underpinnings of a minor scifi gag wouldn’t matter, but because this whole movie is obsessed with ontology and immortality, it becomes relevant.

    See, there are two schools of thought about the functioning of the human mind.

    Either A) the human mind is purely bio-electrical. When you think of a “Horse” different chemicals and electrical signals spin through your brain creating your internal idea of a horse. There is no magic and nothing outside the physical body facilitating this.

    Or B) There is something outside the biological body. An inherent, idealized ‘Horseness’ from which you draw your personal mental picture of a horse.

    Since the film shows David very literally *seeing* Shaw’s dream, we’re living in a world where the answer to this question of consciousness has been answered very definitively in favor of the former option.

    If this is so, then the human mind can be reproduced perfectly in laboratory settings. Since we’re also seeing a world where immortal androids can exist…why doesn’t the old man just upload his brain into one of his cyborgs and live forever? The very existence of this dream machine negates the entire concept of a self outside the self. If you can see the thoughts in my head perfectly, then you could map the human mind like a genome. Maybe not now, but if you had a cool trillion to blow on it?

    And worst of all, we finally get a glimpse of Earth. After 4 whole movies, we’ve never seen Earth and now we have Ridley Scott back to show it to us? *Awesome* oh, wait, I’m sorry. No, they didn’t even bother to give us any clue what Earth looks like outside of that one cave.

    Still…I kinda liked it. And I’m probably going to go see it again. Maybe more than once. Alien is my favorite franchise and there was a lot of cool weirdness in this movie. Overall, I’d say it ranks 5th, but only because Alien3 is utterly hypnotic to look at and Alien: Resurrection gets major points for being so damn weird. Prometheus is probably better than both of those, but I donno that I’m gonna care about it in 10 years.

    Handsome, occasionally inventive, but ultimately disposable soft scifi.

  3. Re: The prologue: I believe it’s actually set on earth, and what we are witnessing is the creation of us humans (hence the CGI close-up of the DNA). Didn’t pick up on that myself when I actually saw the movie, but a guy on the net pointed it out, and it seemed a plausible explanation to me.

    Good review, btw. I liked it myself, even though the plot-holes and whatnots got on my nerves. I’d blame it on lazy writing, but knowing Sir Ridley Fucking Scott directed this, I’ll bet you 10 bucks that a lot scenes were cut out, scenes that would answer most of the little questions I was asking myself throughout the movie. In other words, it’s not lazy writing, but lazy storytelling. At any rate, this is an honest-to-Engineer blockbuster for us who are no longer 14. I’ll take it over the snoozefest that was THE AVENGERS any day of the week.

    Another clue that this is very much an official prequel to ALIEN is the fact that it’s produced (not even executive produced) by Walter Hill and David Giler. They’re both persona non grata in the Fox offices, after having sued them twice for profits over this franchise. It was settles out of court, in their favor, both times, which I guess pissed off the suits.

  4. Knox Harrington

    June 9th, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Some strange choices in this film.

    Why cast Guy Pearce and put him in old guy make-up? Why not just get an old guy? It’s like that scene in Alpha Dog where Sharon Stone is wearing a fat suit. Took me out of the movie and made me laugh at it.

    The scene with Shaw cutting the alien thing out of her was cool and all, but kinda feels tacked on. You could take that entire section out of the film and it wouldn’t affect the story at all.

    Pretty sure that opening scene shows the Engineers planting their DNA on Earth, but I don’t get why they would leave us an “invitation” to the military installation planet from which they planned to launch an attack on us.

    Yeah, Prometheus was okay, I guess. Very pretty. Won’t ever be as iconic as Alien, obviously. I’m a little disappointed that the nightmare premise promised in the trailer turned out to be more of a sci-fi action movie.

  5. Knox Harrington

    June 9th, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Oh, and let’s hope that Scott doesn’t end up making that Blade Runner sequel. Blade Runner should be left alone.

    It’s a great stand-alone film that has somehow avoided being ruined by years of bad franchising and shitty sequels/spin-offs. I’m hoping it stays that way.

  6. I liked it a lot and it did make me think, but I expected something much more disturbing. It was less weird than I expected and less hopeless than Alien. Nothing in the same vicinity of scary as the sounds of whatever happened to Lambert – that always creeps me the hell out.

    Things I liked:

    I loved that the Engineers looked like Michelangelo’s David (sans hair). I liked the Fifield zombie’s rather distorted structure (his legs seemed bent over his back). I liked Idris and Charlize (and they were basically cameos). The cinematography and design were terrific.

    David was the absolute standout. Everything about that performance was astonishing. The David viral short was even better (that little shot of him attempting a smile is incredible). Fassbender is the man of the moment and he elevates everything he’s in it seems.

    I loved that some of the people when confronted with the reality of alien existence freaked out. I suspect that would be my first reaction – complete culture shock so I bought Fifield completely. They didn’t know what the mission was for. However, you think he’d have been excited by some rocks, although I suppose as there are limited elements in the universe, rocks on a terrestrial planet are going to be pretty samey.

    The storm was fantastic.

    The excision scene.

    Enjoyed not so much:

    The scientists were generally dicks (and I say this as a scientist myself). We don’t piss about with foreign objects without taking precautions and I’m not talking about aliens. We don’t even leave needles lying around. Taking your helmet off, despite Holloway’s deduction that they were terraforming? Petting a bizarre critter? Carting a big giant head onto your spaceship despite the indications of some kind of catastrophe? Nutters.

    How did anyone manage to get cut off from the party with trackers everywhere?

    Holloway was actually a decent person (come on, he sacrificed himself for the good of the crew) but he was given some pretty dumb things to do. It went beyond disappointment.

    And Charlize’s somewhat arbitrary fate seemed a bit mean, since she was one of the few people with sense in the whole thing.

    I didn’t much like the alien ship crash – it was just too suggestive of the original derelict – most people are going to think it’s all one and the same I suppose, but they’re not going to care so no damage done.

    The Engineer seemed to overreact a bit and for a master of cosmic manipulation he seemed to be a full of negative energy. Maybe that was his hypersleep wake up reaction. Actually why was he in hypersleep?

    ——————

    I did wonder though, and I haven’t seen this discussed anywhere else, if David had not only read the alien language but understood what the facility was for, what the ship was for and if it wasn’t his manipulation of the star map that selected Earth as the target – he did hold Earth in his hands before it went on the console thing. Everyone else seems to think that the Engineers were headed there in the first place but I’m not so sure.

  7. As this sight’s premier Ridley Scott post-1985 disliker, I can’t help but notice that not one of you guys who were so excited about the movie a week ago are still excited about it now. If the best you guys can come up with is faint praise and a whole shitload of nitpicks, it’s probably best if I sit this one out.

  8. I’m disappointed that they took the awesome, gigantic Jockey from Alien and turned him into, basically, a daft-looking, bald human with plastic muscles. Major bit of retconning, that. If you check out Alien again, it’s pretty clear that that’s no helmet on his head – it IS his head. You even see the mouth gaping open, man.

    I mean, yah, I get that it makes the whole “those dudes created us” thing more effective. But then again, they could also have created us whilst looking like elephantine monsters whose noses are somehow fused to their ribcages. I see no problem in that.

    I don’t know…I’m probably a bigger Ridley Scott fan than anyone on this sight. I love the guy’s work, and I don’t even think Prometheus is bad as a film per se. But the constant Alien rehashing, the uninspired ideas and characters…it’s just not what I, personally, wanted. I was hoping it’d be vastly more old school Scott in tone and look.

  9. Jareth Cutestory

    June 9th, 2012 at 7:42 am

    Majestyk: Isn’t COSMOPOLIS opening in NY this weekend? Or are we mugwumps getting it early up here?

  10. I thought the prologue represented the “Engineers” creating not just humans, but life itself, on Earth. Which would mean those guys have a really awesome space program, since they still go check on their expreriment 3~4 billion years after they started it.

    Anyway, I really couldn’t get over the stupidity of pretty much all the characters, the crappy dialogue and the fact that the script seems to have been rewritten too many times. Also I wish the movie had focused more on exploring a mysterious new world and less on remaking/connecting it with ALIEN. And I wonder if a sequel would actually try harder to be its own thing, or if the suits at 20th Century Fox would just require Scott to “make it more like ALIENS”.

  11. Jareth: Looks like we’re not getting it until mid August for some reason.

  12. I totally get all the nitpicks and complaints about the movie. I had them myself while watching. However, what was good about it was good enough that I just can’t help but feel that I want a sequel to this. Yes, with Shaw and David’s head on a tour of the galaxy to discover the unknowable.

    I would love to see it too and dammit, they should make it because it’s going to be interesting no matter how it turns out.

  13. This movie completely supports my theory that audience reaction is 100% a reflection of anticipation, and really has nothing to do with the movie itself. If you anticipate the Word of God ™ and just get a good movie, you feel disappointed, even though you saw a good movie.

    There’s just too many movie fans (“fan” word derivation: fanatic, as in, religious fanatic) who expect way too much and are ready to loudly declare soul-crushing disappointment because of what are really minor nits in the larger scale of things.

    Perspective people. It’s the summer. There are movies. Enjoy the well-made ones, and let me enjoy my sushi without wanting to shove the chop sticks in your eyes for being such a whiny self-indulgent… wait, sorry, wrong audience.

  14. So you’re saying that because I’m the only one here who doesn’t expect to like it, I might be the one who’s pleasantly surprised?

  15. Actually, yes, Mr. M., The inverse is also true: there’s plenty of cases where people expect crap, get average, and therefore say they like the movie.

    Anticipation determines all.

    But I apologize for my grouchy post. It really isn’t pointed at anyone here, it is pointed at other sites and people I know.

  16. @BR Baraka: I thought it was not as bad as I feared, not as good as I hoped, and ultimately I didn’t like it, but my disappointment came from the fact that I found the beginning of the movie promising but that then it just wasted its potential. Does it support your theory?

  17. toxic: interesting comment

    you are framing your reaction to the movie not of the anticipatory prejudices of like or dislike that you carried into the cinema house, but of the unfulfilled anticipation the beginning of the movie itself set up

    hmmm… good perspective

    you are saying the movie makers set out to blow your mind but couldn’t rise to the occasion so in the end they settled to just blow your dick with eye candy and jerky plot twists

  18. Vern, you’re killing me! Was waiting for your review of this, and you pretty much fast-forwarded the whole second half of the movie!!!

    When’s Part 2?!?

  19. To me, Prometheus is a flawed film but it really goes out there and has huge ambition. I would rather see a film like Prometheus then 400 loud and obnoxious blockbusters. As an Alien fan, when the movie ended I was unsure. But then something happened. As time went by I thought about the film and began having great discussions about some of the smaller details.
    For instance to me the film is about unchecked arrogance and when we have nowhere left to go we begin to create. Yes, the scientists are dim but is it because there is no real science left to discover? Has it come to the point where the only great discovery is to find God or the life form that created us? In one scene Holloway tells David, “We created you because we can.” That’s the answer of a society that is bored and reaching beyond discovery and entering into a society of creators. Yet, they find it trivial and unfulfilling. Had the Space Jockey gotten to that point as well millions of years before? Is the world of Prometheus at the next phase in a cycle where curiosity leads to religion, religion leads to science, and now, in the film’s universe, the lack of new science leads back to curiosity and, therefore, back to religion.
    My feeling in the beginning is that the Space Jockey is creating humans in defiance of the wishes of his society, Notice he waits until the ship leaves and that he seems anxious. He drinks the liquid and then is destroyed by it but creates new life. In a way his defiance has led to his demise but also to creation. As David points out later, “You must destroy to create.” However, we often forget that it is often ourselves we destroy in the process.
    You also can ask, is the creation of humanity no different than the creation of the alien. Are we a dangerous being, a weapon of mass destruction? One could interpret the final scene as a mirror of the first. Instead of serene and beautiful like the opening, it is violent and cruel. Creation is ugly as well. And the results can be deadly.
    Shaw wonders why the Space Jockeys wanted to destroy us. Because we are the fire stolen from the gods. Fire can give life and be beautiful, but it also lays waste when uncontrolled. When fire gets to the point it can’t be controlled, you must extinguish it. So you create a life form that can do just that, and you enter a phase where what you you create is death. And death has no morality. It does not judge, it is the ultimate destruction because it obeys no master. Hence, the alien.
    Just some thoughts, make of them what you will and feel free to add, subtract, or go in different directions.

  20. I enjoyed a lot of it, and not being that attached to the franchise, I wasn’t that bothered by things that didn’t line up with ALIEN (I’m more of an ALIENS man), but more the lack of answers, but if there’s a sequel, I’m in.

    Fassbender was great in this, and I liked the fact that, yes, he’s creepy, and yes he seems to get a bit of satisfaction out of some of the things he does(but with Holloway being such a dick to him, can you blame him?), but he can be viewed as simply having no choice about doing those things, because he was just doing what his creator told him to. After Weyland dies, he seems to gain complete free will, and agrees to take Shaw to the Engineers’ homeworld even though he doesn’t have to and has no real obligation to. If there’s a sequel I hope he spends most of the movie as just a talking head as that would be fun.

    Also someone raised the possibility that Vickers was a robot too. I’m not completely convinced, because she clearly spent time in suspended animation, though she also clearly disliked David so not spending 2 years alone with him on a ship is understandable. She seemed to recover when waking up pretty fast too. Having sex isn’t really an issue because David says robots are made to resemble humans, so Vickers could be very convincingly constructed. Being a robot with more free will but still having her “father” trust a servant over her makes her hostility even more understandable. Her death was annoying because there was no real reason for it to happen other than them wanting to have Shaw and David be the only survivors.

    My interpretation of the opening was that was life being created on earth, but that the guy doing it WASN’T SUPPOSED TO. He was taking it upon himself to do that, and sacrificing himself in the process intentionally so he couldn’t contaminate a new biosphere and also couldn’t really be held accountable by the other Engineers. The Engineers later find out what he did and decide to go eradicate earth. Possibly because being descended from them, they believe humanity could become just as advanced eventually and pose a threat to them. This would all make the guy from the beginning a metaphorical Prometheus himself.

    By the way, does anyone think Logan Marshall-Green got the part of Holloway because Scott wanted Tom Hardy but he was unavailable?

  21. “I’m willing to forgive smaller ones like Shaw being an archaeologist who also knows all about surgery – maybe they have better education 75 years from now”
    Or it could simply be that examining preserved remains is a more prominent area of archaeology in the future so there’s a bit of medical training for that.

  22. I thought Tom Hardy looked weird in this one…

  23. I made the mistake of watching the original Alien before seeing this. It was a mistake because Prometheus can’t hold a candle to that classic. It’s nowhere near as suspenseful as the original Alien, and nowhere near as suspenseful as it thinks it is. With that said, now that I’ve had a day to think about it, Prometheus feels more like one of those old 1950’s sci-fi movies where explorers find a new planet and at first everything is great and then all hell breaks loose. The movie is beautiful to look at, but the script is not good at all. I think the worst scene for me was the one where Idris Elba’s captain character basically spelled out the movie for the dumb people in the audience. That scene felt seriously out of place. My other issue was the abortion scene, not the scene itself but how we get to it and everything that happens after it. Are you telling me there was no other way to stage that scene then to have Rapace’s character hit two people over the head like something out of a bad cartoon? How was she walking and running just seconds after the surgery with staples in here stomach? I’m sorry but I had this on my mind for every scene after it took place. Prometheus wants us to feel like it’s smart sci-fi but it’s actually pretty dumb. I will watch it again at some point because sci-fi and I want to watch it without the expectations I went into it with. This movie is closer to something like Leviathan then it is to Alien.

    I did enjoy the visuals though. One of the best looking sci-fi movies in years. I just really wish they had worked on the script more and gave us some characters that we could care about. The scene where the captain sacrifices himself for the greater good had zero weight to it because we barely even get to know him or the other crew members. They should have tightened the cast up because none of the characters are really given enough screen time for us to care about them. Rapace really isn’t the type of actress that draws you in and makes you care about the character and building this movie around her was a mistake in my mind. She was great in Girl In The Dragon Tattoo, but this is the second American movie ,after Sherlock Holmes, and she was pretty bland in both of them. Michael Fassbender brought his A game and was really the only highlight for me. Guy Pearce makeup is terrible and he was completely unbelievable as an old man. What the hell was the point of having him play an old man anyway? Why not just get a damn older actor? The guy who played Charlie was terrible also. I’m not sure if it was the script or him but his character was completely useless except for the fact they needed someone to have sex with Rapace’s character. I think I’m just going to have to check this one out again in a few moths when it comes on blu-ray and see how I feel with lower expectations.

  24. The Black White Shadow

    June 9th, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Having watched the movie twice in roughly twelve hours (an agreement I made a week ago, which is indicative of the amount of anticipation I had going in), I have to say it is a fairly flawed movie, but worked better for me that second time, free of that aforementioned anticipation. While the broad strokes were messy at best (man alive, those were some highly not intelligent scientists), I enjoyed the subtle touches.

    Maybe it was just me, but I like the idea that Weyland Industries probably became Weyland-Yutani because the CEO and his only heir were bludgeoned to death by an android head and squashed by a falling spaceship (respectively).

    Further, it occured to me on that second time that sure, maybe the Engineers were planning to kill us and things went wrong (and the ambiguity as to whether or not thats actually the case is a nice touch). But when they wake that last one up, here is what he is exposed to: an old man begging him for immortality, while his guards beat up an obviously wounded, obviously distressed woman (who the Engineer may or may not realize just wants to know why the Engineers hated them). Exposed to that, its kind of hard to say that the Engineer wasn’t justified in his reaction.

    And even though it was pretty gratuitous, I liked the very last scene being an echo of the very first scene. And its been months since I’ve watched ‘Alien’, but I’m pretty sure the movie takes us to the exact point of being a ‘Thing’-like prequel, setting up the exact situation the Nostromo stumbles onto in ‘Alien’, and then zips off in a completely different direction.

    I dunno, there was a lot to like, and a lot to dislike (the fake Tom Hardy zombie attack made absolutely no sense to me), but I’ve always been a sucker for ambitious follies…

  25. That wasn’t Tom Hardy,lol I actually wish it had been Tom Hardy because that actor was terrible in that role.

  26. The Black White Shadow:

    It doesn’t take us to the start of Alien.
    It’s a different planet, a different ship, a different guy who gets killed by something bursting from his chest. His ship, having crashed, just sorta LOOKS exactly like the derelict from Alien.

    I’m not sure why they did that, actually. Maybe it would’ve been too obvious. Or maybe they didn’t want to explain the gigantic fucking cave that Kane finds under the derelict in Alien that’s way bigger than the lab they find in Prometheus.

  27. The movie is a MAJOR disappointment. It’s not just story nitpicks, the last hour of this movie consistently makes no sense, the story ends up not going anywhere interesting or saying anything, characters seem to do things at random with little or no motivation, major things happen and then are completely dropped or ignored in the very next scene (Shaw’s surgery, her boyfriend getting flame-throwerd). The whole thing is a mess of a movie, and the more you think about it the worse and more sloppy the movie becomes. I think with some distance, it’ll be seen pretty unanimously as a failure with some cool parts in it, and I can tell you right now that Rotten Tomatoes score is over-inflated by at least 15-20%

  28. Knox Harrington

    June 9th, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Not sure I agree with your “anticipation determines all” theory, Baraka. I can understand where it’s coming from, but by that logic disappointment in every single film I’m excited about seems pretty much guaranteed.

    Everyone was excited about Avengers and The Dark Knight, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who was really disappointed by them. But maybe you’re right and those are merely the few exceptions to the rule, and maybe the fact that we want every film to be that exception is why we’re so often disappointed (or maybe the majority of filmmakers are just shit these days and need to pull their fingers out of their assholes and put in some fuckin effort).

    I do love it when a film ends up being even better than anticipated, though. Back in 2007 I was so damn excited about There Will Be Blood and The Assassination of Jesse James. I watched the trailers over and over again. Can’t remember a time before that when I was so excited about a film. So when both those movies ended up being even better than I could have ever hoped for, I was in a state of pure bliss, man. Love it when that happens (same thing happened with Robocop when I was a kid).

    Anyway, Prometheus… I won’t mind a sequel or two. At least it’ll help give the Alien franchise a rest. So long as they focus on the Engineers and not the xenomorphs.

    P.S. Once they started referring to the place as a military installation, the Engineers started reminding me of those asshole mercenaries in The Rock. “I’m gonna gut you like a fish, boy.”

  29. I can’t see how a direct sequel would work but a non-direct one might (which apparently is what’s being mooted at the moment).

    I wanted to love PROMETHEUS aka GUY PEARCE’S MARTYRS, but it just left me cold with it’s relentless blandness.

    Not an ounce of charisma in any of the cast, apart from the mighty Fassbender (of course).

    And all that teasing “it’s not an ALIEN prequel”, too, from Scott et al. Really? Fuck off, of course it is.

    After seeing this and reading Scott’s frankly bollocks musings on what he might do with BLADE RUNNER 2 I’m not sure I want it now.

  30. Hola gang, good too see ya’ll hammering through PROMETHEUS. Count me in the camp of folks who enjoyed it a lot. My expectations have been seesawing back and forth, swinging first for OHMYGODTHIS WILLOWNMYSOUL, and then dropping a bit when Devin and Drew shared their disappointment. Now, having seen it, I’m happy for both these instances, because they got me super psyched, and then tempered this expectation so that I didn’t expect the second coming of 2001. In short, I thought it was ambitious film that went a long way toward fulfilling this ambition, and that the characters weren’t nearly as inconsistent as some would have you believe. In fact, I’m up for a spirited debate for those who think people vacillate way too much back and forth in their characters. Frankly, I think people expect characters to play like D&D characters, and through hissy fits when the guy they dubbed LAWFUL GOOD swung CHAOTIC EVIL. People are complex, and given the right situation, accompanied by the right stressors, will commit actions normally out of step with their usual persona.

    If there is one who needed some work it would be Holloway; at times he acts more like the spiritual believer than his girlfriend Shaw, taking his helmet off when everyone else tells hime it’s a bad idea, charging ahead when everyone says wait, and then sulking when the evidence alone isn’t enough. I think they were going for head strong alpha male, but didn’t balance it with what he actually does, a.k.a. be a scientist.

  31. Knox:

    I’m going to modify my anticipation theory:

    “When a director in his youth makes a much loved by fandom, and then, later in life, returns to the same subject matter, he is guaranteed to cause fandom to hate him.”

    Witness Lucas, and now Scott, I’m sure there are other examples. (“Matrix”? Hmmm…)

    All those Star Wars prequels were good movies. You heard me: they were good movies. Pulpy scifi fantasy. Enjoyable popcorn fluff. They made me smile. I liked them. Yeah, I said it.

    But engage fandom on the subject matter, and you will hear nothing but harpies screeching about the destruction of childhood and innocence and blue skies and kittens and life itself.

    It’s just highly skewed, because you are talking about religious devotion here. To mess with the precept of much beloved movies for certain audiences is the same as drawing Mohammad with a bomb in his turban in Karachi: religious fundamentalist beholds apostasy, sacrilege, blasphemy. It’s the same psychological dynamic with these prequels/ sequels/ sort-of-quels. There’s nothing any director could do to approach the reverence of the sacred originals, because you are way beyond the manipulation of sound and image, you are trying to approach the prominence of a life transforming experience. You’re talking about religious passion here. Cinema is my religion, I understand the passion.

    The original “Alien” / “Star Wars” burned a hole in the minds of impressionable movie geeks, and no one, I mean absolutely NO ONE, can replace that moment when your mind was blown in your youth by a film that that knocks it out of the ballpark, firing on all cylinders of acting, plot, concept, direction, music cinematography, etc.

    Additionally, this is true: your IQ peeks at age 25. After that, it’s all down hill. It has been observed that mathematics is a young man’s game. Einstein did all his great work when he was young. You can look at the output of Clint Eastwood’s later projects and say they have gotten a little wooden. So the simple sad truth is that Scott at age 74 is not the same man who directed “Alien” or “Blade Runner”, he never could be. We’re all on this slow downward slope. Same can be said of Lucas, who made “Star Wars” at a young age, then foisted Jar Jar Binks on us in his later years: this is a shadow of the younger man speaking here.

    So: I will not a make a prediction, I will make a promise:

    1. “Blade Runner Electric Boogaloo” will be A GOOD MOVIE. Not a great movie.
    2. Movie fandom will demand Scott’s head on a platter, announce he has murdered their soul, and burn him in effigy.

  32. CEPE: “I’m disappointed that they took the awesome, gigantic Jockey from Alien and turned him into, basically, a daft-looking, bald human with plastic muscles. Major bit of retconning, that. If you check out Alien again, it’s pretty clear that that’s no helmet on his head – it IS his head. You even see the mouth gaping open, man.”

    I had the exact same reaction. I probably wouldn’t be quite as disappointed with the information the film provides regarding the “Alien” world if I didn’t already have many of the same issues others cited regarding the characters, their behavior and the plotting.

    Was anyone else reminded of “Sunshine” at times while watching “Prometheus,” especially that film’s controversial ending? Despite my problems with the final act of Danny Boyle’s movie, I felt it was genuinely awe-inspiring and emotionally engaging in ways that “Prometheus” wasn’t.

  33. @Baraka- I’m not sure how you can call The Phantom Menace a good movie. My dislike of it has nothing to do with it being a prequel and more to do with the bad acting and over-explaining of everything throughout the movie. In fact it makes me realize one of the things that makes these movies bad when a director returns to a franchise when they’ve aged. They tend to over-explain everything. Did I really give a shit about a scientific explanation of the force? I never gave a shit and neither did Lucas when he was younger. Now that he’s older he feels that some sort of scientific logic needs to be attached to it that nobody asked for. Scott does that with Prometheus also. Did we really need the scene where the captain explains that there are WMD’s on board the ship of the engineers? No we didn’t. I like a little mystery, I’m a big boy and I like to use my imagination every now and then. We do not needed everything spelled out to us. Sure I wondered who the aliens were that originally crashed and released the aliens in the original movie. the problem is that now that I have the answer I really wish I hadn’t asked.

    Expectations did play a part in my disappointment, but even without them I would have thought this movie was badly written. It’s not just that the characters defy expectations, they defy logic of any kind. One scene that sums it up for me is the scene with the weird snake alien in the water. Who the hell would play with that thing even when it was clearly on the defensive? I’ll tell you this much, even if someone would have it wouldn’t have been the character who did. Here is a character who decided to leave because he was scared but plays with an alien snake like it might make a good pet!!?? Seriously? That makes absolutely no sense. If they wanted to include a scene of someone being attacked why not just have the damn thing attack him immediately? Was that bit of stupidity by a character who was already shown as scared needed for suspense purposes really needed? There was no suspense to it all just total aggravation in watching someone do the dumbest thing imaginable in the situation. That scene was the sci-fi version of the horror movie scene where someone hears a noise upstairs and then goes to check the noise instead of calling the police. It’s just very poorly written all the way around.

  34. Really? No one else was bothered that the fifth entry in the horror film franchise was inconsistent in its’ depictions of Platonic ideals?

  35. The Original... Paul

    June 9th, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Chitown – that snake thing was where I think the movie “lost” the audience in the cinema I was in. It was a truly bizarre audience reaction to a film that I didn’t think was that bad. In fact, the last time I remember an audience reacting so strongly to a movie was in “Kill List”, but that was a much smaller audience and in a very, very different way (more of a mixture of “That was awesome!” and “What the FUCK did we just see?”)

    To see ordinary people, and not teenagers – lots of married couples and what looked to be older “Alien” fans there – start openly jeering at a film in the middle of a multiplex… I can’t even describe how weird that was. I can’t even remember a reaction like that to the likes of “The Cell”, which is WAY worse than “Prometheus” was.

    Oh and as regards my prediction of Vern’s reaction to a film – yay! I finally got one right!

  36. The Original... Paul

    June 9th, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Oh and BR… I don’t want to start a “prequel” debate here. But I’m not in any way a fan of the original trilogy – in fact I hadn’t even seen “A New Hope” or “Return of the Jedi” when I saw “Phantom Menace” – and I thought they (the prequels, I mean) were irredeemably awful in just about every way that matters. I’m not going to go into why, I’ve posted enough on the subject on these forums; my point being, it’s not ONLY “fandom” who despised those films.

    Also I admit I acted like an ass over “The Avengers”, but this “Anticipation spoils a film” thing is pissing me the hell off whenever it’s mentioned, which seems to be a lot nowadays. Are we all critical morons who are incapable of looking at a film on its own merits? Personally I would prefer to assume that most people who post here do so with 1) some kind of objective eye when it comes to film criticism that goes beyond what they subjectively “liked” or “didn’t like”, and 2) enough self-awareness to recognise how much of their reaction to a film is based on subjective experience and how much is down to the quality of the film itself.

    I mean, it’s either that, or we’re all a bunch of imbeciles who are incapable of making up our own minds. You decide, but I know which alternative I find most plausible.

  37. Ok Chitown, bad example, Star Wars is too much of a lightning rod.

    Howabout, in SAT analogy form..

    Alien : Prometheus

    as

    Raiders of the Lost Ark : “We named the dog” Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Plexiglass Macguffin

    Does that fit, in regards to supporting my theory?

  38. I haven’t seen Prometheus yet, so I thought I’d just jump in when the thread got far enough away from the subject. And this is it, I guess. No, Paul, the prequels weren’t awful. Call me a moron and/or an imbecile, but I had great fun watching those movies. It would seem that George Lucas and Ridley Scott are the only director’s that really understand sci fi. And we would be stupid if we didn’t support the two last heroes of what looks like a dying genre.

  39. pegsman, I don’t think Paul’s intention was to call anybody who enjoys the prequels a moron, we’re all grown ups here and we can dislike movies that other people like without calling them names. I think he was just rebuffing Baraka’s theory that someone who finds them awful is necessarily an imbecile who has lost all good judgment and only reacts to them as a disappointed fan. There are actual reasons to dislike them that have nothing to do with “is it better than Empire Strikes Back or not?” or “is it exactly the movie I dreamt about for 20 years or not?” Now, we don’t have to all agree on whether the prequels are good or bad, but the “you only hate it because you had impossible expectations about it!” argument is getting as annoying as “it’s not supposed to be Shakespeare”.

  40. Mr Toxic brother man, I might be drunk as a skunk, but I think he was saying that he hated the prequels even if he hadn’t seen the originals. I respect that. But he’s wrong, they’re not bad movies at all. Fair enough?

  41. I personally think they’re awful, but it’s ok, we’re all beautiful snowflakes.

  42. Yes, really. Not in a “Oh my God, George Lucas raped my precious childhood memories!” way, but really, I think they’re really bad movies with boring plots, bad dialogue, bland characters. Sorry, I really didn’t mean to start another Star Wars debate.

  43. I see the Star Wars prequel trilogy as being the cinematic equivalent of footnotes in a book. That add interesting little bits of info to give context but they aren’t meant to stand alone or be viewed as a narrative. You can’t make a book of footnotes because it would like depth and nuance. It’s just stating dry facts. Hence, the prequel trilogy.
    Back to Prometheus, it is not like the Star Wars prequels because it is not commenting on Alien (1979) but using its world and imagery to branch of into a story that is unique to itself. I agree with the filmmakers that it isn’t really an Alien prequel but rather another story set in that universe.

  44. Edit: You can’t make a book of footnotes because it would lack depth and nuance.

  45. I didn’t like it all that much. I blame the majority of it on Damon L. He and JJ Abrams are the biggest dick teases ever to come on the scene. Just make shit up as you go along and never have to explain any of it. And always make sure there are more questions after you finally do answer something.

    You can’t loose that way, except for the viewers. I also don’t think the lead has much going for her. Maybe it’s me but I just don’t see it. Charize wasn’t given any thing to do. The black dude is good normally, same problem as Theron here. Tommy Hardy’s brother sucked. The only one was Fassbender but he had the best part in the thing.

    But I blame the whole thing on the cocksucker writer.

  46. The Original... Paul

    June 10th, 2012 at 3:23 am

    Pegsman – Toxic is right. Let’s face it, if I resented everybody who disagreed with me about a film then I wouldn’t have many people here I didn’t hate. I’m not in any way “having a go” at anybody who liked a film that I didn’t, or vice versa. And I do respect your opinion, even when I disagree with it, because it’s your opinion and why should it be any more or less valid than my own? I will and have defended my stance on the objective merits or flaws of a film (not here though, I’ve made my points about the prequels clear enough in other threads and I don’t want to “hijack” this one); but let’s face it, I’ve enjoyed plenty of films for subjective reasons that can objectively be called “bad”.

    My problem isn’t people who liked the prequels, or Prometheus, or any other film that I’d seen but didn’t enjoy. There just seems to be something of a trend nowadays whereby various people have been accused of only liking or disliking a film because they went into it “with expectations”. That annoys me because I find it insulting and patronising, no matter who it’s aimed at, no matter whether I agree with that person or not. My impression is that all of us – or at least the vast majority of us – are intelligent enough here to be able to debate a subject without resorting to saying the other person’s opinion doesn’t matter because they weren’t able to form a “valid” opinion.

    I guess what I’m saying is: let’s not start second-guessing people’s motives because they disagree with us. Sound good?

  47. The Original... Paul

    June 10th, 2012 at 3:29 am

    And if you want to debate my “objectively bad” statement, I suggest we take this outside.

    Erm… I mean… go to one of the “prequels” threads.

    Up to you though, I’ve pretty much written all I wanted to write on those movies.

  48. It sounds very good. That’s my philosophy also. I was just joking about the moron and imbecile part. My bad if people took it seriously. My problem, beside the language barriere and the Saturday night drunkeness, is that I’m almost always the defender. I tend to ignore movies I don’t like and spend most of my internet time defending things I like. Not always a rewarding hobby.

  49. @Baraka-That defintely makes more sense to me. It seems to me that everything needs to be over explained now. I’ve never met anyone who watched an Indiana Jones movie and asked how he got his name. It’s a perfect name and who really cares how it he got it. I just think that mainstream movies no longer have any mystery to them. If there’s any mystery it’s only because they want you to wait for the sequel for the answer.

    Squeal’s used to happen only when a movie did huge business. Now they are planned and Prometheus is popularity obviously holding back for a sequel. The ending teases it like the subway sandwich in Terminator 2 was the most obvious product placement I’ve ever seen. The reason Alien was great was because the mystery had nothing to do with waiting for the sequel. It was because it allowed me to use my imagination. Prometheus spells out the things I don’t need spelled.out and doesn’t answer the questions I want answered. The more I think about this movie the more disappointed I get.

  50. My only real problem with the film remains the idiotic actions of the ‘scientists’.

  51. Paul, I’m good. There can’t possibly be more to say about the prequels that haven’t been said a million times already.

  52. Knox Harrington

    June 10th, 2012 at 6:50 am

    I wish designers would come up with something more interesting than the ol’ teeth-and-tentacles combo for movie monsters.

    That’s why Attack The Block was such a breath of fresh air. Big alien gorilla wolf motherfuckers with blow-in-the-dark teeth. I want one.

  53. Knox:

    The same goes for “kewl” holographic projections that hover in the middle of the room. I’m not sold on that working, ever, but hey, it looks good, right? So everybody’s using them in their films.

    I guess they ran out of holography projectors when they built the Nostromo all those years after Prometheus and thus had to use retro tech from the ‘70s. Maybe the crew were into that shit. Nostalgic for the old green-on-black.

  54. The Original... Paul

    June 10th, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Pegsman – I agree completely on the bit about defending movies I like. The exception, I guess, would be when I hate a movie enough that it’s actually a pleasure to tear it a new one, and the last time that happened with something I’d seen at the cinema was over two years ago now Ryan Reynolds’ “Buried” (a movie that I don’t think I can do justice to in these pages. Seriously, I don’t have enough words to describe just how dumb, obnoxious, mean-spirited, and outright unpleasant that cinematic abortion was.) But most of the time I much prefer reviewing stuff of which I can say “Hey, this is great, go see it!” Which has been the case an obscene amount of times this year.

    Y’know what though, I actually wasn’t joking when I started my “Prometheus” review by assessing a Supergrass album I’d not listened to until that day for the past ten years or so. I’d MUCH rather review that – something I can actually get enthused about – than something like “Prometheus”. It’s hard to do a really detailed analysis on the film when 1) everybody else is going to or has said much of the same things anyway, and probably done so better than me, and 2) you don’t really give a crap about it, even to the extent where you can do what I did with “The Avengers” and say “ok, this scene / character worked really well for me, but this scene / character didn’t work”.

    Knox – I agree with you in principle. In terms of particulars though, I’m still waiting for a great movie with a swamp thing in it. I will NOT consider my life worthwhile until I get a great modern movie with a swamp thing in it. And I’m not just talking a “Cabin in the woods”-style cameo. I want the swamp thing front and centre please.

  55. The movie is beautiful to look at. Great cinematography, great set design, great special effects. And the main actors are all very good, namely Theron, Rapace and Fassbender.

    All else is arse!

    The story is stupid beyond belief. With the exception of Theron’s Vickers, the only character who seems to be the only sensible person in the ship that bothers to act on reason and do the sensible thing all others act like retards and talk like children. And i bet the reason why Vickers acts rationally is because she was supposed to be the evil corporate villain but Lindeloff is so clueless he made her into the only reasonable character by mistake.

    The atempts at profundity and themes and philosophical discussion is risible in it’s simplisatic idioticy, it’s like philosophy for idiots. And the movie’s desperate adherence to superstition by the end is beyond frustrating! It’s from Damon Lideloff, of course! From the main writer of LOST, so no suprise there that idioticy and irrationalism wins over reason.

    Speaking of bad characters, this clowns are supposed to be scientists? The fuck they are, theyn are all just a bunch of teenager cunts. Again, somebody from Team Abrams populates a whole movie with anoying assholes who act like petulant braindead teens. The future of screenwriting, ladies and gentlemen!

    The score sucks! small wonder, it’s from one of Hans Zimmer’s minions.

    The editing is the typical Pietro Scalia’s hysterical overediting bullshit i loath. A movie that needed a slower pacing for the4 mysteries to sink in, no, let’s all edit this as if the editor was in a constant state of bladder disruption! Bullshit!

    It’s quite obvious that despiste al the clamouring of this being Ridley Scott’s return to SF, he just took this movie as a job. Techically excelent, but just another day at the job, far away from the days when he put his soul and mind to a movie, like at the start of his film career when he made ALIEN.

    This movie has too few Ridley and too much Damon. It shows.

    This movie is the usual idiocity that comes from the unholy Team Abrams, of which Damon Lindeloff is such a big part of: another stupid retard movie pretending to be smart and important. Arse and pants!

    It’s not Jar Jar Abrams’s SHIT TREK bad, but that is only because Ridley Scott is too good to fall into such lows ends. The visual aspects and the strong techical values raise it way above it deserves.

    Good for the visuals and acting, terrible story designed for retards.

    By the way, many people are making big fuzzes that the movie is all a pile of mysteries withyout any explantions and bla bla bla. Nonsense! If anything, this movie leaves nothing to the imagination,and every damn thing is provided an explanation. A dumb ass stupid explanation, and given by people who shouldn’t be able to give then. But the movie’s script by hack Lidenloff lves to make the characters the movie’s mouthpieces. Everything is fuckign explained to the point of total boreom. Mysteries my ass! The only thing left to explain in this movie are the plot holes that Lindelof, like the hack from Team Abrams that he is, can’t fill in or even notice they are there. As typical from one of the hacks from Team Abrams. Typical!

    THis movie should be shown to classes about how not to write a script for film. And should make a good companion to all the scripts writen by the other member of Hack Team Abrams like Orci Kurtzman and Abrams. It would be a good way for this movie PROMETHEUS not going to waste. Because as an Alien movie, it doesn ‘t work all that well.

  56. Forrest Taft, the opening of the movie, to make an sense, cannot be set on Earth. The idea that it’s the start of the human race and we hot our DNA from some space jockey who drank the black goo and sacrificed himself and thus spaw us is ludricous on too many levels. For starters, the movie goes to great pains to show that his DNA was completly disrupted by the goo. Not altered or transformed, but DESTROYED. Broken down pieces of DNA are useless and they do nothing, they are just pieces of proteins that are nothing but biotrash. And the seocnd notion that the humans would come out because some prehistorical ape had a drink of that water and swallowed the space jokey broken DNA and became us is too stupid for words. Organisms do not absorve DNA from injection, because of DIGESTION. Digestion completly destroys any foreign DNA we ate. That’s why you do not transform into a human-chicken hybrid whenever you ate poultry, you know?

    I rather hope the begining of the movie is set at the same planet where the idiots who crew the PROMETHEUS land on later. At least it would look plausible. The begining of the movie being a scene of the seeding of humans on Earth would just make it one more stupid idioticy in a movie full of idiotic shit, cortesy of Damon Lindelof.

  57. Jareth Cutestory, COSMOPOLIS, now that’s a movie that really makes you think.

  58. Knox Harrington

    June 10th, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Asimov, dude, you’ve gotta stop comparing things you don’t like to J.J Abrams’ Star Trek.

    Now, we all know that you’re not very fond of it (you’ve made that very clear… repeatedly), but most people actually quite like it. So I don’t think you’re doing yourself any favours when you drop “Jar Jar Abrams’ SHIT TREK” into a conversation about another movie and expect people to agree with the comparison. That’s probably the moment you start losing your audience.

    It’s kinda like someone not liking Casablanca and then saying “Well, it’s not quite Casablanca levels of shite, but The Boondock Saints is a pretty bad movie.”

    P.S. No, I did not compare Star Trek to Casablanca, and I did not compare Prometheus to The Boondock Saints.

    P.P.S. I will, however, compare On The Waterfront to Supergirl, because both have hot blondes in them and hot blondes are awesome. And because Supergirl is Superman’s cousin. And Brando is Superman’s dad. And Eva Marie Saint is Superman’s mom! Holy shit, I just got that!

  59. I have to agree with Knox. I’m not a huge fan of JJ’s Star Trek movie, I thought it was kind of brainless, but ultimately still found it fun and entertaining. When you say “Jar Jar Abrams Shit Trek” it makes it very difficult to take your opinions seriously. You just end up sounding like a child (which I assume you are not). Also, repeatedly using made up words like “idioticy” doesn’t help.

  60. I think “idioticy” just comes from him not being a native English speaker. His English is about 50,000 times better than my Portuguese, though, so I’d say he’s doing pretty well. “Arse and pants!” is the best thing I’ve read all day.

  61. I loved Prometheus. I’m a real sucker for movies about people in isolated settings, even more so when that setting is a spaceship or an alien world, and this movie did not let me down in that department. I’ve always been a huge fan of the Alien series. I’ve always cited Aliens as one of my main inspirations for choosing filmmaking as my profession. So I had super-high expectations going into this movie, which were tempered a bit in the last week by some of the negative reviews. I was not let down at all.

    That’s not to say that I don’t think the movie had flaws. Some of the character motivations were a bit baffling, as Vern and others have mentioned. The big one being Tom Hardy’s clone deciding to get drunk and sulk about the Engineers being dead while Noomi Rapeface is dissecting one of their heads. Seriously, did he leave the room during that dissection? Because he was there at the beginning, but I guess he didn’t see when they took the helmet off and saw (SPOILER) a human-like head inside? I also wish that we could have spent more time getting to know the crew. It would have helped the deaths scenes feel more impactful. And aside from a few great scenes, this movie never got close to the kind of tense, nail-biting thrills of the last half of Alien.

    But these complaints seem petty when compared to what was good about the movie. Fassbender’s character was fascinating to watch every moment he was on screen. I was intrigued by every little discovery they made and I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen because I just wanted to see where it was going. The production design was top-fucking-notch as you would expect from a Ridley Scott movie (I suspect I will be freeze-framing a lot of these scenes on Blu-ray to look at the details). And the ideas about what it means to be alive and what it would be like to confront your creator are just endlessly fascinating wells to draw from.

    I just can’t stop thinking about this movie. I can’t wait to watch it again.

  62. “I think “idioticy” just comes from him not being a native English speaker. His English is about 50,000 times better than my Portuguese, though, so I’d say he’s doing pretty well. “Arse and pants!” is the best thing I’ve read all day.”

    Ah, that makes sense. Well, his english is better than most people on the internet, so I really shouldn’t give him a hard time about it. Sorry about that, asimov!

  63. Knox Harrington, the comparison is apt because PROMETHEUS’s scrip was writen by one of the Team Abrams’ members idiot.

    Besides, things are know of their worth by comparison. Nothing exists in a vaccum.

  64. Mr. Majestyk, “arse and ants” are comon colloquialisms from british english slang. The benefits of reading british film magazines. British colloquialisms and slang makes me laugh. They are great for bashing.

  65. “arse and pants” i mean to say.

  66. RJ_MacReady, also can’t help thinking about PROMETHEUS because of how frustrating that movie is. and all that’s wrong with that movie is from the bloody script writen, or should i rather say, final script writen by that overated but untalented hack that is Damon Lindelof. Well, he’s not alone in Team Abrams, as all of those members are as untalented and overrated as he is. Damn, is the script for PROMETHEUS idiot!! Damn it!

  67. “That’s not to say that I don’t think the movie had flaws.”

    Problem is, the flaws are enourmous. And obvious. The movie has the type of flaws tha can only come from an arrogant idiot who thinks himself so much clever then he think he is. In fact, the flaws of the movie can only come from an idiot without any talent for creating stories. Lindenof, like all the morons that make Team Abrams, believe he can make a movie (or a whole TV show, for that matter) by just coming up with some over-the-top moments and half-arsed mysteries, mix it all up with loads of action beats, and voilá!

    Bullshit!

    This crap started with the Michael Bay movies and now is infecting all over the rest of Holywood’s production, specially the big budget genre movies. As PROMETHEUS and Abrams Trek are proof. If it were not for alternatives like Christopher Nolan’s movies and some few others, i would not only despair for the curret Holywood cinema, i would had even given up on it altogether. It’s frustrating and anoying like hell!

  68. While I think the science behind Prometheus is shaky as all hell, and in no way as sellable as the uplift cited in 2001 (which was basically advanced alien powers giving primitive apes the gift of consciousness, as opposed to their DNA) I do think the basic idea is interesting. As others here have noted, if the Engineers had actually started life here on Earth then that makes their civilization billions of years old, and that they’re still around in our future makes their existence nothing short of miraculous, given the upheavals throughout our own planet, let alone the universe.

    Personally I prefer to think that the Engineers didn’t create everything, but instead gave us a bump of sorts a few hundred thousand years to a few million years ago to get us where we’re at. In others words, they didn’t effect the entire evolutionary process, but instead course corrected it toward their own ends. Also, I don’t think the individual at the beginning of the movie was working on his own, because early humans had to interact with someone to make those cave paintings, and he sure as hell wasn’t around to give them navigation pointers.

    I figure he was part of a project tho seed life throughout the galaxy, maybe beyond, but that somewhere after that there was a major regime change within the Engineer society. After that these new Engineers got overzealous with themselves, made giant heads to celebrate their own racial purity, and declared war on their own older creations as being inferior versions of their own perfect selves. This new philosophy overthrew the Engineers of old, resculpted their once benign labs into a munitions factory, and restructured the creation liquid seen in the first part of the movie into a chemical agent that essentially weaponizes any organisms it infects. That’s why Scott lingers so long on those maggots in the footprint; they turn into the mouth raping space snakes later on. Also, I think the black liquid becomes more complicated the longer it infects a species. It starts by turning males into killer beasts, and once incorporated into a female’s reproductive system kicks into the next level, forming the xenomorph we all know and love.

    I know I’m taking the ball and running toward an end zone only I can see, but it’s fun isn’t it? I think that’s part of what works for the movie; we can fill in the gaps with our own imaginations. What are gaps for some are invitations for me to make up a possible history. Of course, the danger of this is sometimes fans come up with theories that beat the holy living shit out of the creators own take (look at fan speculation versus Lost’s finale for a fine example of that). Still, this isn’t LOST, and I think it has enough going on to stand up to repeat viewings.

    Final thought: I did want to throw out that PROMETHEUS is actually displaying two forms of science: science as we know it as embodied by Shaw and Holloway, and a more profit driven model as encompassed by the rest of the crew. I think the geologist’s reaction showcases a nihilistic cynicism well in keeping with what we know about the Company from other movies. Origin of life; where’s the profit in that?

    Still, the Biologist should have known not to pet the space snake. I guess he felt he was in his comfort zone, finally, after all this weirdness. Sorry bud, you picked the wrong sentient penis to stroke.

  69. Asimov, you have to relax! They’re only movies!

    Nice catch about the Engineer DNA breaking down though – they screwed up their own plot device with that one. I should have thought of that.

    But you have to admit, when the Engineer starts his ship up, you sit there and go ‘Holy shit, this looks like trouble!’

    I still wonder if David selected Earth as the target though.

  70. The Limey, basically, all the good things in PROMETHEUS was the fight and victories of a very talented filmmaker over a terrible script.

    I always wondered how a Ridley Scott movie would look ike if made from a terrible dumb script. Now i know.

    The scene with the space jockey lift off his ship and (presumably) going to Earth would had been a tense and awe inspiring scene, if not for the fact that it came after a long barrage of dumb stupid scenes that came before. As such, the impact was terribly mitigated. Funny thing is, in John Carpenter’s THE THING, the alien in that movie was about the do the same thing, but we never got to see him lift off because by then the movie had been so sucesful in creating aa sens eof dread, we were so invested in the story and the characters and we knew very well the threat that the creature was, he didn’t need a multi-million dollars speial effects stravaganza to put the thrills on us. It didn’t need to, the story already made us know the measure of the threat. It was enough to give us awe and put the cold sweat on us. Will they, won’t they!! Stay tuned!

    PROMETHEUS has so many mistakes, storywise and characterwise… and intelligencewise. The movie looks like it was made from a first draft that was writen in a hurry on a napkin during lunch. It’s a disgrace! That adults were responsible for that script begs belief! And Lindelof’s script is a re-write! I though re-writes were supposed to make movies better, not worst! My mistake!

  71. “They’re only movies!”

    No, they are not just movies if movies are your favorite hobby, if they are your favorite thing besides friends and family. Then it became serious business. As sports is for some, movies are forme.

    But movies is not just serious business for me. Movies ARE SERIOUS BUSINESS. They move billion of dollars and they employ hundreds of thousands of people everywhere. If movies were just a small thingy of no importance, then cinema would had never raised above curiosities at a fair s they were in the begining. And nobody would had put their lives and their best efforts and reputations on the line when making them.

    The “it’s just a movie” thingy has been debunked by the movie crowd like we in here for 20 years already. It no longer has any weight, it’s no longer even an argument. Any movie lover/cinephile/movie geek would know that as a matter of fact.

  72. Bad Seed, your speculations are fun, but unfortunatly they are not based on anything that’s in the movie. There is not a single hint to any of that. You are working in a vaccum. Also, you proved to have far more imagination then the idiot who wrote the script of PROMETHEUS, a certain Mr Damon Lindelof.

    Lindelof, full of himself, claims that the mysteries of the movie are deliberate. Balls! They are plot holes. Stuf he never though while writing beause he was too busy playing the studio politics game. This is how al the members of Team Abrams mannaged to get to such high posts in Holywood, not because of their talent, because it’s pretty mediocre, but because they play a good game in Holywood backstage politics. but that leaves little time for proper work like screenwriting. And it shows. Oh does it show!

    The best things in PROMETHEUS are half-arsed. The rest is just pure idioticy.

    The biologist not acting like a scientist is not the only character who is supposed to be one that completly fails at acting like how ascietist would. in fact, EVERYBODY in the movie fails to act like believable scientists. If the science of the movie was soddy but at least the characters were believable as not only as scientists, but as rational human beings capable of though, then it would be one less problem. But no, everybody in the bloody movie (except Theron’s character) act like mentally deficient morons! It’s a ship populated by retards! Even the lead character played by Noomi Rapace, who was supposed to be the Ripley of the story, acts so often like a petulant idiot child!

    And don’t even get me started on the whole religious faith bullshit in the movie!

  73. Never a movie so beautiful suffered a script so stupid and clueless. What a waste! You guys know when we sometimes complain that a movie doesn’t have a script? I wish that had been the case for PROMETHEUS, that it literally didn’t had a script, just a shopping list of images to show, like that movie called BARAKA. That would had been a far bigger blessing then the waste of great imagery thanks ot a fucked up script that PROMETHEUS is.

    Fuck Damon Lindelof!

  74. I agree with Vern’s review. The technical aspects of the film are amazing and it is stunning to look at, but there is not much else there beyond the visuals. The charters are so poorly writen. They are either underdeveloped and one dimensional or act in ways that make no sense except to service the narrative. Also, I think the more you go into the film expecting an Aliens picture the more you will be disappointed. I agree with Vern that this film follows the template set by ALIEN for the other films in the franchise, but it is not a horror film like ALIEN or an action film like ALIENS. It is a dialog heavy science fiction movie, with a bit of suspense and a bit of action in it, (SPOILER) and the alien of the other films is not even in the film except for in a brief throw away bit they seemed to cram in at the end as a heavy handed reminder to tie the film to the rest of the Alien franchise. However, as flawed as the film is I am not disappointed because I went into it with low expectations. I just wanted to see what Ridley Scott would do using the 3D technology for the first time, and in that regard the film does not disappoint. PROMETHEUS has to be the best looking 3D film to date.

  75. asimovlives, for somebody who claims to hate Abrams and crew you spend an awful lot of time writing/thinking about them. I actually agree with some of your points about the film, but your desire to attempt to pin all the film’s flaws on Lindelof is laughable. I am not defending the guy, but Lindelof didn’t write the script. He worked on the script they shot but he is not the sole writer of the film, and who knows how short of a leash he was on when working on the script. Scott is such an OCD control freak, he is not going to shoot a script he doesn’t 100% believe in. Lindelof works for Scott, not the other way around, and it is Lindelof’s job to help bring Scott’s vision to the screen. If you want to be mad at somebody, you should direct more of your wrath toward Scott.

  76. Interesting discussion about expectations. I’d like to agree with Paul that we’re smart enough to incorporate our expectations within a more objective evaluation. I’m afraid many of my colleagues go so far into the extreme of personal expectations that they really can’t.

    I think the interesting thing about PROMETHEUS is that most of the criticisms of the film are entirely accurate. There’s no debate that PROMETHEUS did these things. Either you like those things or you don’t.

    It’s still no ALIEN RESURRECTION. But a new ALIEN movie by Ridley Scott is a good thing.

    The surgery scene is badass tho.

  77. You know I’ve been thinking: we ask our filmmakers to make stories for us but we don’t give them a chance to fail. Then they get afraid to take chances and make great art. I love franchises and I would never say they should stop telling stories. Try something. You’re a storyteller and I trust you to come up with something good. And if you mess up that’s okay, just try again.

    We can criticize but I don’t want to discourage anyone from tellin more stories. I want to see what BLADE RUNNER 2 is. If it sucks, then I want BLADE RUNNER 3.

  78. You guys have as usual already covered the important stuff, so I’ll just add: what’s with her grabbing her trusty Space Axe at the end? Do most future spaceships have a bunch of space axes laying around in case of emergency? And if you’re gonna pick self defense weapons for use in close quarters…flamethrowers?

  79. Fred, I am fine with filmmakers taking risks and failing, and I was excited for PROMETHEUS because good or bad I was curios to see what Scott would do with another trip to the world of Alien. I hoped that Scott revisiting the world and mythology of ALIEN his best film would inspire him to recapture some of that old magic and make a great film, but I am also realistic and based Ridley’s body of work it was hard to get my hopes up. Scott is a master technician and a skilled artist, but I don’t think he is a very strong story teller. Scott obsesses over the smallest details when it comes to art design and visuals, but doesn’t show the same care for narrative or character. That is why I was expecting to be impressed by Scott’s first use of the new 3D tech, but ultimately had measured expectations about the film itself.

  80. Charles, yes I think all the criticism is valid. I’d just rather PROMETHEUS exist than not exist.

  81. “It would seem that George Lucas and Ridley Scott are the only director’s that really understand sci fi.” -pegsman

    Please tell me this was a joke.

  82. Fred, I agree with you. Flawed films or “misfires”, can still be enjoyable thought provoking and/or interesting films. I am glad Scott made PROMETHEUS, I wish it was a better film, but its flaws didn’t diminish my ability to appreciate its strengths. I might even try and catch in IMAX 3D if possible.

  83. And how would we get the occasional CASINO ROYALE or BATMAN BEGINS if they don’t try? (even STAR TREK)

  84. Here’s an interesting theory…

    http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1

    It started off well but I admit he kind of lost me right about the moment he mentioned “Space Jesus” and then I skimmed the rest.

  85. Space Jesus is totally a thing. Ridley talks about it in this interview:

    http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232

    I’m actually pretty disappointed they didn’t end up committing 100% to Space Jesus. It’s so ludicrous it would have actually been kind of amazing. It wouldn’t have made Prometheus better, exactly, but it would have been far more entertaining. Can you imagine if when they asked Fassbender what the Engineer said, the answer was; ‘you killed Jesus, prepare to die’.

  86. Charles, were Lindelof’s contributions so small, we would be for the win with this movie. Unfortunatly, his contributions, wjhich are not as small as you claim they are, is what made this movie the dumb fiest it is.

    He did not generatyed the first draft, yes. That’s common knowledge. But he wrote what you saw onscreen. He was the studio’s darling in the poroject, he’s the studio’s pet he was the one brough deliberatly to turn whatever the first draf was to what we saw in the theaters.

    And ridley Scott, you can tell from watching the movie that this was a job for him. Despite all the publicity about him returning to SF and the franchise he gave birth to, this is clearly Ridley as just a day on the job. There’s none of that fire you can see in the movies he makes when he has his heart to it, from THE DUELISTS to KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. This is closer to GI JANE for him then BLADE RUNNER.. or ALIEN for that matter.

    It’s quite clear to see that besides his scriptwriting duties, that Lindelof’s was the studio’s man in this movie. Small wonder he seemed to be the main man in regard to the promotion of this movie. He was everywhere. He is the studio’s mouthpiece. He’s way more then just the screenwriter, he’s the studio man for the movie.

    So yeah, i blame everything, or most of what’s bad in this movie to him. Most of it goes directly to him.

    I know that peple are still inlove with LOST and they have it hard to understand that the team responsible for it, Team Abrams, is made of nothign but subtalente conmen. I know it’s hard to accept it due to all those years invested in the show, and how reluctant people are to admit they were duped. Duped by that show and also by themovies they made during and after it, like the Abrams Trek movie and so. It’s a terrible realization, so people decide to downgrade their lack of talent for basic storytelling and filmmaking and like to point ot other factors or just diswmiss all the rightful negative opinions on them as just rants fom malcontents. Were it that simple, my friend.

    By the way, Carlos is my real name, the portuguese and spanish variation of the name Charles (which itself is a english variation of the original early middle ages germanic name of Carolus).

  87. Fred Topel, the subject of our favorite artist failing is an interesting topic. I think there are two ocasions where an artist can have the luxery of failing. When they are at the start and are learning their trade, and after a long career of sucesses, where they finaly earn the right to fail.

    Failures at the start of what became a great career we can see in the beginings of the careers of such great filmmkaers as Stalnely Kubrick and Peter Weir. Kubric’s first movie was such an embaracement to him he burned every copy of the film he could find. Weir’s first long feature film is called THE CARS THAT ATE PARIS and in no way you can call it a good movie. It’s interesting, ambitious and has an intriguing premise, but it’s quite bad. And he then follwed it up with PICNIC AT HANGING PARK. And all the wonder movies he made afterwards.

    Failing at the begining is a learning process. You learn to do good because you failed before. Not everybody can hit the jackpot with their first movie, like Orson Welles.

    Earning gthe right to fail after a long career of good stuff is why, no matter how disapointing a movie they might make now, i will stil remain faithful toward Coppola, Scorsese and Woody Allen. Those guys earned that right after all the gold they made throughout their great careers.

    The problem with guys like JJ Abrams and the rest of his minions from Tea, Abrams is that they are neither at the begining or past the apex of a brillant areer. They are in the very middle of their career, and stil they constantly make failure after failure. They might not be commercial failures (though they ar enot setting the box office on fire either). But creatively they are pure tosh. This guys are neither at the start or at the end of a long career, they have no excuses whatsoever.

    Do we allow our artists to fail? Yes we do. Things get dicey when they fail all the time, like Team Abrams do.

  88. Tea, Abrams = Team Abrams

  89. By the way, guys, for all of you who get upset by some of us analizing movies like PROMETHEUS and deem it unsificient and try to put us in our place with the old “it’s just a movie, chill out” coment, i’d like to address that with the words from another fellow who had enough of it and called in that attitude.

    Here’s the link:
    http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/21/and-we-shall-call-this-moffs-law/

    They even have a name for it now, it’s called MOFF’S LAW.

  90. Asimov, I agree with the post you linked to, but the reason why the “chill out” comments are directed at you so much is not because you’re analyzing the movies, but because you have this bizarre J.J. Abrams vendetta that makes you come off like a lunatic in almost all of your posts. I don’t think they’re saying that you shouldn’t take art so seriously, I think they’re worried that you’re getting too worked up for your own good. They’re concerned about you.

    It’s refreshing that in this case there’s actually a 2-degree connection to the movie in question because of Lindeloff, but it’s still a weird thing to hammer on over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (that’s just the amount of overs in the Prometheus posts here, not in your overall output).

    Please do continue to analyze the shit out of movies, but you need to end this obsession for your own good and for ours. I know we’ve all asked you to do this many times, but I gotta ask again: try to go… let’s say 3 months without bringing up J.J. Abrams or Michael Bay in any discussions. It is a scientific fact that not all things are related to them. It’s a crutch that you lean on. If you do this your arguments will be stronger, your analysis will be more accurate, your relationships will be healthier and I promise you that you will be happier in life.

    Just go cold turkey man, seriously. You do not need J.J. in your life anymore. If you won’t at least try to do this for a little bit I’m seriously gonna stop writing reviews and start a Felicity fan sight. Don’t fuckin test me, man. I’ll do it.

  91. Bizarre J.J. Abrams vendetta? That’s strange. Since when calling out a bad filmmaker is a vendetta? I guess it can be distracting for those reading it, but it’s not as if i didn’t do it in it’s proper contest. Lindelof is one of the members of Team Abrams, and with his script for PROMETHEUS he made the same dumb mistakes that all other members of Team Abrams do in their other movies. Should i not point that out? Is it bizarre of me to be fed up with hacks who are responsible for some of my most frustrating experiences at the movies? I don’t know man, me i see it as a natural consequence.

    I can’t go cold turkey on Team Abrams because their influence is everywhere. SF is my favorite genre and it their favorite hunting grounds. And now they are also have their influence on one of my top beloved franchises, the ALIEN saga. I can’t avoid them. So the best i can is to call them out. The day any of those from Team Abrams make a genuine good movie i’ll praise it. Fair’s fair.

  92. proper contest = proper context. Sorry.

  93. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 3:51 am

    Yay! We can have a discussion in which we compare the time Felicity cut her hair to when Bob Dylan went electric.

  94. Felicity shouldn’t had cut her hair, she looked way hotter with it long, as it does to all pretty women.

    If Dylan hadn’t gone electric, we wouldn’t had such songs as “Like A Rolling Stone”, one of my all time favorite from him, so i say, i’m glad he went electric. Good job, Dylan.

  95. Venerable Vern and all my fellow posters her, i’m going to post my reasons why PROMETHEUS’s story is lacking. If this comes out as a rant, it’s entirely unintentional, believe you me. I’m not going to call out on anybody in particular, i made my points quite clear on who to blame for the movie’s faults, so no need for that. I’m going to treat the film’s story and the film’s script as an entity on it’s own. That is the subject of this post. And it’s going to be a very long read. Sorry about that.

    Also, sorry for the english, grammar and the spellings. I did made an effort, believe you me.

    I think that the story that we saw onscreen in PROMETHEUS shouldn’t had been the final script. It should had been futher rewriten at least one or two more time to futher iron out the problems. The movie’s story is rip for changes and corrections.

    The swcript’s roblems came in basically two ways: underdeveloped ideas that were not brough to any satisfying conclusion; and missed oportunities. It’s the missed oportunities that bobbles me the most.

    One interesting and as Spcok would say fascinating thing about the script’s problems is that they would had been rip for narrative oportunities which were not explored to any satisfaction. The missed oportunities, such as the scientist characters.

    It’s obvious the scientist characters are pretty badly drawn. less then two weeks of the movie have bene released worldwide and reams of text have already been writen about what a parody of scientists the characters are. But i see narrative oportunity here that was squandared. A major plot point could had been made that this characters are not scientists. That this guys had been handpicked by Weiland deliberatly because they are crap at their jobs. They are there to disguise the fact that the real reason for the mission is not real scietific survey but to fill out the wims of a dying man.

    Weiland is a dying man, and in his last days he got fearful and started to clinque to any chance, however remote, to prolongue his life. Likemany rich men who reach the end of their lives, they suddently get pangs of remorse for the life they had, or want to bargain more time on earth or buy their way to heaven. Weiland is such an example.

    So he mounted a hugely expensive mission, financed a state of the art ship, all for an ellusive search for life eternal. From his point of view, as he’s dying anyway, the money invested is of no consequence. If it failed, he would die anyway, the money would not be missed. For him. His heirs would get their fortune squandared by the wims of a foolish dying man, the future of his corporation at risk, but what would he cared?

    Populating his ship with a bunch of pseudo-scientists would be to his advantage because all he needs of their expertises would be minimal at best. Their presence would be to throw sand to the public, it would be a guise.

    And this could had been use as a plot point by some of the leads characters of the film, be they either Elisabeth Shaw, her Tom Hardy wannabe boyfriend or Merredict Vickers.

    Basically, the obvious incompetence of all the other “scientists” coul had bene used as a plot point. Sadly, the script failed to capitalise on it’s own problem and turn it around. Missed oportunity.

    One of the biggest ironies of PROMETHEUS is that the movie would had been smarter if it hadn’t tried to be smart. A more streamlined story in which each dialogue word counted would had gone a longer way. There’s quite a few examples of movies which, by making each dialogue word count and leaving things to the imagination mannaged to make for much richer and smart works. Movies like THX 1138, ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, GHOST IN THE SHELL, 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY, just to name a few examples from the SF genre, work brillantly and are smart because they show exactly what they need to for the story. They are exact in what the story needs, but are smart enough to leave things to us to imagine a larger world around it. PROMETHEUS doesn’t do that.

    PROMETHEUS over-exaplians what should be ambiguous. And offers one to what should had at least some idea of what is going on. Two example sof this follow:

    The opening moment with the suicidal space jockey. Is the scene supposed to happen on Earth or in some other alien planet, maybe the one that is visited by the Prometheus crew? I think it would be an important element that would need clarification, because it can alter the story significantly. If the opening is supposed to show the origins of mankind, or evne lif eon earth, then it’s a problem. So much so i chosed to think that the scene is actually set on the planet where most of the sotry happens. My way of taking one less problem from the movie. But that would need clarification that the movie, unfotunatly, does not provide.

    The issues of faith is one element in the where it’s played too much on the nose that would need scaling back. The movie would actually made his point better about the conficlt of faith and scinece if it had been presented way more subtly and toned down. Instead, it doesn’t take any great effort to see how much the movie askews the subjet in favour of faith, even when, if we think about it, all the wrongs that happen is because of people making leaps of faith instead of using logic and reason. It’s as if the movie wants to have it’s cake and eat it too.

    I do not know where this idea that people believing in superstitous notions based on things that cannot be proved is a sign of intelelctual superiority. But i have seen this being used in movies time and time again, always in support of this. To believe in the unprovable makes one a better person, more intelligent, more open, etc. Where this fallcious notion started from i do not know, but i see it prevalent in Holywood movies. To the point that whenever a character of a more rational nature is presented, he’s a strawman to be used to show how better the faith people are.

    And PROMETHEUS, true to this tradtion, does have the strawmen to be used as counterpoint to the rightousness of faith agasint the big bad wolve of reason and logic. This two strawmen came in two fashion: assholes and ice queen.

    The Ice Queen is Vickers. She has to be the bad side of faith vs science because she is skeptical of the validity of the mission and she scorns at a christmas tree. The last one basically being her death sentense. All her decisions based on logic and valid assuptions are treated in the movie as the actions of a callous human being who doesn’t “feel”. Instead of presenting her as the only sane person on the ship, she’s the strawman to be used to present the bad of reason. Well, thing is, strawman has a point, all the time thoughout the movie. It’s a typical mistake many writers who try to askew the story to the favour of faith in that the rational strawman always end up making the better points. So they give this reason strawman bad personal characteristics, to cheat on ther points. In Vicker’s case, she’s cold and remote in her emoting in public. God forbid a rationalist being warn, affable and passionate. No such thing exists in Strawman Planet.

    The other strawmen are the assholes as examplefied the obnoxious geologist and the clueless biologist. This are the guys who openly criticise Shaw’s notion that this mission should exist because she has a hunch and a case of the believes in the motivations of the “engineers”. their objections are quite reasonable, but the movie cheats by giving them to the two major assholes of the story.

    Asshole = wrong invalid points. Nice pretty protagonist faithhead = in the right.

    The film constantly tries to whitewash all the wrong and bad that happens in the movie based on the wrong headed decision of such faithheads like Shaw. The movie makes the wrong assuption that because she is a nice person that her actions can be then excused, despite all the shit it stirs and the death it causes. I find this attitude problematic. That the movie endorses it sends shivers down my spine.

    And in the end Shaw’s faith is vindicated despite all that happens in the movie that if anything completly contradicts the notion that doing things on faith is wrong. At some part of the movie she says “We were wrong, so wrong”. But there’s no payoff to that except that more assholes die. Except the nice person who was responsible for all that in the first place. If this was supposed to be played as a cosmic joke, the movie failed to make that point come across.

    Oh, and obviously, the best way to portait your spirituality is to walk around with a cross. Because spirituality is christianity. Judaism, islam, buddhism, hinduism, animism, all meaningless tosh, nothing a little cross can’t put it in their place.

    Man have complained the movie doens’t explain enough, that it leaves mysteries left and right unawsered. That was not the movie i saw. The movie PROMETHEUS i saw is one that is desperate to provide answers and gave them left and right. The only things left answered are in fact plot holes that the narrative could not fill. I think that when people say the movie doens’t provide answers, what they are really saying is that the movie does not provide interesting or good answers, that the answers are weak and contrived and trite, and that is true. The movie has answers thrown left and right, and they are provided by strawman characters who exists to say the most mundane things imaginable from the most banal unimaginative pieces of dialogue. A series of half-baked sermons served by bad dialogue not knowing half the implications of it’s own thing. The idiot’s man version of intelligence, if you will.

    I’m not angry at PROMETHEUS, despiste what my wkords might imply. My anger is reserved to only person only, and my previous posts already clue in to whom he might be. The movie itself made me feel frustrated and sad. It could had been so much better, and it wouldn’t had been all that hard to make it so, in terms of story and character and themes.

    My above text is very long. And yet i feel i have yet to touch most aspects of why this movie fails. From it’s particular elements to the general major elements, this movie is wrong, so wrong.

  96. I forgot to mention that all the other characters in the film, besides the nice faithhead lead and the asshole strawmen, they all act through the story as if they couldn’t case less what was going on. Mankind makes it’s first contact with intelligent alien lifeforms that might had been responsible for our existence and they are part of that very mission and all it’s whatever for this clowns. This kind of aloofness is just beyond belief! It certainly do not good characters make, that’s for sure. It’s also why they are so forgetable.

    Dallas. Kane. Lambert. Ripley. Ash. Brett. Parker. I don’t need to go to wikipedia or IMDB or look at the case of my DVD to remember the names of the characters from ALIEN. And even if i couldn’t recall their names i would recall them as individual beings, as individual people, each their own men and women. In PROMETHEUS, besides Shaw, Vickers, Weiland and David, who are who are played by proeminent actors or movie stars, and the asshole biologist and geologist because their idioticy is epic, i can barely remember who this people are, they all merge into one another with little individuality of their own. I have to look it up to even know how many crew member characters are supposed to be in the movie. I hate to be nostalgic about old holywood being better at making entertaiment then new holywood, but sometimes it’s had to disagree. Specially when i have such movies of the same franchise as ALIEN and PROMETHEUS.

    ALIEN Vs PROMETHEUS. And I feel i’m the one who losed.

  97. Thank you for that last line at least, Asimov. I laughed.

    I made the effort to read your analysis. I would agree that by showing more and leaving more to implication for the viewer to figure out rather than outright explaining things might have helped. It would solve the conflicting issues that you felt of some things being over-explained and some rough spots that could be covered up by explaining them.

    I also agree that there have been plenty of movies in the past that have glorified the faith view as opposed to the logical approach. After all, people in general are more fond of movies that have a more uplifting message that transcends rational thought. It ties into our belief in wanting there to be something more than what we can observe in reality. Nothing wrong with that.

    However, I must disagree with your thesis that this particular movie is of that stripe. The faith approach as shown in this movie has been stunningly unsuccessful. The whole mission is predicated on the theory that the Engineers created mankind and invited them to the stars in order to – I don’t know – bestow on them some sort of enlightenment? At least for Shaw. Weyland funded the entire thing just so he could get a last chance at staying alive. Shaw went there to find answers and instead got a pissed off humanoid alien who wanted nothing to do with her or her kind. Weyland didn’t get what he was looking for either. The other characters are there for reasons of their own. I would not label any of them as particularly ideologically logical or embodying logical thought. As cold as Vickers was, they certainly showed the reason for that coldness, as blunt as it was depicted. She was not a strawman as you pointed out. If anything, she was coming from a position of emotion and a reaction against a cold father.

    When Vern said to chill out a bit, I didn’t think he meant in that way.

  98. Asimovlives, please don’t interpret the following as glib or offensive, it is sincerely not meant to be, and it is my opinion.

    I stand by the argument that movies are ‘only’ movies. Yes, big business, but that’s never been a guarantee of quality in any field – if anything quite the reverse. If you don’t like this film, I’m sure there will be one you do like along in a moment. And one man’s meat and all that. Heck, I liked JJ Trek, but I don’t mistake it for art. If all things were brilliant to us, we wouldn’t appreciate the things that are.

    And you specified ‘richer and smart works’ and included BLADE RUNNER and 2001. Are they smart? They don’t answer anything, either, not any more than PROMETHEUS really and could be accused of also ultimately substituting ambiguity for depth and wonderful design for plot. Kubrick and Scott just chose to portray the stories in very detailed, not realistic, ways. Most of the cerebral aspects of these movies are based on the works of the original authors or on ad hoc interpretations supplied by fans that can’t possibly be resolved.

    Jesus, if Deckard is a replicant, then it kind of makes BR shite. I choose to belive Deckard is human, otherwise (for me) his lack of feeling at the outset contrasted with his feelings for Rachel and Batty’s compassion are pointless. Ridley Scott would have you believe otherwise. Now *that’s* a real waste.

    Indeed, the directors adapted other works which had already suggested the plots. That was the reason they existed as stories (The Sentinel and Do Androids Dream…?) well before the movies – someone wanted to tell a story. Kubrick or Scott did not (I firmly believe) sit down and say ‘I think I’ll go out and make a visionary classic, which will be appreciated by only a few at the moment but will gain in stature as people recognize my genius and they will worship it in future times.’ But I bet JJ Abrams did sit down with his buddies and say ‘Let’s make a rollicking, adventure story, with green chicks and lasers and beeping noises and all that other stupid Star Trek bullshit that I enjoyed as a kid. And we’ll nick bits from Star Wars and Wrath of Khan so it’s not boring this time.’

    Ae you a Trek fan (stupid question?). You could do an excellent comparison of PROMETHEUS vs. STAR TREK V: THE SEARCH FOR GOD. There’s a thematic matchup.

    In a spirit of brotherhood!

    The Limey

  99. The Limey: thank you, thank you, thank you.

    These much loved movies are warped in fan’s minds to appear greater than the sum of their parts, because the fans are supplying a religious fanatical devotion to them. I’m not saying the devotion is not deserved, I am saying the devotion warps perception.

    Then, when another movie of similar part shows up later, fan’s negative reaction is outsized and extreme because they expect the religious feeling they get from the original, but which no movie can supply.

    Because the original movie delivers stimuli your brain has a preprogrammed reaction to, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cinematic quality, and everything to do with Pavlovian response.

    People’s reception of quality is highly subjective, obviously. But with certain movies that fans have a religious devotion to, the subjectivity is highly warped, and all pretenders to the throne get an automatic and undeserved penalty when judging quality.

  100. The Original... Paul

    June 11th, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    I disagree with Fred on one thing: the world needed another “Alien” movie like it needs another “Die Hard” or “Terminator” sequel. These franchises are deader than Elvis, but that doesn’t stop the assholes from trying to make the fucker sing. And all you get for it is the noxious gaseous emissions of a bloated corpse.

    (Yeah, I’m in a fantastic mood tonight, thanks. You?)

  101. That’s better, Asimov. Good post. I agree with most of your points, but I disagree that we need to know where the opening is taking place. I like that that scene is mysterious and agree with elsewhere in your post where you say the movie needs more things left ambiguous and mysterious.

    By the way, in one of the Ridley Scott interviews somebody linked to here the interviewer asked if that was supposed to be Earth and he seemed to indicate that it didn’t matter to him which planet it was.

  102. I can hate a bad sequel as much as the next guy (more so when that sequel is TERMINATOR SALVATION) but it doesn’t retroactively change the good movies in the series. If anything, bad sequels just point out what was so great about the good movies in the series.

    Besides, if franchises threw in the towel once they started sucking, we’d never have JASON X. And that’s not a world I want to live in.

  103. The Limey, are BLADE RUNNER and 2001 A SPACE ODDYSSEY smart movies? Yes they are, very much so. They are very intelligent movies in both what presen onscreen and what leaves for the viewer’s imagination. That’s how a smart Sf movie looks like. PROMETHEUS is not one such. It’s a supremely dumb movie with pretentions of intelect, of which has not much to write home about.

    It’s hard to believe that PROMETHEUS was made by the same director of BLADE RUNNER. But it’s easy to believe the script was writen by the main writer of LOST. It shows. It’s an idiot’s man idea of what a smart movie looks like. Which isn’t. The dumb man’s smart movie. it’s a simulation of a smart movie without truly being one. At all.

    I don’t call myself a Star Trek fan. But i have a lot of respect for it, specially the original TV show and it’s movies. The reason i so profundly dislike Abrams Trek is because it’s a terribly stupid movie. That it’s also a bad Trek movie too is just the icing of the cake. I have as much dislike for Abrams Trek as i have for a Michael Bay movie for the exact same reasons.

    Star Trek V Vs Prometheus, i’d say the first one wins. ST5 is an ambitious movie with quite a few smart idas it explores, but damned with poor execution. It’s what i call an interesting failure. Prometheus is an idiotic movie with pretentions of intelligence it doesn’t have. And as Tyrion Lanister has a foudnes and a weak spot for cripples, bastards and broken things, i have for interesting failures.

    You know when eople call certain things as pretentious? You know what pretentiousness is? It’s when you try to be smarter then how you are and fuck up. PROMETHEUS is pretentious. Great looking movie, though.

    PROMETHEUS is like if a very dumb but very pretty cheerleader first ever got hold of a Philosophy 101 book and it blew her mind and she can’t resist telling other about it but she can’t make the distiction between Socrates and Kierkegaard and make a mess out of it. And it wraps it up in a story as if created by a 12 years old with characters taken from a gossip magazine. That’s PROMETHEUS.

  104. Vern, my first instinct was to assume that the first scene in the movie was set on Earth as well. But i rather chose not to think like that because if it is, then it opens another whole can of worms. And frankly, the movie doesn’t need more problems then what already has.

    Since the visual palette of the opening scene is so similiar to the one set in the Space Jockey’s base planetoid, i rather assume it’s set there, and what we saw was an experiment gone wrong (and a foreshadow that this creator beings are hardly the perfect beings that Shaw so wants to believe they are) or that one of them got terribly depressed with the implications of their actions and just comited suicide by taking to himself the very thing that they have been spreading the galaxy about.

    Why i resist so much the notion that the scene happens on Earth in the distant past? Because if so, as presented, is pretty stupid. If waht we witnessed was an atempt at seeding the Earth with the black goo thingy, then they could had not chosen a worst way. There would be better ways to link it to the myth of the titan Prometheus.

    If the scene is set at the dawn of mankind, meaning, set about two million years ago, how can borken down DNA do anything to any of our predecessors? You can’t mutate by ingesting, or else you couldn’t not even eat a carrot without turning into a human-carrot hybrid. It’s absurd. If the idea is that from the remains of the dead space jockey a fully formed hominid raised out of that river, then how come we are not a completly different spieces with our own ranch and completly divoreced from the rest of the animal kingdom, instead of the part of the primates branch that we are? Can of worms.

    If the scene is to depict the seeding of all life on Earth, then i’ll have a real major mega problem with that because it means the scene is set 4 FUCKING BILLION YEARS AGO! I’m sorry, but there’s limits to my suspenstion of disbelief. I’m supposed to accept this race of space beings are the same as 4 billion years ago as they were two thousand years ago? No evolution in their technology? No evolution on them? A creature that has remained the same for 4 billion years? That’s too much. that’s not smart, that’s not though provoking, that’s just stupid.

    I really believe the people who made PROMETHEUS didn’t though things through. Everything was done by the rule of cool but not by the rule of narrative logic or plausability.

  105. “If anything, bad sequels just point out what was so great about the good movies in the series.”

    I agree. It’s very much so. However, there’s that bitter taste in the mouth that those bad sequels always left behind. It’s hard to ignore.

  106. “It ties into our belief in wanting there to be something more than what we can observe in reality. Nothing wrong with that.”

    No, there’s something quite wrong with that, actually. To urge for soemthing more to this universe is just a demonstration of great ignorance of the marvels that exist in our universe. It’s to know nothing of the universe at all. As the astronomer Phil Plait says in his conferences, “the universe is cool enough without making up crap about it”.

    People who have woes in their lives and transpose that to the whole iuniverse and then eager for “something more” make the classic mistake of thinking that the universe exists to provide moral lessons. It’s a mistake and it’s absurd. The universe is filled with wonders. to know the universe as it it, to know the phyiscal universe in all it’s mind boggling complexities and quirkiness is to know awe. A kind of awe that no religion can ever provide. Nature has a habit of being far more spectacular then whatever shit men make up. And that inclused religious or spiritual eagernesses.

    You want to know what is the most fantastic thing ther eis? You are living in it, and you are part of it too. And no need for invisible all powerful daddies in the sky to make it better. If anything, it diminishes it.

  107. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Thank the Lord for Jason X (does everyone else pronounce it Jason Ex, like I do, or do they say Jason Ten?)

    I do believe, though, that some fictional universes work as franchises, while others should never ever get sequels.

    I don’t want so see a follow-up to 2001: A Space Odyssey (what’s that? 2010? Never heard of it. It obviously doesn’t exist) or Children of Men or Blade Runner, because I am one of those fanatical devotees that unashamedly worships a handful of films that are so dear to me that I could never ever be objective about them.

    Hell, as far as I’m concerned, there are only two Terminator films. All the others are just big budget fan fiction.

    You think Robocop 3 is a real Robocop movie? Fuck no, it’s not. That doesn’t mean I’m not excited about the possibility of a unique new take on the concept. If the remake can stand on its own two feet, then I’ll support it all the way. But if turns out to be just another Nightmare on Elm Street: Platinum Dunes Edition, then I’ll simply shrug it off and consider it an imposter’s version.

    It’s tough these days, man. We’ve become so used to the possibility that every single cinematic tale could have a follow-up or reinterpretation, that it’s difficult to see where the line should be drawn. I’ve been wrong in the past. I didn’t want to see a sequel to Mad Max, because the first Mad Max is such a great stand-alone film, but I’m sure as hell glad I did take a chance on The Road Warrior (even though those two stories do seem to exist in completely different headspaces).

    Sometimes I can even enjoy the “imposter’s versions” for what they are, like Psycho 2 and 3, but I simply can’t look at them as something that I could ever truthfully link to the world of the original (Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is another great example).

    I don’t really know what I’m getting at here. I guess we as movie fans simply find our own comfortable way of looking at our favourite things.

  108. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Sorry, that was long.

  109. The Original... Paul

    June 11th, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Knox – I don’t think I’ve ever said it out loud. But I THINK it as “Jason Ex”.

    And obviously I agree on “Jason X”.

    Now my position on sequels and remakes has generally been, remake the stuff that’s NOT good, or that has one glaring flaw that stops it from being great. Sequels, same thing. That way you eliminate the flaw and get a perfect movie out of it. However, the last practical execution of that principle I saw was “My Bloody Valentine 3D”, a movie that IMO makes the SW prequels look like works of divine genius. At least “Prometheus” was watchable, for the most part.

  110. I’ve said JASON EX out loud plenty of times. It usually comes after me and my roommate have been arguing about what to watch for a half-hour and I’m like, “Fuck it, let’s just watch JASON X again.” Works every time.

  111. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Yeah, Jason X and The Phantom are usually my go-to beer-and-buddy movies.

  112. My other two are DEEP BLUE SEA and TEAM AMERICA.

  113. Believe it or not, mine are David Lynch, David Cronenberg or Alejandro Jodorowsky, or any other strange and weird movie. Those are my beer and friend movies. They make us crack the hell out. The thing people do not understand about strange offbeat movies is that if they are seen in the right company, they are immensely entertaining.

  114. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    Team America has the funnies scene I’ve ever experienced in a movie.

    For some reason I find vomiting in movies hilarious. Puppet vomit? Nearly killed me.

  115. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    funnies = funniest

  116. JASON X, that’s the one in space, right? I once tried to watch it, i got so bored i didn’t ever got to the defrosting of Jason.

    My viewing of the Friday The 13th saga stoped at the 4th movie. To my suprise, i enjoyed the hell out of all of them, though my favorite is still the Jason-less first.

    I have a theory about the endings of the second and third movie. You guys remember that they all end with Jason crabbing the girls and then we see them, thinking they were killed, but next scene we see them traumatised and in deep shock. I have this theory that Jason raped them, thus they surviving but in shock. This is even hinted with that movie, second or 3rd, where the final girl tells she saw Jason as a kid, that he visited her (with the implication of rape) and her parents knew of it but pretend it never happened.

    You, Jason is not just a serial killer murdered, but a serial rapist. It does make sense in that he raised by himself in the middle of the woods, all alone with nobody to teach him manners.

  117. Knox Harrington, i almost fainted from laughing so hard at the vomiting scene. It’s not just you, man.

  118. Did you see that episode of SOUTH PARK where the boys wrote the most disgusting book ever? There’s a part where Matt Lauer reads a passage on the Today Show and starts puking, and even though it’s a poorly rendered cartoon, it’s the most realistic vomiting I’ve ever seen in a piece of filmed entertainment. It was the little breaths and spits he did in between the heaves that really sold it. It was as subtle and nuanced as the vomiting in TEAM AMERICA was over-the-top and ludicrous.

  119. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Another favourite is in Four Rooms when Tim Roth sees the body under the mattress and just reflex vomits on the spot. Gets me every time.

  120. Knox Harrington

    June 11th, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Well, I think we’ve successfully killed the Prometheus thread.

  121. Another great movie that me and my pals saw and had a blast watching it was GUMMO. GUMMO is an epic. That movie not only boggles the mind but blows it shotgun style. Me and my pals never laughed so much with a movie before or since.

  122. Asimov, you take that back. My man J.V. is many things. He is a murderer. He is a mongoloid. He is a mama’s boy. He is an undead mutant. But he’s no rapist. His whole M.O. is anti-sex. Not only does he have the brain of a retarded prepubescent, but he was killed because people were fucking instead of watching him. He hates sex. Sex pisses him right the fuck off. He doesn’t really understand what it is, but he knows it’s bad. He’s the last dude who’d ever be a rapist.

    Now Freddy, that motherfucker is a rapist. He was a kiddy diddler before he even got infected with the evil 3D sleep slugs. But Jason, his murderous rage is as pure as the driven snow. He might need to end your life right now for reasons of his own, but he’s not gonna be sleazy about it. He’ll penetrate you with literally anything in the world EXCEPT his dick. He doesn’t even know what his dick is for.

  123. Typical. When I’ve finally gotten around to see this everyone’s moved on…

  124. Moved on?!?!?!

    NEVER!

    Asimov, I contend that there are NO smart movies, only smart viewers. You can’t watch one with the director over your shoulder explaining it to you, and if all you take from a movie is what the director intended by having them explain it in the DVD commentary or whatever, then I also contend that the movie has failed.

    Don’t get me wrong; I appreciate it when a director intentionally does something clever but that they will do so in the hope that the audience might appreciate it, not in the certain knowledge that they will.

    All movies are dumb, even the clever ones with the clever directors. What’s smart is how we comprehend them.

    My buddy movie is Big Trouble in Little China, Shooter (yep, Marky Mark) and Ronin. My anti-buddy movies are Mrs Doubtfire and The Fifth Element.

  125. “I contend that there are NO smart movies, only smart viewers.”

    Bollocks!

  126. Mr. Majestyk, no, my friend, if you came to think about it, it does make sense that Jason raped those poor final girls of the second and third movie. That’s why they survived even though they were captured and at his mercy. The killing before was the foreplay, for the final girl’s rape.

    Don’t be protective of such a human monster. Jason is supposed to be the worst in man. He is the bad guy, remember. Admire his relentless if you will, but not him. If admire is the right word at all to be aplied here. Jason is no romantic monster like the beast in Beauty and the Beast, he’s a monster of pure evil, pure and simple. He’s a murderer and a rapist of women. Aka, evil.

  127. Just curious, As: how many hours have you spent watching Jason in action? Because, total, if you laid ’em end to end, I’ve probably spent a solid two weeks of my life doing just that. There isn’t a Jason movie I haven’t seen a minimum of five times. I’ve seen director’s cuts. I’ve listened to commentaries, watched documentaries, and read at least one movie novelization. I know every behind the scenes story there is to know. I wake up looking at a replica of the original FRIDAY 1 painted poster every single morning. I own the box set, the soundtracks, the Todd McFarlane toy, an authorized FRIDAY THE 13th brand novelty machete, and a Jason snowglobe. As much as I have geeked out over anything in my life, I have geeked out over Jason more.

    In short, I know Jason. And Jason is no rapist. He’s not even evil. He’s just a predator, pure and simple. He’s a great white shark. A great white shark’ll kill you dead, but he’s not gonna rape you. That implies a more complicated motive than a great white is capable of. Rape is about pain. Jason is about death. Jason doesn’t get off on your suffering. That’s why he almost always goes for the immediate finishing move. One hack and it’s over. He just needs your life to end, and then he needs to go find everyone else in the area and make their lives end, too. Raping you would take too much goddamn time, time he could be spending finding someone else to kill.

    In conclusion, there is no evidence whatsoever for your claims, in the movies themselves or in any of the supplemental material related to them. But it’s been fun hijacking this thread with you.

  128. I feel it was the modernist story structure of Prometheus which made it no where near as good as Alien/s.

    It’s something I’ve never really figured out the answer to, but there’s something about the structure of late 70s / 80s (and some early 90s) films which makes them more fulfilling. The spine of the story is clear and there are landmarks along the way which let me know “this is the intro”, “this is the middle bit”, “we are gearing up the finale” etc …

    I realize one could easily label sections of Prometheus with these descriptions, but it doesn’t feel that way while I’m watching. It just feels like a big wash of people talking and stuff happening and then it ends.

    I think maybe there’s a sort of backlash against the simplicity (naivety?) of 80s film structure and that’s why modern films never feel like a three-act (or whatever) film with a clear geography of story elements, because that ‘simple’ approach is being avoided.

    I’m doing a shit job explaining this … but maybe some of you know what I’m getting at.

    The Expendables (1) is an interesting example of how modern film-making is so far removed from 80s film structure. Here was a film attempting a trip down nostalgia road and it completely failed to capture the simple charm of its forefathers. Partly because of the stupid way modern action films are filmed, but mainly because the plot is convoluted and confusing.

    Plot of Commando: Rescue daughter.

    Plot of The Running Man: Survive the game show.

    Plot of The Expendables: I’m not sure. Something to do with killing a drug lord or CIA guy and saving someones sister or daughter or something. I’ve seen it two or three times and I’m really not sure.

    Wait, I was meant to be talking about Prometheus.

    It wasn’t scary. That was a huge disappointment to me. I really thought it would be frightening. Ridley has lost his touch with human emotions. It looked incredible and I felt NOTHING. I cared about no-one and I was never emotionally engaged. Either I’m dead inside (entirely possible) or Sir Ridley has lost his humanity…

  129. Okay, I finally got around to seeing this today. Swanson, I think part of the problem is the pacing. Films today are so worried about losing our attention that they have to keep on throwing stuff at us from beginning to end. The second half of Prometheus felt like this. I liked the movie overall, but I felt as if it was a much better film when the characters were just sort of wandering around, mostly because it was a gorgeous film to look at. A few of the characters were annoying, but I liked Shaw and the Captain (I wonder why they never let Idris Elba use his English accent?).

  130. Agreed with Tawdry, Asimov, and a few others in this discussion. Good points all around, and I may force myself to rewatch PROMETHEUS to ensure I didn’t miss something, but I dunno. The more I think about it, the more the script and most of the characters are insulting to my intelligence.

    I’m not a fan of Vern’s and others’ use of phrases like “ice queen boss” to refer to Charlize Theron’s character. If that were a dude, no one would notice that he’s all-business, professional, not fully trusting of co-workers & subordinates. She was my favorite character, the only one I’d chill with, be simpatico with, be comfortable around. The other characters were imbeciles and misguided Jesusfreaks, and they were all either too breezily jocular or too arrogantly mopey to deserve to be on the mission with Vickers.

    I wish she’d had the ability to run sideways away from the thing that killed her instead of trying to outrun gravity straight ahead.

    And I liked her proposition to Stringer Bell. That’s the kind of casual sex set-up I like. More hot chicks should be like that.

    I started to write more stuff about this movie, but my talkback got way too long and I think maybe I should do a 2nd viewing to try to reconcile my problems with PROMETHEUS with the mostly positive reviews before I post any further babbling, because when have I ever been known to type too much here?

  131. I absolutely agree about Theron, Mouth. And I’m glad the movie took the time to humanize her somewhat. It’s interesting to note that in the original Alien it’s Ripley who doesn’t want to bring an infected crew member on board, and she ends up being the hero. In this film it’s Theron’s character who’s concerned with letting an infected crew member on the ship, and she’s arguably portrayed as the villain of that scene, despite the fact that she’s making the hard decisions.

  132. @RBatty024

    Yeah totally, the pacing is never right in modern films. Who exactly decided that audiences don’t have an attention span anymore? Can this decision be reversed at any point in the future?

    I think that’s why Ironman felt a little like an 80’s film, it took its time character building and had a nice sense of pacing (build ups and payoffs etc).

    I saw Prometheus last night and I’m quite vague on what actually happened. That’s not something I imagine anyone ever felt after seeing Alien/s.

  133. “To urge for soemthing more to this universe is just a demonstration of great ignorance of the marvels that exist in our universe. It’s to know nothing of the universe at all. As the astronomer Phil Plait says in his conferences, “the universe is cool enough without making up crap about it”.”

    I just wanted to note that I am 100% behind asimov on this comment. I wonder how religious folks reconcile the fact that they treat the insane universe their God created as if it’s so horribly desolate and sucky. God wouldn’t do you like that.

  134. I just love franchises and I really want to see every story continue indefinitely. I have no attachment to a definitive ending. Maybe it’s just the storytelling exercise of it for me, but I know it’s just a personal preference. I understand that some people value the definitive ending.

    So we’ll live in a world where some series will go on past the point where people thought the story should end and I love it, and some series will end definitively even though I want to see more (BACK TO THE FUTURE!)

    In my TV coverage I’ve seen the new DALLAS and I think it’s fantastic. I never watched DALLAS growing up but I know there’s a rich story history and I can feel it in the new one. And look at that example. They erased an entire year of story because they decided it was bad and Patrick Duffy wanted to come back so he showed up in the shower and the story goes on.

    I think one reason (probably a minor one, certainly not the only one) some of our trusty filmmakers fail is that they’re trying too hard to give fans what they want. Studios are involved too, but there’s so much trying to predict what fans of the franchise want, they’re not even telling their own stories. I liked PROMETHEUS but come on, this was not Ridley Scott’s personal statement on the origins of his classic ALIEN movie. It was sort of reverse engineered. So that’s a recipe for leaving EVERYONE feeling unsatisfied. I think that’s what’s happened to Lucas too.

  135. There’s no way I could ever muster up the strenght to read all these looong comments, so I’ll just pick up on a few things in Vern’s review; As I see it, the opening is some riff on Erich Von Dänichen’s pet theory that aliens created us and the world we live in, and when they where finished they disappeared, becoming one with the world, so to speak and thus becoming what some people think of as god. No one has seen them/him, but they’re there in everything that surrounds us according to those who believe in that shit. That’s why Holloway wants to speak to them so bad. As a scientist he demands an answer to the question “what the fuck’s the point of it all?” And just like in Bladerunner, they don’t have a good answer. In fact they’r dicks.

  136. Reality & science is way cooler than religion’s paltry claims about the universe. Here’s a new picture of what may be among the oldest objects in the universe, possibly 13 billion (thirteen,000,000,000) years old:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20120607.html

    Separately, I’d like to respond to some of the complaints about Guy Pearce as the old guy in old guy makeup. I’m of the minority opinion that it wasn’t poorly done, and to me it makes sense that the movie needed a younger, more athletic guy to pull off some of the space suit walking toward the end, like when the pneumatic devices, if I construed things correctly, were used to assist his joints & limbs and he was ambulatory in what appeared to be an awkward Michael Jackson Thriller pose.

  137. “13 billion (thirteen,000,000,000) ”

    HA! Like what Vern does only more meta.

  138. Guys, can someone who has seen this twice (or has an unusually clear memory) tell me if – SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER –
    in the conversation that David has with blank-faced-science guy (Holloway?) by the pool table, does David ask Holloway something about (and I’m paraphrasing here) what he would be prepared to do/sacrifice in order to get his wish and meet the creators/Engineers, right before he puts, uh, mud in his eye.

    By the way, I thought the religious connotations were right up front from the start. I mean, these Engineers are a society who have very specific views about life and death (bio-forming can only be initiated once someone has sacrificed themselves)… Even the way the first dude is dressed (as opposed to the grumpy homicidal guy they wake up) seems intended to make you think of a monk.

    Come to think of it, I can think of another race of eight-foot tall extra-terrestrials with very particular habits as regards life and death who have sometimes been associated with the ALIEN franchise…

  139. Mr. Majestyk, how often people who have devoted their whole lifes to the study of the bible then get their views challenged by a young turk, and in the end it was the young turk that was right, due to his new perspective on things, undultered by dogma.

    Same thing, my friend, same thing.

    I’m familiar best with the first Friday movie because it’s my favorite and it’s the only one i own the DVD. I found it to be a better movie then the fame it has. Even among many of it’s fans it has a reputation for being cheappy and not very good. I was suprised how much better it is compared to it’s reputation. Again, the virtues of being a young turk on the hood.

  140. “I feel it was the modernist story structure of Prometheus which made it no where near as good as Alien/s.”

    That’s a very good point, Henry Swanson. I hate to sound like an old fart, but i think there has been a lost of storytelling abilty among most working in Holywood blockbuster films, specially concerning scriptwriting and editing. I’m starting to get nostalgic about that type of classic storytelling that actually took it’s time telling the tale and building mood. It’s the lack of mood building that most concerns me in most modern day movies. They are so rushed, so eager to get to the next scene. Even a filmmaker i much admire, Christopher Nolan, often falls victim to this. It kinda makes me sad.

    I’m well aware that there was a lot of rubish made in the 70s and 80s, the reason why it tempers my nostalgia for those times. But when those movies were good, specially those of the 70s, they were excelent. And ambitious, even the exploitation ones.

    I hate to be a victim of nostalgia, but it’s damn hard not to when so many of today’s movies disapoint.

  141. Jam, he just says that he would do anything, doesn’t he?

  142. I love how a side-track discussion about Jason Vorhees can evoke Martin Luther.

  143. Hi Asimovlives.

    You said: “It’s the lack of mood building that most concerns me in most modern day movies.”

    I 100% agree. This is a conversation I’ve had many times, sometimes with other people.

    Hollywood really need to stop rushing their stories and give their characters some time to breath … allow the audience to get to know these people before putting them through the grinder. And at the same time give some serious time over to mood building (e.g. Blade Runner).

    I think Star Wars – A New Hope vs The Prequels is the perfect example of this in action. A New Hope takes its time allowing us to get to know Luke and it gives him that wonderful mood moment when he stands on the little hill and stares longingly out at the distant planets. It’s tells us about what the character wants and it’s just a great atmospheric pause before the story picks up again. There are absolutely no moments like this in the prequels, and any scenes that attempt something similar (or xerox an old moment) don’t work because we don’t care about the characters, but also because the scene has had the beginning and ending cut out in favor of only showing the middle bit so that they can quickly get to the next CG wonder.

    I remember reading in some screenplay writing book you shouldn’t bore audiences with the “hellos” and “goodbyes”. Meaning you should cut into the part of the conversation that matters. And while I think this is generally a good idea, it shouldn’t always be the way. Sometimes it’s really crucial to show characters arriving somewhere (like in 70s films, they always show the car pulling up outside!), establish the environment and set a mood before ticking off plot points. In the old days this might have lasted 5 minutes or more, now it’s would be a 2 second birds eye view of a city, followed by a quick crane shot of a building and then WHAM you are jammed into the midst of a scene (I’m oversimplifying here, but you know what I mean).

    Source Code felt a bit more like an 70s/80s film to me because it built things up relatively slowly … but I’m sure there are better modern examples.

  144. Henry Swanson, i’m finding myself agreeing with you on a lot of subjects. Great minds think alike.

    Kidding aside, yeah, i agree with you, there seems to be a lack of discipline in most of today’s movies storytelling and editing. It’s strange. I end up thinking i saw half a movie, with another half missing.

    Funny enough, with all this desperation for cutting to the chase, ironically movies today have longer running times. In the 70s an 80s, the average movie lenght was 95 to 105 minutes. Today it’s closer to 125 minutes. Myself, i love longer movies. I love when a movie passes the two hour mark. But today’s movies don’t seem to merit their longer running time. They are longer but they are emptier. Possibly because the action scenes are now so over-extented and they are so many.

    Where movies once could content with 4 action scenes, now they have 10. And each one looks like a climax of the movie. This causes me fatique. It causes desinterest and aloofness. By the end, i couldn’t care about what’s happening. When the end game is alike the mid second act action scene, what’s the big deal? I hate to bring Abrams Trek again, but that’s a perfect example of what i’m saying. The action scene at the second act that leads to the destruction of Vulcan should had been the climatic action scene of the movie. 20 to 30 years ago it would had been that. Now it’s just ONE more action beat, deflating the end game action scene that will eventually happen afterwards. It’s not good storytelling, as far i’m concerned.

    I’m one of the fools who are not as harsh toward the SW prequels as most are (except THE PHANTOM MENACE, that one sucked!). One thing i really enjoyed about the prequels, and by that i mean THE ATTACK OF THE CLONES and THE REVENGE OF THE SITH, is that those movies are edited in a classic style. Lucas really has not changed his film editing style since his original Sw and Raiders Of The Lost Ark days. He still does all the things you said he does, people leaving vehicles and walking toward the building, people entering the room talk and leave it. It game me nostalgic pleasure, because it’s so different from today’s norm.
    But you know, this is me talking, the fool who has not such a negative opinion of the prequels, so what do i know?

    The old timer editors had an interesting derrogatory expression to descript the type of film editing that’s so prevalent in today’s movies: they called it “frame fucking”. It’s so right on so many levels.

  145. What do you mean by “modernist story structure”, guys? It’s basically the same structure as all the Aliens movies, isn’t it?

  146. pegsman, no, no it’s not. What he means to say is that most movies made in past decades (with the exception of the movies who were deliberatly made to be free form and surealists), you could tell where the narrative was going on. The story beats were clear, you always knew where you were. Many of today movies mesh it all up, in their hurry to go from one beat to the next. To the point it’s hard nowdays to know if you are still in act 2 or already in act 3.

    Some movies have their story structure jumbled up on purpose for the sake of suspense, so to catch the audience off-guard. This gets problematic when EVERY movie is made that way, namely, the action movies.

  147. BR Baraka ““When a director in his youth makes a much loved by fandom, and then, later in life, returns to the same subject matter, he is guaranteed to cause fandom to hate him.” Witness Lucas, and now Scott.”

    Speaking for myself, i don’t hate on Ridley Scott for the mess he made on PROMETHEUS, because as far i’m concerned, it’s less his doing and more the clown who wrote the script. All my problems with the movie are about the script. Otherwise, in the visual department, the movie is brillant, as only Scott can.

    Well, the score sucks too. And the editing is not the best thing i ever seen either, if i’m honest.

  148. But you’re not talking about Prometheus now, are you? As I see it it follows the same structure as the first Alien movie; they travel, they wake up, they investigate, they scream and they run away. Long, slow build up to a hectic ending. There’s no middle part per se, but that’s where most movies tend to drag, so who cares, right?

  149. pegsman, the story beats are similiar, but the strustuce feels different. Contrary to what you say, about more then half of ALIEN is spend in the second act. It starts from when they land on the planet and ends after Ash is burned. The movie is a very extended second act.

    PROMETHEUS, i can’t even decide how many acts it has. Does it have 3 or 4? As typical of many movies made today, they can’t dedice when to end, and they shove two endings just to be sure.

  150. Great conversation guys.

    I haven`t seen Prometheus yet, but I dislike it already. I lost all hope for Sir Ridley Scott, when he cut down Alien because it felt to slow.

    My biggest gripe with Prometheus is making the characters scientists. The brilliance of Alien was the characters being ordinary human beings in a strange world. Just like in Starwars, where you spent almost twenty minutes with robots, aliens, weird soldiers before you finally meet a ordinary young man. You instantly start relating to him, cause we wonder what it feels like to live in a galaxy far away. Same shit with Alien; weird world, massive spaceships and then ordinary folks drinking coffee and complaining about work.
    I don`t know any scientists, so it`s gonna be exotic characters in an exotic world, and that`s not very involving.

    Good points about framefucking. Modern audiences are just not accustomed to being an active participant in the storytelling (as in wondering what`s happening next as opposed to cheering and applauding and whatnot). When Parker is looking for Jones in Alien, it`s fucking unbearable, cause you know SOMETHING is gonna happen, just not when or what. It`s the audiences imagination that makes the scene exciting, and the audience needs time to use their imagination. When Sir Ridley Scott cuts it down cause it`s to slow for modern audiences, he clearly has no idea what made Alien work in the first place.

  151. asimov, go watch the movie again and you’ll see that it’s not that different. At least not in a significant way. I haven’t bothered to read all the comments above, but I take it you’re not happy with Prometheus as it is?

  152. dna, if you listne to Ridley Scott’s audio comentary on ALIEN, specially the first DVD edition, he knows very well what made ALIEN work. It’s just that i don’t think he could pull off the same thing today. Not when big budget is concerned.

    My take is that for Scott, despiste all that was advertized, he took PROMETHEUS as a paying job and not much else. He might have took the oportunity to put to film what he couldn’t in ALIEN due to budget and special effects limitations (like the way the ship Prometheus landed and the visuals surrounding it).

    Holywood is not the same place that used to be when Scott made ALIEN. Nor are the audiences, i’m sad to say. The pacience that audiences used to display back then does seem to be absent this days.

  153. DNA, also, the brilliance of Alien’s characters is not they are blue collar joes, but that they are represented very well. They are believable as blue collar joes. And best yet, they all look professional at their jobs. Even the much maligned Lambert, played by Veronica Wright, she loses her composture and turns into a coward but it’s understandable because she’s in a situation for wich he was never trained for, and she has no interest in. She sure didn’t signed for that shit! So, the characters are great because they are believable in what they are supposed to be.

    Nobody in PROMETHEUS is believable in what they are supposed to be, scientists, with David the android and Vickers played by Charlize Theron being the ONLY exceptions (and they are not supposed to be scientists, anyway). And Vickers is supposed to be a villain character and yet she’s by far the most sympathetic in the way her actions and he thinking process goes. And David is the only well writen character. Michael Fassbender does a brillant job with the role, but any good actor would be too, male or female, because it’s the only one that has good lines or a consistent personality. Even though he also falls prey to plot convinience.

  154. A friend of mine is a scientist. Can’t say he behaves in a different way than me when the shit hits the fan. You’re reaching, asimov…

  155. pegsman, not at all. The way the charactesact in PROMETHEUS makes them the worst scientists in the history of science. Their lack of professionalism is beyond belief. They are boys with litle skills. They must have gotten their diploms in the corn flakes.

    It’s beyond obvious that who wrote the script has no real understading how a scientist is like at their job, any idea of the scientific methode works, and the singlest clue what science really is. From the writer of LOST and frequent collaborator of FRINGE, it cames as no suprise. To call it insultive is to be too kind to it, it’s to show it a kindness that it doesn’t have toward who and what is supposed to depict. Basically, it’s a clusterfuck.

  156. I’m not happy with PROMETHEUS you ask? To say the least!

    There is only one way for me to rewatch PROMETHEUS, and that’s with a Ridley Scott comentary track.

    Hell, a Damon Lindelof’s track would suffice too, so i can understand his though process and how truly deluded he is about his work in this movie. I had a lot of fun with the ttrack that he did together with Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman did for Abrams Trek. It was that track that finally convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a bunch of assclowns who do not have any idea what they are doing, everything is just a bunch of “that will do” and “teh koolz” stuff stringed together and hoping for best and totally dependent on the good will of the audiences. Sorry to bring this flogged horse again in this conversation, but the point had to be made to clarify my instance on this.

  157. I have a couple of quibbles about the scientists and one compliment. The Charlie character was way too bro-tastic for me. Doesn’t he call Shaw “babe” at one point? I mean, do they want us to cheer when this guy died? My other complaint is when the biologist approaches the alien penis-monster. You would think that he would be a little more cautious than that. They didn’t even hide this stupid decision under the guise of scientific curiosity.

    I did like, however, the portrayal of the tattooed geologist. Even though several of the characters act unrealistically, I think Pegsman has a point that just because you’re a scientist doesn’t mean you’re not an idiot/asshole. The tattooed geologist was a unique depiction of a scientist in a film. I don’t think I’ve seen the greedy scientist asshole with a mohawk and some tats before, so good job Prometheus. The film does start to fall apart after you leave the theater, but it has its moments. I certainly enjoyed large chunks of the film.

  158. News is that there might be a director’s cut of PROMEHTEUS came it’s release on DVD and Blu-Ray. At this point in Scott’s career, such news do not came as a suprise. He didn’t invented the concept of the director’s cutm, but he is the trope maker. He’s by now the patron saint of director’s cuts. Directors who want to make their director’s cut, they pray to Saint Ridley Of Scott for protection from evil studio executives.

    Supposedly, the director’s cut of PROMETHEUS wil restore 20 minutes to the film. I know some of you who were disapointed with the movie are now having a glimmer of hope that this will turn it into the good movie it should had been in the first place. All due to the way some of Scot’s past movies were so vastly improved thanks to their director’s cuts, like BLADE RUNNER (final cut version), KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and LEGEND. But if i were you i wouldn’t be to hopeful. The problem of PROMETHEUS, it see s, is not what was curt out, but that’s in. And by in, also what was left in the editing room floor. The problem with the movie is it’s own very basic nature, it’s own story, how it was planed out to be. No editing can save that. Unless there are alternative takes to every shot in the movie which had much better dialogue, much better characterization, complete alternative scenes that made the plot make sense, and for some reason they only used the dumbest stupidiest takes for the finished movie.

  159. RBatty024, you would think that if one is assembling a crew and they had to stay tother for months, even years, the first thing would be the weed out the assholes and disrupting members, would it not? The fucking geologist is one of the worst aspects in the movie. That guy is barely fit to belong to an asylum, much less a team of scientists tasked with first contact with an alien intelligence, or to explore their archological remains. The fucker is one of the reasons the movie kinda sucks. The guy is so bad, even the movie itself can’t hemp but notice it, with the biologist pointing out he’s ashamed he belongs to scientific comunity he does. When a movie populated by assholes make a case that other one is an asshole by their own standards, then you know the character is fucked up by design.

  160. Give me strenght…

  161. pegsman, can i ask you where you got your knowledge of scientific procedure and how scientists do their job for you to be so resistant to what i wrote above and make you clinque so tenaciously to your defense of the movie’s characters’ actions? Because the scientists depicted in the movie act nothing at all like real scientists would and do. Pseudo-scientists, another matter.

  162. Asimov, everything you are saying sounds so definitive. I’m happy that you feel so confident in your assertions. I will now blab uncontrollably and incoherently for a few points which I should reorder but won’t.

    As I said, for me (these are only our opinions after all) there are no smart movies and I meant it. What meanings they have, despite their creator’s intentions, are ultimately supplied by the viewer. I didn’t say there were no intelligent ideas behind them. What you are saying, if I have understood you correctly, regarding intelligence in movies is a bit contradictory. What if Ridley Scott provides satisfactory justification for you in the commentary for PROMETHEUS? To me that won’t mean he has made a movie that has communicated his ideas well, just that he had ideas. Would it change your opinion if he discussed all the ideas in the movie and could support those ideas with what was being presented onscreen? I should go on record as being an atheist, unconvinced by the theory of intelligent design and I enjoyed PROMETHEUS for what it was, which was a daft, bombastic, stylish mess, with a bit of tension (not enough – the trailers were more terrifying). If nothing else, it takes a lot of balls to diss evolution/natural selection and point out that you are doing it.

    But back to smart movies. To use good examples you have mentioned, the superiority of the BLADE RUNNER revisions. I think that they cheapen the entire thing but give it a spooky twist – wooo, Deckard is a replicant! It’s so counterproductive. Machines killing machines? Who gives a shit? It’s a film about a car crusher, then? Oh they don’t kill each other? Who gives a shit. There’s no meaning to that. Deckard is a human that a machine chooses to save when they’ve been trying to kill each other, that’s meaning. Jesus, even Tyrell was going to be a machine.

    And HAL is the most interesting character in 2001 and he’s essentially David. HAL only becomes really interesting in 2010 (yep, I went there! when he appears to become sentient). Everyone else is dull, but not HAL.

    Ridleys’ justification (that he always thought Deckard was a replicant) is so lame, it sounds like George Lucas declaming that he wrote the entire STAR WARS saga and then chopped it up.

    Before I go, I have to defend Fifield (again) – he’s not the one that pets the snake (so to speak). He’s suffering from the shock of being confronted with a reality altering truth, that we are not alone.
    And as I said, I am a scientist, and I know plenty of asshole, narcissistic, egotistical, self-promoting, bullshitting scientists that are only about money, sometimes I’m one of them, and some of these people are really fucking smart, so that rings true for me – remember the crew were picked to be used by Weyland, not to be the apex of all human endeavour. And I predict that I would ontologically (and possibly literally) shit myself if confronted with confirmation of an alien of any kind. I might follow it up with wonder and awe, but my first reaction would be FUUUUUUUCK!

    Finally, you’re picking on LAMBERT?!?!? a rather humble human confronted with a giant and apparently invulnerable, unstoppable killing machine and you call her a coward? Harsh. I think Lambert’s one of the strongest portrayals in ALIEN and her death the most affecting because she really seems bloody scared.

    But bravo on your continued use of British idioms!

    Bollocks, arse, pants and get it right up ye.

  163. asimovlives:

    if we depicted how scientists would actually behave we would fall asleep in the theatre. it is supposed to entertain, not be a documentary

    i’m not supporting lindelof’s script, but i am saying that you need to judge actions in the movie in the context of whether they work or not as entertainment, not as based on real life behavior. otherwise, every movie you liked would be lame

    archaeologists don’t use whips, mathematicians don’t do water drip party gags when T Rex is bearing down on you, you don’t turn a delorean into a time machine, you don’t let the military grunt have an avatar, you don’t use human beings hooked into an MMORPG as batteries, you get some sleep rather than let the lowly employee with accelerated decrepitude up late at night to play chess, whatever…

    in other words, your hatred of lindelof’s script is valid, i support it. but some of your reasons are outside the realm of cinematic license. it is entirely possible to give lindelof an F- simply based on his success/ failure within the confines of what the script is supposed to do. judgments against reality are completely invalid

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license

  164. The Limey, definitive? I’d say assertively. When i fele, i’m certain of what i say, i don’t pussyfoot around. I say it as i see it.

    “What meanings they have, despite their creator’s intentions, are ultimately supplied by the viewer.”

    But what if the menaing is there but the viewer fails to notice it? Then it suddently disapear because of one’s lack of attention? Or lack of the same cultural elements or education the filmmaker has? Puff it’s gone? Doesn’t sound right, does it?

    Of a filmmaker is smart, it’ shows in the movie. If he puts a smart element to his movie, it’s there. If it takes him to make it stand out, it’s still there. If some don’t notice it, it’s still there, no matter the lack of attention from the audience. Smar tis smart, be it from the audience or the movie. Or both.

    “What if Ridley Scott provides satisfactory justification for you in the commentary for PROMETHEUS?”

    That’s a very good point, and i’m glad you raised it. Of course, then we enter into the realm of intention Vs result. Intentions are great, but in the end it’s the result that matters. Though i always give point for trying, if the effort is honest.

    “I should go on record as being an atheist”

    HIGH FIVE!!! That’s my boy! British and atheist, niiiiice! Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and Dr Brian Cox’s efforts have not gone to waste.

    “I should go on record as being an atheist, unconvinced by the theory of intelligent design and I enjoyed PROMETHEUS for what it was, which was a daft, bombastic, stylish mess”

    I think i know what you are saying. I don’t believe in ghosts, devils, ancient astronauts and UFOs, there’s nothing that proves they are about, and yet i love such ghost movies as THE CHALLENGING and SHINNING, religous horro like THE EXORCIST and UFO movies liek CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE 3RD KIND, or speculative SF like 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY. As you very well said, it’s one thing to mistake those myths as reality, and another to use them as basis for a ficitonal story. In the real wlrld, ancient astronauts are good for laughing stock, but in faction they can be a cool subject to build a story around.

    So, that’s not the problem about PROMETHEUS, the premise of the ancient astronauts that created us. The problem is how it was executed. Terribly.

    “If nothing else, it takes a lot of balls to diss evolution/natural selection and point out that you are doing it.”

    Not in the USA, where creatonisit bullshit was evne put as official school curriculum to the deteriment of proved and accepted scientific theory like evolution. If anything, in the USA the bold act is to present a world without god and faith, to present a story from the point of view of atheism and science.

    For the record, i also think Deckard is a human. Him being a replicant is a daft notion,and robs the movie of it’s major emotional impact, like, as you well pointed out, the humanistic victory of a machine showing compassion when he saves Deckard, the very person who was to kill him and killed his beloved Pris. What measure is a human? Roy Batty sized.

    “And HAL is the most interesting character in 2001 and he’s essentially David.”

    I think it’s the other way around, on account that 2001 came before PROMETHEUS. Also, Ridley Scott is a major Stanley Kubrick fan. It was in fact one of Kubrick’s movies that made Scott decide to become a director and influenced his visual style forever. That movie being the terribly underrated BARRY LYNDON. Any motherfucker who disses that movie will have words with me.

    “Ridleys’ justification (that he always thought Deckard was a replicant) is so lame”

    Can’t disagree with you there.

    “Before I go, I have to defend Fifield (again) – he’s not the one that pets the snake (so to speak). He’s suffering from the shock of being confronted with a reality altering truth, that we are not alone.”

    Another reason the cunt should had never been in the ship in the first place. It’s not as if that weakness in his character would not be discovered in the psychotechnic exams he would be submited to before being chosen for the team. It’s just very bad writing, that’s all. The fact the other scientist the biologist, acts liek an assclown doesn’t diminish in any way how wrong the geologist is. Two wrongs do not make a right. so the poor geologist has his concept of reality blown out of his mind due to the circunstances he’s in. Well, that’s the very purpose of the mission itself, it is mind blowing to beging with, it’s to meet aliens, fucker should had gone adjusted to that before he even set arse on the cryo pods. Cry me a river about his paradigmatic hysteria.

    Besides, EVERYBODY of the so-called scientists characters in the movie are utter failures, not just Fifield and the biologist clowns. Hell, so are the crew members, the captain and his two assclown underlings. There’s only two character who act like they have a brain in their heads, Vickers and David, ironically the later being man-made. Shaw only gets marginal tolerance from me because she’s a genuine nice person and is played excidling well by Noomi Rapace.

    “Finally, you’re picking on LAMBERT”

    No such thing, you got me wrong. I perfectly understand why she acts like she does in the movie. Hell, if i were in the same situation in ALIEN, i would be like her, a nervous wreck as soon shit hits the fan. The only thing i do not have in common with her is her lack of interest in checking out the alien stuff. In that regard, my curiosity would mirror Ripley’s, the only character in ALIEN who shows genuine curiosity and interest in what’s down on the planet. Her interest is so great, she does an active effort to try to decode the signal. So, i would me like a mix of Ripley in curiosity but Lambert in fortitude (or lack of).

    I’m enjoying all this talks tremendously. I couldn’t care less if we agree or not with each other, it’s the chinwags that matter. This is cool. Keep it up. And thank you for the oportunity.

    Carry on.

    By the way, did i told you i’m portuguese. Oldest alliance still in vigour, motherfuckers!!

  165. BR Baraka

    “if we depicted how scientists would actually behave we would fall asleep in the theatre.”

    Nonsense. It’s quite the opposite, there’s nothing mroe thrillingthen to see professional being professionals and badasses at their jobs. Professionalism is actually quite cinematic. See Michael Mann’s HEAT and how thrilling he made that movie by showing both cops and robbers being utterly professional in their jobs. Nothing is more thrilling then to see smart people trying to resolve their problems by being smart.

    A movie full of stupid assholes is cool if the movie is a comedy and we are supposed to laugh at their expenses. Like in the Coen Brothers’ BURN AFTER READING. Unfortunatly, PROMEHTEUS is not a comedy. Therefore, the characters acting like moronic assholes do not good movie make, as in the case of PROMETHEUS.

    “but some of your reasons are outside the realm of cinematic license.”

    A license that is need of being revoked. About time.

  166. I think if the viewer fails to notice meaning, it makes no difference if it’s there or not.

    I will give what for me is the best example of this success v failure scenaio (and many will disagree but my point is that films are subjective so moot), THE PRESTIGE vs INCEPTION.

    I could watch both films again and again. Performances are good, scripts good and I know that they are both chock full of ideas. But for me THE PRESTIGE presents these ideas coherently, reinforces them, the script, the plot and the actions of the characters all reflect the themes (the 3 act structure of a magic trick, the use of doubles, the limits of obsession, risk, sacrifice, envy, science and magic being indistinguishable). I could watch it all day, flaws or not. That’s not to say there isn’t ambiguity, there is (the fate of one character is repeatedly in doubt, even by the character himself) and just who is doing what with whom is never explicit but it doesn’t matter. There is enough information for a viewer to form a cohesive idea of what is supposed to be happening.

    However, INCEPTION… I am reasonably intelligent and I have no idea what is meant to be going on. Never have. I know what the movie is ostensibly about, but in the end, it’s all ambiguous to the point where all, some or none of it might be happening. Any clarity of interpretation is lost, the ideas are muddied. It’s a movie without anything to anchor it. But it is very good looking and sometimes that’s enough but I don’t particularly enjoy it because I know there’s something I’m supposed to be getting and I’m just not getting it.

    And these are the same filmmaker. Telling, I think, is that one is based on a novel (THE PRESTIGE) and the other is original.

    And on another final note(!), I think Ridley was in no way a director for hire on PROMETHEUS. I think he was invested and really trying something (aiming for profound but often just pretetious as you pointed out) but he really tried and there is occasional profundity in it. I belive he began ALIEN as a director for hire, though. And let’s not forget, ALIEN is not

    I am confused now, though. Do we all love PROMETHEUS or hate it? And have we forgiven Fifield (you can be an ass but the best in your field at the same time, you know) but hate Millburn?

    And I still like JJ TREK. It’s like all the good TREK bits I remember put together with none of the tedious bits. It’s full of plot holes and contrivances but it is breezy and fun. And it has the most emotional, unexpected and powerful openings of any film ever made, I’ll wager.

    This is great. I hope Vern doesn’t pay for bandwidth on this.

  167. The Limey, i never had a problem undestanding what was happening and what was all about in INCEPTION since the first time i saw it. i never had a doubt. The presentation of plot and ideas (and it’s intelligence) is crystal clear as far i’m concerned.

    THE PRESTIGE is great.

    “I think Ridley was in no way a director for hire on PROMETHEUS.”

    All indications point that he was. Well, him being a director for hire is pratically a descirtion of most of his career, with very few exception (like KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, which seems he was attached to it even before it had producers). But evne BLADE RUNNER was a job for hire for him. The thing about Scott is that he has a prodigious imagination, and if he finds a spark that ignites it, he gets lose. This is why ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER, despite being two jobs for hire for him, they are clearly his own movies as if he had been their authors from the get go.

    Sadly, i see no such thing in PROMETHEUS. Other then the marvelous visuals, i see nothing in it that reads like a classic Scott movie. It’s more the writer’s movie then his, i fear. and by writer, i mean, him as a studio stooge who did everything he was comanded to without question, like a trained dog on a leach.

    Do i love PROMETHEUS? Do i hate it? Yes and no. Love the visuals, hate the fucking script. That’s my answer.

    Abrams Trek is hardly a collection of the ebst thing sin Trek because there is litle to no Trek in it, other then as a parody of Wrath Of Khan. But the movei is mostly Star Wars pretending to be Trek. The most constant thing that Team Abrams says in the audio comentary in that movie is that this and that scene and moment are in the move because there’s soemthing like that in Star Wars. No lie, it’s their own words in the subject. From the horse’s mouth. Abrams Trek is ST had been Michael Bayficated. It’s as dumb as a Michael Bay movie. Which is a lot, baby. Last time i saw it was with the rifftrax track on it, and it’s the only bearable way i can watch it Barely. Utter pants. Abrams boasted he knew nothing Trek and never found much interest or liking in it. It shows. And now he’s making another one. Oh joy!

    PROMETHEUS. Oh man, what a lost oportunity…. pun intended.

  168. Don’t go see it.

  169. That’s the thing we don’t get, As. No offense, but you hate this movie with all of your soul, and yet by your own admission you’ve watched it at least three times: in the theater, with the commentary track on, and with the Rifftrax. And then you continue to watch movies and shows produced by Team Abrams (which really deserves its own portmanteau at this point. Ream Assrams, maybe?) even though you know it’s just gonna drive you into a fit of rage. Personally, when I hate a movie, I might give it one more chance if lots of people I trust make a case for it, but if I still hate it, I just stop watching it. And when I hate two movies by the same people, I cut them off. Seems to solve the problem pretty well. So what I’m asking is, why do you put yourself through this aggravation by continuing to ingest the works of Abrams, Bay, Lindelhoff, etc.? What are you getting out of it?

  170. asimovlives, you love the cinema. so do i. so i can never stand against you, you and i are brothers of the same passion

    all i am saying is that archaeologists don’t use whips

    more importantly, it doesn’t matter. in the movies

    all that does matter is you reach the bottom of your popcorn and not even notice. and then start stuffing scratched off pieces of popcorn container cardboard into your mouth. and still not notice

    that is how i judge quality

  171. Mr. Majestyk, know thy enemy, as i use to say. When i saw Abrams Trek with the comentaries, it was my way of giving it a second chance, and to learn why the movie was made as it was. I do like to understand wh the worst movies i see are as they are. I’m also a sutend of cinema, you see, and i learn as much from the good ones as the bad ones.

    PROMETHEUS, i had to watch it, didn’t I? It’s Ridley Scott, it’s a new Alien moive, it was Scot back at the franchise, i could i not go see it, despite Lindelof’s participation. i had hopes that Scot would be able to neutralise the evil influence of Lindelof, but alas it was not to be. You see, Scott is my favorite director. Or rather, used to. I had Chistopher Nolan and Scott in a tigh race to which of them was my favorite living director. But i have to say, after PROMETHEUS, he lost. Even if THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is half the movie that BATMAN BEGINS is, Nolan wins by a head. Now i have new favorite director, and he’s about my age, which is nice. And Duncan Jones or Nicolas Winding Refn might be number two if Scott keeps with the wrong company as he did with PROMETHEUS and depending on their new movies.

    I sincerely don’t undrstand what you find so scandalous about me rewatching a movie that is shit, if it’s for the sake of understanding this type of evil. It’s all about understanding. I’m a student of cinema as much i’m a movie geek. For me, both are the same thing. You know how Vern watches even the worst of Steven Segal’s movies so he can understand the movies and his career? Same thing. How’s that a bad thing? Besides, the Abrams Trek rifftrax is hillarious. Can’t wait to watch the Tranformers movies with those rifftraxs as well.

  172. It just seems to torment you so. I worry about you. I understand that sometimes it’s easy to obsess over something you hate, because hate is a very strong emotion, and the rush it delivers can be addictive. Doesn’t make it healthy, though. You can only stare into the abyss for so long…

  173. “archaeologists don’t use whips”

    Not now, anyway. Don’t be too sure about the past, however. Those natives wouldn’t be digging on their own accord, if you know? Ah, the victorian times!

    “all that does matter is you reach the bottom of your popcorn”

    Fuck popcorn. If i go to the theaters is to watch a movie, not to eat. If i want to eat, i go to a restaurant,to a deli, or stay at home. Besides, popcorn tastes like sawed wood, i never understood the appeal.

    “that is how i judge quality”

    I have… other measure sticks to judge a movie, if you know what i mean.

    “you and i are brothers of the same passion”

    Aren’t we all in here? BROTHERS!!!! SISTERS!!!

  174. Mr. Majestyk

    “You can only stare into the abyss for so long…”

    Ahhh… Nietszche makes everything better. I did read that book, you know?

  175. Hate is ot the right word to decribe what i feel fo Team Abrams. Despise and scorn are more like it. I only hate one filmmaker, and that’s Michael Bay. And even that was not enough to make be bother to check out Transformers 3 (and Transformers 2 i didn’t saw in the theaters but from… another sources, shall we say). There’s limits even to hate. Unless it’s rifftrax, they can made even the most umbearable fun.

  176. ot = not

  177. So I assumed. Hence why I didn’t bother finishing the quote.

  178. You guys have all missed the most important flaws the movie has:
    http://thecinemasnob.com/2012/06/12/prometheus-re-review.aspx

  179. The Original... Paul

    June 12th, 2012 at 10:52 am

    “PROMETHEUS, i had to watch it, didn’t I? It’s Ridley Scott, it’s a new Alien moive, it was Scot back at the franchise, i could i not go see it, despite Lindelof’s participation.”

    And this is why mentioning great movies like “Silence” and “Shame” evokes blank-eyed imcomprehension, whereas a mention of “Prometheus” means everyone knows what you’re talking about. I’m not judging, just observing. I think it’s well-documented on these hallowed pages that 2012 has so far, for me, been the best year of cinema in my lifetime (and we’re going back to the 1970s there) so I’m not complaining when a movie like “Prometheus” gets released unfinished so that it can pull in the summer crowds. (That’s basically what I think happened here.)

    Why the praise for Rapace, by the way? I thought she got the character wrong. Shaw isn’t written as a wide-eyed innocent with inner strength, and given what the character goes through, I found it pretty unbelievable that Rapace would play her that way for basically the entire film. Plus, this may be a cheap shot, but what the hell was up with her accent? SO distracting.

  180. Paul I don’t think making fun of her accent is fair. English isn’t her language. Obviously the accent wasn’t a problem for Scott, or else he would not have chosen her. If you have a problem with her accent, don’t blame her, blame Scott.

    Here’s a cool detail for you about Rapace and Prometheus:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/magazine/noomi-rapace-arrives-in-hollywood-by-way-of-outer-space.html

    Among the women considered for the part of Elizabeth Shaw in “Prometheus,” Rapace held at least one significant advantage: she was actually transported, long ago, to a strange world populated by what were, for her, alien beings. She was 5 when her stepfather, a teacher, and her mother, a stage actress turned drama teacher, moved the family from Sweden to Solheimar, Iceland, a tiny village founded in the 1930s as a haven for disabled people. (Rapace didn’t meet her biological father, a Spanish flamenco singer, until she was a teenager.) When the family moved to Solheimar, Rapace said, it was populated mostly by teenagers and adults with Down syndrome, and as a very young girl from another country, she found them menacing. “I was afraid of them,” she says. “To me they were like big trolls. I was not allowed to be angry with them, but they were quite mean sometimes, violent and sexual.”

    While most of the film was shot at Pinewood Studios, outside London, some of the cast and crew traveled to a location in Iceland, not far from where Rapace lived as a child, for 10 days of filming.

    Ok, this Downs Syndrome town is more interesting than Prometheus to me. Make a movie about THAT. Good horror premise?

  181. “Plus, this may be a cheap shot, but what the hell was up with her accent? SO distracting.”
    Well her dream implies that she’s been travelling the word since she was a child, so an accent that isn’t quite any one thing makes sense.

  182. The Original... Paul

    June 12th, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Stu – I agree on that, but it feels like trying to have it both ways. If this character has been travelling the world for that long, shouldn’t she appear a little… worldly? I know several people who’ve been travelling their whole lives, and while many are very different, the one thing they all have in common is a certain “attitude”. Call it wordliness, confidence, I don’t know. All I know is Rapace is missing it entirely. This isn’t a woman who’s “at home” in any society she encounters. I’d even go as far as to say that at times she comes off as something of a misfit.

    And even if it wasn’t for the world travel thing… I don’t really buy her as a SPACE traveller. Or, as Asimov says, a scientist. And I don’t think it’s just scripting problems that are responsible for the latter, although they certainly take a lot of the blame.

  183. “And even if it wasn’t for the world travel thing… I don’t really buy her as a SPACE traveller.”
    I don’t follow, as I was under the impression this was her first time travelling in space?

  184. I expect a written thesis on the films of Reams Assrams from you, Asimov.

    But then, I once felt as you did. People raved about THE FIFTH ELEMENT. I went to the pictures, watched it, thought it was a load of old cobblers. Still people raved. I didn’t understand.

    I watched it on TV, still thought it was cobblers. The raves continued – grew even. Friends whose opinion I respect loved it. I didn’t understand.

    I bought the widescreen VHS (£18.99 from HMV, St James Centre Edinburgh, I recall!) because I was obviously missing something and I had to understand what it was. I could have bought the £5 pan and scan, but then I might miss what it was I did not understand and thus continue in ignorance.

    Nope. Still cobblers. Pretty but cobblers. Certainly wide.

    Finally, a few months ago it came to me: this movie is not meant for you. It will be loved by many, but not you. I just threw the tape out last month. Goodbye FIFTH ELEMENT, may we never meet again.

    And I wonder no more.

    Perhaps Lindelof is your FIFTH ELEMENT.

  185. The Original… Paul

    In case you are not aware of, Noomi Rapace is swedish. So she was speaking in a foreign language for her and doing a fine job. And how is your swedish accent, by the way? Is it closer to Stockholm or more like Malmo?

  186. The Limey, there is only one type of movie that is not for me: crappy ones.

  187. I’m really shitty at identifying accents, but I think I read that Rapace was asked to do an English accent instead of her actual Swedish one. So I think that’s what’s throwing off Paul.

  188. asimov, I’m fairly new to this board and I don’t watch new movies that often, hell I might even be a bit slow, so it wasn’t until today that I realized that you are of course joking. You’re fucking with us. We’ve been punk’d! I should have guessed it from the strange take you have on this and many other movies, the obsession you with certain directors and all this incoherent anger over details you’ve obviously invented yourself. My guess is you haven’t even seen Prometheus yet. Well, I’m in on the joke now so bring it on, brother.

  189. Vern, to those of us who are familiar with the Swedish language she sounded so Swedish I was amazed when I realized her name was Shaw and not Petterson or something like that. I remember there was a similar debate over Meryl Streep’s accent in Out of Africa. A lot of people thought it was the worst South African accent ever, and didn’t realize that she spoke with a rather good Danish accent.

  190. Knox Harrington

    June 12th, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Yeah, didn’t Out of Africa take place in Kenya or something? Don’t know why people expect all white people in Africa to have South African accents. Leo had a pretty good, if exaggerated, one in Blood Diamond, although Daniel Craig’s accent in Munich was still the best, in my opinion.

    I loved Rapace’s accent in Prometheus. Thought it was very elegant. But then, I’ve always liked the Swedish tongue (especially my ex-girlfriend’s).

  191. How about Joel Kinnaman in the TV series The Killing? He’s Swedish, but he sounds pretty American to me. Perhaps not as good as Alexander Skarsgård’s accent in Generation Kill, but good enough to not be presented as a foreigner in the show. I’m a wrong?

  192. He’s also apparently American enough to be the new Robocop. Having never seen THE KILLING, I can’t say, but generally Swedes seem to do American accents pretty well. There’s a reason Dolph Lundgren gets to play Americans and Jean Claude always has to pretend to be Cajan or Quebecois or something.

  193. “Source Code felt a bit more like an 70s/80s film to me because it built things up relatively slowly … but I’m sure there are better modern examples.”

    I really can’t relate to everybody’s comments about the pacing of modern films.

    -Source Code is not a slow burner. It throws stuff at you a mile a minute. Every scene is loaded with new information etc. This is one of the last films I would cite as an example of a relaxed pace.

    -Guys, we GOTTA get off this idea that “modern movies aren’t good”. 99% of movies have always sucked. Let’s celebrate the good ones, and take the bad ones to task without trying to make blanket statements about the general state of cinema that nobody could really be qualified to make?

    “They don’t make ’em like they used to” is one of my biggest pet peeves…people have ALWAYS felt that way. It’s a fallacious tendency to idolize the past. The past wasn’t better, you’re just more cynical now.

  194. Another thing I have to ask about The Killing after almost 2 seasons; Does it really rain THAT much in Seattle? And if it does, why the hell does nobody in that town seem to own an umbrella or a raincoat ?

  195. As for the “it’s only a Movie” argument, I think I have a healthy perspective on that. Obviously movies are one of the most important things in the world to me (maybe love is higher, I’ll give you that) but that doesn’t mean I have to take every movie personally.

    One of the things I love about movies is that something designed for forgettable entertainment can also tell me so much about humanity, philosophy, society (factors in which a movie was produced and in which it was released) not to mention just fucking loving some of them.

    At the same time, a bad one can be disappointing but no reason to take it as a personal affront. We do good work here analyzing in depth what a movie is and does, and then identifying who might like that.

    I think some of the angrier critics get so worked up over anger that a movie didn’t do what they wanted, they lose the perspective on identifying what it did do instead. And it could still be a success or failure at what it attempts but once you take it to that level it shouldn’t infuriate anyone. It can be “this movie does X but does it badly so fans of X might want to avoid it.”

    I say this as someone who voraciously tries to consume more movies than I already do for work and compiles a collection of blu rays and Netflix queues for posterity. It’s just the process of narrowing the selection down. Does that mean it’s just a movie to me?

  196. The Original... Paul

    June 12th, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    I lived with two Swedes as housemates for one and a half years, I watch a LOT of Nordic film (haven’t I spent a good part of this year raving over “Silence”?) and I still constantly never felt Rapace’s accent was “natural”. Take that how you will. That’s only a fairly minor thing anyway. The big problem I have with her performance is it doesn’t seem to match the character as it was written.

    And Renfield, I absolutely agree with you about modern film, although I’d go a bit further than that.

    To those saying that modern film is lacking… try reading some of my latest reviews! I mean, I appreciate that I have been… overenthusiastic at times… this year, but THAT MANY great films… I can’t be wrong about all of them, for everybody. I mean, I know not everybody will like everything that I like, but there’s gotta be SOMETHING in here for you.

    “Silence”. “Shame”. “Martha Marcy May Marlene”. “Into the Abyss”. “The Raid”. “Chronicle”. “Into The Abyss”. “Cabin in the Woods”. “Margin Call”. Correct me if I’ve forgotten anything here.

    Of those films, “Into the Abyss” is a flawless masterpiece by one of the greatest filmmakers of our time. “Chronicle” is a take on an old, tired formula, but given new life and executed exceptionally well. “Cabin in the Woods” I suspect is one of those films like “Scott Pilgrim” that I’ll like more and more every time I see it. And the rest are “merely” great films. Yes, ALL of them. Again, not all of you will agree with all of my choices, but guys – it’s not as though I haven’t given you a good selection here! “Silence” and “Shame” are slow-burn movies, “The Raid” is action-packed, “Chronicle” is a found-footage picture. Two of my choices are foreign-language, one is a documentary, one is a financial thriller, and one is a narrative-bending paranoia piece.

    Plus you have “The Grey”, “The Avengers” and “Haywire”, which, although none of them blew me away, all have a lot to like about them; “Young Adult”, which I found unwatchable but I know a lot of you guys loved; “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, which although second-rate Fincher is still a lot better than 95% of the films of any other year; and I’m sure I could come up with more if I wanted to. The only really big disappointment in terms of quality (I’m not counting “Young Adult” because I think it’s a good film in many ways even though I didn’t personally like it) has been “Prometheus”.

    I will keep repeating this until you guys get it drummed into your incredibly stubborn alien-helmet-covered skulls: this has been the best year of cinema I’ve seen since I was born. By miles. And I was born in the seventies. This is better than the year “The Thing” came out. It’s that fucking good.

    So if you find yourself disappointed with the state of cinema right now, you know what? WATCH BETTER MOVIES. Trust me, they’re out there.

    Anyway I wanted a way to link this back to “Prometheus”, and what I could think of was this: just think of all of those great films I’m recommending to you as your own loveable penis-headed aliens, all ready to hug you tight, kiss you goodnight, and fill your chest until it’s bursting with joy. Grasp those cute little critters, guys. Reach out to them. Open your hearts to them and feel yourself forming an unbreakable bond with something that’s so much greater than yourselves.

    Oh, and Limey – I loved “The Fifth Element”. Chris Tucker and all. But it’s definitely an acquired taste.

    Sweet dreams!

  197. The Original... Paul

    June 12th, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Oh before I go…

    New movie suggestion: a light-hearted rom-com based on one free-spirited twentysomething’s wacky adventures with her penis-headed alien buddy. The twentysomething in question would of course be played by Drew Barrymore; and anybody who, like me, ever had the misfortune to watch the movie “Never been kissed” from start to finish, can definitely appreciate how much more charming she’d look and sound with a recently hatched alien xenomorph affixed to her face.

    Good night.

  198. Paul, I think both the accent and the performance has something to do with the fact (in my opinion, anyway) that Rapace isn’t quite as good an actress as her role as Salander has led us to believe.

  199. A few things I would like to comment on:

    1. Talking about a “script” or what is in it when talking about what you see in movie is a little misguided. A finished film is created or finished in the editing room. The scriptwriter is merely the person who sets up the infrastructure, so to speak, of which the film is based on. It’s an important job because if the structure fails, the movie will fail and no amount of brilliant directing or editing will make something great out of a mediocre script. And bad execution can destroy a well-written script. I know that a lot of work goes on in the editing room to get a movie into shape from what has been shot so what makes it on screen does not always necessarily reflective of the original shooting script.

    2. It’s very easy to say that because something comes from someone who is younger, they have a new or fresher viewpoint. It is true much of the time but at the same time, there are a lot of young creative people out there who come out with complete crap. It also feels like a copout to simply say that because someone is young, they are necessarily groundbreaking. From experience and history, it’s always the young people who always think the old fogeys have no idea and that they know so much better… when really, there’s nothing better than life experience to prove that completely wrong. Just take a look at the output of a an established director like Spielberg, who I see continuously adapts to new technology while still holding on the basics of filmmaking to come up with incredibly well-directed work. It’s work that you can see over the years continues to evolve and has never lost its vitality.

    3. And also, Asimov, I think in film criticism, it is probably a good thing to temper the opinion and enthusiasm with a bit less absolutism and generalization. When something is stated in a firm way like there is no debate about how bad or how good any work is, it closes the door to discussion. It is good that film makes you very passionate. It does for all of us here I imagine or we would not be posting here. But when you post long posts like you have a bone to pick, and therefore you close people off from whatever argument you are making because it sounds like you are not basing your view from a reasoned or logical viewpoint.

  200. I think Holywood should do a movie adaptation of this forum and call it WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PROMETHEUS.

  201. pegsman, how could anybody not understand that the character of Meryl Streep played in OUT OF AFRICA was danish and that was her accent. I mean, the movie itself STARTS IN DENMARK. to quote Jeremy Clarkson, how hard can that be to understand such a simple thing? It’s not like the movie doesn’t show, for Dog’s sakes!

    No, i don’t do p’unked or any of that crap. My opinions are legit and i don’t do levity. Though very often i do put a humourous twist to what i write, but i’m obvious when i do it.

    I could say the same about you and the p’unked thing, however. Sometimes you came up with the weirdest stuff!

  202. Maybe you’re right, but it would be called WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT ASIMOVLIVES…

  203. pegsman, har har.

    Smartass.

  204. Cassidy, eh?

  205. I think this strange all this talk that is stating or implying that Noomi Rapace is an inferior actress or underserved of the accolades she got and all based on the fact she doesn’t do a perfect american accent despite the fact she is swedish and her english is quite good and very understandable to listen to.

    I mean, take me: I’m portuguese. This means that i should had twice the compains an american would had about her accent because i would be twice removed. a portuguese listening to a swedish speaking english. and yet, never once i had a problem understanding Noomi Rapace’s dialogue in PROMETHEUS. For all the complains i have about the movie, Rapace’s acting and dialogue delivery are not one of that. I just don’t get it.

    Honest question: do americans resent foreign actors getting top roles in big american film productions? I’d like to know that.

  206. If I answer that, can you promise to just read it and not reply with a 5000 word rant?

  207. pegsman

    Scout’s honour, cross my heart.

  208. Okay, cool. My point was that if they wanted Elizabeth Shaw to be English, why not just hire an English actress? It had nothing to with the understanding of her dialog, but the fact that she has a pretty thick Swedish accent. As for your last question, I’m not American, but I’m pretty sure the answer is “no”.

  209. pegsman, thanks for your reply, appreciate it. This is not a reply, just a few coments for your pleasure.

    Personally, i though Elisabeth Shaw’s character was supposed to be american. Scott is know to do detailed writen down background on the characters in his movies. In ALIEN each actor got a very detailed biography for the characters they played. It’s not something that we will know in-story, except in some minor hints from dialogue or character’s actions/body language. All that for the benefit of the actors.
    I wonder if Scott did the same for PROMETHEUS and wrote down a justification for why an american has a swedish accent. Maybe it’s the Minesota’s accent of the year 2090? That state has a large population descendent from swedish and norwegians, which accounts for their distinctive accent (see FARGO).
    But all this is just speculation, of course.

    “I’m not American, but I’m pretty sure the answer is “no”.”

    I’d liked that. However, i’m reminded of so many coments from american posters on AICN and their fits of anger and revolt whenever english actors play americans in an major productions. If this can be for a fellow english language speaker, how more so can it got for an actor with a different native language? You know what i mean? This place seems populated by more even-headed people, thus the reason of my question above. So you know.

  210. Knox Harrington

    June 13th, 2012 at 4:13 am

    Well, we already live in a world where the borders between countries and cultures grow thinner and thinner. We’re all surrounded by so different nationalities and accents, mostly using English as the common language. Prometheus takes place nearly a hundred years in the future. Was it ever stated where Shaw was from? Does it matter? What if she simply played a Swede?

    I’m pretty sure Scott cast her because he thought she’s a good actress. He probably didn’t give a shit about her accent. If anything, it makes the character more interesting.

  211. Knox Harrington, a swedish with an english name? Well, how knows if that will happen in the future, thanks to the globalization effect you mentioned?

    I work at a court of law in my country. Thus i come across a lot of names. I hav enoticed that many emigrant people from countries like Cabo Verde and Brasil (Brazil in english) have mixed language names. It’s very common to see brazilians with mixed english and portuguese names. Some names are the lusification of english names. The caboverdeans can have names that are a mix of portuguese, english, french and dutch, all even in one name.

    Or maybe Rapace played a future time minesotean.

  212. “lusification” should read “lusitanification”. It’s the act of turning something into portuguese. Though i’m not sure if the term is accurate.

  213. This is getting boring fast, but Rapace herself stated that she was told Shaw was English and that they wanted her to speak with an English accent (as opposed to American, I guess). To bad she couldn’t quite do it, but no big deal.

  214. “Rapace herself stated that she was told Shaw was English and that they wanted her to speak with an English accent”

    Didn’t knew that. Thanks for the info. I guess they tried then for what’s called the mid-atlantic accent, perhaps. Sucessful or not i cannot say. One of the great examples of a mid-atlantic accent is HAL’s voice in 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY. I wonder is that was done for David in PROMETHEUS.

  215. It is funny that this discussion thread for PROMETHEUS has become an intervention for asimovlives and his Team Abrams rage. Asimovlives, why do you think Lindelof is a corporate puppet? I just watched this new show on Hulu (the soul stealing company Vern referenced in his POLTERGIEST review) called SPOILERS WITH KEVIN SMITH, and each week Smith takes a group of people to see a movie then they have a discussion about it and there is special guest in studio that Smith interviews. It just so happens in this past week’s episode they went to see PROMETHEUS and the special guest was Damon Lindelof. Lindelof says that he was handpicked by Scott to look over the original script and give him his thoughts. Lindelof said the original script had many of the same ideas and big moments but it was more of an Alien film, with face huggers and the Aliens from the rest of the franchise showing up very early on. Lindelof said his big contribution was to make it less of an alien film and (SPOILERS) have them not show up till the epilogue. Asimov, I would recommend you check it out but your head might explode. In all seriousness, Asimov, I respect and dig your passion for film, but your whole argument that Lindelof is corporate stooge is unfounded. You can knock they guy for his creative choices, but don’t just slander the guy because you don’t like him and his friends. Also, when you beat that “I hate Team Abrams” drum you are carrying around so hard, it drowns out the other points you are trying to make. I think you have a lot to say but some of it is lost in all the Team Abrams noise, and being so upset must be exhausting.

  216. Asimovlives, yes Americans resent Brits and Aussies taking all the work, especially on television. I hear it all the time in the industry. So that is a real thing. I didn’t have a problem with Rapace, just sharing an objective industry trend.

  217. While I have nothing else to say about PROMETHEUS: LINDELOF RISING or THE REEDUCATION OF ASIMOVLIVES: REDEMPTION, but I would like to congratulate Vern for finally giving in to the allure of the trickster god Commerce and getting an ad on this sight. What you do here must take a lot of time and effort, and I for one am glad that you gave your perversely overachieving sense of integrity a rest for a sec so you could make a little goddamn money. I don’t think a few discreet ads will detract from this sight at all, and I’ll sleep better at night knowing you’re getting at least a small kickback for all the entertainment and comraderie you’ve given us. The fact that the ad is just a picture of a mysterious one-eyed skeleton wizard named Spirit is a bonus.

  218. Charles, dude, get a hold. This is about PROMETEUS, not me, don’t you know? No i don’t welcome the attention, at all. Wouldn’t it be great if you stop distrupting this forum with whinings about me? Can i talk about the movie PROMETHEUS, please? About THE MOVIE. Please? That would be nice. Thank you. So much to chat about the movie, really.

  219. Fred Topel, well, regarding the brit and aussies actors being so prevalent in american movies and TV shows, my theory is that they might be cheapper (at least at the begining), and all brit and aussie actors have theater backgrounds, which give them a great discipline, and they already came to the american shores with a seal of proval from their homelands.

    That is not to say that there aren’t many american actors with theater background. I was (pleasantly) suprised to learn that Chris Pine cames from a theater background, and he loves the theater more then anything, and misses acting for a live crowd now that his film commitments don’t allow him time for that. He’s a good example of that. But so often, so man of americana ctors are just beekcakes or bimbos chosen for their looks and nothing else. Movies and TV shows are flooded with those. So, i wonder if this is the case why there’s so many aussies, kiwis, brits, irish and canadians in american show, those came with already in seals of aprovals if they are after actors with real talent. It’s like it would be more certain that way you would get the whole package.

    Funny story about HOUSE is that when Bryan Singer was casting the main role, he was quite unhappy with the american actors he was test screening, and when he saw Hugh Laurie’s video screen test, he said to his producers partners (paraphrasing): “this is what i was looking for. Can’t believe i found an american actor this good”. Ironically, Laurie is english, and in his native land he’s mostly known as a comedian.

    Of course what Brian said is quite unfair, has there has always been brillant actors on american TV. For example, Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul and Jonahthan Banks absolutly kill in that show. So to prove it.

  220. I’ve proudly ordered a bunch of stuff on Amazon via the link on this websight, plus some of that CafePress merch. I’m paying Vern’s goddamn bills.

    Now there’s a tiny sidebar link to the UFC store, which has some outstanding products that I’ve used heavily the last several years, including the weighted jump rope, the weighted gloves, the training pads & gloves — it’s all great stuff if fighting (without ruining your manicure or suffering brain damage) is part of your workouts, which should apply to everybody of the male homo sapiens species, obviously.

  221. Charles, by the way, the you in “Wouldn’t it be great if you stop distrupting this forum”is the plural you, not just the singular for you alone. Dammit, why is it that in english “you” is both for singular and plural of the 3rd person? It can make it confusing.

  222. Mr. Majestyk, to coment on the use of “sight” in the Vernacular of this site in place of “site”, the first time i read it, i fell to the floor laughing. Hell, the first time i ever read a review by Vern i almost bust a gut from laughing so hard. Vern got this close to owe me a strictureplasty.

  223. Mouth, does the good Vern get a percentage from sales? If so, i’ll feel tempted, even obliged to buy his Seagalogy. Even though i fucking hate Steven Segal.

  224. Not sure how that comment isn’t flagged for review when it contains the sacrilegious words “…i fucking hate Steven Segal.”

    Must’ve been the misspelling at the end that let it slip by the filters.

    Yes, our host/sightmaster Vern’s children’s college education depends on you clicking on the thingies at the top right of this page and buying stuff after that click. I highly recommend HEROES OF THE EAST via the Amazon widgemacallit. And SEAGALOGY: UPDATED EDITION: RISE OF THE FAUX CAJUN FAUX ASIAN AIKIDO MASTER SHERRIFF, of course.

  225. Mouth, Segal is jewish, isn’t he? Just to prove wrong that once erronious notion that there was no jewish action heroes. It used to be a saying in Holywood back in the 80s and 90s. I read about it in an onset report from PREMIERE magazine during the filming of OUTBREAK, because they were making this big fuzz of it being Dustin Hoffman’s first action movie in his career, and him going “i’m the first jewish action hero”. Then somebody told him that Harrison Ford is part ukranian jewish, which gave him pause. Funny thing is, in his movies, Segal always try to pass as an italian badass or a WASP or mixed indian or mixed oriental. The dude has issues.

    My opinion of Segal could make a good blurb for Amazon’s review of Segalagy: “I fucking hate Steven Segal and yet still bought Segalalogy”. It’s quite an endorsement, wouldn’t you think?

    And i think Vern writes as he does for comedy effect. He has this “blockhead” persona for his reviews, but the truth is he’s very intelligent, very perceptive and highly literate. The stuff he writes could only come from a very talent person at literacy, disguised as lack of. And he does something few writers can do, he makes his ideas come across very clearly. You are never in doubt what he is saying, what he means to say. And he does so with pseudo-bad grammar. It’s incredibly hard to achieve. Vern is a brillant writer. One of the best i ever seen. I mean it.

  226. Asimovlives, I would have done a spit take if I was drinking when I read you trying scold me for interrupting this thread with my “whining”. That was the best laugh I had in a while. You of all people should not accuse anybody of derailing a thread and/or whining. I was only replying to your previous response to my post, and I was talking about one of the writers of PROMETHEUS and how much they contributed to what we saw on the screen.

  227. Charles, my mistake then, so sorry. I’m glad you got a laugh out of it.

  228. No worries Aismov.

    I bet Seagal loves Seagalogy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Seagal has his house keeper read it to him to help go to sleep. Every time she eventually finishes the book Seagal makes her start over reading it again, but in another language. That way he can be a master of Seagalogy in every dialect on the plant.

  229. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    June 13th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Boy oh boy, my one offhand comment about Rapace’s accent got taken way further than I ever meant it to, didn’t it? That was always a relatively minor point as compared to the fact that Rapace’s performance didn’t seem to “fit” the character at all.

    In fact… screw it. I’m gonna need a comparison here.

    So you guys remember Halle Berry’s pronunciation of the line “You know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning” in “X-Men” and Joss Whedon pointing out that the line itself isn’t the problem, it’s how Berry says it – totally serious when it’s clearly meant to be offhand? That to me is Rapace’s whole performance. It’s almost as though she’s trying to get away from both her own Liesbeth Salander and Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, so she goes out of her way to make her character appear as different as possible, ending up taking it way too far.

    To do what it’s well established she’s done this girl must have travelled to many different cultures, negotiated with a lot of hard-nosed people in the process, and made herself stand out in a tough field, THEN negotiated her way onto a spaceship (yes, I know that’s mostly Pearce’s character’s doing, but he’d have to see her as worthy of it first). Is the character Rapace is playing capable of ANY of that? Not as far as I can see. Even when she’s fighting for her life towards the end and overcomes two guards in the process, it’s very much hinted that this is more the strength of having an alien inside her (black penis alien steroids?) than it is her own inner strength. I just don’t buy it. It’s not a terrible performance but it doesn’t fit with what I know of the character.

    Is Rapace overrated? Not sure, she was outshone by Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” but some of Rapace’s scenes are pretty harrowing in their own right – especially her crooked little walk home after her rape. Plus she was up against an actress who was directed by David Fincher – not what I’d call an easy comparison for Rapace. In “Prometheus” though I think her performance is one of the reasons why the movie doesn’t work. Rapace clearly doesn’t understand the character, and the movie suffers for it.

  230. HOUSE was the funniest show on television so it made sense they hired a comedian.

  231. BR Baraka. I think Harmony Korine has made that Down Syndrome movie…several times.

  232. As for the “movies are worse now” argument I have some perspective. Every era does have its share of bad movies. What’s happening now is that there are some movements so prevalent that if you don’t like them it’s striking.

    If you don’t like shakey cam, sorry every action movie is shakeycam except HAYWIRE. If you don’t like CGI, there aren’t any alternative blockbusters without superheroes or toothy tentacle aliens. If you don’t like 3D good luck finding a 2D theater.

    So there is a lack of alternatives these days. However if you like outside the box films, indies are thriving. I don’t know if they’re making any money but the audiences are benefiting.

  233. Are there not 2D screens where you guys are? I have never been forced to watch a movie in 3D because there was no 2D showing.

  234. Fred, I think the lack of alternatives were a “problem” before too. Let’s say that you were a conservative in the 70’s, good luck finding a blockbuster without a liberal view on life. Or if you hated blue light and saxophone scores in the 80’s you were basically fucked. As you say, I think our job as movie archeologists are to help people remember that there are other films out there, at any time in history. A lot of people remember Flashdance from 1983, but not Lone Wolf McQuade etc, etc.

  235. Tawdry, we live in the same city and 2D screens are often at obscure locations or one show a day. I was at Arclight tonight and noticed 2 3D screens for PROMETHEUS and one 2D screen showing it at 6 and 9 so you can’t even see 2D during the day.

    Pegsman, great point. I’m willing to do my part.

  236. Not worried about the collective opinion of an era’s good movies or lack thereof. Wait a month and something new & great to your senses will be in theatres or in your dvd player. Vern just discovered MIAMI CONNECTION, and it’s getting a theatrical release, which makes me jealous of something in fucking Texas, fer chrissake. Being a cinephile today with some money and high speed internet is like what Bill Maher said about being American —

    “You know, if you’re an American and you’re born at this time in history especially, you’re lucky. We all are. We won the world history Powerball lottery.”

    Right now I’ve got a slew of French mystery movies from the past 30 years queued and ready to be watched if I ever have enough hours in the day. I literally don’t have time to watch all the awesome badass movies & sublime musicals I want to see, not to mention the infinite firehose of beauty that is Turner Classic Movies.

    I also can barely wait for the next time I’m in NYC to do another grey market dvd transaction with Mr. Majestyk.

    http://mistermajestyk.blogspot.com/2010/12/obscure-movies-i-have-for-sale.html

    I even dabble in the Bollywood section of Netflix, where recently this delightful movie description forced me to watch something called LAFANGEY PARINDEY immediately:

    “The intense and often ruthless streets of Mumbai are the setting for this romance about One Shot Nandu, a boxer who fights blindfolded, and Pinky Palkar, a roller dancer whose career is threatened when she’s blinded in an accident with Nandu.”

    Holy shit, that synopsis. Amazing. All that’s missing is ninja & lesbians. [The movie turned out to be mediocre, with subpar fight scenes, but awesomely cheesily emotional throughout, especially the ridiculous ending (involving roller skates and an American Idol kind of show) that my ladyfriend loved so much she was leaking from 3 orifices.]

    Anyway, I won’t be complaining about whether this mini-generation’s cinema is good or not. Movies are art, and thus exist outside the framework of the human concept of time.

    We have virtually instant access to infinite versions of old silent films, like one of Fritz Lang’s masterpieces, METROPOLIS — the old 124 minute restoration, the 80s pop-rock version, and the new 148 minute restoration with the original 1927 orchestral score which you can easily mute and replace with whatever crazy shit you want. It’s a great party background film and a great altered-state trip film and a great eyeballs-glued-to-the-screen-for-2.5-hours film.

    It’s impossible to become bored, despondent, or bitter about the state of film when there’s all this gold waiting to be panned by a couple measly mouse clicks.

    I was going to rewatch PROMETHEUS, but then I decided that would just piss me off, since the script & characters are so dreadfully stupid, so instead I stayed home and YouTubed Nicholas Brothers scenes for an hour. It was glorious, it was Striving for Excellence, etc..

    No complaining, Don’t be Ellis, etc..

  237. “Is Rapace overrated? Not sure, she was outshone by Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo””

    I cannot agree with that, Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul, my friend. Though the character is essencially the same in both original and remake, and both girls did great jobs in the role, there’s a different to the way they are played that might give the illusion of a better peformance on the american actress. But this is a case of perspective. Maybe that’s not the right word, but intention and presentation. In the remake, we got some fleshing out of her, namely, when she tells Mikael about why she is still state costudy, despite already being an adult. The original movie is much more oblique about it.

    The thing is, in the original version, Lisbeth is supposed to bea cypher through and through. our only insight to her is only with the subplot with the social worker. And we always se her from an outside perspective in. Mikael is the d facto protagonist of the movie, and Lisbeth the exotic sidekick. In the american movie, both Mikale and Lisbeth are protagonists in equal footing. If one took a chronometer, i would guess both Daniel Craig and Roni Mara have equal screentime, second for second. Funny enough, at least in the first story, this is not supposed to be so.

    And i think part of this reading is due to how the movie is titled in english. It’s called THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. It already gives emphasis on Lisbeth. But the thing is, she is not the emphasis in the original (at least the movie). Th original story in it’s original swedish is called THE MAN WHO HATE WOMEN. It is a story about men seen by the eyes of a man, wtih this strange women called Lisbeth as a sort of beacon for the protagonist Mikael to see the dammage that can be fall upon a wronged woman due to persistent chauvinistic and machistic attitudes still remaining even in such a liberal society like Sweden. It’s a men’s story about the wrongs done to women and one very dammaged women as the beacon and portait of wrongdom made flesh.

    In the original, Lisbeth is a cypher, and she’s intented to be that way. And she’s played and presented that way. And done brillantly by Noomi Rapace. Mara had the benefit of being allowe to do some expressive acting with her eyes the way she looks at hings, and specially her voice. Lisbeth in Fincher’s movie talks like she studied from the best voice teachers, and they milk the actress’s very expressive voice for all it’s worth. Inthe original swedish version, Lisbeth truly talks liek somebody who rarely speaks and only does so for talk shop. otherwise, she’s beyond awkward, and Rapace does so brillantly. She can’t even have that tool and still she delivers. It’s a totally internalized performance, the most difficult there is.

    And the original movie doesn’t ask us to emphatise with Lisbeth. You have to reach to her due to what happens to her, but she never has a cuddly moment or one where she has her barriers down, like in the remake.

    Also, the original swedish movie can benefit from telling a swedish story set in sweden tod by a swedish movie, much can be left hanging or hinted because audiences would be in the know. They can afford to cut corners it would still not hurt the audience’s understanding of the movie.

    Sorry, but i can’t agree there’s one better actress in the role. Mara was great, but so was Rapace, and i think Rapace had a more difficult way of portaitng it.

  238. “in the 70′s, good luck finding a blockbuster without a liberal view on life.”

    Ahhh!!! Those were the days! Good times!

  239. DIrty Harry? Death Wish? Or are those too small budgeted to count?

    But Seriously, what Blockbuster has EVER been liberal-minded? The entire form of blockbuster action filmmaking almost requires an ultra-right wing worldview. Other than Robocop, Starship Troopers and *maybe* The Day After Tomorrow, I can scarcely think of a liberal action property from Hollywood, ever.

  240. Mouth, i hate to fall into nostalgia fallacies. The decade i most admire in american cinema was the 70s, and back then i was very young, in my child years, to even know what cinema was, much less apreciate them. My decade, if it were, would be the 80s or 90s, those were my formative years, of teenhood and the 20s. And yet, i don’t hold the 80s as this great decade of cinema. Yes, many of my favorites were made then, but overall, i think it was the decade where the prevalecence of dumb cinema became so strong. The 80s was the decade of Dumb Cinema. And all the wrongs of today’s holywood have their genesis in the 80s. Today is like a mega version of the 80s. I have a better opinion of the 90s due that so much good cinema was done that which were done in the image of the 70s cinema, which is always a great thing.

    However, for all the complains i have about today’s state of things regarding cinema, there’s a lot of good stuff made today. I mean, we have Nicolas Winding Refn making this wonderful offbeat movies. We have Christopher Nolan making intelligent and beautiful blockbusters. We have new intriguing newcomes to the scene full of promise, like Duncan Jones. For all the shit being mad,e there are some shiny diamonds about. They gave me hope to endure.

  241. Heh, weird. I’ve paid to see like a half-dozen 3D movies, ever. I’ve never had trouble finding a movie in 2D. Of course, I also tend to go mid-day on weekdays, because I like to have the theater to myself. And I’m in the valley. So, there’s that too.

  242. Tawdry Hepburn, i think we was talking about movies like THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR and THE PARALAX VIEW. Even a movie like THE DIRTY DOZEN has an incredibly bleak and critical outlook to the leaders of the allied forces of WWII, you know, The Good War? And then there’s a movie like CATCH 22, which was a very, very expensive movie at the time, and it’s quite offbeat, even surreal most of the time, and it hardly has a conservative view in things, and it’s incredibly critical of WWII, you know, the good war, and the way to do business in USA. So, yeah!

  243. About the 3D issue, mostly in my country, and at the screens i have most acess too, both in my own home city of Almada and in the capital Lisboa which is just across the river, there is most often a chance to see it either in 3D or 2D. It was only PROMETHEUS and WRATH OF THE TITANS that didn’t seem to offer any alternative beside 3D. I didn’t minded the 3D of PROMETHEUS sinc eit was from Ridley Scott i had a good feeling he would do it intelligently (which he did) and i couldn’t be arsed with WRATH OF TITANS in the theaters, so, it all worked out.

    but i have to say, this 3D fashion of the moment, i’m like Mark Kermode, it’s fucking anoying like all hell! I’m not a fan. I wanted to send a bottle of Port wine to Christopher Nolan when he said there was no way his next Batman movie was going to be 3D and he dislikes the format. That’s my boy!

  244. Mouth, if you are a ypoubute watcher, then i recomend for you to watch this movie called LIFE IN A DAY. It’s a movie produced by Youtube in acossiation with Scott Free (Yeah, Ridley Scott!). The whoe movies is in youtube. The premise is that the production sent dozens of small crews with high def cams all over the world and invited anybody with their own cameras to film themselves at a specific day in the year 2010, June 26th i believe. The movie is then a mozaic of a day in life of many people around the world, with some vistas from all around the globe. The scenes can go from amuzing to heartbreaking. I even felt a bit inlove with this very pretty british young women in Africa where she describes what is her favorite word (ine from the people of Terra Del Fuego that describes a form of akwardness in social meetings). I loved the movie. I think you should check it out, i have a feeeling you would like it.

    I’d love to see Vern’s take on it too.

  245. ypoubute = youtube

  246. Tawdry, I think you’ll find that almost everything from the 70’s with Redford, Newman and Beatty can be counted as liberal. Even Bronson and Marvin made movies during that decade that fits in that cathegory.

  247. I mean, I’ve even see several 3D re-releases…in 2D.

  248. I don’t think a movie can be liberal if its’ function is to reaffirm the status quo. Catch-22 is a legitimately liberal film…but it certainly wasn’t a blockbuster. Expensive, sure. But not a blockbuster. In my mind, a blockbuster is a 4-quadrant film (in the past, maybe 2.5 quadrants) that is designed for mass consumption and primarily to entertain.

    Robocop and Network are legitimately liberal films. Fight Club would be a liberal film, if Fincher kept Palahnuik’s ending. The film’s ending leaves it confused; the image of the falling towers is shown as glorious, which means that Tyler Durden was right, which means that fascist violence is a legitimate recourse? I love Fight Club, but the last 3 minutes totally muck up the message.

    Wow…I’m going way off topic. That means it’s time for sleep.

    Post Script: I sincerely believe that, beneath the liberal lining, about 95% of major Hollywood releases every year are ultra-conservative (Think Like a Man) if not outright Reactionary (Iron Man is little more than a sloppy blowjob to the Bush Doctrine and the righteousness of the ‘war on terror.’ It even goes so far as to reaffirm the legitimacy of Iraq Too: Electric Bugaloo, several years after we all knew it was entirely predicated upon lies).

  249. Tawdry Hepburn, well, if we are to be exact, there wasn’t blockbusters in the 70s and before. The blockbuster itself emerged in the 80s. We sometimes retcon the term to describe expensive productions from before the 80s, just for confort sake. I think it’s easy to undestand what it meant to whenever soembody calls blockbuster to a movie made in those previous decades.

  250. “Even Bronson and Marvin made movies during that decade that fits in that cathegory.”

    Lee Marvin never stroke me as conservative at all. He participated in many movies with liberal bents. And remember, he was the one that help gave John Boorman total fredom to make POINT BLANK the way it is. POINT BLANK is many things, but conversative it certainly isn’t.

    Bronson made one of the most notorious right-winger movie of the 70s, DEATH WISH, which has some of the worst use of strawman liberals i ever seen in a movie. But it seems that Bronson himself was quite an apolitical person. He just showed up to work and played what was payed to do. He must had been thankful they were still hiring him for lead roles despite his age, so he wasn’t complaining.

    The funny thing about DEATH WISH is that the book itself has a liberal tone to it. Unlike in the movie, the book presents the main characters actions as wrong. Basically, the book is the story of a cavalgade of wrongs done by everybody, to the point the hero, who starts in a sympathetic position, descends into villainry by the end. There’s hints to that still remaining in the movie, if you are not one ofthose who get carried away by the movie’s agenda and see Kelser’s actions for the horror they are, if that happened in real life. It’s not for nothing that both in the novel and in the movie, Kelser never exacts revenge on those who raped his wife and daughter.

  251. “I sincerely believe that, beneath the liberal lining, about 95% of major Hollywood releases every year are ultra-conservative”

    Me too. Holywood, for all it’s supposed posture, in fact loves to kiss conservative’s ass. and it goes even worst in regard to religion. Holywood is positively coward in tems of religion issues. It’s as if they measure all audiences by what the american midwest likes and dislikes.

  252. On a different subject, today’s main page on Wikipedia is dedicated to the unjustly maligned STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. Yeah!!! STIII is one of my favorite ST movies, and the poor movie has suffered a much unjust blacklash for reasons that make no sense at all. It’s as if people need to put some other ST movie down to put WRATH OF KHAN on top. As if that makes sense. And usually, the poor movies that get it worst are STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE and SEARCH FOR SPOCK. Just because it’s sandwished by twose two? Balls!! WRATH OF KHAN is great. ST:TMP is great. SEARCH FOR SPOCK is great. One can seen find moments of genuine greatness in the flawed STV: WHY GOD NEEDS A SPACESHIP. If you ask me, we had quite a trunkload full of riches with the TOS movies run, and there is absolutly no need to put down the other movies just to praise the second up. Bollocks! The odd numbered TOS ST movies are shit? You are full of shit, Simon Pegg!

    STAR TREK THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK love! Rock on!

  253. Jareth Cutestory

    June 14th, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Asi has looked inside and I found his katra, the part of him that says, “Yes, I can!”

  254. Knox Harrington

    June 14th, 2012 at 10:49 am

    I’m pretty sure that odd-numbered Star Trek movie theory existed long before Simon Pegg mentioned it.

    My brother was a trekkie.

  255. I also never understood what was supposed to be so bad about TREK III. Bloody alien snakes, Klingon Christopher Lloyd, Vulcan estrus, exploding Enterprise, “You Klingon bastards, you killed my son!”…what’s not to like?

  256. Plus, I really dug getting to see the crew running around in their civilian clothes for the whole movie. Sulu was a really snappy dresser. Maybe there were a few things we should have seen coming…

  257. Knox Harrington, yes it’s pretty7 old. And it’s also fucking bullshit. Old bullshit does not get respectability just becasue it’s old.

    Why Simon Peg should eat shit for his coment? Because he said so in public and it was printed. He really believes it. When he talks about odd numbwered ST movies that suck, he should be thinking of the one he made, not those made before. For a supposed geek guy, he can be so full of misguided shit sometimes. Fuck, he admited he loves BAD BOYS 2. Half the respect i had for him died that day. How did SPACED got that good? I guess i should thank Jessica Stevenson for that, then.

  258. Mr. Majestyk, yes, Sulu was fabulous. Just don’t call him tiny.

  259. I always liked Sulu’s boundless confidence and good cheer. He was nearly as slick as Kirk himself. I mean, he flew the goddamn Enterprise. That’s heavy, heavy pimp game right there. Not to open the inevitable can of worms here, but that’s why I felt that John Cho’s awkward, wimpy performance was the weakest link in the main cast of TRAIN WREK: THE MOTION PICTURE BLECHSPERIENCE. He got a couple of the intonations right but Sulu should be smoother than the bumbler Cho played him as. Sulu’s first name is Hikaru, not Harold.

  260. Mr. Majestyk, how i agree. But i don’t know if we should really blame John Cho for it, There were greater forces at work which do seem far more responsible for that. You know, like, who directed him, who wrote the script, and who cast him in the role.

  261. True. I always wondered why he got cast. Was it just because he’s the only semi-famous Asian actor in that age range working in Hollywood? I thought Korean guy from LOST would have made more sense. He has a similar regal bearing to George Takei and, as his recurring role on ANGEL showed, had a way with a wry one-liner.

    I know you hate the movie as a whole with the white-hot passion of a thousand suns, but how did you feel about the casting? I thought everyone except Chu was pretty much perfect in unexpected ways. I was most worried about Karl Urban as Bones, since what are the odds of a beefy kiwi being able to play a skinny southern gentleman? Yet he ended up being note-perfect. Would you say that, with a couple exceptions, Abrams at least knows how to cast a movie, if not write or direct it?

  262. Remember that one time when people begged me to put a forum on the sight and I didn’t really want one at first but then I thought if I did then people might stay more on topic in the comments and use the forum if they want to start a separate discussion about which are the best Star Trek sequels or some shit?

    Seems silly now, but it was a more naive time. I’ve done alot of growing up since then.

  263. Sorry, Vern. I always liked the way the comments veered wildly off topic, but you’re right, we should try to play by the rules.

    Asimov, if you want to answer me, I will set up a special Star Trek topic in Nerd Shit on the forum.

  264. Vern, you win some ya lose some. Everyone is just very used to this format of rambling conversation. In fact, that’s what gives the site some of it’s charm and makes it different from other movie review sites.

  265. So…how about that new Batman rises movie?(joking U swear)

  266. Damn this phone, I’ve got to pay more attention before I press send. I meant I swear damnit. Although I’m sure you do too.

  267. I like the insular, in-jokey nature of these conversations where they sprawl across different reviews and just continue from time to time with no real recap. It’s like a good, but very serialized comedy/drama.

    Man, you know what this generation needs, since all movies now-a-days suck? Some big producer guy, who also writes and directs fantasy stuff with lots of really elaborate serialized stories, just like on this sight. Do we have someone like that?

    In summary, Watch Blade II again.

  268. I don’t mean to be a wet blanket. I just thought Prometheus still had some juice in it. I know I still talk about it with my buddies. But if it’s dead it’s dead, I guess.

    Here’s a question: how much did David understand what he was doing when he poisoned Dr. Holloway? He seemed to know what the canister was and what would happen to Shaw. I believe it was his way of creating life like humans did to him and Engineers did to humans and Predators did to Engineers. But was the bit at the end an unforeseen result? I mean, he probly didn’t know the starfish thing would attack the Engineer and make a baby, but maybe he knew it would attack SOMETHING because what else is the weapon made for?

    I have alot of confusion about what David and the Engineers are up to and it’s kind of what I like about the movie, whether or not all of it was intentional.

    Another question: what is the movie trying to say by showing the fates of Shaw and Vickers side by side? Each of them has a long drawn out running-from-the-crashing-spaceship scene, but one gets squooshed while the other is miraculously unsquooshed. Is the movie just saying that Vickers is a bitch? Is it saying the woman with faith trumps the one who is a Grinch (which wouldn’t seem to fit statements by Scott about religion or the movie’s overall reality that they never should’ve come to the fuckin place just because she believed in it)?

    Also important to consider: mogwais had to’ve been created by the Engineers, right? And what would happen if a face hugger or alien starfish mounted a mogwai?

  269. I think it would depend on whether the mogwai had eaten after midnight. ALIEN 3 showed that the form an alien takes varies based on its host organism, so a mogwalien would be small and stumpy, while a gremlien would be larger and spindlier. They would both be smaller than a humalien, obvious, which would be smaller than an enginalien, which would be smaller than an elephalien, which would be smaller than a whalien.

  270. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    June 14th, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    Asimov – interesting points about Mara vs Rapace. I would like to watch the movies again, actually, to give you an answer on how much I’d agree with you, since your interpritation hadn’t occurred to me at the time. And Simon Pegg’s love of “Bad Boys 2” brought us “Hot Fuzz”, which is one of the most entertaining movies I’ve ever had the joy to watch about ten times over.

    Vern – I think you have hit on something. “Alien vs Predator” was always a daft concept to begin with. Now “Alien vs Mogwai”… that’s a concept with legs.

  271. Vern, interesting point about David. I don’t think he could have foreseen what happened in the end, and I don’t think he meant any malice. I think David was just curios. The black goo wouldn’t react to him because he was not a living organism, so he needed a living organism to test it on. The Alien at the end was a monstrosity born as a result of man’s curiosity, not because of David’s planning.

  272. Aliens can plant seed in Predators and make Predaliens. That’s on the record.

  273. Actually why exactly David tricks Holloway into becoming contaminated was one of my big questions. I assumed it was part of the conspiracy with Weyland he was obviously part of, but then that never really happened. I like the idea that it was his own attempt to create life. It seems like he knows immediately what it is and what it will do, but I have no idea why or how he could know that it will also result in Shaw getting laid. Or why he would want to do this, considering the obvious problems it creates. It could just be that he, like everyone else on the ship, apparently learned the basics of scientific work from a medieval wizard.

  274. Knox Harrington

    June 14th, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Did David know that Holloway and Shaw were gonna fuck? Could he smell it?

  275. Knox Harrington

    June 14th, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Does the black goo make you horny?

  276. WARNING SPOILERS

    Vern, I have to see the film again to try and digest all the symbolism but you are onto something with the symbolism in how Vickers dies. However, I don’t know if the film is trying to say she is a bad person as much as she is being punished for her motivations. The film starts with death, and the idea of death giving birth to life is a theme that reoccurs throughout the film, so does the idea of sacrifice. The engineers sacrifice themselves to create life, David sacrificed Dr. Holloway to create a new life form, Dr. Holloway willingly sacrificed himself to save the others, and the Captain and his crew sacrificed themselves to save planet Earth but Vickers didn’t want any part of it. She went against the natural order of things, she was unwilling to sacrifice herself and die but death is inescapable. On the other hand we know from the conversation Shaw had with the Captain she was ready to sacrifice herself if needed, so she went unpunished.

  277. Vern, i learned a long time ago that any talk about movies, any movie, will eventually go to unexpected destinies nobody could predict at first. for example, you start a forum about, say, JAWS, and 3 days later people are talking about MARY POPPINS. Then two days later and people are talking about poitics or italian renascence art.

    Why is this so? The simple answer is, we are not robots. Humans, by nature, explore subjets. In talinjg, conversations always head up to whatever tanget that shows up. Talking is fluid. The way i see it, there are no wrong subjects. And what i leanred is that the subject of movies is such a fluid thing you can incorporate anything.

    But it gets better. One of the most flexible genre there is is science fiction. No, it is the most flexide. It0s too easy to be taking about one movie or book or TV show about Sf and soon enough you are talking about other one. Now, mix movies and SF and you have the mnost flexible type of conversation in the whole universe. A chat about PROMETHEUS that easuily goes to Abrams Trek? Easy. No need to go six degrees of seperation of Kevin Bacon to make the jump, Damon Lindelof is one of the producers of Abrams Trek and he wrote the movie PROMETHEUS. The link is DIRECT, it’s one set away. It’s siemese, pratically.

    If anything, i’m suprised this forum has not become a LOST forum already. That’s the real suprise.

  278. The more I think about it, David and his motives really are the most interesting part of the film.

  279. Charles, yeah.

    One of the few well done things in the movie in regard to the characters is how David got from the Tom Hardy wannabe tacit confirmation to do the thing he wanted to do, to gave the infected drink to see what would happen when alien goo goes to human. The Tom hardy wannabe says he would do anything and everything. Total conformation and justification. Well, David just does that.

    It’s obvious that the intetions of David is to test if that goo, this presumed primordial goo can he used to extend life or rejuvenate an old organism, meaning, Weiland. The whoe expedition is basically going after the fountain of youth or the fountain of everlasting life, a desperate last gamble by an old dying man, fuck the consequences and everybody else.

  280. Vern:

    “I have alot of confusion about what David and the Engineers are up to and it’s kind of what I like about the movie, whether or not all of it was intentional.”

    Funny thing is, my major complain a bout PROMETHEUS is that it explains too much. I’m quite suprised by all this talk about the movie being mysterious and all, when in fact 2/3rds of the dialogue in the movie is nothing but exposition and word from god put into the characters about what is going on. The only mytery is just when and where does the first scene happen. other then that, the movie OVER-EXPLAINS. If i had a shot for each time a haracter exposes or explains, i would be dead of alchool poisoning even before the ending.

    David’s agenda is for Weiland. He’s experimenting on the alien stuff he finds to see it can be use to regenerate the old man. Or to find a way to comunicate with the engeneers, or at least understand their tech and use it in Weiland’s favour. And Weiland’s agenda. Well, to quote from

    Another question: what is the movie trying to say by showing the fates of Shaw and Vickers side by side? Each of them has a long drawn out running-from-the-crashing-spaceship scene, but one gets squooshed while the other is miraculously unsquooshed.

  281. Vern – I think Ridley’s point about the death of Vickers vs survival of Shaw was either:

    1) Being right won’t save you
    2) Being catastrophically wrong won’t necessarily get you killed

    Or perhaps he was reinforcing the chance vs design philosophy which permeates the film.

    More likely he (or indeed the writers) thought Vickers character had nowhere else to go (not literally – she should definitely have gone sideways).

    I meant to say, I used to work with a scientist called Elizabeth Shaw. She would have scared aliens. She would scare Mouth.

    And I still think and choose to believe David selected the target for the ship.

    Does David model himself after TE Lawrence because he imagines he will infiltrate a foreign country and recruit the people there to his cause against a common enemy? He can speak the lingo, you know, and in the movie Lawrence is conflicted about the British using the Arabs while intending to take their resources for themselves, and he recruited an army motivated by money rather than the British colonial manifest destiny. Finally, Lawrence is a tool used and then discarded by the Britsh miltary when his usefulness is over.

  282. Oh sorry, i screwed up, i hit enter by mistake.

    David’s agenda is for Weiland. He’s experimenting on the alien stuff he finds to see it can be use to regenerate the old man. Or to find a way to comunicate with the engeneers, or at least understand their tech and use it in Weiland’s favour. And Weiland’s agenda. Well, to quote from BLADE RUNNER, “I want more life, fucker”. Weiland wants everlasting life. This expedition is his atempt at it. David is his tool.

    There is however some things in the movie that most people are saying they are the mysteries in the movie. No, they are plot holes and bad writing, simply.

    “Another question: what is the movie trying to say by showing the fates of Shaw and Vickers side by side? Each of them has a long drawn out running-from-the-crashing-spaceship scene, but one gets squooshed while the other is miraculously unsquooshed.”

    I think it’s just basic storytelling. If we saw the fates of the two characters independently, it would be jarring. It’s just basic cross-cutting. Now, one could say, is the movie agaisnt Vickers and this is why she gets killed while sides with Shaw and makes her live? If that is your question, then the answer is yes, the movie itself fucking hates Vickers and punished her. And what is Vickers’ crimes, you ask, that the movie wants to make her be punshed: Well, it’s because she’s rational and does not fall for either faith or rules her life by faith or feelings or emotions. She crime is that she’s reasonable and intelligent. This movie, like so many Holywood movies, loves to champion blind faith and emotionalisms, and this is why Shaw is not only the hero but the sympathetic figure of the movie, the real nice one. The movie wants to instruct us that faith in itself is a good thing, even it’s just based on sturboness despite all evidence to the contrary. For some reason, the movie says that you have to have faith because faith is good. and why faith is good? Because. Because the writer says so, thats why.

  283. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul, HOT FUZZ is one of the biggest disapointments i have seen in a long time. What should had been a parody is in fact an ass kissing to so much what is wrong in the action genre. Loved the last shot where the dudes have to deal with tonnes of paperwork for all that happened. And Timothy Dalton. And Edward Woodward. Small mercies.

  284. The Limey, you ar eforgetting one element that is explained in the movie and was in fact taken for real life and why TE Lawrence mannaged to get the trust of the arabs when the previous english failed before: Lawrence was the only english in Egypt that could speak arab… with an arab accnt. All the other english who spoke arab spoke with egypcian accent, since they learned there in egypt. And the arabs fuckign hated the egypcians.

    Many people miss that element in the movie, but it is in fact the very first brick that made Lawrence get the trust of the arabs. And the thing is, Lawrence knew that, whcih is why he was so confident he could get their trust. He just talked like them.

    Is this element in the movie PROMETHEUS?Perhaps it is, subtly, it’s the kind of thing that Scott would and could do, and has done before in his movies (like BLADE RUNNER). Or it could just be a happy concidence and was unintentional. Or maybe i’m just too desperate to put something smart in the fucking movie, to give it some credit.

  285. If PROMETHEUS has one theme in it (and certainly it has only one), then the theme is: “Faith rocks and fuck reason and science. Fuck them in the ass.” Simple as that. Or i should say, simplistic as that.

  286. Asimov, I agree, and it all ties into when I was talking about sacrifice. (SPOILERS) Dr. Holloway not only willingly sacrificed himself when he walked into Vickers flamethrower, but you just reminded me that he was willing to sacrifice himself from the beginning to achieve his goals, and even confirmed it for David. I also, agree that David is neither good or bad. He is a machine so he is without morals. All he has is programming, but his existence is in service of the films villain Weyland. Weyland stands in stark contrast to the concept of sacrifice and the natural order of death giving way to life. Weyland is the polar opposite of the engineers. The engineers purpose is to sacrifice themselves to create life, and Weyland is willing to sacrifice others lives to extend his own.

  287. Asimov, I don’t think the film is about faith. Wayland had faith, and he was punished. I think it is more about the circle of life and creation.

  288. Asimov, sorry for any confusion, I was replying to your response to my post, but by the time I typed and submitted it you had already made a number of other posts.

  289. Great points by The Limey (Lawrence of Arabia) and Charles (self sacrifice). It’s alot to think about when I watch it again.

  290. Charles, no prob.

    PROMETHEUS is about faith. The movie is about the wonders of blind baseless faith. It’s an whole exercise in ass-kissing of faith. It’s pornographic in it’s devotion to faith based on bullshit and nonsense. And it wants to present it as not only a good thing but as the height of human achievement. All you need is faith, sayeth the movie.

    And i say: you got the be kidding!!!

  291. Did the Charlize Theron in a Jiffy Lube grease monkey uniform IMAX 3D experience today, again, and it’s still a wretched D- movie beyond her A+ set design, makeup, and effects.  

    But that’s okay.  Not all horror movies can be VISITING HOURS, and not all sci-fi movies can be THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (o.g. version, of course).  There’s plenty of goofy fun to be had in PROMETHEUS, and I just wish the bleakness & faux-religiosity (Is there any other kind, really?) didn’t make me feel guilty for laughing out loud upon the attack of the snake monsters on the idiots who would pet them or the attack of the ever-growing (sans nutrition or script-based reasoning) octopus monster on the grumpy Engineer (who somehow  bypasses the ship’s airlock offscreen, by the way.  That’s a Jason Voorhees/Lisbeth Salander move right there).  

    Vickers remains my favorite character.  Only difference on 2nd viewing is I like her even more, and exclusively.  She shoulda had a sidearm at the end to threaten Stringer Bell and those 2 underdeveloped characters who were his bridge cohorts/copilots.  That’s the only time you will hear Mouth support interplanetary 2nd Amendment rights.  

    The David-Shaw connection is indeed interesting, with one infertile robot facilitating the demon spawn of an infertile Christian lady.  David’s not human, so he’s not technically capable of guile (same dog-like innocence made the Naturals victims to whitey in Malick’s THE NEW WORLD) or calculation, yet all he does is calculate.  

    And Shaw doesn’t calculate enough.  Even after she figures out most of the answers to all the big questions, all she can say is stupid simplistic shit like “We were wrong!” and “It’s bringing death!”  Not very scientific or convincing.  (But at least she, unlike fake Tom Hardy, stays in the exam room long enough to confirm the DNA match, because that’s what good archaeologists do, of course.)  

    One other gripe I don’t think has been mentioned — upon approach into LV-226 (or whatever)’s landspace, did they just ‘happen’ to come within view of the Engineers’ installation within 2 minutes?  I didn’t see them do some digital terra-mapping radar-ing beforehand, so they should have wandered the planet/moon’s surface longer before seeing the “straight lines” that entranced not-Tom Hardy onboard (hours before he abandons the wonder of the biggest scientific discovery ever in favor of alcohol & bitchiness).  

  292. Is the first engineer we see doing a sacrifice? I wonder. He does seem a bit suprised about the effect the goo is doing on him. I would not be too sure if we are watching a sacrifice (death to life thingy), or just things turning out wrong. I bet for the later.

    Dr Holloway’s sacrificel as it were, well, ifthat ws the intent withall the subplot of him being infected, then i have to say, it was played out in the worst way possible. This guy is infected, he wakes up sick, he sees some worm shit wigging out of his eye, and what does he do? Call in sick ajnd take himself from the expedition rooster? Get himself admited to the sick bay? Demand to be put in quarantine and warns of a possible contagion that might danger the rest of the crew? No. He keps mum and says nobody.

    Retard, retard, retard.

    If there wasn an atempt at playing the sacrifical lamb fromthis character, they chosed the dumbest way possible. They could still had played the sacrifice angle with him contained and quarentined. Like, say, his changing gets so out of hand that it threatens even the quarentine protocols and risk contaimination of the rest of the ship. But Shaw can0’t bring herself to dispose of Holloway before it goes too far, so Vickers shows her quality and she’s rthe only onewith guts and determination to kill him, with flamethrower to be sure.

    It would play similiar to the movie’s plot while avoiding characters acting like egomaniac teenager retards.

  293. Mouth, man, don0t even talk to me about the way they find the engineer’s ruins.

    Today we have satellites the size of small cars that can map the earth with the precision of centimetters using radar and infrared technology. Imagine what kind of detection and mapping technology they could have 80 years into the future. Those guys could had discovered the engineer’s cone structure with just a few passes in polar orbit. Hell, they all just needed to send advanced probes ahead of the ship to the the planet mapping, and they would discover the structure.

    Instead, the movie plays it as pseudo-Hardy looking at the window and by chance notices it. By eye. What is this, WWI avionics? Give me a break!

  294. Indeed, the TE Lawrence-David the Robot parallels are intriguing.  Just as interesting might be some LAWRENCE OF ARABIA observations that widen to the notion of movie-watcher & movie director as subjects & god.  David observes dreams, dreams depicted as little films, before he graduates to controlling destinies and having his way with the puny humans around him, before the grumpy Engineer (studio chief?) beheads him.  (Recall him mumbling the LAWRENCE “desert” quote on approach?  He was planning to transcend his creators to become a David Lean movie.)  

    He still has ideas in his head, his severed head, but he has no means to implement them, and his cryo-stasis chamber, where he was the creepy dreamwatcher for a couple years, is destroyed.  

    What does it all mean?  Dunno.  Maybe this is just Mouth converting every movie into INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS LITE, as I tend to do.  

    But the notion sparks something inside me that PROMETHEUS’s terrible script’s more literal text does not.  

  295. Good point Mouth, I think we can all agree that PROMETHEUS is poorly written, but it intentionally or unintentionally does have some interesting ideas.

  296. The Christmas-to-New Year’s Day timeline is clearly deliberate. I’d like to think that when Vickers asks David how long she was asleep and he says, “2 years, x months, y days, 36 hours, and…” that was deliberate, too. Why the fuck does he give a specific answer and then say “36 hours” in his breakdown? Shoulda added a day and had a remainder of 12 hours.

    (if I recall this part of the movie correctly. Anyone care to corroborate or refute?)

    They’re coming from earth, no? Earth1, if you will? Has global warming fucked up our planet’s 23 hour 56 minute revolution daily cycle 77+ years in the future?

    Other things in the movie’s sense of timelines & urgency bothered me — basically, maybe because I’m an army guy who honors punctuality and efficiency, especially while fresh on a high priority operation, I don’t understand the heavy drinking and blasé attitudes toward huge discoveries and the fact that 2 of your crew (Fifield & he other guy) are separated from the rest of the team when the captain abandons communications with them.

  297. It’s fun to ponder and/or tear apart PROMETHEUS (apologies to her defenders and Roger Ebert), but it’d be a lot more fun if I could be certain this Lindelof idiot & his co-writers have been banished from all big-budget movies.

  298. I agree about the timeline Doesn’t Shaw give birth on Christmas?

  299. Holly shit, I just realized that Wu-Wear is one of Vern’s sponsors. Awesome! Vern, from now on I will always think of you watching films or reviewing them draped all in free Wu Wear swag you get from your endorsement deal.

    Sorry for the interruption, back to the conversation.

  300. Vern, at first I thought you were talking about Wes Studi in Last of The Mohicans and I was thinking, well Wes Studi is a pretty ugly dude. Then I realized his name was Magua and you were talking about Gremlins. Damn, that was a high moment and I don’t even smoke anymore.

  301. The Magualien would be formidable. Multilingual, hatchet skills, tactical warrior leader, comfortable in caves & waterfalls (unlike a certain ancient suicidal Engineer), awesome mohawk ‘do, and he eats your heart while you watch.

    Shit, man, I don’t even know what the alien characteristics would add to improve on the Magua hybrid creature, except an extra set of jaws & teeth.

  302. Clearly the star of the movie was David. Being an android, he had no concept of good or evil. He simply behaved like a tool. A tool with a measure of consciousness that also allowed him to act however he wanted within the guidelines he was given. Before everyone woke up, he was completely free to do what he wanted aside from the basic functions he was given. To look after the scientists in what I imagine is a relatively new hypersleep (Vickers asking if everyone made it) and study languages so that he would be able to communicate with the Engineers. Otherwise, he spent his time watching movies and exercising/having fun.

    I believe that his instructions gave him leeway to observe the dreams of Shaw. I’m sure he observed others as well but they showed him observing Shaw’s perhaps because hers struck him as more interesting? I like the fact we are left to wonder about his motivations because those have never been clearly delineated.

    As for his action of infecting Holloway, I feel that Weyland never gave specific instructions until he came out of hypersleep. David communicated with him while he was still in the chamber. Vickers asked specifically what he had said and David said “Try harder.” Try harder to find the Engineers? Try harder to find a way to cure old age? Whatever the case, he probably never specifically instructed David to infect Holloway with the black goo.

    David had to have realized the black goo was reacting to the change in atmosphere once humans entered the chamber and caused the goo to react the way it did. So for him to test it out on Holloway, I think was him simply being curious. For him, it’s not such a large leap to test it out on a human to see what would happen. But for us, being human, it is such a monstrous act with no concern at all for humanity.

    I think David’s fascination with the goo and what it produced also joined up with his parallel interest in Shaw, which led him to want to put her under to bring her back to Earth. Fortunately, she managed to escape and get the tentacled thing out of her.

    While watching, I found it extremely abrupt how the moment she had gotten the thing out, she runs across Weyland, fresh out of the hypersleep chamber, and is suddenly thrust into following the ill-fated expedition to talk to the remaining Engineer. But looking back, it makes sense that David simply welcomes her back like nothing ever happened and that she was free to come with them. Now that she no longer had anything of scientific interest growing in her, she was no longer looked at as a specimen by David.

    And once Weyland was dead, David was free to warn Shaw of the rampaging Engineer as well as help her. I doubt he wanted to stay lying on the deck of an alien spaceship as a disembodied head for eternity, which would also explain why he was happy to help Shaw. At least with her, his natural curiosity could be exercised further.

    It’s a fascinating study. I think people need to look at the movie more as a character piece for David to at least temper the disappointment of the things they found lacking.

  303. *appreciates the insular reference to ET and Gremlins Vs. Aliens and Predators*

  304. Imagine being an android with no concept of what lies behind people’s personality and behavior? Would it be endlessly fascinating to observe them and try to understand them as well?

    I suspect that that is what drew him to Shaw. Her strange belief in a god or creator that would answer the question of why. It’s something he shares with her. I don’t think Holloway’s reply of “because we can” is good enough. It is such an arbitrary and meaningless answer. It does not resolve anything or give closure. It’s nihilistic. Once you get that answer you might as well cease living because there is nothing else that you are there for.

    Maybe if there’s one way to describe David, it’s existential. He’s an existentialist and all his actions come from that basis.

    In a way, what Shaw and David are looking for is an answer for a question that can never be answered. Even if they found the Engineers, what answer would suffice?

    In a way, it would be perfectly fine to have this movie be a standalone. But I would still like to see the adventures of existentialists in space.

  305. These people all represent different sides to us humans. According to an interview with Logan Marshall-Green Holloway wants to find our creators (god, if you must) to “stand beside them”, not to get answers. Weyland on the other hand, like Batty in Bladerunner, wants more life. Shaw represents religious people who, upon given the answer, just shift her beliefs and asks “and what created them”. That leaves David as the ” human”, who likes sport, movies and hair products. He takes advantage of what he’s given and prevails. Look, we can analyze this movie for years, but right now I just wanna enjoy the fact that Scott has given us another cool sci fi/horror movie. I had a really good time in the theater, and I certainly will buy this and the director’s cut on dvd. Hell, I might even put it next to the Alien movies on my dvd shelf, and in a few years I’ll say to someone that “as an Alien movie I think it’s probably better than Resurrection”. That is if this doesn’t turn into a trilogy, as Scott hinted in an interview a while back.

  306. Mouth, global warming cannpt change the rate of the Earth’s rotation which makes the lenght of the day. The only thing that can change the earth’s rotation is the Moon’s gravity, which is already doing and has done so since it’s nup there, the dame way Earth does to the moon. As times passes, the Moon’s gravitational influence on Earth will cause a gradual slow down of the Earth’s rotation until it gets in synch withthe Moon, meaning, one day the Earthwill always show the same face toward the Moon, as today the moon does it to Earth. But it will take millions of years until there will be a noticable change in the day’s lenght compared to today. In the year 2080 the day will last as long as it does today.

    Global warning is not some magical global phenomena that we can put into it al kind of crazy stuff, like atomic radiation was for creating superpowers in the golden age of comics.

  307. “For him (David), it’s not such a large leap to test it (the goo) out on a human to see what would happen.”

    That’s my take on it as well. David is just experimenting. and Holloway, unwillingly and unknowingly, just gave him the motivation to do so. It’s one of the few really good moments in the movie where it looks like the actions of the characters were really thoughout. Too bad the rest of the movie was not as well thoughout like that.

  308. Mr. Majestyk, where can i find the Nerd Shit on the foruns? I’d like to have a chat with you about my thoughs on you-know-what-movie (two words in the title, the first stars with S and the second with T and it was released in 2009), without disrupting the Prometheus chat.

  309. We must remember that David knows everything about HIS creators. He KNOWS that there’s no point or big plan behind it all. We have created him just because we can. At best he’s cheap labour to us, a slave. He’s being told again and again that he has no feelings, but I think it’s pretty clear that he looks down upon us. Like the grumpy Space Jockey I even think he hates us. And I don’t think the racism in Lawrence of Arabia has done him any good either. He clearly compares himself to his hero in that he’s been sent to help a group of people he looks upon as inferior to himself. In his own eyes he is like a god to them. No wonder he wants to do experiments “just because he can”. Like when he tries to re-create the virgin conception with Shaw and send his “son” down to earth to walk (or slide) among humans, and all that crap from the bible. Tom Waits once said “There ain’t no devil, only god when he’s drunk.” Maybe he’s just a pissed off robot?

  310. Finally saw the film. I fit into the expectations paradigm because mine were so low that many aspects of the film surprised me.

    asimovlives:
    “And the seocnd notion that the humans would come out because some prehistorical ape had a drink of that water and swallowed the space jokey broken DNA and became us is too stupid for words. Organisms do not absorve DNA from injection, because of DIGESTION. Digestion completly destroys any foreign DNA we ate. That’s why you do not transform into a human-chicken hybrid whenever you ate poultry, you know?”

    That is quite obviously not the suggestion. The space jockey was infusing the dead-but-capable-of-supporting-life Earth with the so-called primordial ooze: his DNA fragmented and had to begin anew with single-celled organisms, etc, and evolve into humans.

    Maybe. I also agree that it appears that his DNA is simply destroyed, and if indeed the shit he drank was the same shit in all those barrels, then I’m truly baffled by the scene. For Stringer arrives at the conclusion (quite suddenly and inexplicably, as many have noted) that the ruins they discover abroad comprised a military installation for developing biological warfare, so I don’t know how drinking some of it figures into their plans.

    Asimov my problems with the film were similar to yours, but I wonder if you find the following theory to have argumentative merit:

    Prometheus began as a conceptually strong piece, and eventually Lindelhof was brought aboard to put his “golden touch” on it, and things devolved from there. It is whence that this whole Faith framework springs, the original concept becomes muddled, etc. First the muddling:

    Now let me tell you, I was driven nuts by this Faith thing. “Because I CHOOSE to believe!!!” Shaw thunders early in the film, and that was a thorn in my side for the duration. She says it in defense of her belief that the cave paintings are an invitation from the Engineers: well okay, they’re looking at a bunch of humans and gesturing at their local star group, so I guess they’re either saying “this is where I’m from” or “you should come visit.” Nevermind that there’s nothing in these paintings to suggest that these dudes ENGINEERED us simply because they’re larger and/or worshipped, but you know how religious fanatics can be.

    Later her boyfriend says “Don’t be a skeptic.” Well, the fact that these guys are laughable in their scientificness has been well documented in this thread, but what the FUCK. You form a hypothesis, and then you try to collect evidence to test the hypothesis. You don’t assume the hypothesis was correct from the beginning. David says something like this to Shaw’s boyfriend and he gets all huffy about it, like how dare you suggest it’s not already a foregone conclusion that we’re correct.

    I wonder why Shaw clings to the idea that the Engineers are our gods, when they have the same DNA? Maybe Space Jockeys just look like humans after a few million generations of living on Earth (or after the same primordial ooze evolves into multicells, fish, amphibians, reptiles and so on). Of course, the DNA wouldn’t be the fucking same, because the species are different. The paler skin? Larger physical structure? That’s a genetic difference. Shaw’s gene sequencer would convict anybody of any crime requiring DNA evidence because it apparently matches all DNA.

    This stuff really pissed me off, but they didn’t feel as integral to the film as many people suggest. I strongly feel that Lindelhof (and I KNOW that stuff is his Lindelhof’s fault because I saw LOST) added all this stuff to an idea that was already formed, or in a revision to a script that was already in development, etc. At any rate I found other stuff to distract myself.

    Now I wonder if those who are accusing the film of having only plot holes and no purposeful mysteries believe this is true of the fact that the Engineer’s motivation for eradicating human life is never revealed. Because if this was accidentally left unexplained, it was a happy accident and the best part of the film. Combined with David’s suggestion that the Engineers might have Engineered us simply because they could (analogously to humans’ creation of David) it gives me some ideas of why they might be doing it that I enjoy speculating upon.

    Consider:
    -There aren’t that many Class M planets in the galaxy, so the number of planets the Engineers can use as a lab is limited (let’s say). They gained whatever knowledge they wanted from humans and wanted to start the experiment again, maybe adjust a few variables, so they were going to wipe us out (thoroughly, as the goop possibly completely destroys your genetic code down to the molecular level) and start again. We’re just a petri dish culture to them.

    -They’re not scientifically invested in what’s going on on Earth, but they’re bored or dissatisfied in some minor way with humankind’s evolution. What do you do if your computer’s running a bit slow? You hit reboot. You don’t even know that it’s going to fix the problem, but it’s no skin off your back, and plus gives you an excuse to have a smoke break. Eradicating human life is as casual for the Space Jockeys as taking a shit.

    Or my favorite:
    -The Space Jockeys are preparing to wage Interstellar War against the most formidable, fell warrior species known: The Predators. They need to develop a badass bio weapon to regulate on these dudes. They reach the stage in the dev process where they need test subjects. First they land a Space Jockey in the middle of nowhere, run a safe distance away, and he has to drink it. It works! Further testing needed: they grow a test species on Earth for the express purpose of demoing the bioweapon on them. However, like the humans that evolved from their DNA, the Space Jockeys were careless in their application of scientific precautionary techniques, and ended up fucking themselves over before they could realize their ambitions.

    Anyway, I do think that there’s stuff in the film (and in the Alien legacy) to invite such speculation, but I gather that Lindelhof wasn’t much interested in it because it’s pushed to the periphery. Instead the film ends with Shaw just DYING to fly to a whole planet of these guys and say “Now see here!” and explain her expectations of what God is supposed to be like and take them to task for not conforming to these expectations.

    One last thought: the C-Section scene was absolutely fucking brilliant, and if it had been in a Cronenberg movie everybody would be worshipping it as a landmark in body horror and nobody would be complaining about the minutiae surrounding it (much of which is unfounded anyway: how do you know the machine doesn’t repair her adequately, in conjunction with what ever mysterious substance she’s injecting herself with, that she can’t immediately begin running around kicking ass after the procedure?).

  311. ” Tom Waits once said “There ain’t no devil, only god when he’s drunk.” ”

    God dam, that’s an incredible quote.

  312. pegsman, of the things to criticise LAWERENCE OF ARABIA for, racism is not one of them. That movie is one of the very few movies made by Holywood where arabs agree it presents a fair description of the cultural complexity and different people that make what we collectively call the arab people. Hell, this is even lampshaded by the character played by Anthony Quinn when he tells Lawrence “i don’t know what are this arabs you talk about. I know , and , not this arab you talka bout” Or words to that effect. The movie takes great pains to describe the variety and diveristy of the people living in the Arabic Peninsula. And does so very respectfully and truly.

  313. Hi renfield.

    I loved your post above, and i have to say, for the most part, we are in very agreement. Like you, oi had so much problem with the faith thing. Now, if the movie had been a desconstruction of faith and how it leads people to do stupid shit, i would be OK. It would be the logical progression of the movie. but by the end, the movie decids to reinforce faith instead of presenting it as the source of all the story’s bad things that happened to the Prometheus’ crew. If Shaw had been presented by the end as going mental and crazy, completly flipped out of her mind from the events in the movie (understandable), ending as deranged as Klaus Kinki’s character at the end of AGURRE: THE WRATH OF GOD, then yeah, that would had been a great thing. That would be the story played to it’s logical conclusion.

    But i don’t think Lindelof knows very well what logic is.

    I agree with you that the problems with the movie’s story and byzare character’s actions is due to Lindelof’s participation, it’s all thanks to his magic touch, as you called it. I have no doubt on my mind. I’d love tohave read the first script before Lindelof put pen to it. I think Lindelof loves to bragthat Vicker’s character was much developed under his aegis, but the truth is, it was Theron who insisted on it or bye-bye. So, we have Theron to thank for it. Thanks, Theron, you’re a princes! You can be my evil queen anyday.

    Two things about the Engineer’s humanoid looks. First, even if there was much DNA match between us and them, the very fact they are much bigger mothers then us and paler already in itself would prevent a total match. The difference would probably read as minor, but all it would take was for the Enginners to have different natural predisposittions then us (say, being naturally unable to fear fear, havingtheir internal organs arranged differently), the DNA would had not matched. It would had been VERY SIMILIAR, but not a match.

    But their humaniod apearence is not in itself a bad thing. There is this thing called CONVERGENCE, foiund both in nature and in human culture, and bascially it states that whenever there is an optimal solution to a problem, the solution will be repeatable despite lack of contact. This is why the Tasmanian Wolf looked very much like a wolf despite being a marsupial and had no genetic link to the caninae (like the grey wolf). Both evolved seperatly, but assumed similiar morphologic solutions to their needs. It’s not too hard to speculate and accept that there might be, in this large univese, some other world where the intelligent spieces evolved into a morphoogy very similiar, if not downright equal to humanoid. I find it not only very plausible, but likely, even in our own galaxy. The humanoid form is excedely optimal for so many needs and solution that the early men had to face in their enviroment, and it’s has been a winner since then.

    I like your idea that for the engineers, to kill off mankind would be like bot us rebotting a compoter. it’s very good. I doubt that was what Lindelof’s idea for it was. This is a case of the public out-thinking the authors.

  314. Asimov

    No I was not forgetting that Lawrence managed to influence the Arabs where others had failed. David appears to believe he can do the same with the Engineers and thus that he is a parallel of Lawrence. He is wrong, of course, but is he driven by the same imperatives? I don’t think he is simply a tool of Weyland – his comment about how disappointing it would be to hear from his crator that he was made simply because he could be made speaks of a greater disillusionment with humanity and with Weyland most of all. He also seems ‘pleased’ (if possible) when Weyland reaches the conclusion that ‘there is nothing’.

  315. The Limey

    David i forced to serve his masters. That doesn ‘t mean he has to be stupid and not see what a bunch of idiots they are. It’s interesting version of the dilemma of the servant that is far smarter then his master, and he knows it. Know what i mean?

    David is a tool. He’s also, in many ways, more human then human, to borrow the phrase.

  316. Yes, asimovlives, I’m aware of how ridiculous my throwaway global warming comment was.

    Even if drastically rising temperatures & sea levels did somehow affect the speed of earth’s rotation (Hollywood movie science has posited stupider ideas before.), humans’ biological clocks in the 21st century (of our fucking lord, christ allah be praised hail mary shalom) would still be attuned to the 24 hour day, our brains requiring several hours of sleep daily, on average, to grow & heal and live without constant migraines.

    Does anyone else remember David’s timeline of Vickers’s nap including “36 hours”? Is he fucking with her? Is he making a LV-223/Earth hybrid time scale? Is it a glitch? Does he measure time in increments of the runtime of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA?

  317. Check these out

    http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/2118

    Gosh, it looks so much better when you can see it all – the suit blending with the body is incredible.

  318. mouth, i do not recall any of that stuff about how much time they were in hypersleep because, dankly, it didn’t seemed all that important. David being that precise just seemed to me just another way to emphasis he’s an android and he has a computer for a brain that can do such precise time keeping. So, no, i think think there is any ulterior motives to David with his precision in telling others their time in hypersleep. It’s not metaphoric. This seems to be you doing something we all are doing in regard to this movie, we trying to find hidden messages or hints to make this movie seem richer and sarter then it is. Sadly, it’s all for naught becasue this nmovie really is that dumb. Ir’s dumb and shallow and void. People are doing to it what so many did to LOST, and mistaking it for something smarter then it was. Should i start calling it the Lindelof Effect?

  319. Mouth,

    Remember that Vickers is awake before anybody else. Is it possible she’s been up the whole time (sans 36 hours), maybe orchestrating some subplot that never made it to the final draft/cut?

  320. Nope, Asimov, I don’t buy that. David is much more psychologically complicated in his actions than a simple tool. David isn’t forced to do anything. He is stronger than any of the humans, heck he could switch off their hypersleep chambers and go hooning off around the galaxy in the Prometheus if he chose to. He’s not goverened by th e3 laws of robotics obviously. I think he is as curious as the rest of them and he already has a mainline into what it is like to meet one’s creator so there is something more – perhaps he wants to observe if the human experience is as bad as his own.

    ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, KINGODOM OF HEAVEN and GLADIATOR look at what it means to be human, and perhaps more importantly how to remain humane, in the face of the impersonal (such as corporations, tyranny, the military machine) or the unchallengeable (religious orthodoxy, duty). I think this is the real theme of PROMETHEUS. Even GI JANE does this.

    There is religiosity but Shaw is not orthodox in her religious views. Vickers subverts her corporate responsibilities, Janek is an irresponsible captain and sacrifices himself for it, Holloway is an irresponsible archaeologist (not a science in the traditional sense of scientific method) but is a responsible human being ultimately.

    There are always holes in plots. Now, in ALIEN, Kane goes poking around where he shouldn’t (no complaints from anyone here), the Medlab hunt for the facehugger with probes and a tupperware bucket is an astonishingly stupid activity (no complaints), allowing Brett and Dallas to wander about alone is irresponsible (although forgiveable for Brett as they don’t know the alien has grown, but the do suspect it is dangerous, else why bother hunting it, no complaints). In BLADE RUNNER, the BLADE RUNNER does not execute the android he finds in the big corporation even though they are illegal on Earth and that is his mission. He allows himself to become emotionally involved with one, but has no qualms (or perhaps he does) about blowing holes in others. It is convenient to serve the story.

    These films were new and amazing. Are we all so jaded now that some of the properly amazing images and ideas in PROMETHEUS don’t impress because we’re now too sophisticated? I was amazed and I’m glad I was. Yes there were idiotic actions that brought me out of teh film, but there’s a lot more to enjoy.

    Just some thoughts. If nothing else, this has been thought provoking, even if for the wrong reasons.

  321. renfield, no, Vickers being awaken before all others and doing push ups right after is to show she’s a badass and not like the other pussies who make the crew. How can you not like her right from that?

  322. “David isn’t forced to do anything.”

    How can you come to that conclusion? He’s an android! Tjhere’s nothing in the movie that can point out he could turn back on his owner (Weyland) if he so wished. He ds show some cold contempt for the other humans in the vessel, but not once any sign he would rebel against who made him. I think you are projecting. i think you want to make the movie more complex then it is. It’s perfectly understandable.

  323. “Are we all so jaded now that some of the properly amazing images and ideas in PROMETHEUS don’t impress because we’re now too sophisticated?”

    Nonsense. The images and ideas in PROMETHEUS don’t impress because they are dumb. They are dumb now and they would be dumb in 1979. They woyld be considerably even more retard in 1979. given that was a decade where filmmakers were far ambitious with their movies and audiences were quite accepting of beign challenged. If anything, PROMETHEUS in 1979 would had been laughed at, and rightly so.

    All this talk of once we were more naive and now we are jadded is nonsense, and it only helps dub ass writers like Kindelf get away with their dumbed down pseudo-smart shit. Its only helping the hacks. They don’t need our help, if you ask me. They need our derision and harshest criticism. And a kick in the balls.

  324. Kindelf = Lindelof.

  325. I have to agree that there’s no evidence that David is not doing the express bidding of Weiland up until the moment when Weiland buys it. But I would be open to such evidence being cited.

    I do think the reaction to Prometheus indicates a somewhat jaded mentality. As I mentioned, I was expecting such a steaming pile of shit that any redemptive aspect pleased me perhaps more than was warranted.

    I generally feel that future-tech is a dime-a-dozen in most films these days, but was quite delighted by the various gizmos and gadgets in Prometheus. The ruins-mapping Pups, and the holograph thing that boots up in stages, for example. Computer screens that are themselves holographic projections and that you can stand in while talking to your gf. All that.

    Were people complaining that the film lacks a three-act structure? I strongly disagree with this. It has an abundantly clear Act 2 Turning Point (the cobra animal attacks), and of course the C-Section slams you into Act 3.

    I also fucking loved the giant starfish alien. The extent to which this creature, in its conception and design, is more terrifying than the original aliens (as in, the ones from the original films) kind of blows my mind. The old-school aliens are implemented in a terrifying manner in the first film, but beyond that, they are way more badass than they are scary. They are just so fucking cool looking, you know? They also have no malice; they are simply killing machines and happen to be very good at their job. That starfish thing, first of all it looks way more alien than the aliens, it’s like a giant mollusk or something. And at first, okay, it’s big and strong, don’t get hit by a tentacle, but when it opens up and reveals all it’s EYES (which are more human-ish than og aliens’ eyes, mind you, but made somehow MORE alien by their context in a mollusk-like body), it’s hysteric desperation to grab you and get you near it’s maw…. what an incredible creature.

  326. ‘i think you want to make the movie more complex then it is. It’s perfectly understandable.’

    That’s me patronised, then.

    Why bother with David if he’s so one note? Just to have an android like other ALIEN franchise movies? I hope it was more than that. Perhaps the commentary will reveal.

  327. The Limey, i never do patronizing and i get very crossed when accused of that. It’s one of my easy to press berserk buttons. I’m really, really cross. I would never guest that showing symapethy and understanding could ever get confused with anything else. What is this, differences of culture or something? My poor english? What? How can my very obvious intention be so terribly misunderstood? How? How? Unbelievable!

  328. Ok, calming down and diverting my mind on other stuff…

    renfield, i think the starfish looking alien (the grown up version of the squid alien that was taken from Shaw’s belly, i presume that’s the one you are taking about), i think that’s a shot-out ot one of the earlier designs for the Alien in the movie ALIEN. Before they settled on the Giger design, they tried all kind of looks, ald so many were quite mundane in that they were monstrous but nothign one had not see before. It was all designs of monsters made of tentacles and claws and such. So, i think Scott had fun with a bit of some self-reference and called back one of the designs that was beyond for the alien. And in the end, this alien-like creature cames out from the star´fish squiddy monster. Yeah!

    “Were people complaining that the film lacks a three-act structure?”

    No, i think people were complaining that the movie is dumb, simple as that. Besides, the movie is very much like most action blockbusters made today, where they have two endings, this turning into a 4 act structure. Me, i don’t care how many acts a story has, 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever, as long it’s the right one for the movie. But i do mind when the movie treats me like a moron. That’s not cool, Mr Lindelof!

    Besides the visuals, the squid removal operation scene is by far the most intense and well done in the whple movie. Suprise suprise, that is the type of scene where it’s more a direcgor scene then a writers. It’s the kind of scene where the writer jst wrotes “and then something really terrible is taken out of Shaw’s belly” and it’s left to the director to make it work. This is far more common place then we can even begin to imagine in Holywood filmmaking.

  329. Hey, anyone besides me think the movie would have been improved enormously if they had just made Shaw and Holloway straight up religious zealots instead of the worst scientists in the world? I mean, their science is beyond reproach, but I’d have totally believed some culty nutters somewhere would have watched that “Ancient Aliens” series and been able to convince an incredibly old eccentric trillionaire that they’d found God in some remote star system. That would explain the weird, unsupported conclusions they jump to and also explain why no one seems at all interested in the most amazing discovery mankind has ever made if it won’t immediately answer questions as to why their kitty had to die.

  330. And we’re back to STAR TREK V again. Good job, everybody!

  331. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    June 15th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Just read this and it seemed quite amusing. Also maybe fitting to certain movies of the past (not necessarily “The Avengers” or “Prometheus” though):

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jun/15/summer-blockbuster-rage

  332. Enjoyed that article, Paul. “Fun’s enema.” !!

    The tendency it cites of people to start railing against critics for persecuting a movie they HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN YET drives me fucking nuts.

    Or let’s say you have seen the movie and love it; why does it bother you that other people hate it? That makes it more exclusive. It makes you elite. I hate it when everybody loves something that I do: it’s mine, fuck off. “NOOOOO the rottentomatoes score dipped below 95%!” I can’t relate to this perspective AT ALL.

    However I do experience nerd rage when people start championing a film that I find deeply flawed or even horrible. I think Inception is mediocre and can’t stand the extent to which it’s celebrated by individuals I largely consider to possess discerning taste. So in that respect I can relate quite profoundly to asimovlives and his anti-Abrams vendetta.

  333. “Hey, anyone besides me think the movie would have been improved enormously if they had just made Shaw and Holloway straight up religious zealots instead of the worst scientists in the world?”

    No because of the writer. He wouldn’t be able to pull it off. Say what you will of ALIEN3, but they did mannaged to show a believable group of people who found in religion a way to control and redeem their wicked ways. I bought that in ALIEN3.

    Lindelof wouldn’t know what to do with TRULY RELIGIOUS characters.

    If he could had pulled of, would the movie improve? Well, no, because their presence wouldn’t make any sense at all. Unless they were stowaways who had board the ship and remained inside it for the whole duration of the ship waiting for it to arive, hidden away in some maintenance box like Newt in ALIENS. Stealing food from the ship’s storage. How they could get past David is a big problem, but then again, the whole first part of the movie could be about that, David finding them and knowing he couldn’t put them in the hybernation pods, he would had them as his trip companions. And then David would kick their asses in all their debates with calm cold reason. Yeah!

  334. I won’t be categorized in The Limey‘s “jaded” modern moviegoer declaration. I’m unique, I guess, because I don’t think all that highly of ALIEN or BLADE RUNNER. They both have great moments, and ALIEN is a classic for a lot of reasons:

    -great horror film,

    -an unprecedented-at-the-time** atmosphere of infinite desolation mixed with a tone of unbearable crampedness,
    (**other than maybe some Powell & Pressburger moments and several of Kubrick’s movies, but the latter can’t count as precedent because that makes cinema criticism unfair for his peers and all lesser humans)

    -chest-burster,

    -android,

    -android goo,

    -and a marvelous, classic ending sequence,

    but I’m never clamoring to rewatch, dissect, and discuss the minutiae of those stories or characters.

    Most of ALIEN is a 3 star movie spiked with brilliance (the tense wordless stretches and that ending!).

    BLADE RUNNER is a 2.5 star movie spiked with brilliance (everything Rutger Hauer says & does). Lots of things in BLADE RUNNER bother me, like why first-world city dwellers would live in buildings that constantly have puddles in the hallways. That’s gross. And the lighting, both artificial from the advertisements and from the sun shining through & bouncing off windows, would drive me insane faster than a long INSOMNIA season in Northern Alaska. And the busyness of the noodle bar — the nasty, unsanitary, incomprehensible noodle bar — always made me wonder if the food there was really good enough to compel Decker to wait in line to eat there. And I have my doubts about the realisticness of the effectiveness of that photo-enhancing machine that can see around corners. Or something?

    But I forgive or overlook all these frustrations because the moments of greatness are indeed transcendently great —

    -Edward James Olmos: “It’s too bad she won’t live! But then again, who does?”,

    -Tyrell’s transition from bio-science bickering to poetic allusion before his head is crushed

    -Batty vs. Deckard (hide & seek, the fingers, the nail, the giant bookshelf, the headbutting, the roof, the “I’ve seen things…” speech, tears in the rain — It’s all bloody amazing.)

    PROMETHEUS has one great scene
    [abortion, but you have to forget about the stupid, poorly filmed shots immediately before & after it — how did Shaw knock out the 2 people tending to her, where did she get the object she uses to club the dude, why, in this movie of super-advanced medicine & human body scanning, did they just assume she was knocked out without doping her up? And that was her medical expert partner lady who made that error. And then she didn’t follow Shaw, who met no resistance en route to the machine, which I think was in Vickers’s quarters, no? But Shaw had the passcode to gain entry to that area? And after the awesome abortion scene, she happens to run into Weyland’s waking scene, and his medical attendants ignore her and they all have a conversation like nothing weird is happening. All that good will & audience empathy garnered from watching her stumble about with this awful wound, with the swift, mentally & physically devastating sequence from
    “I’m pregnant, wha?” to
    “I need an abortion” to
    “I’ve killed Rosemary’s Baby, thank god” to
    “Won’t someone help me, I’m bloody & naked and post-op on my knees, what the fuck”
    is squandered because the movie decides it must move to the next plot point on its stupid arbitrary timeline (one minute they’re all in a hurry, the next minute they’re drinking & screwing and playing music and wandering caves with no purpose, the next minute they’re on a tight military timeline), returning to the living Engineer.
    And if Weyland and his assistants are so uncaring & callous toward Shaw on the Prometheus, why do they allow her to go to the Engineer meeting? And when she’s there, Weyland tells her to shut up and has his henchman club her in the staples. So why let her be there? The movie could’ve solved this by maybe having her sneak into the meeting unwelcomed, leaving 5 minutes after Weyland’s party took off or something, I dunno, but as it is it makes no sense and insults my mind the more I ponder it.]

    and a few very beautiful scenes
    (IMAX documentary opening, Earth hologram, etc.)

    and a couple of hilarious violent monster scenes.

    Nothing classic here, sadly. PROMETHEUS is a 1.5 star movie with spikes of ooh-aah visuals and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA references, the coolness & intrigue of which are neutralized by the monumental stupidity of 80% of the plot & characters.

  335. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    June 15th, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Renfield – I’ve always said I don’t attach my “ego” to a movie. It doesn’t bother me that there are people on this site who enjoyed “Bad Boys 2”, which for me is one of the three most exrutiating moviegoing experiences I’ve ever had, for example. I mean, SOMEBODY had to.

    (I still love “Inception” though. That scene near the end where Leo says goodbye to his imaginary wife has me damn near tearing up every time. Sorry.)

  336. renfield

    “let’s say you have seen the movie and love it; why does it bother you that other people hate it?”

    Speaking for myself, it’s unjustice that bothers me. It goes both ways. Movies i loved because they are good but get unjustly maligned or bad movies i hated but got strangely beloved. Both cases there’s a profund sense of an unjustice being comited. Good movies that get tashed for poor reasons just discourage other movies lie that being made. Bad movies being popular and mistaken for good only help more crap being made. That’s part of the unjustice i’m talking about. The other is those opinons do the movie themselve an unjustice. I’m reminded of how so unjustly maligned BLADE RUNNER asnd John Carpenter’s THE THING was all throughout the 80s, and only in the 90s they started to get their just recognition. Well, those movies got lucky, but there’s still many others who are still unjustly maligned and they are for dumb, shallow reasons which are more a case of blind memetic repetition then anything truly thoughful. Like, say, STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. Though nowdays their fans are now getting more bold and assertive, which is good.

    And the same for bad movies. And how mindboggling insane that some truly terrible movies like Armageddon only get to be seen as the truly terrible movie it is only 10 to 15 years after the fact, when it’s terribleness was beyond obvious. Or how it will probably take another decade for many to finally realise how godawful Bay’s TRANSFORMERS movies or Abrams Trek truly are, after the hype died out and it’s not there to help anymore. But it’s sad that it needs so much time to set records straight. When it would had been beyond obvious right from the start. That’s the unjustice i’m talking about.

  337. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    Her her about INCEPTION. For me, the truly emotional scene in the movie is the arrival at the airport. It’s the catharsis scene, where all the piled up emotional momentum of the movie finally has it’s release. And Nolan does it very classy. That is the scene that for me emotionally really kicks my ass. It’s the scene where all that went before finally vents out. Hans Zimmer’s score helps.

    I love the movie.

  338. Mouth, BLADE RUNNER is a 5 star movie if ever there was one. It’s tops. It’s one of the few movies i call perfect because it couldn’t had been any better.

    But i’m glad you can see some of it’s strenghs and qualities and praise them. That’s cool.

    And yes, as you well said, PROMETHEUS has no place being found in the hallowed company of BR and ALIEN.

    I have never been so disastified with a Ridley Scott movie since GI JANE. I don’t like the feeling.

  339. OK, this time i quit for real. Either I am gettin smarterer, or everyone on the internet is even dumberer. Either way, this makes me cry even more than Devin’s retarded joke of a noob review, even more than the 100s of unanimously stupid comments on that same review, even more than RT, more than IMDB comments, and even more than the valhalla rising, drive and watchmen moronicalness. Yes, the internet movie crowd offically dun get movies, somehow, and most bewildering, dun even enjoy them. I wish i could read some serious discussion but there is none anywhere i look, only more mostly negative and random bile everywhere. I dun get it!! I seriously dun get it, but I guess that is life. Bye all neils. I dun be missed I know, but bye anyway. I gotta just face facts and enjoy them alone. Honestly can’t believe thats how it is, but I guess… that really is this life.

  340. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    June 15th, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    Replying to Mouth and Asimov here:

    I think the purest, most simple form of horror boils down to things that are familiar but hostile. Stuff that you already know of but that takes a sinister turn. It’s why I think “The Thing” and the “Bodysnatchers” films – especially the second one – are in many ways a pinnacle of horror. It’s why “Night of the Living Dead” works on so many different levels (think of all the things – not just the zombies and the “racial” stuff – that one could class as “familiar” in that film, and how so many of them are subverted in some way to make them threatening), why Michael Myer and the Terminator are such icons (human beings but without humanity, how scary is that?) and, of course, “Blade Runner”‘s replicants.

    And this is why I prefer “Aliens” to “Alien”. To me, “Alien” loses it – not much, but a little – when Ash is destroyed. The alien, as great as it is in its early stages, is not as good a villain as, say, the Terminator. It looks kinda disgusting but not macabre. It’s a bunch of different factors (kinda looks like a penis, drools, has acid for blood) and some really great character design and puppetry. But it’s not “familiar” and thus it’s less relatable than a bodysnatcher or a terminator. Its life-cycle and what little information there is regarding its motivations are revealed piece by piece, in stages throughout the film, in a way that provokes more interest than fear. We’re invested, not because of the alien, but because of the character of Ripley. Put simply, we don’t want to see her die.

    Or to put it another way: the alien makes a better antagonist for a shoot-’em-up than it does for a horror movie.

    This is why I think the idea of “fear of the unknown” is in some ways a misnomer. Yeah, the dark can be nervy if you don’t know what’s out there. But isn’t it a great deal more scary if you know there IS something out there, something malevolent, but you can’t see it? To know there’s a threat and to be powerless against it… that’s true horror.

  341. Mr. Majestyk – why bring up Star Trek? I’m very confused.

  342. Because Mr. S said PROMETHEUS would have been better if it had been about someone taking a spaceship on an expedition to the part of the galaxy where God lives, which is the plot of STAR TREK V, which was mentioned earlier before Vern told us to cut it out.

  343. The only “random bile” I’ve dealt in was that which was onscreen at PROMETHEUS. My negativity has been pretty hyperfocused on that randomness, I’d say, with dozens of specific examples of why it is indeed “bile.”

    And I do enjoy movies. I enjoyed PROMETHEUS as a hi-tech slasher, laughing heartily at the monster kills and having my heart stopped by the abortion scene and wondering how many push-ups Charlize Theron can really do. I just hated the other 80% of the movie, the random stupid shit, but still feel I got my money’s worth overall somehow because 80% hate-to-20%-enjoyment isn’t that much worse than the ratio for most shitty slasher/monster movies, anyway.

    “Either I am gettin smarterer, or everyone on the internet is even dumberer.” is a brilliant and brilliantly ironic sentence, however. Well done.

  344. Asimov — I think it would actually make MORE sense if they were religious nuts. It obviously wasn’t their comprehensive scientific work that got Weyland’s attention, it was their implication that they were, essentially, seeking the immortal creators of all mankind. No scientist would ever make that jump, but these two do it without hesitation. So the whole stowaway thing wouldn’t be an issue — it would be the exact same movie, but without the ridiculous pretense that they’re doing this in the name of science. Now, I don’t know that Lindelof would be able to write that any better than the poor excuse for characters he wrote in this version. But at least it would be a bit more direct, and the character’s irrational actions would be better explained.

    In that sense, yes, STAR TREK V is a great parallel. It would be stupid for them to have claimed that Spock’s bearded brother (forgot his name) was actually a scientist who was interested in finding God because he wanted to know where man came from. That would be pointlessly talking around the point that the movie is obviously trying to make.

  345. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    June 15th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Ok, I’d like to expand on what I said about “Night of the living dead” earlier.

    See, the scariest scene is arguably NOT anything to do with the zombies (although the girl reuniting with her brother is pretty high on the list of “oh fuck” moments in it). It’s the moment where the protagonist becomes a murderer. Now the person he murders is hardly a pleasant character and definitely had it coming, but for all of that the scene is still probably the most shocking in the movie, at least up until the very end.

    That scene was so great because it didn’t just subvert character, it subverted decades of movie “laws” that are still very much in effect today. Hell, even in a film about the world’s greatest assassins duelling for a massive prize, the protagonist doesn’t really “murder”, although she does kill in self-defence and in the defence of an innocent, but “Night of the Living Dead” had the protagonist commit a brutal, cold-blooded killing.

    Then it gave us a moment of total silence for both the audience and the characters in the movie to consider the implications of this, before the shit hit the fan. Absolute perfection.

    As it relates to “Prometheus”, isn’t the abortion scene yet another example of this? When something as natural as pregnancy / childbirth is turned to… that… it’s no wonder that it’s the one scene so many people have singled out as their favorite.

  346. This stuff really pissed me off, but they didn’t feel as integral to the film as many people suggest. I strongly feel that Lindelhof (and I KNOW that stuff is his Lindelhof’s fault because I saw LOST) added all this stuff to an idea that was already formed, or in a revision to a script that was already in development, etc. At any rate I found other stuff to distract myself.

    Apparently there’s a good chance that Spaiht’s draft will be included on the blu ray:

    http://www.prometheusnews.net/movie/uap-bluray/

    …so, critics will have a chance to find out how many aspects they didn’t like are Lindelof’s fault (though we can’t know how much influence Ridley Scott had on the new elements added to Spaiht’s draft). My guess is that the stuff about the Engineers’ motives being totally opaque was already there in Spaiht’s draft, but I have no idea whether the stuff about characters acting like idiots was already there or whether that was Lindelof. It does sound like in Spaiht’s draft the bio-weapons were pretty much just the eggs/facehuggers/xenomorphs from the rest of the Alien movies, so all the stuff about the effects of the black goo seeming arbitrary and random can probably be blamed on Lindelof, although this isn’t what critics of the movie tend to focus on.

    Now I wonder if those who are accusing the film of having only plot holes and no purposeful mysteries believe this is true of the fact that the Engineer’s motivation for eradicating human life is never revealed. Because if this was accidentally left unexplained, it was a happy accident and the best part of the film. Combined with David’s suggestion that the Engineers might have Engineered us simply because they could (analogously to humans’ creation of David) it gives me some ideas of why they might be doing it that I enjoy speculating upon.

    The interview with Lindelof and Spaihts on the page I linked to definitely suggests it was intentionally left unexplained, Lindelof talks about this a little towards the end of the first video (suggesting that maybe we disappointed them somehow), and also in the second video he mentions the possibility that we were just a petri dish and the Engineers were done with the experiment. And in this interview Lindelof says of the Engineer’s motives: “Ridley definitely had very specific answers to those questions and we talked a lot about how we wanted to put those answers into Prometheus. And whether or not we wanted to hold any of them back.” Also, This analysis from cavalorn that someone linked to earlier on the thread suggests what Ridley’s answer probably was:

    If you have uneasy suspicions about what ‘a bad thing approximately 2,000 years ago’ might be, then let me reassure you that you are right. An astonishing excerpt from the Movies.com interview with Ridley Scott:

    Movies.com: We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

    Ridley Scott: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Let’s send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.” Guess what? They crucified him.

  347. Regarding BLADE RUNNER not being all that great, Vern agrees more with me, asimovlives:
    http://outlawvern.com/2007/11/05/blade-runner-2007-directors-cut/

  348. BLADE RUNNER starts brilliantly, ends brilliantly…and then there’s that part with Harrison Ford in the middle.

  349. hypnosifi, that’s all interesting and potentially helpful to people who have an interest in PROMETHEUS being more than the movie I saw twice in the damn theatre, but I prefer for my movie experience to make sense based on the movie I see twice in the damn theatre, not future dvd extras & special featurettes and panel discussions and leaked script revisions and cryptic interviews.

    Put that shit in the fucking movie I watched twice if it helps. Otherwise, I’m judging the movie based on the movie, not the extraneous jibber-jabber (except this websight’s top notch jibber-jabber, of course).

    And PROMETHEUS’s directational filmatism deserves as much blame as the stupid scriptorial filmatism. Ridley didn’t have to film the guy reaching down and hoochie-cooing the snake slime monster like he was a drunkard at the platypus habitat area of the Cincinnati zoo. Ridley could have read that part, or gone to the blocking/stage rehearsal for that scene the morning of the shoot, and said,
    “Hmm, maybe instead of this stupid bullshit, we could rip off Newman’s death in JURASSIC PARK instead, try to have Fifield or Millburn accidentally drop some equipment and when they go to recover it they have to step between slime puddles and then get attacked. Or we could have the slime monsters stalk them because of some ground vibrations, and then when Millburn is shocked to see the creature he is too slow to react and get away so then the creature jumps up and breaks his arm and says hello to his stomach lining via the open fracture on the elbow joint. True, this approach to filming the attack is less of a microcosm for the ‘man shouldn’t take lightly encounters with violent e.t. creatures’ theme, but at least it makes my movies’ characters less of a ridiculous unintentional satire of those ‘We love premarital sex!’ chicks in JASON X. By the way, where’s my copy of JASON X, I want to watch it now because that’s what I, Ridley Scott, do in my free time on a live set while my computer crew makes my stupid movie for me.”

  350. I also don’t like the fact that Shaw is not wearing gloves when she is on the surface during the ending.

    Is her uniform really airtight past her wrist? Armpit? What seals the helmet between the neck and the fabric of her uniform (without cutting off circulation around the shoulders)? Is that why her oxygen supply dwindles? (Is oxygen cannisters what she gathered on the ship with less than 30 seconds of O2 remaining? Did she swipe any food, too, or is she just hoping at the end on the alien ship with David that they’ll magically find sustenance in the coming days? Is android goo potable? Nutritious? Is she going to eat Engineer food? Does David magically know how to hook her up to the Engineer cryo-sleep feeding tubes?)

    With a helmet but no gloves on, is she not worried about contamination? (I know, contamination is not an issue in this movie, unless it’s retardedly used as a wedge issue to make not-Tom Hardy seem like a hero or Vickers seem like the bad guy somehow.) Is her skin not being exposed to windblown silica particles and who knows what else? Would a laceration not expose her circulatory system to foreign material? Why does the caged bird sing?

  351. Mouth, you bring up a good point. As much as it is fun for us to try and decipher the symbolism and subtext of a film like PROMETHEUS, it is disappointing that the film can’t explore these ideas more effectively. I think much of the symbolism and subtext is muddled, not because it is to coded or too complex for us to understand but because it is poorly executed and/or not that well thought out.

    I also think it is kind of BS to make a film that is supposed to be about a deeper meaning, but do it so poorly that the meaning is lost, then turn around and charge people for a Blu-ray or DVD so they can explain to you what you missed because of their poor execution in delivering the message. Don’t get me wrong I love commentaries and special features, but the concept is like going to a restaurant and purchasing a disappointing meal then coming back and paying for the same disappointing meal but this time while you eat the chef will explain why you were wrong and the meal is so good.

  352. hypnosifi, that’s all interesting and potentially helpful to people who have an interest in PROMETHEUS being more than the movie I saw twice in the damn theatre, but I prefer for my movie experience to make sense based on the movie I see twice in the damn theatre, not future dvd extras & special featurettes and panel discussions and leaked script revisions and cryptic interviews.

    But like I said in that comment, I posted that info in part to show that the creators left it intentionally open-ended why the Engineers wanted to destroy us, in response renfield’s question about whether the failure of the movie to explain this was just an oversight (and the other reason I posted it was not because I thought the behind-the-scenes stuff would settle any plot points, but just because seeing Spaiht’s draft might help decide if Lindelof deserves all the blame for script problems). That was probably a better decision than the alternatives they were considering, the Space Jesus explanation would have been kind of laughable (Jesus was a chalky-white giant hairless guy?), and “they were just done with the experiment” would have been a letdown. Leaving it completely unexplained isn’t completely satisfying either though since it seems a little like a cop-out, ideally I think they could have come up with more of a hint of an answer without being too cut-and-dried, kind of like how in 2001 we got some hint the Monolith-makers wanted to further our evolution, but their exact plan and motives were kept sort of mysterious and alien.

  353. Mouth, Vern is wrong about BLADE RUNNER.

  354. Mr. Subtlety, i pretty much agree with you on the points you made. You are right, they being religous nuts would at least take off the pretense at science that Shaw and Holloway have. In real life, they would be pseudo-scientists, laughed at the commnity, nobody would take them seriously in any way. But we all know that all the members of tram Abrams have no real understanding of the most basic notions of science, as becoming the creators of LOST and FRINGE.

  355. Hypnosifl, to your point about comparing PROMETHEUS to 2001, the further evolution of man, and leaving things open to interpretation, I don’t think it has been mentioned yet but I don’t think the purpose of the black goo was to kill, it was to birth new life. However, that new life can only be created by the sacrifice of existing life. The engineers didn’t want to wipe out all of mankind as much as they wanted to make them into something else, maybe something more evolved.

  356. “…comparing PROMETHEUS to 2001…”

    This string of inappropriate words enrages me.

    I respect & like you and all, Charles, but we’ve got to show some discretion about how we compare & juxtapose certain things. My friend took an iPhone picture through a broken windshield once, but I’m not comparing it to “Guernica.”

  357. Charles, my theory is that you’re right about what the black goo was used for at the time of the opening scene, but that once the Engineers got mad at us they decided to modify it to turn it into something more deadly, and their experiments backfired on them. They were apparently running from something in those old recordings, and it’s hard to see how a substance that turns people into raging zombies or causes them to give birth to squid-monster-babies (not to mention the xenomorph-looking-thing that appeared at the end, implying that the ones from Alien were also created by the same goo) can be furthering our development to “something more evolved” (unless they have very weird standards of “evolved”).

  358. Mouth, I was the one who brought up 2001 and Charles was just responding to that, but comparing a specific plot element of two movies (like the handling of the mysteriousness of alien psychology) isn’t the same thing as saying they are similar in overall quality or artistry, I definitely wasn’t saying Prometheus is in the same league. And in fact I didn’t even think Prometheus did as good a job with that specific aspect of the plot, like I said I think it would have been better if they gave a little more of a hint (as in 2001) without making their motives totally explicit (also like 2001).

  359. It’s cool, baby, I just get sensitive about loose talk about the one film director with a 1.000 batting average, the one who transcended “Striving for Excellence” and actually went out and produced artistic excellence for a half century. Kubrick’s the one topic about which I allow myself to nerd rage unashamedly. To mix baseball metaphors, he’s the New York Yankees of cinematism.

    Dude is responsible for at least 5 unfuckwithable all time classics, plus about 7 more movies that range from great to excellent. I feel like it’s my responsibility to guard his legacy from the fickleness of the sometimes too-democratic internet.

    It’s beautiful that the dawn of man depicted in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY has become a go-to point of comparison for a bunch of movies, tv shows, and internet chats. But I’d like to maintain a respectful distance when considering these things, even if Ridley Scott’s joint’s dawn of man depiction, in some people’s opinions, approaches Kubrickian-style provocativeness. The Florida Marlins won 2 World Series in the last 15 years, doesn’t mean they can hold a candle to the sun of the 27 time World Series Champion Yanks.

  360. FEAR AND DESIRE (1953) was made while Kubrick was still in AA, by the way. Doesn’t count in his official pro stats.

  361. “And PROMETHEUS’s directational filmatism deserves as much blame as the stupid scriptorial filmatism.”

    Mouth is absolutely correct in stating this, particularly with a director of Scott’s clout. The director is absolutely to blame for anything you see in the final product. You can fire actors, hire script rewrites, and barring all else, take your name off the fucker.

    However I think the topic is still interesting because let’s say Scott directs another film; we can say “well we can’t expect him to give much of a shit if the source material is garbage as long as it gives him the opportunity to put his visual stamp on it.” We can say, “Oh man, this one is written by the same guy who wrote [insert film here], I’m going to get all excited about it in spite of Prometheus.” etc etc.

    Similarly if Lindelhof writes another film, we can adjust our expectations appropriately.

    I do strongly believe that leaving the Engineers’ motivations a mystery is the film’s single greatest conceptual strength, but you can look forward to the sequel to be disillusioned on that front as well.

  362. Hypnosifl, I am talking about evolution at a DNA level then as a species. We never got to see the long term effects of the black goo on a human. For example what if the creatures people eventually became after coming in contact with the goo could communicate telepathically. As a species the creatures would be savage at first like man once was, but maybe over time they would evolve as a race the way mankind has and go on to do and achieve things man never dreamed of.

  363. Mouth, I think you misunderstood me. As Hypnosifl pointed out I was just responding to his post. Also, I understand being protective about something you care about, but even if I were comparing PROMETHEUS & 2001 that does not mean that I was in anyway saying they are equal.

  364. I agree you guys that ultimately Scott should be held to blame for the films shortcomings. It the same point I was trying to make to Asimov earlier in the thread. Scott is a control freak, and he is not going to shoot a script he is not 100% in support of.

  365. I’ve got to join this conversation once again because I saw the movie for a second time with a lady friend who wouldn’t take no for an answer. I thought maybe I might see it in a different light as a cheesy monster movie with higher aspirations. Wrong! I could see all the flaws even more then I did the first time. It’s a shame that one of the best looking sci-fi movies in a long time is also one of the dumbest. I agree 100% with mouth as far as Ridley Scott being the one to blame here. He should have read that script and ordered as many rewrites as possible. The movie begins like it wants to be 2001 but it’s really nothing but a 1950’s creature feature.

    Here’s something that really bothered me the second time around that I really didn’t pay attention to the first time. How in the hell does the oxygen work in the ship that was supposed to be Vickers sanctuary? Shaw get’s into the ship and closes the ships doors and you here the computer say the oxygen level is now stabilizing. To me this would mean that there would be little to no air if the doors are opened. If this is true, why wasn’t she affected at all once the engineer broke into the ship? How the fuck did he even get into the ship? Did he rip the door open? Did he have the code to the door? Did he have a handy universal key? Was there a hole in the ship? If there was a hole in the ship why the hell was Shaw able to breath without her helmet on? Prometheus actually gets dumber with each viewing.

    Exactly what the hell is Prometheus supposed to be saying to the audience except look at all the pretty effects and don’t think too much. Ridley really screwed up here in my mind. How is this movie thought provoking unless you just started thinking yesterday? The Alien scene at the very end is absolutely terrible and really has no place in the movie at all. It felt like a studio executive watched the first cut and said, ” Ridley we can’t sell this shit, where’s the aliens?”. In fact the snake scene feels like that also when I think about it. What the hell is the point of that scene in the bigger picture of the movie? There is none except to provide something to show in the previews to fool idiot moviegoers into believing Prometheus is an action packed sci-fi movie. I didn’t like the movie on first viewing, but no I believe it’s a mess in every way. The directors cut would have to be damn near a different movie to save this turd.

  366. Regarding lack of gloves –

    The atmosphere is on the planet is not described as toxic, it is just composed of the wrong concentrations of gases. We can all scuba dive without being completely covered as long as air is getting to the lungs, and water is not a medium we can breathe.

  367. Asimov

    Regarding being cross about me suggesting you were being patronising, if you look at the quote from you above it, you are basically telling me what I am suggesting as another way of looking at PROMETHEUS is based on an emotive attempt to justify my enjoyment of the film rather than a rational exploration of it. Which is pretty fucking patronising. I understand that english may not be your first language, but you’re using plenty of it and I have made it clear that these thoughts are based on my experience – I’m not telling you how good, bad or indifferent it all is.

  368. I saw this movie almost a week ago and I really can’t remember anything about it.

    I don’t want to say, “Holy fuck Ridley Scott is a mediocre-at-best director and we’ve been had for 30 years”, but, I think Ridley Scott is not that great and I don’t understand why we keep expecting him to be.

    Blackhawk Down and Alien are both great, though. Maybe we’ll be due for another great Ridley Scott movie in another 10 years?

  369. The Original... Paul

    June 16th, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Chitown – I stand by my original thoughts on the movie. “Prometheus” has the stink of a rushed committee project on it. Somebody had an idea, others added to it, etc, and then there was a rush to actually film the thing to get it out in time for the summer blockbuster season. Quality control goes out the window in a case like that.

    I would be willing to put money on Scott saying something like that on the commentary for the inevitable cash-in “Director’s Cut”.

  370. Yes, quality control… That excuses the fact that Fifield had a real time 3D mapping of the tunnels/ship on his arm device and somehow still got lost. (This might make more sense if he was trying to hook up with the other guy. They seemed like they might have a gay connection, lot of sexual tension in their first encounter & their co-decision to split off from the rest of the explorers.)

    And that when the others leave with the head in the giant ziploc bag they take the same # of vehicles they brought to the site originally back to the ship and then are surprised to learn that Fifield & Millburn haven’t yet returned.

    And, again, why Janek and his radio watch relief (which was no one) abandon comms with the 2 lost idiots overnight. And why, even though their attacks/deaths are filmed in a live helmet cam feed, the Prometheus crew don’t bother to check the video the following day.

    All this is almost excused by the pretty shots of a distant moon/planet and Charlize Theron in a couple of lovely one- and 2-piece form-fitting outfits. Almost. Not really.

  371. Vickers does the right thing by torching Holloway, who does the right thing by asking for it, but they could have kept him in the airtight suit and decontaminated & quarantined him. They didn’t. That’s cool.

    But then she allows them to take onboard the Engineer head and examine it in an open-air room while wearing flimsy facial masks, the 99¢ kind favored by Beijing bicycling commuters that probably are not the highest level of medical protection available on a trillion dollar space ship mission with every other barely conceivable piece of technology & specialized equipment. (Is Vickers even wearing a mask during this?)

    And they barely take any measures to distance themselves from the electro-shocked brain dude as he freaks out & oozes & explodes.

    The easygoing ridiculous pseudo-sci-fi comedic stylings legacy of the late great James Isaac lives!

  372. Who decides which movies are to get this kind of treatment? Just asking. No film ever made could survive a dissection like this. Chill, guys.

  373. Lot of films could survive a dissection like this. Not a lot of films have a RottenTomatoes score of 73% (peppered with ridiculous praise from some who should surely know better) while pretending to answer pretend scientific musings with “It’s what I choose to believe.” That’s some Kirk Cameron shit right there.

    If filmmakers crafting a 9 figure film are unable to perform quality control on their project before foisting it on me with a barrage of awesome trailers and saturation PROMETHEUS advertisements for Coors beer and the NBA, then I guess it’s incumbent upon us to do the quality control for them.
    Shitty scripts and insultingly nonsensical characters are excusable in faux-supernatural slashers like JASON GOES TO MANHATTAN or faux-scientifical monster horror movies like SQUIRM (1976), but they’re not acceptable in movies that should know better that cost this much.

    If I just let it slide, if I “chill,” I’ll feel like I’ve allowed the idiots to run the asylum, or something. It feels like some of the positive reviewers of this are the kind of people who would let GW Bush get voted into office a 3rd time so we could deny embryonic stem cell research funding and ignore climate change. “It’s what I choose to believe” — hey, that’s also the basis of new laws in Virginia & North Carolina to shoot down science and base coastal property assessments & flood insurance rates on old data and Republican legislators’ Old Testament beliefs instead of scientists’ accurate sea level rise predictions. Fuck the scientists, fuck logic, let’s just make shit up based on our gut and what our daddies told us because it’s what we choose to believe. That’s smart.

    If PROMETHEUS wants to be judged within the same universe as ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM and those pieces of shit, then yes, it holds up pretty well, exceeds its peers in a lot of ways, and I can enjoy what it does successfully in the same way I enjoy UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: REGENERATION for being way way better than the shitty UNISOL movies before it while ignoring the stupider aspects of REGENERATION’s ridiculous sci-fi script.
    (Except I love the ridiculousness of it, and the top notch ass-kicking, and I find Dolph’s interrogatories to be surprisingly brilliantly stimulative & provocative, whereas PROMETHEUS’s philosophical inquiries are so much sound & fury uttered by idiots.)

    Lots of great films suffer upon dissection, yet remain virtually flawless. Does it bother me in TOY STORY 3 that Buzz Lightyear’s Spanish mode turns him into a Flamenco dance expert and cheesy lady-romancer? Yes. Is it excusable, however, in a near-perfect movie about talking, feeling toys? Yes. Does it ruin the suspension of disbelief within the established atmosphere of the movie and the parameters of its script? Very very briefly, perhaps, but, overall, hell no.

    PROMETHEUS’s dozens of flaws, however, *do* bother me, are *not* excusable (when the alternatives & potential fixes to the flaws are so obvious and when the filmmakers clearly thought they were reaching for graduate level material when they must still be remedial junior high students, thought they were to be praised for doing front flips at the X-Games when they’ve not yet removed the training wheels from their junior Huffy), and *do* ruin the suspension of disbelief.

    They’re either dim or they’re running a scam. Either way, they must be taught a lesson, or the joke’s on us. We give these assholes our money & time. We have to demand a better product.

  374. Speaking of surviving a dissection, Shaw’s post-Caesarian staples held up well, eh? Gun butt, running, she jumps a long distance & does a full body pull-up when the ground opens beneath her, more running, rappelling with David’s head and lowering his body on the pulley system.

    Oh and also she’s on multiple shots of painkillers the whole time after the ultrasound, with zero slurred speech or loss of balance or impaired vision, etc.. I’ll have what she’s having! Of course, if she’d shown any effects from the drugs, that would have been yet another reason for Weyland to not bring her along for the meeting with the live Engineer. So, she was sober, post-op post-natal, and ready to run, because it’s what she chooses to believe, just like THE LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD, a children’s book based on similar scientific reasoning, or THE SECRET, an adult book based on similar child’s reasoning.

  375. Mouth, I get that you’re all angry. But none of you have come up with anything substantial so far. All I see are a bunch of “I told you so” comments from people who hated Ridley Scott when they went into the theater; “They’re lousy scientists” and “Geologists don’t have mohawks”. What movie, in any genre, doesn’t deal with flawed people? Lousy cops and stupid teenagers are what kick starts every action movie and horror film ever made.

    The only concrete I’ve seen so far are your comment about the religious dilemma Shaw’s faced with. But Mouth, I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you’ve misunderstood the whole thing. Shaw represents the stupid people who, faced with scientific answers chooses to ignore them and go on believing in some man made fairytale. The movie doesn’t symphatize with her and you’re not supposed to either. In fact the movie are one long arguement against those right wing christians you talk about. The Rotten Tomatoes Bush fans have totally missed the point of this movie.

  376. Yeah, I’m aware that “lousy cops and stupid teenagers are what kick starts every… horror film ever made,” like for example the film I just mentioned, JASON GOES TO MANHATTAN. Not angry, just baffled that PROMETHEUS’s script can’t be better than such garbage.

    Shaw’s “what I choose to believe” gibberish,

    although I am impressed that such a belief somehow led her to match up 5 or 6 crudely drawn dots with a celestial formation 35 light years away (8 times further away than Proxima Centauri, the closest non-sun star to Earth, and not “a half billion miles” away, as Vickers offhandedly says, and not a distance likely to be traversed in “2 years, 4 months, 18 days, 36 hours, 15 minutes” unless we’ve discovered how to travel faster than the speed of light in the next 78 years, which would be an accomplishment that might even hold fake-Tom Hardy’s interest for a couple hours before he starts forlornly drinking by himself),

    is dangerous to her peers & colleagues. It combines with Janek’s hasty nonsensical assessment of the place as an Engineer military installation (His lack of methodical, verifiable thoroughness is at least excusable, as he is not a scientist.) to convince him & 2 other characters to commit suicide based on one very brief exchange. I guess his snap suicidal decision is as logical as his desire to decorate a Christmas tree while puffing a cigar immediately after he wakes from a nap of “2 years, 4 months, 18 days, 36 hours, 15 minutes” and before he eats.

    And again, his decision to enter LV-223’s atmosphere with no spectography or radar-ing or topography analysis, or whatever fanciful sci-fi x-ray beaming sci-fi movies do, is something we’d see in an ALIENverse movie directed by Ed Wood.

    I’m not angry, pegsman. I’m embarrassed for Ridley Scott.

  377. And yes, I’m aware that it’s JASON *TAKES* MANHATTAN. I was going to do a humorous PORT OF CALL-style auxiliary title that made more sense with the “GOES TO” part and then I forgot about it.

  378. And red space suits?! Who’s ever heard of that! I see that you choose to ignore the main point in my last entry, but that’s fine. I can’t expect eveybody to see things my way.

    Maybe the board members of the Weyland company didn’t wanna spring for a top shelf crew on such a hazardious voyage and just cruised the nearest bar for people to go with Wickers, just like in Aliens where they clearly sent the stupidest marines in the whole galaxy to see if Ripley’s story checked out?

  379. Lots of good comments and discussion here, not much more I can add. I too thought this was a complete mess and was very disappointed. Mouth, you have brought up pretty much everything that annoyed me about this. I’m a scientist myself, but usually I can let terrible science slide if the film is somewhat enjoyable. There was a point in PROMETHEUS that I felt it was starting to get good, when the two guys were left alone in the cave. Here it felt like the film was becoming suspenseful, despite the stupid set up – they lost communication with the ship, even though a real time 3D mapping of the cave, which would have required far more bandwidth, was being relayed? I can excuse that if the following scenes are good, which they weren’t. The way they were killed was idiotic, and nobody seemed to care or even check up on them afterwards.

    The opening scene was interesting at first. It seemed to show an alien being seeding a planet with a self-replicating molecule, thus kick-starting an evolutionary process. I assumed it was meant to be earth, given the hints in the trailer that the film was supposed to be about the origins of mankind. But the humanoid form of the alien worried me, and my worries increased as the first scenes continued (dream watching, magic gravity on a spaceship, “are you really going against 300 years of Darwinism” [paraphrase], moronic statements of choosing to believe, not taking weapons with them, not sending the mapping instruments first etc etc). It was pretty clear early on this wasn’t going to be thought provoking sci-fi, so I tried to enjoy it as a fun slasher-type film but it was too stupid even for that.

    The engineers having the same DNA as humans was really the last straw. Makes no sense on any level besides a moronic “intelligent design” type argument. Unless they interfered with human evolution at some later time, but then why show that scene at the very beginning? (This aspect really seemed to come from the same writer as Lost, show something cool and surprising, don’t worry how it fits in with the rest of the story, we can sort that out in the sequels).

    Also – Tawdry, I agree the dream reading scene was ridiculous, but I don’t think that having the technology to do what David was doing there (which makes no sense, the human mind doesn’t create constructs as overly complicated as what he saw, with detailed backgrounds etc) means that the old guy could have downloaded his mind into an android, as I don’t think that is possible in principle. Human minds are much too hardware-specific. But that’s an argument I don’t really want to get into!

    Another thing that annoyed me, everyone just seemed to accept that David had no emotions or humanity because he was an android, even though he displayed curiosity, ability to learn, make complicated decisions, appreciation of art, even had a favourite film!

    Ok this has gotten very long and rambling, sorry about that. In conclusion, go watch BLADE II.

  380. Wow! The amount of comments on this thread makes me think its a pretty popular motion picture.
    I need to check it out. Tony Scott usually makes good pictures.

  381. The Original... Paul

    June 17th, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Pegsman – I blame myself. I saw it before most of these guys; and, although I couldn’t in good conscience eviscerate the film, I did do my best to dissuade them from seeing it, evidently without any success whatsoever. I failed, and as a result everybody else suffered. I apologise.

  382. There is one “flaw” in the science & believability of PROMETHEUS that I don’t mind at all. Like THE EXPENDABLES’ last trip to the island, like Sean Archer’s swim from prison to mainland in FACE/OFF, and like JCVD’s sprint from the medical lab to the terrorists’ battlefield in UNISOL:REGEN, there is one puzzling bit of action geography that seems inexplicable when you think about it but in my opinion ought not be held against the movie because it doesn’t ruin my suspension of belief and it helps make the parts before & after it more awesome.

    When the Prometheus collides with the USS Engineer, the wreckage appears to direct itself straight down, defying the force & velocity of the suicidal collision and placing the giant horseshoe of death atop the scene of most of the movie’s action. (Huge moon/planet, and the whole story takes place on a stretch of a couple hundred meters.) It doesn’t seem right that the air collision wouldn’t send the flying objects a significant distant laterally before gravity finishes the wreck, unless the USS Engineer is made of much much heavier material than Prometheus, but if that’s the case then why is it even damaged?

    Anyway, this part is forgivable, or possibly even correctly filmed and in fact *not* an insult to our eyes & minds like most of the movie, although I still have my doubts about the likelihood of something that occurs simultaneously — that Vickers’s escape pod would land within 50 feet of Shaw on the ground. That was an awfully convenient way to set up the ensuing foot race beneath the Donut of Death sequence between my favorite character and The Girl With The Magically Stapled 6 Pack Who Played With Fire Who Kicked The Engineers Nest.

  383. Also, this solves everything:
    http://twitter.com/neveldinetaylor/status/211892030828318722

    In conclusion, go watch BLADE II again.

  384. My issue isn’t so much that the science is terrible, it’s that it doesn’t even reflect anything close to actual human behavior. I’d be fine with shitty science if at least the stuff they’re doing made sense on a human level. Even if it was illogical, if I believed in the characters even a tiny bit you might be able to convince me they would make stupid decisions under pressure.

    But that’s not the case. There’s not a single cast member who is developed beyond the barest archetype. We never have any sense of who the characters are beyond their basic declarative statements about what motivates them (ie: “I choose to believe!” “I’m a skeptic!) and so never have any context to understand why they act so bizarrely. That leaves an opening for you to come up with whatever explanation you want, I suppose, but I don’t really fancy having to do a bunch of mental reshuffling to try and come up with some labored explanation for something which was obviously so lazily written. And even if I did, the script provides no clues at all, so you can come up with almost an infinite array of possibilities, all of which would be equally meaningless and arbitrary. It’s like “explaining” UFOs by saying that elves drive them.

  385. That’s a good point Mr. Subtlety, suspension of disbelief is usually easier to maintain in the face of bad science rather than inexplicable human behaviour. I was just annoyed by the science because I thought I was going to be watching a decent science fiction film. There have been recent example of sci-fi that have at least presented plausible science (e.g. MOON or SUNSHINE, where the crew actually seemed like real scientists, and the ship rotated giving an explanation for gravity onboard, which could have been easily replicated in PROMETHEUS), hence my disappointment.

    But once I realised this would be a film with garbage science, I was still hoping for an effective thriller, which it could have been except for the ridiculous behaviour of the undeveloped “characters”. When Idris Elba and the two other guys we barely saw decided to heroically kill themselves based on the word of someone they hardly knew and had no reason to trust all that much, all I could think was “That music seems to suggest we’re supposed to care that this is happening”.

    It did look good in 3D IMAX, I’ll give it that.

  386. Although the IDIOCRACY explanation makes a lot of sense. No wonder the engineers wanted to destroy mankind.

  387. All sci fi movies are basically bullshit. The good ones as well as the bad ones. Judging from the posting here Scott must have made this one looking too real for his own good.

    I think it’s a good thing that we are left to figure shit out for ourselves. If we weren’t able to do that neither of the Alien movies or Bladerunner or the Star Wars movies or the Predator movies would stand a chance.

  388. “All sci fi movies are basically bullshit.”

    pegsman, by bullshit you mean they are all liars, or that they are all shitty by definition. Because i have a hard time accepting those both notions. I don’t take lightly such atttacks on my favorite genre. Nobody disses SF on my watch, misters.

  389. john_b, i once read a proposed technique to create artificial gravity in, say, a spaceship that would vidicate and justify seeing people going about walking as of on Earth without the use of centrifuges (like in 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY) or continous acceleration (implied in SUNSHINE but not very well presented).

    The technique above mentioned would involve magnetism. All materials can be magnetized, including living tissue. There is a very famous film about a levitating frog which many have mislabeleed it as proof that anti-gravity had been achieved in the 1960s (and conspiracy theory nuts claimed it was covered up by evil goverments). Thing is, the explanation is far more prosaic.

    What they did was they magnetized the frog with, say positive electric charge. Then they put him under a magnetized positive charged plate. The result, due to electrical repel, was that the frog floated above the plate. Simple case of equal electric chages repelling each other.

    Using this in a space ship would be like every occupant and lose object, like bags, tools, etc, would be magnetized on entrance, and throughout the whole shit, in the “ceiling” side, there would be a mesh of charged wiring with the same electric charge. The crew and lose objects would then be repelled toward the “floor” side and this, artificial gravity. Gravity is nothing but an acceleration toward a direction, and the electric repel caused by he magnetization would push, thus, acceletare an object toward a certain direction, from ceilingwards to floorwards. Thus, artifical gravity similiar to what we see in movies like Star Wars, Alien, Aliens and whatnot.

    Science catching up with fiction, if you will.

    The fun thing about science is that with a bit of creativity involved and using imaginative ways to use known physics, it actually allows very fantastic stuff that even writers of the SF genre would had a hard time imagine. This is why i love science as much as science fiction, and why in my mind they are not that apart, nor should be so.

  390. I have to sode with Mr. Subtlety in his criticism of the scientific angle of this movie.

    As Mr. Subtlety so well points out, even if the science in PROMETHEUS was shaky, if this is a movie about scientists, then it would had been nice if the characters would at least act like scientists.

    Now, if there had been any moment in the movie which would imply that the people who crew the PROMETHEUS were all jokes in their fields, they were all incompetents who had been laughted out of the scientific community, or pseudo-scientists who had never been accepted in the mainstream because their ideas were all nonsense bullshit, then i could had accepted that. It would be a ship full of fools, and that would had been fun to watch.

    But no, that’s not how things are presented. We are watching what we are supposed to accept as real scientisits. And that’s where shit really is unacceptable.

    It’s not the personalities of the characters so much is the problem (though it is), it’s that as soon this guys are at work, never we get to see them turn into professional mode. You know, when you are on R&R you are all lose up and jokey, but as soon you are on the job you turn professional and serious. This is something we see a lot with so many professionals.

    The point is, this characters are always whinning assclowns both in R&R and on the job. With only two exceptions, Vickers and David. You know, one is the robot and the other is the responsible executive. Well, responsible for any right minded person in the audience, because the ovie want to portait her as a souless bitch who is supposed always wrong. Which she never is.

    Mr. Subtlety, i think we need to partner up on this subject, like Murtagh and Riggs in LEATHAL WEAPON. We needs to bring the silly shit in this movie down.

  391. sode = side

  392. ShootMcKay, It’s Ridley Scott, Tony Scott’s brother, who made PROMETHEUS. And Tony Scott usually makes shitty movies.

  393. I have read a lot of coments, from all kind of soruces, from the fans of PROMETHEUS, you know the people who actualy think this is a great movie and is very deep in themes and thoughs and what not. And one of their most used excuses and attacks on the detractors is that said detractors are just a bunch of cynicals who cannot have fun at the movies anymore.

    This kind of talk really takes me to task. This exessive permissiveness only helps to justify filmmakers who slag off on things movies shouldn’t be lazy about, like storytelling, characterization, and respect for their own audience. Why would paying members of the public would give so much leeway to filmmakers who fail, i do not understand. It’s all about, it’s all in the name of this elusive thing called “fun” and “entertaiment”, two words used as umbralla expressions to a thing that there is no real consensual definition. One person’s fun can other person’s torture.

    What irks me a lot is that because some people have such lowered standards to what is acceptable fun, they then presume to be the arbits of all things fun. And Dog forbid if one asks a bit more from the thing he payed with his money to watch, they will be deemed party-poopers and cynical souless fucks with no concept of fun. Which is total shit. I’m sorry, but people who use the “you don’t know how to have fun” are just full of shit. It’s a desperate tactic used by those who think their lack of standards or too much willingness equals levelheadness. It’s not. It is not. At all. It’s gullability at best.

    Being critical of PROMETHEUS do not make me a souless sad sack who can’t have fun. Quite the contrary, it makes me know the different between genuine fun and the con atempts made by careless filmmakers.

    And you ask me, “what do you call a fun movie?” And my answer is simple: one that doesn’t call me an idiot while i watch it. I don’t think many people would consider fun if they had some asshole shouting at your face calling you an idiot for two hours straight. Same thing with movies.

  394. Relax asimov, I love sci fi too. By bullshit I mean that they make up shit by what we know now. None of it’s grounded in reality and shouldn’t be judged by todays science. If we start doing that it will be the end of sci fi action/horror.

  395. asimov; “…people who use the “you don’t know how to have fun” are just full of shit.”

    Dear sweet asimov, please don’t ever change, this is award winning stuff.

    asimov; “I don’t think many people would consider fun if they had some asshole shouting at your face calling you an idiot for two hours straight.”

    Damn, this reminds me of something, but I can’t really put my finger on what it is…

  396. “this reminds me of something, but I can’t really put my finger on what it is”

    Dear pegsman, call me when you do.

    “please don’t ever change, this is award winning stuff”

    I aim to please.

  397. Not every Sf is made up shit. In fact, the genre itself started out differently, as explorations of what was possible but extrapolated to unusual circunstances. Jules Verne stuff comes to mind.

    Later, SF gained a more fantastic nature, probably because stuff like space travel was added, and there was need to advance plots to make the protagonists go star jumping. It’s impossible to be plausible with interstellar travel, at least not with as depicted in such works as STAR TREK and STAR WARS.

    If anything, this notion that SF is inherently fantasist is a consequence of the sucess of SW, which made that type of SF so proeminent in the public consciousness, specially the mainstream.

    That’s my take on it, anyway.

    But there has been good SF made which are of the more realistic kind. The poster boy is 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY. Later this year or problaby the next there will be Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY. And then there is the inbetween stuff like ALIEN and ALIENS, in which some breaks form reality happen (ships that can cross the stars in weeks or months) but all other aspects of the world they present is very close to our own, lived in by the type of people we can recognize.

    The point is, to say Sf is about made up stuff, that’s incorrect. It’s one type of SF, but it hardly represents the whole of the genre.

    Brian Aldriss, the famous author, had this definition of SF: “Any dramatic presentation in which the story is dependent of a technological or scientific element and the relationship between those and human characters”. Or words to that effect. This can both serve for hard SF and soft SF, both for realistic SF and fantasy SF. It also makes such stories which traditionally have been called “technothrillers” like HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER into a SF story. It even makes such stories like CRASH (the David Cronenberg movie and the J.G. Ballard’s book it’s based on) belong to the genre as well (a story wholy dependent on the relationship between human characters and technology, in this case cars).

    SF is the riches genr ethere is, because it can include everything in the world, and it’s inclusive to any other genre. You can make a hybrid genre of SF with all other genres. No other genre is this flexible.

  398. asimov- I´m perfectly aware of that. I was just joking. I may have failed.

  399. Asimov — I’m getting too old for this shit.

  400. Asimov, that’s not quite how magnetism works. It’s true that pretty much all materials can have a magnetic response, but for most materials the response is extremely weak. The levitating frog occurs because the magnetic field is extremely large, the frog is very light, and is mainly composed of water. Water has what’s called a diamagnetic response, which means a field is induced that opposes the applied field, hence the levitation. Other materials, such as metals, have different (and stronger) responses. Basically what you read is completely wrong. You would have metals lining up in one direction (e.g. being attracted to the ceiling), with diamagnetic objects (e.g. humans) lining up in the other direction, but all that is moot as the actual fields required would be so strong that they would probably rip your spaceship apart, not to mention disrupting bonds in the molecules in your cells, probably killing you.

    When you say “positive charge” etc, I think you mean north or south pole magnets (magnetic fields form from moving charges). Maybe you could have the floor as a giant magnet and wear special boots allowing you to stick to it, but that would be very different to what’s portrayed in sf films. As I said, this stuff rarely bothers me, but it’s nice when they do make an attempt to address it.

    In SUNSHINE I think they had a centrifuge too? The ship rotated behind the giant shield, if I remember correctly.

  401. Millburn has a crush on Fifield. It was lust at first sight at the breakfast table, and his laughter about “ignoring 3 centuries of Darwinism” was equally about both questioning Shaw’s Engineer-creator thesis and his ironic personal awareness that his sexual orientation is, in a way, also anti-Darwinian.

    When Fifield freaks out, pronounces his love of rocks, and exits the group, his invitation to Millburn to join him going back to the ship is just like when a girl at a party tells the group she’s tired and asks me to walk her home. Lame excuse, but inside I’m like, “Score!”

    Millburn was trying to impress Fifield with a misguided sense of bravery by playing with the slime creature, trying to make their first date memorable.

    It’s not all Lindelof’s or Ridley’s fault that this wasn’t more clear on the screen. Mainstream Amurka isn’t ready for outer space man-love.

  402. So what you’re saying, Mouth, is that you try to find some slimy creature to play with on your way home from these boring parties?

  403. Mouth — see, it’s not Scott’s fault! Most American audiences are just too lazy to make up arbitrary, convoluted explanations for the inane, inexplicable actions of his underdeveloped characters. It’s everyone else’s fault, really. If you just go in an make up excuses for everything, it all makes perfect sense!

  404. Not every Sf is made up shit. In fact, the genre itself started out differently, as explorations of what was possible but extrapolated to unusual circunstances. Jules Verne stuff comes to mind.

    I don’t think it’s really true that science fiction started out more realistic and became more fantastical–in every era of science fiction you have some authors who try hard not to deviate too much from known science, and a larger number who care a lot less about scientific accuracy. In the early years, it’s true one of the more famous authors was Jules Verne and he goes in the “semi-realistic” category, but you also have a lot of famous authors on the more fantastical end of the spectrum, like H.G. Wells and Mary Shelly. Science-Fiction: The Early Years is an interesting reference book on the early (pre-1930) history of science fiction, with a bunch of sections you can preview on google books, like the capsule history of the origins of the genre that starts on this page, along with the long list of entries on different early works starting here, which is fun to browse for a sci-fi geek like myself, maybe for you too. Anyway, you can see from browsing this section that of the stories that incorporate new technologies that didn’t exist at the time of writing (leaving out stories that are just utopias, stories about future wars fought with the same type of weapons, stories of meeting with lost civilizations that don’t have any technology more advanced than ours, etc.), most of them don’t have a lot of scientific realism.

    Anyway, I’m not too bothered by the questionable science in Prometheus–remember that Alien also had FTL travel (and apparently was set early in the 22nd century, not too long after Prometheus), artificial gravity that didn’t seem to be based on the centrifugal force, and a creature that managed to grow from snake-sized to human-sized in just a few hours. And in some of the sequels they already featured a totally non-Darwinian form of “evolution” where each new alien would take on the characteristics of its most recent “host”, like the “dog-alien” in Alien 3. So if we accept that stuff, I’m basically ok with all the stuff that doesn’t make much scientific sense in Prometheus. I’m not even that bothered by the characters acting in stupid ways–a biologist excited by a new creature might act in a Crocodile Hunter-esque way if he thought he’d be protected by his space suit, for example, and the whole “faith” theme didn’t bother me so much since it was more about the motivation to carry out an investigation into the unknown rather than the type of “faith” that is just trying to confirm what it already believes and ignoring evidence to the contrary (she was, after all, eventually convinced by the evidence that her original benign view of the Engineers was wrong). What bothered me more was that all the characters except David seemed pretty unengaging and flat/cartoonish, unlike the characters in Alien who had a lot of life to them even if we didn’t learn much about their backstories. Also, it seemed a little lazy to set the whole movie up as an investigation into some central mysteries (who the engineers were and why they had left us these messages, and why they were developing what seemed to be a horrible bio-weapon on this planet) and then not give any real payoff as to the answers, even in the form of strong hints. But I thought it made up a lot for these flaws in terms of atmosphere and visual imagination and individual memorable scenes, and in Fassbinder’s performance, so I see it as flawed but interesting rather than a piece of total hackery.

  405. I’ll buy the argument that most sci-fi is bullshit. The problem for me isn’t whether it’s bullshit or not, it’s when it breaks it’s own rules that I get pissed. Watching Prometheus, I wondered exactly what the fuck where the rules. it seems like it wants to be grounded in some sort of reality while at the same time having Shaw running around with fresh staples in her stomach. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t mind a dumb sci-fi movie as long as it plays by it’s own dumb rules. Why even use staples? They are in the fucking future. Who knows how a c section will be done 100’s of years from now. If you’ve got a machine that does surgery without a doctor why wouldn’t it have a more advanced way of sewing the stomach back up. Are you telling me the writers couldn’t even be bothered to figure that shit out? Just give me a simple explanation why this woman’s stomach didn’t bust open like something out of Hannibal and I’m ok with that. Just don’t try to treat me like an idiot who isn’t going to wonder how the hell this woman is running and jumping like Jackie Joyner Kersee in her prime.

  406. I can’t believe we’re discussing this, but the staples used in abdominal surgery are made of titaneum and will hold the wound together just as well as your own skin. If you think back, Shaw didn’t excactly run and jump as much as people tend to remember.

  407. What about the painkillers, pegsman? Were they all supposed to be local, not affecting her motor skills or mental clarity & wakefulness, other than the injection David gives her that subdues her?

    And what about the fact that when she rips out the alien-umbilical cord (medically sound capper to that procedure, by the way) she presumably leaves in a scrap of foreign Alien tissue? Based on the all-powerfulness of the black goo and the ease with which Holloway’s entire body & semen is infected/occupied by alien dna & lifeforce, wouldn’t that wee bit of leftover alien attached to her uterus take her over?

    Maybe we’ll see in the not-sequel sequel. I’m holding my fucking breath.

  408. Also, the staples will hold fine, but the skin & tissue around them will rip quite easily & severely when you run, jump, carry heavy objects, lower heavy objects by rope, and escape the grip of a grumpy Engineer while holding an axe that you never use.

  409. john_b, yes, very strong magnetic fields would be needed for that to work. Which means, it’s not aperfect solution. Not as we could make it work as of today, anyway.

    There is one element in the spaceship in SUNSHINE that does rotate, and at first i also though it could had been the living quarters, but later in the movie we learn those are in fact the comm antennas. So, in that regard, SUNSHINE made some pretty big breaks from reality in regard to how the gravity in the ship works. As in, it’s a mystery.

    Also, the movie made one scientific error which nowdays reeally pisses me off. You knlw, that kind of pet hates you have that really irritate you when you watch a moive? Mine is when people get instantly frozzen in the vaccum in space. They always make this big deal about how cold it is to justify that flash frezing, but it’s bullshit. There’s flash frezings on Earth due to cold air around. In space there’s vaccum, or rather, there isn’t atmosphere, so there is nowhere for body heat to transfer to. Heat transfer is what mostly causes frezzing on Earth. In vaccum, you can only cool off and lose heat through irradiation, which is the slowest process there is. In space in reagions near the sun, like the inner solar system region, the biggest problem is not so much losing heat but building up heat and how hard it is to get rid of it.

    So, that scene when the guys are all worried about the cold and one instant freezes as if he had been bathed in frozen nitrogen really upsetted me. It’s one of my pet peeves, and it’s one of those thing si see in movies no longer have pacient with.

  410. Mr. Subtlety, no sir, it’s never too old to fight the good fight.

  411. Are you asking me? I’m a movie geek not a surgeon. All I can say is that none of this bothered me much while watching the movie. Maybe she bleeds like a son of a bitch under the suit? Maybe she dies during the end credits? I don’t really care. I just paid for my ticket, a bucket of popcorn, a Pepsi and a pair of those tacky glasses, sat down, saw some commersials, a trailer for Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and a beautifully shot, quite cool sci fi horror/action flick. I had a great time. It wasn’t until much later that I discovered that that’s because I’m an idiot with low standards and an unsophisticated sense of humor.

  412. Mouth, the expression used in the movie “300 years od Darwinism” really upsetted me, because that’s not the way a biologist would say. It would be theway a creationist owuld say, or somebody who hasn’t the slighest idea of what science is like in the real world. There is no such thing as Darwinism, all there is is evolution. Scientists do not accept evolution because it came from the teachings of a prophet figure, they accept it because it has been constnatly proved it exists beyond a shadow of a doubt by now. This is why it’s called the Theory Of Evolution, as in, it’s proved. Darwinism is bullshit in that there is no such thing. Truly, only a faithhead would come up with such bullshit.

    Again, why i have so little to no respect for this movie’s script.

  413. ShootMcKay, i think i know what you mean. I’ve noticed that sarcasm can be very tricky to come across in writing. Easier said then writen.

  414. Mr. Subtlety:

    “It’s everyone else’s fault, really. If you just go in an make up excuses for everything, it all makes perfect sense!”

    That’s the modus operandi for the Team Abrams’s fanboys when they defend those hacks’ stupid movies and TV shows. And when that fails, then you have to read the comic book that accompanies the show and explains stuff that they couldn’t be bothered to put in the movie. The comics explains it! Bahh!! So you have to pay the movie ticket AND a comic book to have the complete story. You have to pay twice for the sake of a incomplete movie with a script that’s faulty and nonsensical.

    If this is not a con, then i don’t know what it is.

  415. hypnosifl, i think i understand your points about early SF, though i don’t fully agree with you on that.

    It’s commonly said that Mary Shelley is the mother of SF (and a mighty pretty one at that), something which i agree. But the thing is, the genre didn’t pop out of FRANKENSTEIN and became the new kid on the literature block. In fact, Frankenstein can be considered proto-Sf in that while it has many of those elements that became stamples of the genre, it was not truly it’s codifier. It’s more like what the Nierdenthal Man is to us. Verne is the Cro-Magnon man of SF, the real source of so much of the genre’s tropes and codifiying. To wit.

    Verne came way before HG Wells. He preceded the old british boy by a quarter century or more. Verne was already big when Wells started. And Verne’s game was to extrapolate known technology of the time and create stories about it.

    HG Wells brough a new interesting game to the genre. He was more into the social and philosophical implications of tech or what was being discovered by science. Wells’ stories are more like the plot being based not on the tech, but the possible implications the tech would had to our lives. And he had a darker vision on it then Verne. If Verne was SF’s Russeau, Wells was it’s Hobbes.

    SF truly is the son of this two fathers. Shelley more like the very influencial and cool grandmother. But Verne preceded Wells, and Verne made SF stories with a more closer to real science, or science as known at the time. SF did started out more real based and the progressed more into the fantastic.

  416. Mouth, you are right about the staples.

    The funny thing is, i actually don’t have that much of a problem with that eleemnt in the story so much that we are witnessing 80s years in the future medicine. Now, as you well said, staples are a poor solution, specially if we then later see her jumping around and running and being thrown about and getting butt-rifled in the stomach.

    Early this year i was submited to two surgeries. While they were no great deal, they involved a bit of cutting and a bit of stitching. It was small deal, really, but the thing is, after the second, which was the more invasive, i came home the next day. 20 years ago i would had need to be interned for a whole week, nowdays i just needed a night stay. One wonders it will be like 80 years from now.

    The thing is, the movie could had saved itself a bit of trouble if they had used another “stitching” procedure that exists today, which is glueing. In many surgery procedures today, instead of stitching or staples, they use glue. This stuff is not even new, it was invented during the Vietnam War for field emergency surgery. A mideicla glue of 80 years of the future would do a fantastic job in instant closing up of a open wound and create a sort of ciment that would make Shaw as if she had not been open at all, or avoid most of the problems that staples would still cause, and thus justify her later action stuff.

    Again, another thing where we see the people who wrote this movie just either didn’t though things through, or are quite ignorant of even the most basic scientific stuff around today.

    pegsman: “Are you asking me? I’m a movie geek not a surgeon.”

    Then maybe you shouldn’t had made such a strong defense of the movie on that subject. That’s what i’m saying.

  417. mideicla = medical

  418. In a future that includes self-programmable automatic surgery booths I think it’s okay to accept that the technology of healing and painkilling might be more advanced than what we have now. I relate to alot of the complaints you guys are harping on about all the stupid things the scientists did, but I can’t believe you’ve spent this long on this particular aspect. She was limping around, covered in blood and obviously in huge pain, but performing great physical feats. That’s a badass final girl if I ever saw one. If it stretches the believability of imaginary futuristic medical technology then it’s clearly worth it. I’m willing to sign off on that trade.

  419. Asimov, it’s not a solution at all. What you are trying to replicate is acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the earth, which is the same for all massive objects. With a high magnetic field, you would have the equivalent of some materials falling up, while others fall down, at vastly different rates. This isn’t something that could be overcome in future technologies, it is a basic physics fact. The two systems (magnetic fields versus gravitational fields) are not analogous. Also, the idea of magnetising objects as they enter the spaceship won’t work, as not all materials can be magnetised (in fact only a very specific few materials can). All materials can have a response to magnetic fields, but not all can have permanent (or semi-permanent) fields induced in them. I’m sorry, but whoever wrote the concept you read doesn’t know the physics.

    But I don’t want to get bogged down in this! As I said this stuff doesn’t ruin a movie for me, in fact I can excuse quite terrible science generally if the movie is good enough. I was just initially disappointed in PROMETHEUS as I was hoping for a film that treated science in a at least somewhat consistent way, but when it didn’t I was equally disappointed when it became a thriller with ridiculous inexplicable human actions.

    With regards the freezing of the body in SUNSHINE, I agree it makes no sense. But you can let things slide if the rest of the movie is entertaining. Actually, it probably sounds like I’m making out SUNSHINE to be greatest movie ever. I enjoyed it, but thought it lost it towards the end.

    Pegsman, I’m just giving my opinion of the movie. Your reaction is equally valid, and I’m glad you enjoyed it. I certainly don’t think you’re an idiot for doing so! I’m just saying it didn’t work as a thriller for me, as it appears to have for you. I agree it looked great, and had some good scenes (particularly the surgery scene).

  420. john_b, well, i though it could be a possible way to create artificial gravity in a ship while mantaining a front to read geogrpahy, instead of using the old centrifuge. But yeah, you are right, it would create a lot of problems with hard to impossible solution.

    Thing is, without the centrifuges, there really is no real way to describe believable artificial gravity in a spaceship. And evne those centrifuges would cause problems, specially if they are small. The ones depicted in the otherwise very realistic 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY could cause a problem. I read that they are small enough to cause a difference in gravity on the head and the feet of the astronauts (like a gravity tide happening on a human body), and it could most certanly cause problems with the blood circulatory system, a constant non-stop sense of vertigo, and who knows what else. And also structural stress on the ship itself. A believable centifuge would need to be pretty huge to nulify that problems, like as seen in the 2001’s space station. Meaning, belivable spaceships would probably look like space stations instead of the raditional way starships are depicted.

    There’s also the constant acceleration methode, which while quite smart, would mean an enourmous spending of fuel, whatever it would be. Anybody who ever drove a car ins constant acceleration knows, fuel vanished quite fast that way. And it’s a nghtmare to slow down, as it would too to a spaceship in constant acceleration as well. Energetic nightmare!

    My opinion of SUNSHINE seems to be quite alike yours. I liked the movie overall pretty much, and i loved that for once there was quite a believable representation of scientists or highly technical astronauts. In fact, excluding the commander and the pilot (who are mostly military), real life astornauts are all scientists. And even those astronaut commanders and pilots are militarymen with science degrees. So there.
    Yes, SUNSHINE falls a bit apart in the end, and turns to the ridiculous, but one thing i enjoyed is that the loony, for once, is a religious nut, not some scientist gone mad because science made him mad. I appreciate that type of thoughfulness from the movie.

  421. read = rear

  422. raditional = traditional

    Man, i hate this typos. I sometimes wonder how people can actually understand my posts!

  423. Vern, i don’t think anybody is complaining that Noomi Rapace turns into a very capable final girl by the end of the movie. It’s one of those cliches that i actually enjoy and love to see reinforced in the movies. Also why i end up enjoying the norwegian slasher movies COLD PREY I and II so much, for the same reason.

    The problem was more like how could she be running around after what is major surgery, even if she was having quite a lot of pain and taking a tonne loads of painkillers from then to the end of the movie. I say this is a case where a bit of break from reality is acceptable because it’s medicine form 80 years into the future. And her surgery was made by the most top of the art surgery equipement that money could buy, to the point the movie itself points out how rare they are. That aparatus was the Bugatti Veyron of automated surgery devices.

    So, yeah, i can suspend my disbelief on that regard. As a Sf fan myself, it’s no biggie for me. The stupidity of the plotting, idiotic characterizations and juvenile atempts at profoundity the movie has, however, is another matter.

  424. Yeah, again, I can’t really get too mad at the physical science of the thing; if I’m gonna accept spaceships and holograms and whatnot I can dimly imagine they have artificial gravity of stomach-staple glue or some horseshit like that. What I cannot accept is arbitrary, unwarranted and unbelievable human behavior. I can accept that she can run a triathalon with medical staples of the future holding her together; I cannot accept that a bloody, naked chick walks into a room an no one comments on it, out of politeness or whatever. Magic staples may one day be possible through science, but that complete non-reaction to bloody naked chicks is simply something so far removed from real human behavior that it’s overwhelmingly distracting. Same thing with attempting to cuddle a mysterious cobra/bug/worm hybrid on a foreign planet. That’s the human behavior equivalent of suddenly having the characters turn into cartoon turtles. There is just no way to buy that as reality.

  425. Mr. Subtlety, you said it.

  426. Fucking hell, I finally made it to the end of the comments! I finally did it. Never thought I would get here. This is how I felt when Lord Of the rings ended. I should plant a flag. Almost four hours well spent…

    For the record, I liked the film. A lot of questions raised here didn’t even enter my head when watching it and I consider myself to possess average intelligence. (My main question when watching was not really understanding why chip-on-his-shoulder Mohawk man came back as a yoga monster, but I did like his spider attack stance.) Some of the questions are valid, others suffer a little bit from Hulk’s trousers syndrome (“Why do Hulk’s trousers not split when he changes?” “To save you from looking at his big, hanging green balls for the whole fucking film.”)

    One thing that irritated me a little that I haven’t seen much comment on was this: Did David really need to lose his (spoiler) head? David, Ash, Bishop… all of them end up minus a body, gargling milk. One improvement I would introduce for the next generation of robot would be to strengthen their neck and back exoskeletons or something. Robocop these guys up!

    As for the ending, the complaint is that it’s begging for a sequel, but I quite like the idea of no sequel. Let’s leave David and Shaw blasting off into the unknown. Bye bye, and good luck.

  427. Welcome to the party, Jimbolo. Nice to hear from someone who’s actually watched the movie…

  428. Thanks, man. It’s a regret of mine that I don’t get to check the site as much as I used to, but I made special time for this (Thanks, Prometheus!). I am definitely needing to see it again (probably not another cinema visit (15 quid in England. Shocking!) but definite blu-ray watch). There was a lot of information to absorb in one go. I didn’t actually twig that they weren’t on LV-426 until I read it somewhere. Duh! I was sure that the prologue was on Earth, but 400 comments later, not so definitively.

    I think it’s a bit early to dismiss all the characters as unmemorable compared to Alien though. We have to be fair to the crew, there was more of them, more Aliens numbers than Alien, and let’s face it, not all of the Aliens marines are THAT memorable. Sure Ripley, Kane, Ash, Apone, Hicks, Vasquez, Hudson were pretty cool in their own ways, but what’s so special about Weizbachski (spelling) or Spunkmeyer? Also, we’ve had 30+/25+ years to remember that lot, as opposed to two weeks for whatsisname and whatsername from Prometheus.

    I’ll say that I thought Whatshername getting crushed at the end was crueller than she deserved. She fucked Luther! That’s got to be worth some cred.

  429. Tut, tut. Obviously Ripley, Kane and Ash aren’t marines from Aliens before it gets pointed out. The paragraph was originally a lot longer. I redrafted to the point of making no sense.

  430. Jimbo — I salute your dedication to reading this whole monsterous bitch-fest. You, sir, are a true hero.

    Also: approve your use of the phrase “yoga monster.” While we’re on the subject, I have to say that while that sequence starts nicely, it quickly degenerates into punching, which is not particularly scary. Horror movies often run into this problem. Introduce horrific, nightmare scenario character, and then all they can think to have him to is punch you and throw you into things. About as horrifying as a Chuck Norris movie.

  431. pegsman, Jimbolo is the only who saw the movie? Just because he kinda liked it? We all saw the movie, and if you ask me, an excelent case can be made that it’s the ones who have problems with it are the ones who truly saw it for what it is. There.

  432. Unfortunatly, PROMETHEUS will not become some cult movie of the future. I have seen many geeks desperate to try to give this kind of longevity to banal dumbed down blockbuster movies they just so happened to enjoy. i have seen geeks trying to sell the idea that JOHN CARTER is a cult movie to be. To which i say, bollocks! The balls it will. Samething with PROMETHEUS.

    I wish that PROMETHEUS was a really good movie. It’s a Ridley Scott movie. It’shis return to SF. And there was an aparent intention to try to make a though provoking movie. Alas, the only though it provokes is how intelelctually poor the people who are writing the blockbusters of today are that even their most ambitious efforts come off as juvenile.

    There’s nothing in PROMETHEUS to be a cult film to be. A load of tosh pretenting to be something it’s not, in this case, smart. Laugable mysteries, mindboggling bad plotting, terrible characters, generalized idioticy, the works.

    I wish i had seen a great movie when i payed my tickt to watch PROMETHEUS. My wish did not became true.

  433. Jimbolo, reading this whole forum does take some effort andf pacience. It’s the later i admire the most. Good job, i hope it was worth it. Welcome to this den of lunacy.

  434. Cheers, dudes. And thanks to you all for making it a pretty interesting read. I found the sub-thread regarding lack of expectation versus excitement about seeing the film, and it’s effects on your feelings about the film once it’s been seen, particularly interesting. I did end up seeing it a little while after it had been released and the fact is that my initial excitement at the trailer (I liked it so much I downloaded it from youtube) was diluted by my friends’ comments on facebook, twitter, etc. I’m not saying I mould my opinions around those of my associates, we do disagree about a lot of films, BUT they are a pretty savvy bunch, so when the consensus was that the film is no masterpiece, I did naturally lower the expectations somewhat. If I’d have gone into it with full Dark Knight rises expectations, I’d probably be tweeting swearwords at the Lost guy right now. So okay, it won’t be one of the greats, but will it still be good?

    And I think it is good, even though, as you’ve all said, there are a shitload of problems. The fact that it is a prequel (and it is a prequel. Ridley is talking out of his arse (ass) when he says it isn’t. Of course it is. It couldn’t be any more of a prequel if it had Baby Ripley getting shown how to use an etch-a-sketch by Baby Hicks at a space nursery) means that it had an automatic disability to begin with. How many good prequels are there really? I can think of two, and even those are not exactly blatant about even being prequels (I’m thinking Temple of Doom + The Good, The Bad & The Ugly). Let’s face it, prequels have got their work cut out for them convincing us that we should give a shit about what happens before the film we love started, with or without scientists that take their helmets off. I give this one points for ambition at least.

  435. I genuinely can’t tell if what I wrote made sense. It’s getting late here in the UK. Cheers.

  436. I have to concur with my colleague asimovlives regarding PROMETHEUS. There’s not enough meat on those bones to feed on for years to come or even obsess over as a private fantasy.

    That said, I don’t think JOHN CARTER will become a cult movie either, at least in my interpretation of that term with people opening web sites dedicating to it and writing fan fiction books and all that shit. I think before release it got tarred as a BOMB, a loser to avoid any association with and we as a species by instinct avoid such things usually. But overtime when the stigma and headlines are forgotten and what is left is just a movie, that loser rep will fade in favor of mostly people being indifferent to it, or enjoying it as a decent STAR WARS knock-off pulpy romp, which is how I consumed it.

    I know asimovlives won’t like this comparison since he (like me) actually liked this movie I’m using to use for JOHN CARTER but it’s an apt comparison minus the runaway budget headlines, and it was another Disney release: THE ROCKETEER. That was another big budget would-be franchise (Disney were planning even a Disney World ride) which tanked, critics couldn’t care*, and got stuck with a label of a loser.

    Times change, 20 years later Joe Johnston is hired to basically make ROCKETEER 2 with his CAPTAIN AMERICA movie. (and honestly I think CA is a better movie, but only slightly.)

    Of course one knock against Andrew Stanton is that his fellow Pixar buddy Brad Bird in his live-action big budget debut did a pretty good job and shit even made a better MISSION IMPOSSIBLE picture than either John Woo or J.J. Abrams. That will only highlight Stanton’s failure even worse against him.

    *=Siskel & Ebert liked it though. Rare when they gaved their thumbs up for a notorious summer flop.

  437. asimov, as Jimbolo tells it he didn’t just sit there thinking about gravity and biology, hoping that Scott would be less than brilliant so that he could run home to his computer and tell the world that the king is dead. If he liked it or not doesn’t even enter into it.

  438. RRA, it was only last sunday that i finally got to watch the latest MISION IMPOSSIBLE movie directed by Brad Bird, and i have to concur, it is the most satisfying MI move made since De Palma’s. Everythign just licked, even though it is a direct continuation of the JarJar, sorry, JJ Abrams’ abomination. Well, thankfully, this time ol’ JJ was only a producer, with the only real participant in the movie being that irritating untalent hackboy the Guachinni asshole, the patron saint of unmemorable soundtracks. MI 4 was no exception. But the movie was really enjoyable, it had the right ballance of comedy and action, well, i liked it. And that’s how we know that Brad Bird is the real deal. Stanton and his terrible misguidness idioticy that is JOHN CARTER can get screwed, if he never makes another movie ever again in his life, i will play the world’s smallest violin… nah, i’m not going to be even bothered with that! Screw him!

    You know, i never felt that THE ROCKETEER was a forgotten movie. The movie was very often on TV where i live, there was not much of a chance to forget it. And there is the little fact that it’s a nice good movie. It’s not this great exercise in intellectualism, but neither is a dumb movie. So, it helps. THE ROCKETEER becoming a cult classic is understandable, it’s a matte rof course. Tosh like JOHN CARTER or PROMETHEUS will not become cult classics, no matter what. Movies gon’t get to be classics just because some misguided geek enjoyed a dumb movie. It takes more.

  439. Jimbolo, your post read loud and clear, don’t you worry. It made far more sense then the script for PROMETHEUS, that’s for sure.

    One thing i don’t like is this notion that we should be more positive of a movie or more negative depending on expectations. I don’t think expectations should be an important element in judging a movie. Yeah, a dumbed down Ridley Scott movie is disapointing, but one shouldn’t be more negative to it if we expected more. Or we shouldn’t be more positive to a dumb movie just because we weren’t expecting much to begin with.

    I don’t need expectations to get mad at a dumb movie. A movie being dumb already does that for me. I havea bit of an attitude toward films as Mark Kermode, as in, movies provides loads and loads of fun and satisfying to me, but i’m passionate and if a movie is bad, stupid and treats the audiences as morons, there will be words. Harsh words. Very harsh words. And mockery for flavour.

    As the Nostalgia Chick said, no i do not turn off my brain when i watch a movie, of course i’m critical while watching them, that’s part of the fun, it’s part of watching the movie, the two cannot be seperated. How would i want to turn my brain off anyway, i’m using it, nor do i know how to do that nor am i interested in it. And if a movie needs to have a person’s brain turned off to be enjoyed, then the movie and it’s filmmakers fucking failed, and i don’t pay a movie ticket to justify somebody’s failure. Fuck them!

    PROMETHEUS is not a bad movie because i expected more from it because of the director’s pedigree. That’s my own personal disapointment. PROMETHEUS is bad because it’s stupid like hell.

  440. A metaphor for PROMETHEUS is to compare it to a very pretty girl with beautiful blue eyes and flowing luminous blonde hair, a perfect cheerleader type looking girl , but very dumb and ignorant who thinks that knowing the names of all the brands of clothing and the names of all the members of the more popular boys bands and participants of reality shows and of movie stars (but only the young pretty ones, fuck the older ones) is what passes as knowledge. Then one day this pretty head reads a cliff notes version of a philosophy book and it blows her mind, and she just can’t help but tell everybody about it. But she makes a sorry spectacle telling about it because she has neither the intelligence to understand the concepts nor the cultural background because she doesn’t even know the word academia exists, nor she has a tongue to debate the subject because all she ever talked before was clothing, dumb TV shows and gossip about pretty boys and other girls. There’s some who will indulge her or even praise her because they either want to jump on her knickers or are as ignorant as her. But if she meets somebody who actually knows something of that stuff and corrects her or points out where she is wrong, she will pouts, make a fuzz and blame the other fellow for not understanding and not being smart and not paying attention.

    That’s PROMETHEUS, a pretty headed dumb ignorant cheerleader with delusions of profundity.

  441. You know when you see someone tripping over their own feet and you laugh out loud because it’s funny shit, but then you realize that they’ve hurt themselves and you just feel bad..?

  442. pegsman, talking from personal experience?

  443. Since I’m too lazy to read all the comments between you two, whats the basic beef?

    I mean do we all 3 agree that PROMETHEUS wasn’t much? If not, why?

  444. With the risk of sounding like John Cleese in Python’s arguement sketch; this is not an arguement! This is the same old story about Mr asimov not being able to move on to another subject until the whole world sees things his way. I liked Prometheus. I had a good time watching it. And call be a stubborn bastard, but I’m not going to change that view just because Mr asimov thinks I’m an idiot with low standards and an unsophisticated sense of humor.

  445. Then one day this pretty head reads a cliff notes version of a philosophy book and it blows her mind, and she just can’t help but tell everybody about it.

    In this analogy, what aspect of Prometheus are you comparing to the cheerleader’s speeches about philosophy? Were you really more bothered by the lack of “deep philosophical ideas” in Prometheus than you were by non-philosophical criticisms people have raise like characters acting implausibly, or even the scientific errors you brought up before? I don’t think movies are really the right medium for exploring philosophical ideas (unless we’re talking about very human-centered aspects of philosophy like ethical dilemmas). What the best “philosophical” movies do is to raise philosophical questions that are integrated into the plot, and get the audience thinking about them, and do it with a great sense of movie artistry that really pulls you into the world the moviemaker has created. Think of 2001, or Tree of Life, for instance. Do either present any strong philosophical ideas, as opposed to questions? 2001 may make you think about the origins and future of human consciousness, but in terms of the story the only answer it gives is the Lovecraft/von Daniken one, “aliens intelligently designed us”–the movie isn’t great because of the intellectual solutions it proposes but because of its artistry. Prometheus’ artistry isn’t at the same level in part because it’s a lot campier and a bit hamfisted in how it deals with the characters, but I think it’s at a higher level than most science fiction movies, and I might compare it to some non-2001 sci fi movies that attempt to explore grand themes like Forbidden Planet.

  446. RRA

    “Since I’m too lazy to read all the comments between you two, whats the basic beef?”

    Hell if i know.

    pegsman, i never called you an idiot. But you, sir, you have implied as much in your coments in that only the people who saw the movie have wholesome positive opinions of it. And don’t give me that talk about me wanting to turn everybody to my way i thinking, because how can that even be possible? How i can i force anybody to on an internet forum of all places? How does that make any sense?

    The subject here is PROMETHEUS. Thus, we say our opinions of it. And if some disagree with you, so what? But since that stops a discussion? Since when that’s a bad thing?

    PROMETHEUS is a bad dumb movie. I think like that, many others think like that, and you will see this again afterwards in any other internet forums where this movie is the subject. The best way to deal with is for you to get pretty strong argumens based on stuff that’s in the movie to support your cause, and be prepared to have it contradicted. There’s no free lunches, and if you think highly of a dumbed down movie, you better be prepared for the talkback that issues. And here’s a friendly advice based on many hours spent at IMDB and AICN: never insult the intelligence of a detractor of a dumb movie by calling or infering they are dumb for doing so. A shitstorm will always follow.

  447. hypnosifl

    “what aspect of Prometheus are you comparing to the cheerleader’s speeches about philosophy?”

    Easy, it’s about the subject of faith vs reason the movie tries to prsent as if it’s a very smart thing to do.

    No, my problem is not that the movie doesn’t present a whole treatise about the subject, my problem is the juvenile level it brings and explores it. I don’t need to be Saint Tomas Aquinas or Friedrich Nietzche to know what a laughable mess the script does in it’s atempt to deal with heavy subjects of faith and reason, and how pathetically it fails. And it certainly doesn’t help when the moviemakes an asspull and has the protagonist falls into a much deeper superstitious position when the whole events in the movie would put her in a complete contradictory position. You can tell so easily the movie constantly does that, just uts stuff in it and make characters act contrary to what would be the logical narrative progression just so the scriptwriter can shove his own opinion no matter what.

    The problem is not so much that the screenwriter is a faithboy, but that he made a very poor show in how to present it in a narrative that is self-contraditory and whose natural progression would go otherwise to his intent. This movie’s script is a clear case of a writer who lost conjtro of his own creation. He just didn’t think things through.

    Also, the intellectual level of the movie is pretty childish. I’m supposed to think there is some deep thoughs in the movie just because there is two characters who have faith? Faith = instant profoundity? Balls!

    I don’t need a profound statement of the faith vs reson debate to make me enjoy it, but a clever one would had suffice nicely. It’s not the first time that Team Abrams have pulled this kind of stuff before, laughable simplistic faith stuff is also present in COWBOYS VS ALIENS. I see a patern emerge,and it’s an hysterically funy one this atempts at profoundity by people who are ignorant of the shit they want to appear so knowledge and profound about. Eyes rolling stuff. Can’t wait to see this stuff in the ENDER’S GAME movie! And in ABRAMS TREK 2. Or SUPER 9.

  448. On a slightly different but related subject, i just read the news that Verhoeven has gotten finacing for his next movie, a biopic of Jesus in which it will be absent of miracles and the fantastic. And in it, Jesus is not the Son of Dog but the result of a rape of his mohter by a roman solider. The movie movie deals with Jesus as a more political figure, that influenced the political situation of the time.

    I think i understand where Verhoeven’s take is coming from. If we are to believe that Mr Jesus was cruxified, then it had to be for political reasons, because cruxifiction was reserved for those sentensed of sedition (see the fate of Spartacus’ followers) and all those who defy roman authority. Cruxifiction would never be aplied to matter of religion. The romans would never punish anybody on a religious matter, they left that to the local authorities, and the punishement for blasphemy and apostasy in the hebrew law was stoning.

    And to make things even more complicated and fun, the original word that describes Mr Jesus’s fate can either be translated as crucified or hanged.

    Can’t wait for this movie. A Paul Verhoeven’s Jesus movie? I’m so there!

  449. I just heard about that, too. Now that’s some exciting shit. I was skeptical about PROMETHEUS from the get-go, but I’m jumping into BLASPHEMETHEUS with both feet.

  450. BLASPHEMETHEUS? That’s a great title. Might as well be the title of the Asylum mockbuster version that will hit the theaters before Verhoeven’s.

  451. See what I mean, RRA?

  452. pegsman, is this a cultural thing? Is it because you are norwegian and you can’t understand that in other countries, like in southern europe, there’s a different way of living things that is no less truthful and valid then yours? I have noiced that attitude a lot in northern europeans, as if they are the sole owners of rightousness. It’s sad, because you are giving me pause in my plans to go visit the scadinavian countries on vacation. Nice job ruining my positive opinion of your country and people. Thanks a lot, pal!

    Or maybe you are just a tight ass eager to start a fight.

  453. Blasphemetheus… Excellent work.

    Re: the expectations thing… I’d like to walk into a cinema and look at every film objectively, like Pauline Kael, but I just find it impossible. The phrase Don’t believe the hype exists and the fact is that if I don’t believe the hype I just don’t see the film. I haven’t got the time in my life to travel to a cinema, sit through the ads, the trailers, the other people’s conversations, the film itself, the journey home, for a film I’m not dying to see, and I sure don’t have the money to do it either. (I live in London and i believe it’s the equivalent of almost thirty dollars to see a film here. What a joke), so I have to grade what’s coming out: What can I not live without seeing and what can wait, and that requires researching the film’s pedigree and seeing the trailers. Therein lies the problem.

    The trailers for Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises are as good, if not better, than a lot of films! Like I said, my Prometheus experience was coloured somewhat by being warned it wasn’t a masterpiece in the week it took me to get round to seeing it, but Dark Knight Rises? How can I walk into that cinema objectively? No way. My expectations are through the roof and, if it’s only The Incredible Hulk good, which would probably be good enough for most films, I’ll be gutted. Hell, if it’s only Iron Man good, I’ll be a little disappointed. (If it’s Green Lantern, I’ll be in tears). There’s no way to judge it on the same level of Batman Begins where I went expecting another okay comic film and came out with my ex-girlfriend (hated comic books) jumping up and down at how much she loved it.

    It probably sounds like I’m disagreeing. I’m not. I really wish I could see every film on it’s own independent merits, and I do try to when I can. I mostly try to roll the dice when it comes to dvd rentals as they’re cheap so who gives a shit if you end up sitting through a subpar film, there’s a chance you’ll find a gem (my most recent surprise likes: Goon, Splinter, Ca$h, one from Lucio Fulci called Sodoma’s Ghost about a bunch of Nazi ghosts, killed mid-orgy, who mess with some dumb teenagers who wander into their fuckpad).

    But it even happened last night: Two older titles. First one, Troll, suprisingly decent, especially compared to it’s sequel. Followed it with Meet The Feebles. Oops, this one’s from Peter Jackson? Well, that’s bound to be the better one, of course is is. Expectations rising. We all know what Jackson went on to. Who directed Troll again? This will obviously be the main course… Shite. One joke: Rude muppets. It got old fast. And it just seemed like Jackson thought it was the most shocking thing ever when it was just a bit crap.

    By the way, all this rambling is why I know to leave the professional film reviewing to Kael, Norman, Ebert, Kermode, Newman, Vern, etc. An average film can be saved by just one good scene for me, even a line sometimes. Can you imagine shaping a review around that? ‘Everyone check out Bad Biology for the bit where the guy says ‘You dig me, Pygmy?’and… uh, some other stuff. A walking dick.. and stuff’ or ‘Troll’s got one amazing weird bit where a real life little person recites a poem that segues into a musical sequence where a bunch of trolls sing along with a mushroom. Later, the little person turns into a baby troll, but you can tell that that actor’s actually playing the head troll too so there’s a scene where he cradles a puppet version of himself while playing another character. How many films can say that?’

    Let me wrap this shit up by dragging it kicking and screaming back to Prometheus… Even with some odd tangents and weird decisions, there were at least two parts I loved: David’s ways of keeping himself busy and the squid-caesarian. For those two sequences alone, I’m willing to forgive a lot.

  454. Fuck, that’s a long post. Apologies.

  455. asimov, don’t you think you’re being a little bit silly now? If you look at the 400 and something entries above this you’ll see that quite a few of them are yours. Long, detailed posts explaining in detail that you don’t like Prometheus and why. Fine. Everyone one this sight know this by now. All I want to have noted is that I don’t think it’s a bad movie at all. I think you’re being unfairly harsh in your critique, but hey, that’s your right. And if you think I’ve been too sarcastic at times, you might be right in assuming that that’s a Scandinavian thing. We just can’t help it. But you must admit that you haven’t excactly pulled your punches either. For the sake of everybody else perhaps we should pack it in until the sequel comes along, huh? I like it, you don’t. End of story…for now.

  456. pegsman, here’s the thing: i’m going to pretent you are not here, i’m going to ignore your posts, it will be as if you do not exist. I’m doing that for me and for the sake of everybody else, because they are in here to discuss and chat about PROMETHEUS and not to endure your saboutage of this forum with your silly oversensitivity. Good-bye.

  457. Jimbolo, and a movie like Meet the Feebles makes it so hard too. You want to like it because it’s Peter Jackson, but after a while you realize that’s it’s not very good at all. Why did he think so, you wonder.

  458. Jimbolo, the way i see it, nobody should appologise for a long post. If you need that any words to express your view and opinions, so be it. Me, i thank you for your time you spent writing it.

    “I’d like to walk into a cinema and look at every film objectively, like Pauline Kael”

    Actually, i think Pauline Kael’s stitch was the exact opposite. She was unabashed in her way of film criticism that it was deeply personal and highly emotional. She often compared to act of watching a film to sex. It’s not for nothing that a collection of her film review and essays was called TAKING IT ALL IN. Subtle, hem?

    “the fact is that if I don’t believe the hype I just don’t see the film.”

    Sounds smart to me. The problem is if a movie’s better the the hype (or negative hype) it has, or if a movie is hyped but turns out to be shit. It really takes a lot of savviness from lots of years watching movies to gain a sort of thick skin and ability to see through the bullshit to not let one get carried by hype. And one can still get fooled by it anyway. My story with PROMETHEUS, i did fall to the hype, because i wanted to believe that this was was a keeper, the glorious return of Ridley Scott to SF, even though there was the dark shadows of a script writen by the LOST guy to give me pause. But i let optimism get in the way of better judgement.

    “There’s no way to judge it on the same level of Batman Begins where I went expecting another okay comic film and came out with my ex-girlfriend (hated comic books) jumping up and down at how much she loved it.”

    Do you have her phone number? Is she pretty? Does she like to wear her hair long? Does she fancy older guys (i’m 41)?

    “I mostly try to roll the dice when it comes to dvd rentals”

    Me, i do research. It might makes me look like a Spock kinda guy, but i rather no have to suffer the displeasure of enduring 2 hours of a bad movie. I only rent bad movies on purpose if i’m very curious about the thinking (or lack of) of the filmmaker, or for the sake of Rifftrax fun.

    “An average film can be saved by just one good scene for me, even a line sometimes.”

    Yes it does, doesn’t it? I even go as far as to say a movie can go from average to great due to one very inspired scene that puts the rest of the movie into a new perspective. i guess he best way to exemplify this is the movie SLEEPWAY CAMP and that final scene, which puts the whole movie into a whole new light, and in my opinion, elevates it completly into true horror classic.

    “there were at least two parts I loved: David’s ways of keeping himself busy and the squid-caesarian”

    I think that even among the film’s detractors, those two scenes are generally considered to be very good. Well, the csarian scene got a bit contorvetial due to percive misplaced medical science, but i don’t agree. David’s daily routine while the ship was still on route is, for me, a brillant moment, and as many claim, could had been twice as long nobody would complain. Hell, the movie could had been just David alone meeting aliens and it would had been tremendous fun. With hindsight and knowing what an bun ch of anoying assholes the rest f the crew were (Theron exclude), i just wish that David had gone HAL on them while they are in hypersleep and just pulled the pug on them (Vickers excluded). David Bowman they were not. At least it would had saved us from the idioticy of those nutjobs. A PROMETHEUS movie where the only characters would had been David and Vickers meeting aliens? Yes please! Wasted oportunity.

    “For those two sequences alone, I’m willing to forgive a lot.”

    Unfortunatly, the bad scenes far outweight the good stuff, in number and in assault to the audience’s pacience. Unfortunatly, a few good scenes and gorgeaus awesome visuals alone do not a good movie make.

  459. Hey, that’s not actually a bad idea you know. That would have been a good way to go. David going HAL and killing the crew off and then finding Aliens himself. It would have been funny to see the proto-facehugger try to get some oral pleasure from him. Awkward.

    Also, my ex? Not for you. When we split, she was getting into her new favourite tv show…
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Alias.

  460. In somewhat related news; a Norwegian thriller Noomi Rapace made last year, Babycall (which Ridley Scott apparently loves, it says “I love it” – Ridley Scott” on the poster), is nominated for a bunch of awards in our version of the Oscars, the Amanda award, this year. Best movie, best actress, best supporting actor and so on. Looks like she at least will have something to fall back on should her Hollywood attempts go down the toilet.

  461. Jimbolo, ahah, that was hysterical!

    ALIAS was a show that at first intrigued me, but soon it wear off it’s welcome when all the characters, all this adults, acted like 12 years olds. And then it turned into a fantasy show and i completly lost interest. A complete waste of a good premise. Jennifer Gardner looked hot, though.

  462. ALIAS is not a show for people who can´t stand plot holes,thats for damn sure, same goes for 24. But i love them shows. ALIAS got bad in the last couple of seasons though, like it got cancer and just withered away. What a shame…

  463. ShootMcKay, my problem with 24 is that it was just impossible to accept that all that stuff was happening in the time frame the show was set. Ine scene in particular made me laugh like hell when this young guy, the son of the presidential candidate, mannaged to drive from the hotel his father stayed to the LA observatory and back, and all supposedly in less then one hour. I don’t need to be a native of LA to know how risible that is! The show was just full of such impossibilities. I find SW to be more plausible.

    The premise of 24 is intriguing, but the execution was just too much problematic for me.

    I also call shows like 24 and LOST as the “No Plot For Cardiacs”. In real life, anybody who would be subjected to 1/10th of the stuff that happens to the characters of that show in the very limited time frame the plot happens, everybody would fall dead from stress inducing cardiac arrest. If they hadn’t gone mad first.

  464. It’s always fun to make fun of shows with plot holes and strain credibility, but there are shows that are fun to watch in spite of that or maybe even because of it. I would put 24, Prison Break, Alias in that category. They are just pure entertainment and the little stuff like how the hell does anyone travel so quickly from one place to another is just another thing that you just have to laugh at like it’s a drinking game.

    The simple fact for me is that if a show can draw you in and entertain you to where you don’t focus on the little stuff that don’t make sense, it’s well worth the time watching.

  465. Apparently the next season of 24 will be set in a SevenEleven, where we get to see Jack Bauer make coffee, sell hotdogs and talk to the customers for 24 real time episodes. I’m excited.

  466. Cassidy, thing is the very reasons you overlooked on those TV shows are the same that made me dislike or dismiss them. Anb why i loved shows like CARNIVALE and ROME instead.

  467. Someday I’m going to look on the Internet and this thread will be the only thing there having devoured everything else…

    Mr Subtlety, the original version of the Fifield attack is apparently more awesome, with him being transformed into a beastie with Thing-like arms, not the deformed human he was in the final cut. It’s in one or two fo the trailers.

  468. I want my At The Mountains of Madness movie, thank you very mucho. Guillermo del Toro > Ridley Scott

  469. If you ask me, that whole scene with the return of Fifield was a big embaracing mistake and should had been cut out of the movie. It’s not even good enough to be a delected scenes in the DVD. What were they thinking?

  470. The last 8 episodes of next season’s 24 are a bit samey, essentially Bauer sits on a bus for an episode and spends the next seven asleep in bed. The highlight is ep 4 when he eats an out-of-date hotdog and spends an hour hurling into a bin. The CGI is explosive!

  471. Jimbolo, my favorite 24 series was when he had to deal with a bad case of salmonella. Explosive action took a whole new meaning.

  472. A bad case of salmonellosis, should had said.

  473. The Original... Paul

    June 21st, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Holy fucking shit, it’s still going… How long does a thread have to go on before it’s finally declared immortal? Seriously, I think Christopher Lambert would have to lop its head off with a broadsword before this thing dies.

    But the thing we’re all dying to hear is this: what did Asimov think of the movie?

    Oh yeah, and I still think I should’ve eviscerated the movie properly, “Buried”-style. It would’ve been dishonest of me, as I didn’t think the movie was totally worthless; but hang it, it’s the damn internet, what value does integrity have here? Every byte used on this thread is another byte NOT able to be used promoting “Kill List”.

  474. I’ll keep posting on this thread until I die.

    Re-watched RE-ANIMATOR. Now there’s a scary movie with a ridiculous, borderline-problematically ridiculous script that knows what the fuck it’s doing — undead monsters, great f/x, subtly ominous Talking Heads poster in the bedroom, unflinching nudity, and a climax partially involving an axe that is actually used to chop something. And we laugh at the parts we’re supposed to find laughable.

    A glorious post-PROMETHEUS tonic, that.

  475. I haven’t watched Carnivale yet and I love Rome. It’s possible to like them all for different reasons, Asimov.

  476. Cassidy, i think you love those two shows because they are excelently awesome and, in the case of ROME, also total badass. Basically, they are great. Sometimes i can’t even believe they really exist, that such excelent shows were allowed to exist. They were all cut too short, but still, that they exist and there’s two seasons of each is still like an heavenly blessing. Almost makes me believe there might a just Dog in heaven after all.

  477. The Original… Paul

    “what did Asimov think of the movie?”

    Yes, i also wonder what Isaac Asimov would had though of the movie.

  478. Mouth, yeah, RE-ANIMATOR is great!! I only watched it for the first time quite recently, and now i understand the cult behind it and why it’s so beloved. Damn good movie. Frantastic acting from the lead actor. Hillarious as hell too. Never saw the sequels, however. Are they worth it?

  479. Asimov

    Completely agree with you about Michael Giacchino creating what I experience as useless scores for movies (with the exception of the awesome in all ways Ratatouille and the burial flashback/Warhoon fight scene in John Carter). He did the excellent music for the original Medal of Honor games too but he regularly disappoints me now.

    But to remain on form, I did really like John Carter but thought Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was a tedious, forgettable zero of a movie. Hehe.

    Now I had a thought about PROMETHEUS. Isn’t it a shame that they gave the game away right at the beginning showing the Engineer presumable creating ‘life’ somewhere? It basically neuters the story as Shaw’s assumption that the Engineers created us is never in doubt by the audience.

    Still liked it. Can you imagine how many DVD’s it’ll sell for the commentary alone just to the readers of this forum?

    Two.

    Right, off to watch Germany vs Greece (football, not Eurozone politics) and then to endure SAFE HOUSE.

  480. Asimov: The RE-ANIMATOR sequels are okay but nothing special. They’re strictly for die-hard fans of old school latex monster effects. Gordon had nothing to do with them, passing on directorial duties to his longtime partner Brian Yuzna, who always tries to give the audience their money’s worth with special effects and gore but generally lacks the spark and wit that Gordon would bring to similar material. Yuzna’s movies are generally better than the average B-horror junk but rarely rise above mediocre. The exceptions would be his best movies, SOCIETY and RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3, both of which have an enjoyably kinky side to them. RETURN 3, in particular, is an underrated gem, full of gore, humor, sex, romance, and even some legitimate tragedy. Problem is, the unrated director’s cut was only released on VHS. The DVD is the heavily censored R-rated version, so if you want to check it out in its proper form, you’ll need to go through back alley channels. It’s worth it, though, in my opinion.

  481. courtesy, I mean.

  482. Haven’t yet explored the full RE-ANIMATORverse, and Mr. Majestyk’s lukewarm description doesn’t exactly send me flying to update my queue.

    I did, however, rewatch SCREAM 4, discovering that it’s more fun than I gave it credit for in the theatre last year. Maybe the so-so horror elements gave me too much of a tiny-peaks-&-big-valleys experience on the big screen the first time, repeatedly setting me up to be scared/startled before disappointing me with repetitive, uninspired murder scenes and blah, uninspired meta gibberish, so the movie left a bitter taste overall before reviving its meager reputation on the small screen today. And Gail Weathers is pretty great. (Do I have a thing for hot, sharp-tongued professional women characters in mediocre horror movies? Maybe I do.)

    SCRE4M has the kind of [sometimes forced, sometimes natural] comic ridiculousness that I had to artificially superimpose on my viewings of PROMETHEUS in order to enjoy the latter. All the stuff in SCREAM 4: WES CRAVEN HAS DISCOVERED THAT KIDS USE FACEBOOK that doesn’t make sense, that makes me want to nitpick it, that tempts me to “turn off my brain” (an approach none of us seems to like to do while moviewatching in a state of sobriety), actually makes the movie a decent comedy. And the girl-beating-herself-up-as-homage-to-original-SCREAM-fight-scene scene is still making me laugh as I type this.

    The kills in PROMETHEUS are probably better, more entertaining, but only slightly so, and only because of the effects & oral-penetration creepiness factor. All the maddeningly stupid shit in SCRE4M, however, feels like it’s supposed to be there. And the characters just blab and blab for most of the two climaxes, which gives it a weird, bad-soap opera quality that most editors & writers would never allow into a mainstream movie not geared toward the female YA crowd.

    And at least it’s aware of its Robert Rodriguezness (shout out on the screen within the screen at STABathon party), and whether you like RR or not, you might at least concede that his kind of tone usually only helps make a stupid movie more enjoyable, unlike “It’s what I choose to believe” and “I can’t make life. What does that say about me?” and all that bullshit that weighed down the ALIEN prequel, er, I mean, the not-a-prequel. If I remember it more as FASTER, ENGINEER! KILL! KILL! and somehow mentally transform half the cast into strippers in bikinis, it becomes an entertaining stupid little movie, almost as good as SCRE4M.

  483. The Original... Paul

    June 22nd, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    “Still liked it. Can you imagine how many DVD’s it’ll sell for the commentary alone just to the readers of this forum?”

    Yep. This thread is officially immortal.

    And just to add to the idea that “Prometheus” will become the “Phantom Menace” of the 2010s – here’s another link to a friend of this site:

    http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/17/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-damon-lindleof-intervention/

  484. I find WE ALL SCREAM 4 ICE CREAM an entertaining diversion, a breezy little sitcom horror movie that goes down easy, but I still think it should have been a house of mirrors mindfuck, with Sid becoming a grizzled badass who’s always strapped and knows krav maga, so that when Ghostface first pops out of the closet, she just disarms him effortlessly, takes him out at the kneecaps, and then summarily executes him while the adorable supporting cast looks on in shock and awe. Then an entire army of Ghostface cultists comes out of the woodwork and it becomes a siege movie. They could keep SPOILER Eric Roberts’ daughter as the main villain, though, because she was the only one in the whole quadrilogy that I thought was kinda scary. Like a lot of these soulless Gen-Y networking motherfuckers, she was just so goddamn motivated, you know? As a born-and-bred Generation X slacker, that always creeps me out. There was also the whole ingeniously meta aspect of America’s Sweetheart’s niece being all like, “Bitch, fuck paying dues. Time for you to die because it’s my turn now.”

    Anyway, if SCRE4M was a siege movie, then 5CREAM could open it up DEVIL’S REJECTS style and make it a road movie, with Sid and Co. on the run from a nationwide network of Ghostface acolytes, which you find out at the end was run by Gail Weather, who’s been herding Sid to the cult’s compound out in the boonies, where she will be sacrificed live via satellite. It’ll be like a remake of RACE WITH THE DEVIL, only with clumsy assholes in shitty Halloween costumes instead of satanists.

    SCR6AM is obviously in space. Where, ironically, no one can hear you…

  485. Jimbolo, that was great! Thanks a lot, friend.

  486. “the idea that “Prometheus” will become the “Phantom Menace” of the 2010s”

    An idea that has crossed my mind quite often this days. Only in this case, i think it’s the frigging writer who should get the blame for. If this is the begining of the fall for Team Abrams, then i’m happy it started at the cost of a Ridley Scott movie. Somebody had to take one for the team.

  487. The Original… Paul, thanks for the link to that aarticle.

    There is one thing i do not agree with the Hulk in his otherwise quite excelent article: Lindelof doesn’t need to grow as a writer, he needs to fuck off. Good ridence to that hack, close the door on his way out and never come back.

  488. Mr. Majestyk, PROMETHEUS’s poster line should read: “In space nobody should listen to platitudes”.

  489. The Limey

    “Isn’t it a shame that they gave the game away right at the beginning showing the Engineer presumable creating ‘life’ somewhere? It basically neuters the story as Shaw’s assumption that the Engineers created us is never in doubt by the audience.”

    I’m glad you wrote that, because a fellow worker at my job said soemthing to me,he offered an interesting intrpretation of the first scene in the movie PROMETHEUS that not only blew my mind, but it also made it fit logicaly into the rest of the story.

    As he said it, that my co-worker, he hinks that most of us are understanding the first scene. What we think are seeing a sacrifice of that space jockey to start life on the planet, is in fact a sacrifice to do the exact opposite: he0’s doing it so he can spread out the black goo so it kills off all the native life in that planet. As such, it actually makes the goo consitent with how we see it act on later in the story. Notice that later on, it’s quite clear the planet does seem to be very life supporting but is in fact quite sterile and inhabited. The reason being, the space jockey’s induced mass extiction via the goo.

    I think it’s a very good interpretation of the first scene. So, in a way, that space jockey at the begining is an anti-Prometheus. And the awaked space jocker’s actions stop being a mystery. He didn’t changed his mind about his creations, he wasn’t interested in creating anything, he wanted to destroy life. Maybe that’s the very job of the space jockeys, to destry life that they meet it.

    This is a very cool interpretation of things that my fellow co-worker has. It would actually provide the movie with a very good internal logic and would explain the space jockey’s actions and motivations. However, the movie never once supports this notion. His interpretation is accidental. It’s a clear case of imagination filling gaps of things that are not there. The sad thing is, this interpretation born from the gaps of the movie makes it for a better story then the one the movie wanted to guide us into.

    Again, why i think PROMETHEUS is such a wasted oportunity. My co-worker came up with this interpretation that would had allowed PROMETHEUS to tell it’s story in a far more elegant and simple (or shouod i say direct) way, instead of the emptyheaded convulted mess that it is.

    The more one thinks about this movie the worst it gets. It’s Abrams Trek all over again, but far more pretty to look at.

  490. The Original... Paul

    June 23rd, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Asimov – my comparison was more that “Prometheus” would become a film that people just keep going on, and on, and on, and on about (that isn’t specifically directed at you by the way!)

    The SW:PM comparison is: it’s crap, everybody knows it’s crap, everyone knows why it’s crap, ninety-minute videos and ten-thousand-word essays have been devoted to the subject of why it’s crap. At some point you gotta end the conversation of “why the Phantom Menace sucks” and just move on to… talking about why other films suck, I guess.

  491. The Original… Paul, if discussions had endings, then we would still be in the stone age banging at rocks and believing the moon is a goddess and winter is brough by evil spiritsthat need human sacrifice to appease.

    There’s never an ending to a subject, specially if it’s interesting. I sincerely don’t understand that kind of passivity.

  492. I finally caught this movie and I frigging loved it. Yes, the characters were incredible stupid, but I suddenly thought “hey, this is friday the 13th in space, not the chainsaw massacre in space, but I can live with that”. Especially when the “we build better worlds” reminded me that spacetravelling is not an exeptionel experience in the Alien-universe. They have been to other planets, it`s just another day at the office, they get lazy and make stupid mistakes.

    I actually thought the whole “why did god create us” misdirection was brilliant. So here is my theory: god (the engineers) created us in their own image. And what are the human race? A destructive greedy murdering species, that keeps killing for more power, country and profit. Why wouldn`t god / the engineers be the same? They are looking for other planets to live on and since planets with the oxygen and moons and stuff are hard to find, they plan to wipe out the human race by bombing it with biological weapons; the black goo. It goes wrong and they die, except the one dude in coma, who wakes up surrounded by the race he has been working on exterminating. So maybe they created humans as slaves (that makes sense with the cavepaintings, where humans apparently worship the engineers), but the humans multiplies and must be wiped out, cause the engineers are building better worlds for their own race. It`s all pretty nihilistic stuff and our only hope is believing that there is a nicer god or a meaning with life or something. Maybe some nice paradise. I hope we find out in the sequel.

    The last minute was lame, though, and clearly studio inteference.

  493. DNA, i found somethings you wrote above a bit problematic.

    For example, that you were cool with the Friday 13th nature of the movie. Well, that would be fine and dandy if it was a movie about dumb teens in space. But the characters are supposed to be scientists. So, their idioticy as depicted in the movie is completly unexcusable. There’s a lot of parody about that element in the movie on the net already. And it’s completly justified. One cannot just shove some narrative element in a story that does not fit, nor should we just accept it because it reminds us of a movie we like.

    Your notion you posted in the following paragraph: “and our only hope is believing that there is a nicer god or a meaning with life or something. Maybe some nice paradise. I hope we find out in the sequel.”

    So we should ignore reality and just sunk our heads in the sand and go to a mental make-belief world in our heads so we can match the world with optimistic creations of our own invention? There is a name for that, and it’s called cognitive dissonance, and it’s a fugue state of mind. Basically, it’s living in delusion. It’s not a good thing.

    And by all logic and following the logic conclusion of the plot of PROMETHEUS, in a sequel as soon Shaw arrives to the engineers’ world, the first thign they do when they see her is they bash her brains out, throw her body to the garbage and then they go on with their business. In fact, the arrival of Shaw might just tell the Engineers that their atempt at exterminating life on Earth failed so they should make another atempt.

    This is the problem with PROMETHEUS, the story is so stupid it doesn’t even understand the implications of it’s own plot.

    And all the fauxlosophy in the movie is at the level of a teen who opened a cliff notes’ version of a philosophy book for the first time. Juvenile barely begins to describe it.

  494. asimov

    Well, I went into the theater with very low expectations, mostly thanks to you, and enjoyed the movie a lot. I didn`t expect an intelligent sci-fi, but an entertaining horrormovie, and that`s what I got. And despite some incredible stupid characters, I found the subtxt to be very clever and original.

    A lot of people complain about the characters talking about god and beliefs. It actually doesn`t fill that much of the dialouge and mostly defines the characters. And I love the abrupt tonal shift from serious sfi-fi to fullblown horror, just like in Alien. The big difference is that Prometheus not is scary horror, but funny horror, mostly thanks to the incredible stupid characters. But even the stupidity of the charaters supports the subtext and the themes of the movie (it is stupid to find scientific proof for our believes, cause the answers are NOT gonna be nice).

    “Your notion you posted in the following paragraph: “and our only hope is believing that there is a nicer god or a meaning with life or something. Maybe some nice paradise. I hope we find out in the sequel.
    So we should ignore reality and just sunk our heads in the sand and go to a mental make-belief world in our heads so we can match the world with optimistic creations of our own invention? There is a name for that, and it’s called cognitive dissonance, and it’s a fugue state of mind. Basically, it’s living in delusion. It’s not a good thing.”

    No, and that what I love about this movie. It`s a horrormovie, that says that our beliefs are cute fantasies, and in order to deal with our horrible and meaningless reality, we should keep it that way instead of trying to get proof that our cute fantasies are true. That`s fucking horrible and that`s what I want from a horrormovie. Fucking sweet, sir Ridley Scott, it takes big balls to make a blockbuster this nihilistic and pessimistic.

    Again, my favorite thought of the movie was “..if god created us in his image, I really don`t wanna meet the guy, cause he`s gonna be a greedy, murdering, evil, destructive monster..” That`s just such a horrible and profound idea for a blockbuster, that it makes me love the movie even more.

    “And by all logic and following the logic conclusion of the plot of PROMETHEUS, in a sequel as soon Shaw arrives to the engineers’ world, the first thign they do when they see her is they bash her brains out, throw her body to the garbage and then they go on with their business. In fact, the arrival of Shaw might just tell the Engineers that their atempt at exterminating life on Earth failed so they should make another atempt.”

    Asimov, you beatifull bastard, that`s exactly the sci-fi horror movie I wanna see. But I would let the engineers torture her for a little while in order to get information about what went wrong on their militarybase, and then she escapes and has to stop the destruction of earth that she indirectly triggered by confronting the gods / the engineers. Like that Prometheus fable, they named their ship after. Which is as stupid as calling a new cruiser Titanic 2, btw.

    I can find a lot of stupid and reckless characters in Prometheus, but no plotholes or stupid screenwriters. And I`m not really sure that the characters isn`t supposed to be percieved as stupid and reckless. That Prometheus guy who stole the fire from the gods was pretty stupid and reckless, if you ask me. And that is the whole fucking point of this story, old ancient greek tragedy and it`s modern incarnation; horror.

    Don`t fuck with the gods/death/destiny, cause we can`t beat them/that/it, and it has tragic and horrible consequenses when we try.

  495. Also, how did so many stupid scientists end up on one spaceship? Well, it`s secret mission, nobody on earths appearently knows about the cavepaintings and it takes at least four years. I don`t think a lot of intelligent scientists would say yes to that job-offer, so they basically scraped the bottom of the barrel.

  496. And who is the biggest idiot of them all? Our religious maincharacter, who “chooses” to believe, but wants her beliefs proven by science. She just almost destroyed the human race by trying to confront the gods, and what does she do next. She decides to confront them again. Oh, the humanity…

  497. This is a controversial opinion, but I saw it yesterday finally and…..HUNGER GAMES is a better Ridley Scott sci-fi movie than PROMETHEUS. (better movie too, but that goes without saying.)

  498. No, PROMETHEUS is better than HUNGER GAMES, the worst movie I’ve seen all year by far, even worse than the wretched WE BOUGHT A ZOO, another recent movie where the “bad guy” was actually the only character doing his job properly while surrounded by nitwits & assholes.

  499. Mouth – After reading your argument, I have to say…

    *fires cannon*

  500. Wait, Asimov DOESN’T like Prometheus? Did I miss a post somewhere?

  501. I can`t be bothered to read the entire thread again, but I have a couple of questions about the movie, maybe somebody can offer a theory that makes sense.

    The beginning with the engineer that drinks the black goo. Is it on earth or is it the planet where Prometheus takes place?

    If it is the Prometheus planet, it kills everything, leaving without oxygen and any life except for earth.
    The engineer who drinks the black goo could do it in order to test it as a weapon, then it makes sense that his peoples spaceship hurries off.

    If it is earth, then he might be creating humans as either a biological weapon or as servants (as they are portrayed in the cavepaintings). The servants turn out as agressive, violent ungratefull bastards, that kill off their “parents” (as David mentions all children wants to do) and the engineers realize that their magic black goo has horrible sideeffects and decides to use it as biological weapons instead. That makes it kinda understandable that the surviving engineer freaks out and starts killing of his former servants.

    But, who made the cavepaintings and how did they know what the stars looked like? It´s not a map to the engineers homeplanet, unless the engineers destroyed their own planet by accident by testing a biological weapon and now wants earth as their new home. If the planet in Prometheus not is the engineers homeplanet, why did they leave a map to a military labotary for the humans?

  502. frigging typos…

    “If it is the Prometheus planet, it kills everything, leaving it without oxygen or any life except for worms.”

    Anyway, the beginning appearently is supposed to take place in North Africa according to the internet. Makes sense.

    So.. Engineers create humans. Humans turn on their creators. Humans create David…

  503. I really appreciate DNA’s stance on the movie, and it is certainly the interpretation I most favor. The film is not actually pro-faith, it features pro-faith characters and proceeds to excoriate them by meting upon them the consequences of their misguided perspective. And for proof that this is where the movie was really coming from, see the fate of pro-faith Locke in LOST!

  504. Renfield

    Thanks. I`m not sure that the movie is anti-faith or pro-faith, but it`s defenetly against confusing faith with science.

    I don`t know why I enjoyed the movie so much, but I`m sure that it helped a lot to know that the characters were stupid scientists before watching it. But I didn`t find them unrealistic stupid, and the basic idea for the movie (let´s find God, God is a monster and wants to kill us) is pretty original and subversive. I didn`t have any problems following that story. All the unanswered questions wasn`t important to the plot, but fun to ponder over (just like the unanswered questions in Alien and A New Hope)

    I do believe that Ridley Scott has a pretty clear idea about how everything fits together, but decided to go the old “we don`t actually need to explain EVERYTHING”- way of telling a story. Hey, it worked for 2001, Planet of the Apes, Starwars etc. Good mysteries about the universe of the movie are fun and makes the movie even better, as long as there is enough pieces of the puzzle to actually make theories that could make sense.

    Ok, once in a while some character started explaining stuff I already had figured out, but when they did, I started wondering if the characters were actually right or just assuming stuff like me.

    The basic story, a believer wants to confront her god and finds out that he is not a nice guy with any meaningfull answers, but a monster who wants to kill them with biological weapons, is great and easy to follow. Everything else is just icing on the cake. And all the thematic layers with parents and kids, creators and creations, faith and science, building better worlds vs destroying worlds, cheating death, creating life etc just fits perfectly together.

    The subtext though is right up my alley. I don`t mind religious people and think that faith can be a good thing. I do not believe in god myself, though, and if a higher being actually did exist, I wouldn`t appriciate him or what he has done. And if there is one thing I am really against, it`s jerks that take religion too litteral. And it`s very surprising to find that kind of thinking in a modern blockbuster.

    And I might be wrong, but the suggestion that the human race is basically an experiment gone wrong and a template for biological weapons are awesome sci-fi.

    Anyway, I think it´s my favorite sci-fi movie since Starship Troopers and Ridley Scotts best movie since Black Hawk Down.

  505. dna

    The problem is not that the movie that themes of Dog and Faith in it, it’s that it betrays the plot’sa own logic so that Lindelof can shove in it his own favorite Aesop.

    There is no problem if a movie’s theme is about Dog and faith and our relationship with both. If that’s it, then fine. This is why i can love both Pasolini’s THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATHEW and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

    PROMEHTEUS’s problme is that it betrays it’s own logic. Say, Shaw’s characters faith is based on the notion that the makers of mankind have to be superior beings in all regards, so she’s eager to meet them, and she revers them as, for the lack of a better, word, as gods. It seems she considers them to be Dog’s agents on Earth… well, in the universe. When reality crashes in and she notices that her faith was misplaced, by all narrative logic this would be the moment where she would had her faith crashed and burned. Butr LKindelof is too preocupied in sining the praises of faith, so in the end Shaw replaces her faith on something even more supersitious, and without any narrative indication that has preceded it.

    In fact, the movie does a pretty mubbled job in presenting her faith.

    “I don`t think a lot of intelligent scientists would say yes to that job-offer, so they basically scraped the bottom of the barrel.”

    I’d say it’s the other way around. Scientists would kill for such a chance, and the top scientits would all pile up for the chance to meet actual aliens, or at least their vestigues left behind. For any real scientists, the Prometheus’ mission would be a dream come true. Ask any scientits alive today if they would miss out on such a chance, and i doubt you would find anybody who would do so.

  506. Mouth, i refuse to watch WE BOUGHT A ZOO. I’m beyond fed up with Cameron Crowe’s brand of saccharine melodramedy. The mere mention of his name gives me diabettes.

  507. Yeah I’m as allergic to Cameron Crowe as Asimov is.

    The best movie he was involved in was one he wrote: FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. And if he directed that one, it wouldn’t be as good.

  508. “once in a while some character started explaining stuff I already had figured out, but when they did, I started wondering if the characters were actually right or just assuming stuff like me.”

    I think the movie really wants us to take their words as the in-universe truth. All the talk about “mysteries deliberatly unresolved” came out during the Q&A sessions before and after the movie’s release. It’s not something that’s in the story, but said by the filmmakes after the fact.

    Me, i have the habit to only consider what’s in the movie as gospel, and the rest, the stuff said in interviews, the accompanying comics, the novelizations, whatever, is apocrypha which there is no obligation to follow and take it as true.

    And recently i have seen too often filmmakers putting the explanations of plot and characters in the Q&As and comics and whatever to fill in the lacks found in the movie’s own plots. Suffice to say, i find that to be pretty dumb. It telsl more about the lack of talent of those filmmakers to tell a story then of any inability among the public to compreend it.

  509. RRA, remember VANILA SKY? You should try watching the original spanish movie called ABRE LOS OJOS, of which VANILA is a remake.

  510. And speaking of ABRE LOS OJOS, which was directed by Alejandro Amenábar, later he also directed a movie called AGORA.

    AGORA is set in the city of Alexandria in the 4th century AD, and tells the story of the last librarian of the famous LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA. The movie is about reason, science and the love for the truth, and how superstition, blind faith and fanaticism always try to shut it down and make things worst.

    And it’s a great movie. Very well told, very intelligent, amazing visuals, and tells a story worth telling, and which, in this day and age, is quite relevant, probalby more then ever. The director himself said he took inspiration from watching an episode of COSMOS. Right on!

  511. This is already the most commented movie* on this websight, even beating out INCEPTION, and it isn’t even out all over the world yet.

    * Of course I don’t count the POTPOURRIS
    **Don’t know if they are right. Haven’t seen it yet.

  512. Ignore the “**”. I deleted the sentence that it refered to, but forgot to delete the rest.

  513. I missed the INCEPTION review. I don’t even know if Vern liked it or not. That’s anothe rmovie that is also very inviting on long talks. I remember those in IMDB and AICN.

    Well, INCPTION is inviting long discussions, and well, i have to say, that means the movie did something right… but just not for the right reaons.

  514. Ops, i goofed. Where i wrote “INCPTIO”, it should read PROMETHEUS. So sorry.

  515. I second everything asimovlives said about AGORA, which I believe I’ve recommended on this websight several times before.

    That huge-in-scope IMAX documentary vibe you get in the beginning of PROMETHEUS? AGORA trades in the same stunning sweeping visuals throughout the movie, judiciously placing gorgeous wide shots within small character moments and expanding to aerial views where you can make out the curve of the earth’s surface, iIrc, during a battle scene and during a marvelous musical scene.
    (WINGED MIGRATION also has an amazing high shot where you can discern the curve of the earth, and the “making of” special feature is equally jaw-dropping.)

    Why AGORA wasn’t better reviewed & received is a mystery to me, but I shouldn’t be surprised that a historical period piece about the preciousness of reason & knowledge would fail to garner as much praise & profit as the empty monster movie from the dull mind of the LOST guy and one of the most overrated directors ever.

  516. Mouth, i donp0t think idley Scott is overrated. He has made more classics then most other filmmakers put together. But i can understand why somebody today would see Scott with less sympathetic eyes. I bet for many, Scott is basking on his past glories. While i don’t agree and i think the old boy still has it in him, i can understand where that comes from. I just hope he has another KINGDOM OF HEAVEN in him to prove he has not gone senile with age or dumb with the association with the LOST guy.

    It’s great to see another fan of AGORA. I hope you saw it in the theaters, because that truly is a movie worth seeing on the big screen. It has some of the best use of special effets i ever seen in a movie, and they are totally complementary for the telling of the tale. Also, best use ever of cam to space and back to earth ever put on film. Notice the subtle use of circula camera movements in those space shots, to emphase the truth as discovered by Hypatia, the heliocentrism model and the shape of the planets’ orbits. Brillant stuff.

    I liked the movie so much i bought the DVD. The director’s cut is unmissable.

  517. “The director’s cut is unmissable”

    Ops, i mean to say the director’s comentary is unmissable.

  518. asimov

    “Scientists would kill for such a chance, and the top scientits would all pile up for the chance to meet actual aliens, or at least their vestigues left behind. For any real scientists, the Prometheus’ mission would be a dream come true. Ask any scientits alive today if they would miss out on such a chance, and i doubt you would find anybody who would do so.”

    The movie made it pretty clear that few of the crewmembers knew the purpose of the mission, when the icequeen briefed them about the cavepaintings. If the crew didn`t know about the cavepaintings, then it`s kinda obvious that the company kept them a secret from the public. What kinda scientists would accept going on a four year mission without knowing its purpose?

    “I think the movie really wants us to take their words as the in-universe truth. All the talk about “mysteries deliberatly unresolved” came out during the Q&A sessions before and after the movie’s release. It’s not something that’s in the story, but said by the filmmakes after the fact.”

    Huh? The characters constant make mistakes, why should we trust anything they conclude?

    And double huh? to that the story doesn`t have deliberatly unresolved mysteries. Yes, I understood the basic plot of the movie, but all the rest is deliberatly unresolved mysteries, just like the spacejockey in Alien. And there is stuff in the plot that can be interpreted in different ways. For exampe:
    What if it is not a military base, but a storage for some very dangerous stuff? What if the engineers are trying to hide away the black goo on a isolated planet and tries to kill the crew of Prometheus in order to stop the goo from spreading? What if the ship is not a bomb-ship? David opened up the navigation-hologram and found earth. And the captain of Prometheus sees earth and mistakenly concludes that`s where the engineers wants to go with the containers of goo? We don`t know anything for sure.

  519. dna

    “What kinda scientists would accept going on a four year mission without knowing its purpose?”

    Exactly. Which is why there is no scientists in that ship. But the movie want to convince us that they are.

    “The characters constant make mistakes, why should we trust anything they conclude?”

    Exactly. But that’s logic talking, not the movie’s intentions. It’s things like that that truly made the movie stupid as it is.

    “but all the rest is deliberatly unresolved mysteries”

    But that’s what Lindelof says in the interviews, it’s not what’s in the movie. The movie itself is at constant pain to explain every damn thing. But it still leaves lots of plot holes which then the filmmakers, specially Lindelof, try to cover up in Q&As with all this talk about deliberate mysteries. Nice try, Lindelof, but no cigar. Lindelof may fool many all the time, and everybody for a time, but he can’t fool everybody all the time.

    “What if it is not a military base, but a storage for some very dangerous stuff? What if the engineers are trying to hide away the black goo on a isolated planet and tries to kill the crew of Prometheus in order to stop the goo from spreading? What if the ship is not a bomb-ship? David opened up the navigation-hologram and found earth. And the captain of Prometheus sees earth and mistakenly concludes that`s where the engineers wants to go with the containers of goo? We don`t know anything for sure.”

    That’s some very good points, but the thing is, it’s you reacting to bad storytelling, becaus eit’s obvious the movie itself wants you to believe that it is a military base for the space jockeys, and that the last jockey really wants to go to Earth to finish some unfinished business. That’s the thing the movie wants us to think that’s what’s happening. The probkem is that the presentation, thanks to the script, is so bad, makes people think there’s mysteries.

    But there are no real mysteries in PROMEHTEUS, only really bad plotting and characterization. The only real mystery in PROMETHEUS is how such an unfinished and deficient script mannaged to get put into film. That’s a mystery for the ages.

    What’s sad in regard to the movie and the people who made it is that the people who enjoyed it and are defending it, like you, are showing far more creative imagination then the clown who wrote the damn thing.

  520. Ok fellas so I finally saw it and you know what? I liked it. Mostly for the same reasons everyone else seems to hate it. We can’t get the answers to everything which is also applicable to real life from a spiritual and theological perspective. I found that approach pretty interesting.

    Also how David basically represents what I’ve always firmly believed. When your functions are based on mechanical thinking and absolutes it is difficult to register ethical sensibility. Whether you’re man or machine it boils down to the same thing. That type of thinking completely leaves empathy absent and lets cold bloodedness thrive.

    What is wrong for one is right for somebody else. Sure I can’t agree with occultists sacrificing infants in the name of Satan but I also recognize that from their perspective it is a cause for celebration. So I still respect their right to it though it’s an action that makes my stomach turn.

    It’s certainly the most interesting thing Ridley has done in a very long time and I definitely see why people are still having lengthy debates about it to this day. Though admittedly yes the scientists were morons, Charlize was basically fluff and the Weyland shit felt pretty tacked on. The enlightment of Idris’ character out of nowhere was also hilarious aside from that though I was fine with it. I’m down with a sequel.

    I never watched LOST it was just boring as hell to me so I’m not sure how many of the same beats the writer repeated here but I also do commend him again on not chickening out and giving definite answers instead of raising more questions just like real life does to us all every single day.

  521. The Original... Paul

    June 27th, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Asimov, missed this:

    “There’s never an ending to a subject, specially if it’s interesting. I sincerely don’t understand that kind of passivity.”

    While I agree on the first point (and I think the “Phantom Menace” phenomenon proves it), I hardly think it’s a GOOD thing! At what point do you have to stop and say “ok, this is enough”? I could debate the merits of a film lik” Prometheus” for months (although I won’t, I largely agree with you anyway – I think it’s an exceedingly dumb and poorly-executed mess, with some great visuals and the occasional good performance, but it never really “follows through” with any of the big ideas it brings up early on). But really, is there any point? Even the people who liked the film aren’t arguing that it’s a masterpiece, or even very good.

    But the main reason I don’t think this argument is particularly worthwhile is there’s so many better things you or I could be doing. Like recommending “Silence”. Or “Shame”. Or “Margin Call”. Or any one of the other dozen or so really great films that I’ve seen this year that hardly anybody else has because they’re not as well-marketed as “Prometheus”.

  522. The Original... Paul

    June 27th, 2012 at 10:54 am

    …And I’m immediately going to ignore what I just said and look into the subject of why these arguments happen, and what they achieve.

    Take the “Phantom Menace” hate. What did it actually achieve? Did it stop people from seeing the film? Clearly not, given how much it grossed; and the same is clearly true of “Prometheus” here. If anything, the mass debates about the film actually helped it achieve more publicity. You might say that a large part of it was negative publicity, but in many ways that didn’t matter. People may have gone to see it, not to see how good it was, but how bad it was. Well, guess what, those seven pounds that you spent on the cinema ticket don’t “not count” because you went to see the movie “ironically”.

    Did it improve the series? Did it help them make better films? To answer this question, I give you two simple words: lava surfing. We wanted relatable characters and an interesting story, and that’s what we got instead. (I keep coming back to “lava surfing” because I don’t think there’s any more terse or fitting example in film to demonstrate a case where reason and logic have been entirely forsaken to allow for empty spectacle.) I would argue that the three prequels shared the same terminal flaws, showing that the filmmakers had learnt precisely nothing about the bad critical receptoin to the first one. Well, apply that to “Prometheus”. Does ANYBODY think Scott or Lindelof or whoever the hell is responsible for this mess is likely to “up their game” because of a few arguments on the Internet? Especially when the film does as financially well as “Prometheus” has?

    I think the great mistake is to assume that because somebody has the label of “artist”, they care about the artistic merit of their creation more than the money it makes for them. Baby’s gotta eat.

  523. “But the main reason I don’t think this argument is particularly worthwhile is there’s so many better things you or I could be doing. Like recommending “Silence”. Or “Shame”. Or “Margin Call”. Or any one of the other dozen or so really great films that I’ve seen this year that hardly anybody else has because they’re not as well-marketed as “Prometheus”.”

    That is an excelent argument. And so very true.

  524. The point of discussions like these should never be to STOP somebody from seeing a film. I mean, regardless of what you think of the film, isn’t it enough to want to be involved with the discussion? And you gotta see the movie to be substantively involved…

    asimov:
    “That’s some very good points, but the thing is, it’s you reacting to bad storytelling, becaus eit’s obvious the movie itself wants you to believe that it is a military base for the space jockeys, and that the last jockey really wants to go to Earth to finish some unfinished business. That’s the thing the movie wants us to think that’s what’s happening. The probkem is that the presentation, thanks to the script, is so bad, makes people think there’s mysteries.”

    I strongly disagree with this, because the movie shoves its mysteries down your throat. It has the main characters histrionically wailing “WHY?!?!?!” in regards to the true motivations of the Space Jockeys, and sets up the sequel solely on the basis of probing this mystery. Furthermore, it was written by one of the LOST scribes, and ALL that show did was generate and compound mysteries. Now I think LOST was an often idiotic and ultimately worthless saga, but I think a cursory knowledge with the show is clear enough proof that anybody involved with it was capable of 1) manufacturing unsolved puzzles, and 2) embedding these puzzles in mediocre screenwriting.

  525. renfield i’d rather say the movie shoves it’s lack of narrative skill down out throats. The mhysteries are just the result of bad storytelling and a dumb as script made by a fool who thinks himself far clever then he really is. The fool being, of course, the LOST guy. Lindelof can scream all he wants about how all the mysteries i PROMETHEUS were deliberate choices, whatp’s matter truly is not what he sells but what’s in the movie, and what’s in the movie is a sorry spectacle of storytelling ineptitude. Lindelof certainly is not fooling me.

  526. But see, I only know about this whole “the mysteries were intentional” statement from you telling me that it is so, and from the text itself (that is, the movie) I don’t understand the basis for saying the true motivation of the Space Jockeys is a plot hole and not an intentional mystery when the film ends with some detail about “I’m going to go solve this intentionally unresolved mystery by going to their home planet”.

  527. asimov

    Allright, we must agree to disagree. I loved the movie, despite it`s flaws. And I love speculating on what exactly went on besides the basic plot. I`ve explained why I liked it and how I experienced it. I even got a bit pretentious with the religious subplot and how I connect with it`s nihilistic spirit.

    I`m not gonna try to convince you that you`re wrong and that the movie is a masterpiece, but it worked for me, and I`m very excited about the possibilities of a sequel. And it really pleases me that one of my old favorite directors finally made (imo) a brilliant movie again.

  528. I’m starting to think this thread is not going to end until the next Star Trek movie opens.

  529. I’m starting to think this thread of discussion will not end until the next Star Trek movie opens and Vern reviews it.

  530. The thread’s not gonna end until somebody lets Asimov get in a word edgewise. Everyone else is always trampling over the poor guy and he never even gets a chance to say what he likes about it.

    I hadn’t really thought through the consequences of reviewing Star Fraud 2: The Wrath of Lies. That might have to be my first ever closed comments review.

  531. Vern, call it STINO 2, it’s shorter and more to the point.

  532. dna

    “And I love speculating on what exactly went on besides the basic plot.”

    Of course. There’s great fun in that. Like how it happened with the original ALIEN, and how to this day me and my mates love to speculate about the mysterious alien ship and it’s cargo and what was it for, and who the bloody hell was the space jockey. But the difference between Alien and Prometheus is that Alien invited speculation by just watching the movie itself. I saw it for the first time in VHS in the second half of the 80s decade, there was no marketing going on, it was just the movie, and it spure my imagination and of my friends who watched it with me. We had decades talking about it. With Prometheus, the debate is created by what Lindelof and Scott have been saying in interviews, all the stuff that people have talked about the movie is more from their own wods then what’s in the movie itself. That’s the major difference between ALIEN and PROMETHEUS, and what ALIEN did right and PROMETHEUS didn’t.

    “And it really pleases me that one of my old favorite directors finally made (imo) a brilliant movie again.”

    That was what i was thinking… until i saw the damn thing. And i don’t think Ridley Scott is my favorite director anymore. Christopjher Nolan has now taken the crown. And if THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is as good as BATMAN BEGINS, even if it’s only half as good, the crown is still his. Nolan won.

  533. STINO = Star Trek In Name Only. Just like Bay’s Transformers movies are TINO, Tim Burton’s remake of POTA is POTAINO, or for the agravated SW fans the prequels are SWINO for them.

  534. Asimov, I had only seen the trailer before I watched the movie, and only because I couldn`t avoid the trailer in the cinema. My reactions and speculations are entirely based on what I watched on the big screen, and what I`ve read on this sight. Yes, I expected stupid scientists, but they made sense in the context of the movie. It`s a private,secret, mission with a dodgy purpose, and they hired who they could get. They didn`t even meet all of the crew in person, before going on the mission. And no, the movie doesn`t present any of the crewmembers as brilliant scientists. Why? Cause the old fella who arranged the trip doesn`t give a fuck about the scientific aspects of the mission, he just wants them on the mission in order to cheat our 2 religious archeologists into believing that it`s a scientific mission. Hell, even the captain is alcoholic. And if you disagree, please use arguments from what you experienced when you watched Prometheus, not what the virals made you believe or that I`m wrong cause the screenwriter is stupid and everything is a plothole. I haven`t be able to detect a single plothole yet.

  535. dna

    “Yes, I expected stupid scientists, but they made sense in the context of the movie. It`s a private,secret, mission with a dodgy purpose, and they hired who they could get.”

    I would be perfectly happy to accept that if there had been any indication or clue to that in the movie. As the movie is, there’s none. If that’s something that might eventually pop up in a delected scene that might be put back in the director’s cut of the movie, then fine, we have a plot hole, or rather, a bad plot decision, explained and filled out and made logical.

    “And no, the movie doesn`t present any of the crewmembers as brilliant scientists. Why? Cause the old fella who arranged the trip doesn`t give a fuck about the scientific aspects of the mission, he just wants them on the mission in order to cheat our 2 religious archeologists into believing that it`s a scientific mission. Hell, even the captain is alcoholic.”

    I think the movie fails to present the scientists as brillants because the writer is unhable to write brillant people. It’s quite clear, thanks to LOST and this movie, that Lindelof’s idea of a scientist is not much more sophisticated then of anti-science cliches found in so many B-movies of past and present.
    Yes, there is some indication that the old Weyland doesn’t seem to think much of the two clowns whose thesis is the basis for the mission. Well, Weyland doesn’t seem to think much of anybody else, starting with his own daughter. His only sympathy seems to only to a robot. He’s a major misanthrope. But being surrounded by subpar professionals would be antithetical to his own interests. Remember, the whole point of the trip in regard to his own agenda is that he wants more life. You think dumb idiot scientists would serve his intentions well? This is one of the instances where the movie self-contradicts because of the way is presents the characters. It want us to both accept this guys are top scientists while acting like drama queens. It’s nonsensical.

    I know you want to make sense of the movie. I know you want the movie to make sense. I know how it feels to realise a movie you watched, a great looking movie made by one of the most brillant directors alive today is actually a subpar product. It’s insulting! That’s how i feel.

    Pardon me saying so, but it seems to me you want to see PROMETHEUS under the “glass half full” approach. I wish i could do the same. I wish the movie could had give me enough stuff to make me take such an attitude. Unfortunatly, it doesn’t. You have no idea how much it pains me to have such a low opinion on a Ridley Scott movie. You have no idea. But i can’t lie to myself. I say it as i saw it. And what i saw was a sorry spectacle. The movie is just not well thoughout. The main writer was so obsessed with shoving a theme in the movie at the expense of plot economy and character consistency.

    I’m sorry for the lenght of this and other of my posts in regard to this movie, but the thing is, movies like PROMETHEUS, or rather, the type of writing that goies to movies like this and which are getting so proeminent in so many of major movies made today, and so much of it coming from the same people from the same team and group of creatives which i dubbed the Team Abrams. They so represent what’s so wrong in today’s Holywood, and their influence is now spreading to filmmakers like Ridley Scott. It’s deeply insulting, even on a personal level. I understand how anoying this might be to others reading this, but… words just fails me to describe this deep sense of frustration. This could be so much better, and it wouldn’t had been that hard to do so. What waste!

  536. Asimov

    Good points, but as I experienced it, the 2 stupid scientists who follow our protagonist and her boyfriend, who are actually stupid and bad scientists. And their purpose are to give the mission a scientific alibi. I never experienced that it was a ship full of scientists.

    The captain doesn`t exactly do anything stupid, he just doesn`t give a fuck anymore. It`s all just another day at the office. The ice-queen does one stupid mistake when she seduces the captain while they are watching over the 2 lost scientists, but maybe she just doesn`t care about the scientists, cause they are not nessecary to the true objective of the mission.

    When the old guy wakes up, he is surrounded by his staff (who clearly doesn`t care about anything else than serving his needs) and when they go into the engineers spaceship, they are efficient and professional.

    Come on, it makes total sense. Here is a list of characters doing stupid things as I remember the movie:

    Our protagonists, who are skilled, but also naive and reckless religious nuts.

    The 2 scientists, who have accepted a four year long mission without asking any questions and clearly doesn`t serve any purpose to the true objective of the mission except for making a map over the cave.

    The captain, who clearly doesn`t give a fuck about anything, but prefers to get drunk, listen to old music and flirt with the boss.

    The icequeen, who seduces the boss during the storm, but knows that the 2 scientists are useless to the true purpose of the mission, so why should she care what happens to them? The only person she cares about is her father (otherwise she wouldn`t be on the ship).

    If I forgot any stupid scientists or incompetent crewmembers, please enlighten me, but it seems to me that the stupidity of the characters I mentioned are intentionel and supports the fact that it is not a scientific expedition, as the movie and trailers led us to believe. It`s actually a plot-twist in the story, that Weyland are exploiting the naive scientists for his own agenda. Just as the company was exploiting the crew of Nostrademus in Alien.
    The rest of the characters are never presented as stupid or even scientists. They are crew and servants to the hidden passenger, who needs our protagonists to believe that they are on a scientific expedition to achive his true goal .(and he spells it out in the movie, btw)

    “I know you want to make sense of the movie. I know you want the movie to make sense. ”

    No, I`m explaining WHY it made sense to me. But listen, I knew that the biggest flaw of the movie was the stupid scientists, so when they did stupid things, I had time to ponder WHY they were amateurs instead of being irritated over the fact that a billion-dollar scientific expedition didn`t hire professionels. When Weyland explains that it never was a scientific expedition, as the protagonists and the audience is led to believe, it made sense to me.
    It`s called misdirection and it made sense in the context of the movie, but I would properbly have felt the same way as you, if I hadn`t known a lot about what happens in the movie before I watched it.

    I do believe that it will make a lot more sense the second time you watch it. If the movie has a flaw, it is that so much is going on that the audience is not able to connect the dots while they are watching it.

    (and sorry about all my typos, btw)

  537. I meant:

    Good points, but as I experienced it, it is only the 2 stupid scientists who follow our protagonist and her boyfriend, who are actually stupid and bad scientists. And their purpose are to give the mission a scientific alibi. I never experienced that it was a ship full of scientists.

  538. dna

    “I do believe that it will make a lot more sense the second time you watch it.”

    Thanks for that hopeful thought, but i don’t think that will be the case. If anything, i think if i ever get to watch the movie for a second time, i’ll see even more problems and mistakes and plot holes then i saw the first time. Maybe it’s for the best i restrict my viewing of this movie to just the once i did. Well, if there will be a DVd with an audio comentary by Sir Ridley, then i’ll listen to it, of course. It’s a matter of course for me to listen to all his audio comentaries.

    I guess those two guys, you know, the dumb idiot scientists you mentioned above, the more obviously idiots of the story, th geologist and the biologist, their idioticy is of such epic measure, they obfuscate the idioticies of the other people in the movie, the orther scientists and the crew. I find it believable that for you only those two did striked out as dumb, because, damn! Wow! Anybody would look smart compared to those two, wouldn’t they?

    It seems clear to me that the crew are made of scientists of different fields. Pseudo-Tom Hardy is an archeologists, Shaw seems have a good knowledge of medicine which actually does make a bit of sense as her speciality seems to be etnology/anthropology. Fifield is a speleologist, glasses guy is a xenobiologist, there’s an obvious surgeon (the bitch woman that assists Shaw in reviving the Space Jocker’s head and later wants to put Shaw in cryo). And there is some other fella who for the lifge of me don’t know what he’s supposed to be, but he’s science-y. The flying crew is made of the christmas obsessed, acordeon player captain, and his two jokers of pilot and navigator.
    Then there’s Vickers, the only character with a brain until it’s important for the story for her to act dumb so she can die. And there’s David. Maybe there is some other fellas i forgot, but they did little to nothing in the stoy so they don’t count.

    I’d love that the movie had the misdisrection you claim it has. There’s many movies i love which do that, like THE USUAL SUSPECTS, which make part of the fun in watching them. But i see none of that, unfortunatly.

    The way i see it, Lindelof is the kind of guy that bites more then he can chew. His use of religion and faith, besides being quite primitive in it’s understanding and use, also seems to work merely as a plot device to wrap stuff up. PROMETHEUS’ story is about a scientific mystery, but Lindelof, besides knowing little about real science and abusing old b-movie science ciches, he uses faith and religion to wrap up a mystery he helped create but can’t wrap up to any satisfaction.

    Lindelof wasn’t able to either provide believable science explanations to the mysteries of the movie, or to left a satisfying open-ending. He shoves some “all you need is faith” thingy hoping that it can swage the questionsit raise, but it doesn’t. I was not tricked into accepting a mystery just because Lindelof wants me to take it on faith.

    You know a movie that was able to use science mixed with religious mysticism to tell a satisfying horror story? John Carpenter’s THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS. The beautiful thing abpout that movie is that the filmmakers seem to know their own limitations. The end result, thus, look smart because they played to their strenghts.

    You know a movie that used religious theme that were important to the story and characterization but also is fundamental to the way the story is resolved? It’s the british thriller movie DEAD MAN’S SHOES, which Vern has reviewed already. The use of religion in that movie is brillant in that it’s quite clear that the filmmakrrs who mad eit really understand the precepts of christian faith, but so does the main character in the story, to the point it informs everything he does by the end of the movie. It’s quite brillant. It made me enjoy the movie a lot, and it truly gave it another dimention to the story, so much so without it it could not be told.

    It’s not the use of religion or faith stuff that upsets me in PROMETHEUS. It’s the use of it with little to no understanding, to present it so shallowly. Lindelof must think that anything becomes automatically smart if you just add religion and faith. No it does not.

    Are you with me in thinking that Vickers should had been the final survivor of the story and not Shaw? If her faithhead misguideness was what brough all the shit to everybody in the story, then, and since the movie is filled to the grills with motives of slef-sacrifice, it’s her who should had died for her sins, not Vickers. Since Vickers is presented as the one that is responsible for things to run properly, it’s her who should had been the character to have the resolution and savviness and ability to deal with all the shit by the endgame.

  539. Honestly there’s only really five scientists. Shaw and Holloway are like a couple of pseudo-scientific, obsessive, intelligent design crackpots. Don’t really see Fifield as the Carl Sagan worshiping type scientist who’s all about the higher ideals of science and its methods either. He says what he’s all about. He likes rocks and he’s just in it to get paid (maybe even in reverse order). Then the biologist Millburn seems pretty passionless and bratty almost. He could just be some shiftless idiot who fell into biology cause it was easy or maybe his daddy worked high up in the company and got him the gig to help him or as some sort of punishment. Lastly, that Scottish lady comes across as professional and seemingly aware of and potentially hand-picked by Weyland purely for his medical needs.

    Besides, does anybody really think EVERY scientist ever is some ultra-passionate crusader for the scientific method? Sure, just like every doctor is super into fighting disease and helping the needy. None of those guys are EVER just in it to get paid and bone strippers..no way. Honestly though, I’ll bet there are plenty of shallow self serving and potentially bone-headed people in the world of science and its many branches. Humans have an almost infinite capacity for idiocy. Their individual choice of career doesn’t disqualify anybody from fucking up or just generally acting like an ass.
    Does being a priest stop someone from fucking little kids?
    Does being a mother somehow assure that a woman won’t murder her own children?
    Does being an officer of the law mean that you’ll always tell the truth and never abuse your power?
    You see where I’m going with this?

    Exploring the wonders of a new world for the betterment of mankind was clearly not the purpose of this mission anyway. Especially not with this little ragtag group of “scientists”. It was for Weyland’s benefit only. Because he feels he deserves it.

    Even worse than a mid-life crisis is a Quadrillionaire’s Death Bed Crisis. The Prometheus is just an old man’s chauffeured Mega-Ferrari that he hopes will deliver him to his ultimate destiny and provide him a chance to attain the only thing he does not yet possess..immortality.

  540. And since folks keep going on about this exploratory science vessel “filled with top scientists”, maybe it would help to actually examine who’s on board, what they do, and how they go.

    Crew Member: Occupation: Cause of Death
    David isn’t so much a crew member as he is a computer with legs – Weyland’s errand boy/Toucher of stuff — Damaged but still functional
    0. Weyland – Head Motherfucker In Charge/CryoSleep — Existential deathblow delivered by a god with his synthetic son’s head.
    1. Vickers – Ice Queen/Lurker — Run Vickers Run
    2. Shaw – Archaeologious/Religious/Tsoukalicious — Survivor
    3. Holloway – Archaeologist/Bro/”Woooooooooooo!!!!!!!” — Torched
    4. Fifield – Geologist/”Punk”/Hack(he’s in it for the money) — Face melted, Zombified, torched and runned-over
    5. Millburn – Biologist/acting kind of dumb and constantly flirting and/or sucking up to Fifield — Mouthraped/Skullfucked to death
    6. Ford – Medical Officer/being fascinated by the Engineer heads state of preservation/Weyland dick scrubber — Engineer Tantrum Victim
    7. Janek – Captain/Lover/Accordianist — Heroic Sacrificial Suicide
    8. Chance – Co-pilot/Gambler/Keen weigher of odds — Hero/Loyal Til Death
    9. Ravel – Co-pilot/Gambler/Acceptor of all bets and breaks/Good sport — Hero/Also Suicidally Loyal
    10. Mechanic 1 – Milling about the hangar/Red Shirt — Fifield Victim
    11. Mechanic 2 – Looking bored in the mess hall/Red Shirt — Fifield Victim
    12. Mechanic 3 – Making a scared face when seeing Fifield/Red Shirt — Fifield Victim
    13. Mechanic 4 – Blankly staring ahead during briefing scene (possibly fantasizing about Vickers(wouldn’t you?))/Red Shirt — Fifield Victim
    14. Jackson/Mercenary 1 – Gonna assume Jackson is a merc because of his affinity for the blowtorch and his role of protecting Weyland during the confrontation on the Juggernaut (if that was even him, I might have him confused with another blowtorch wielder). — Smackdown by Engineer
    15. Mercenary 2 – Mean mugging/Weyland muscle — Fifield Victim
    16. Mercenary 3 – Weyland muscle — seems to disappear. Two guys are guarding Weyland while he’s waking. Only one is there when they head to the temple. I’m thinking there were some reshoots and some re-arranging of scenes in this last act. Possibly because of the abandoning of the more xenomorphic-esque alternate Fifield mutation design. Hard to tell.
    17. Mercenary 4 – ? I lose track of these last two people..this is other one of them..he may be the dude shaw bonked on the head in the infirmary. In that case Janek just straight up murdered the poor fucker. If not, he was just another Fifield victim and I miscounted.

  541. I saw a peanut stand,
    Heard a rubber band,
    I saw a needle that winked it’s eye.
    But I think I will have seen everything
    When I see an elephant fly.

    I saw a front porch swing,
    Heard a diamond ring,
    I saw a polka-dot railroad tie.
    But I think I will have seen everything
    When I see an elephant fly.]

    I seen a clothes horse, he r’ar up and buck
    And they tell me a man made a vegetable truck
    I didn’t see that, I only heard
    But just to be sociable, I’ll take your word.

    I heard a fireside chat,
    I saw a baseball bat
    And I just laughed till I thought I’d die.
    But I’d been done seen about everything
    When I see an elephant fly.

  542. evil black goo dna

    June 29th, 2012 at 8:19 am

    asimov

    I don`t give a fuck about what Lindehorf usually writes. And I don`t care about what other movies do with religion. And if you can`t be bothered to watch a movie you have spent several weeks and hundreds (!) of posts discussing, then you`re being an Ellis (is that okay for harsh language or am I crossing the line?).

    I`m not killing every attempt of discussing one of the most interesting and polarizing movies of the year by claiming that the movie is good because Ridley Scott is a genius and has made brilliant sci-fi before, thus concluding that Prometeus must be brilliant, am I?

    Try reading my former post again. I am making a case for Prometheus having stupid scientist because it is a important part of the plot (the part being our hero being buttfucked by a big company) I don´t think that the set-up with a scientific mission is mis-direction, I KNOW. The guy who arranged and paid for the mission explains this to our hero, and everything in the movie supports his explaination.
    THE MISSION IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC MISSION, BUT THEY PRETENDED IT WAS IN ORDER TO GET OUR HEROES TO LEAD THE DYING BILLIONAIRE TO THE ALIENS THAT CREATED THE HUMAN RACE!!!!
    If you don`t understand this, then.. then.. argh, så fatter du ikke en skid, din påståelige flueknepper.
    And since it is not a scientific mission, then why should Weyland bother to hire brilliant scientists? Why not just hire a coulpe of jerks cheaply to get our heroes to play along?
    And does anybody act stupid or unprofessional? Please mention if they do, cause I might have forgot.

    Also, what mistake does Vicki make? Are you thinking of the part where a big fucking giant spaceshift is crashlanding on her head? Are you sure that she has any rational thought in her heads at this point, or is it possible that she is thinking:
    “ohmygodIamgonnadieIdontwannadierunrunrunshitshitshitohfuckthisjob(splat)..”

    If you are right, then I thing we should discuss Alien next. It`s clearly a stupid and useless movie, cause they go to check out a distress-call, but find out that their employers actually knew it wasn`t a distress call at all. Big massive plothole right there, right? Right? And the alien is not scary at all, cause the screenwriter made another movie where the crew of the spaceship picks up an alien and it`s just a big beachball that inflates with a farting sound when they kill it. And since that alien is pretty lame, then the alien in Alien must be pretty lame too.

    *dna takes another sip of his champange and wonders if he should sign of now as the last surviving member of the Prometheus-thread before things turns ugly…

  543. – Cheston

    “Even worse than a mid-life crisis is a Quadrillionaire’s Death Bed Crisis. The Prometheus is just an old man’s chauffeured Mega-Ferrari that he hopes will deliver him to his ultimate destiny and provide him a chance to attain the only thing he does not yet possess..immortality.”

    Yes, exactly. Well put, only-guy-who-appearently-agrees-with-me.

  544. asimov,

    glad to see that you’re possibly sticking with my “STINO” suggestion instead of Fraud Trek.

  545. “If you don`t understand this, then.. then.. argh, så fatter du ikke en skid, din påståelige flueknepper”.

    I tried a lot of things, but never Danish…

  546. “Besides, does anybody really think EVERY scientist ever is some ultra-passionate crusader for the scientific method?”

    The real ones? Sure they are.

  547. asimov, that’s just not true. Between the Mengeles and the polar explorers of this world Earth’s littered with the dead bodies of stupid scientists that either worked for evil forces or just couldn’t hack it out in the wild. And that’s a fact.

  548. Mengele was not a scientist. None of those nazi loonies who experimented on prisioners were doing anything remotly science at all. They were trying to find shit that fitted intheir own dogmatic beleifs in what was accepted nazi dogma. that’s not science, it’s just crazy.

  549. Dan Prestwich, STINO was my first call to that movie. Until the Abrams fanboy zombies started to gangbang on me for daring not to have blind faith in holy Abrams. It was when i started to get nastier. STINO is still my prefered name for the movie.

  550. Cheston, wow, impressive! Good accounting job on the characters in the movie. Funny read as well. Good job.

  551. “And if you can`t be bothered to watch a movie you have spent several weeks and hundreds (!) of posts discussing, then you`re being an Ellis”

    Actually, being an Ellis is somebody who watches a movie without any capacity or interest in criticising, specially when a movie obviously falls short. An Ellis is somebody who thinks he’s too cool for school to have critical faculties and accepts bindly any crap thrown at him by cynical Holywood studios. An Ellis is a shallow soul who why shallow paplum will satisfy him.

    I’d sooner be an Hans Gruber then an Ellis. Ellisdom is not my deal. I’d rather be evil.

  552. Allright, screw this, I`m going home…

  553. “Besides, does anybody really think EVERY scientist ever is some ultra-passionate crusader for the scientific method?”

    The real ones?

    They sure are not. No sir. And there’s enough plagiarism, fraud, study bias, incompetence, lawsuits, retractions, politics, in-fighting, bitching, competetiveness, and venality in the scientific world to keep lawyers warm forever. And let’s not go near sexism.

    However, I do accept the crapness of the scientists in this BLEEDING MOVIE as being a weakness. Perhaps in the near future we all become passive aggressive nincompoops.

    Better living through medicine indeed.

    Still enjoyed it.

  554. evil black goo dna, please answer me this: Since the PROMETHEUS’s mission is to do first contact with an alien civilization which is quite clearly much more advance then the humans, in what way makes it logic sense to hire a bunch of idiots as pretend scientists, to hire the bottom of the barrel losers of any given scientific field? Regardless if the mission is based on Weyland’s selfish and egotistical self-interests, it would still be wise to get the top guys money can buy because nobody could even began to guess what they would meet. Getting the top people would be a practical necessity, regardless of what is Weyland’s agenda, science or anything else.

    Hiring a bunch of foos just to give misdirection to Shaw and pseudo-Tom Hardy makes no sense. Why would this two be so important to justify such an elaborate conspiracy? It’s obvious Weyland knows where to go, he doesn’t need the two clowns to tell him where to go. In fact, Weyland doesn’t need any of those two at all. Two other archeologists with a more rational type mind would do a better service to the mission then those two delluded fools. They wouldn’t be blinded by stupid notions of faith and wouldn’t get to hit the bottle just because on first day they didn’t get to shake hands with a living alien.

    Any way you cut it, having aship of fools and idiots makes no sense, regardless is Weyland is doing legit science or going on a fool errand for eternal life. A ship full of fools and unprofessional idiots would be suicide.

    It would be easier to numerate which characters act like professionals: Vickers and David. And still Vickers character gets saboutaged because for some weird strange reason Lindelof decided that it’s she who should die, which means Vickers then stop behaving like she had up to that point, collected, cool and rational, and becomes a panicking moron. I’m not buying.

    The Alien in ALIEN is not scary? That’s a first!!

    And i can also play that game too. Aposto que não percebes nada do que estou a escrever agora, deve pareçer tudo uma carrada de alarviada sem sentido. Ou se calhar estas a pensar que te estou a insultar a coberto de uma lingua que tu não conheçes. Gostava de ver a tua cara agora, deves estar a pensar o que raios está este gajo a dizer agora, não se percebe nada. E um tradutor online fará uma confusão danada e imperceptivel, como de costume.

  555. The Limey, that’s why i said THE REAL ones, and not the phoneys. You can’t have a portait of the scientific comunity by using the phoneys as example, that would be a misrepresetation. I said the real scientists.

  556. This thread has now become the digital equivalent to horse flogging…

  557. I meant flogging a dead horse

  558. Asimov:

    “Bet you did not understand anything of what I’m writing now, everything should look like a carload of alarviada meaningless. Or maybe they think that I’m insulting the guise of a language that you do not know. Like to see your face now, you must be thinking what on earth is this guy to say now, there is not nothing. And an online translator will make a damn mess and imperceptibly, as usual.”

    Actually it’s surprisingly clear for an online translator! Try google translating Japanese!

    But bro, I allegationed you in the STINO thread on the forums about how part of the scientific method is applying skepticism to one’s own views, and how no theory is considered valid until rigorously tested by the process of peer review. You seem to hold NO skepticism towards your own opinions and certainly seem completely IMMUNE to the thoughts of your peers. Or perhaps you don’t consider us peers but Jar Jar worshipping zombies as you put it? At any rate are you not being a bit of a SHAW?

    At any rate I did mention that the film (PROMETHEUS) ends with Shaw being like “Why were the engineers trying to exterminate us? IT’S A MYSTERY! I’m gunna go find out!” So us speculating upon why the engineers were trying to exterminate us is NOT the product of listening to Lindelhof interviews but CLEARLY something that was IN THE TEXT ITSELF. How you gonna say that it’s not in the movie? How you gonna say the movie doesn’t invite speculation about it when it’s basically lighting up the question in bright neon lights?

  559. Josef Mengele earned doctorates in anthropology from Munich University and in medicine from Frankfurt University. Sounds like a scientist to me. Crazy, evil and stupid perhaps, but a scientist none the less.

  560. (black evil goo) dna

    June 29th, 2012 at 11:29 am

    okay Asimov, I`ll explain it to you, and then I`ll go home.

    “evil black goo dna, please answer me this: Since the PROMETHEUS’s mission is to do first contact with an alien civilization which is quite clearly much more advance then the humans, in what way makes it logic sense to hire a bunch of idiots as pretend scientists, to hire the bottom of the barrel losers of any given scientific field? Regardless if the mission is based on Weyland’s selfish and egotistical self-interests, it would still be wise to get the top guys money can buy because nobody could even began to guess what they would meet. Getting the top people would be a practical necessity, regardless of what is Weyland’s agenda, science or anything else.”

    Well, as I`ve pointed out a several times: It´s only our religious and naive heroes, and the 2 scientists, who actually behave like idiots. The rest of the crew, especially the scientists and servants who follow Weyland into the alien spaceship, could be Einsteins for what we know. Neither of the members of the second expedition behaves stupid or reckless, but efficient and professionelly. Agree?

    “Hiring a bunch of foos just to give misdirection to Shaw and pseudo-Tom Hardy makes no sense. Why would this two be so important to justify such an elaborate conspiracy? It’s obvious Weyland knows where to go, he doesn’t need the two clowns to tell him where to go. In fact, Weyland doesn’t need any of those two at all. Two other archeologists with a more rational type mind would do a better service to the mission then those two delluded fools. They wouldn’t be blinded by stupid notions of faith and wouldn’t get to hit the bottle just because on first day they didn’t get to shake hands with a living alien.”

    Shaw and pseudo-Tom Hardy are clearly experts on the mysterious star map and thus the most qualified to find the engineers. And as Wayland himself puts it “I needed people who believes..” or something, when Shaw actually asks why she was on the mission in the first place, after Weyland explains that the scientific mission is boogus. I can`t remember exactly what they say, but it is just before he invites her with them to go back to the spaceship.

    “Any way you cut it, having aship of fools and idiots makes no sense, regardless is Weyland is doing legit science or going on a fool errand for eternal life. A ship full of fools and unprofessional idiots would be suicide.”
    Nope, it`s a ship of 2 religius nutters with daddy-issues, 2 stupid scientists who`s in it for the money, a very intelligent ice-queen with daddy issues, a android with daddy-issues, an captain who doesn`t give a fuck and a lot of guys who stays in the background. So, four expendable crewmembers who are sent into the alien spaceship before everybody else (the real members of the mission). Or should Weyland send in his best people first and risking their lifes? Nope, he didn`t become a billionaire because he is stupid.

    “It would be easier to numerate which characters act like professionals: Vickers and David. And still Vickers character gets saboutaged because for some weird strange reason Lindelof decided that it’s she who should die, which means Vickers then stop behaving like she had up to that point, collected, cool and rational, and becomes a panicking moron. I’m not buying.”

    My favorite characters in Alien was actually Lambert and she had the most horrific death in the movie. It didn`t make it a bad movie for me, just a even more scary horrormovie. I don`t get your point. And if you don`t buy that people panic when they have a massive spaceship crashing on top of them, then I don`t agree with view on humans. But okay, I`ll give you my explaination anyway.
    Shaw is a survivor. She grew up in foreign countries and has seen a lot of bad shit. Her doctor-daddy died when she was a kid from fucking Ebola, one of the most horrible diseases ever, and she still managed to become a scientists. She even knows a thing or two about surgery. At this point in the story, she has been in danger several times, survived a storm, been impregnated with an alien organism, performed surgery on herself, seen her boyfriend being burned alive, seen several people being smashed by a big white dude and has almost falled to her death when the ground cracks open.
    Vicker is a rich daddys girl. She has grown up in luxery. At this point in the story, she has fucked the captain and bitched a lot. Ok, she also killed a guy infected with a virus, who begged her to do it. But otherwise she hasn`t seen shit. A big spaceship is crashing on those two women. Who do you think panicks and who do you think keeps her cool?

    “The Alien in ALIEN is not scary? That’s a first!!”
    Well, it`s not scary cause the beachball in Dark Star is not scary. Just like Prometheus is stupid cause Lost and Star Trek is stupid. Sorry, I was pointing out your very annoying habbit of responding to arguments by reminding us that a writer who writes a bad movie appearently can`t write a good movie.

    Listen, Asimov… A writer on a hollywood blockbuster doesn`t write anything unless the director, the producers and the studio execs orders him to write it. Lindehorf is NOT in charge on this project. Ridley Scott and the studio is. THEY decide what he writes. A writer in Hollywood has no creative control whatsoever. Different story on tv-shows like Lost.

  561. Sorry, typos…

    “Four expendable crewmembers are sent into the alien spaceship before everybody else (the real members of the mission), cause they are expendable. Or should Weyland send in his best people first and risking their lifes? Nope, he didn`t become a billionaire because he is stupid.

  562. (black evil goo) dna, but the thing is, Lindelof is a studio man. He’s no mere wroter who has to do what he’s told, he’s part of the system. He’s credited as producer on STINO, i mean Abrams Trek. You think he’s some defenceless victim of the big bad director? Think again, he’s the studio’s golden boy. You bet your ass that in PROMETHEUS he must had out-ranked Ridley Scott, or be as powerful as he was. Scott has prestige, Lindelof has connections.

    Lindelof’s ideas of what is smart reminds me of a comedy routine by Bill Hicks: “Too stupid to understand science? Try religion”.

    As for the “risk his best people last”, Weyland was on the clock, wasn’t he? He was dying, only with cryo delaying somewhat. So, another big reason for why he should had the best people with him on the Prometheus’ mission. The clock was ticking for him.

  563. pegsman, just sounding like a scientist doesn’t make one. You have to act like one, you have to work like one, you have to think like one, you have to behave like one, you have to follow procedure like one, and most importantly, you cannot be dogmatic and fucking crazy like Mengele to be a scientist. More thinking and less puns, dude.

  564. asimov

    “As for the “risk his best people last”, Weyland was on the clock, wasn’t he? He was dying, only with cryo delaying somewhat. So, another big reason for why he should had the best people with him on the Prometheus’ mission. The clock was ticking for him.”

    He was in cryo while the expendable crew on the boogus scientific mission went in to map out the cave and find the engineers. As soon as David knew that the alienship wasn`t a deathtrap (eh.. well, kinda..) and had located a living engineer, he woke up his boss. The boss wasn`t on the clock as long as he was in cryo.

    Another sign that the stupid scientists were totally expendable in the eyes of the company: Vicker hadn`t even met them before the start of the mission. But she had met everybody else. Who hires scientists for a spacejourney without a job-interview, unless their sole purpose was to be enter the alien spaceship first in case it was a deathtrap?

  565. Man, if this is how the PROMETHEUS thread is playing out, I’m afraid of what’s gonna happen when THE DARK KNIGHT ALSO RISES comes out. I might have to leave town.

    There’s a storm coming.

    BWAAAAAAAAMP!!!!!

  566. evil black goo that mutates dna and makes him agressive and violent in a non-cool way

    June 29th, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    And seriously, asimov, I don`t give a fuck about what you think of the writer or what he reminds you of. Especially not when you have spent hundreds of posts hammering home your dislike of him again and again and again.. Your opinion is NOT an argument and USELESS in a discussion about movies. Do you understand the difference between an opinion and an argument?
    An opinion: What you think of a movie or a moviemaker.
    An argument: Why you think that the movie or moviemaker is awesome or bad.

    An example on how not to discuss movies:
    Asimov: My opinion is that Prometheus is stupid and I blame the writer.
    Me: My opinion is that Prometheus is awesome and the script is brilliant. Why do you think that the script is stupid, Asimov?
    Asimov: Cause the brilliant scientists behave stupid and unrealistic.
    Me: Well, they are supposed to behave stupid, cause the guys who arranged the mission didn`t hire the scientists for their skills, but to trick the main-characters into believing that the purpose of the mission was scientific. That`s why the scientists haven`t been briefed and that’s the reason than the other members of the crew doesn`t give a toss about them when they get lost. They just used the “stupid” scientists to make sure that the spaceship was safe for Weyland to enter. Does that make sense?
    Asimov: No, cause the screenwriter is really stupid and I hate him and his stupid movies. That’s why the scientists are stupid, cause Star Trek is stupid too, see?
    Me: Eh.. Sure.. but.. the scientists are supposed to be stupid, cause they needed to hire some stupid scientists to be willing to walk into the spaceship in order to determine if the spaceship is safe to enter for the billionaire who wants to meet the..
    Asimov: No, YOU don`t understand. The screenwriter is stupid and I hate him!
    Me: Yes, I know you don`t like…
    Asimov: I hate him, I hate him, I hate him. He reminds me of J.J Abrams. He is also stupid.
    Me: Yes, but..
    Asimov: I think Prometheus is stupid!! STUPID!
    Me: I know..
    Asimov: Why did they kill off my favourite character? That`s bad screenwriting. Stupid Lindelof.
    Me: Well, it`s an old trick in horror to kill of supporting characters that the audiences like, in order to raise the tension and uncertainty of the main-character`s fate..
    Asimov: NO. It was bad screenwriting, cause Lindejerk is a bad screenwriter.
    Me: (runs off)

    See? Opinions does not substitute arguments in a discussion and brings forth the worst in the guy you`re discussing the movie with.

  567. dna, what you see as deliberate expendability, i see terrible writing and very poor story planing completly dependent of the oldest cliches in existence in the horror genre. You are putting more thought into the movie then the writer of the movie itself, i’m affraid.

  568. evil black goo that mutates dna and makes him agressive and violent in a non-cool way, oh boy, how did you missed the mark. You missed the mark as michael bay did with pearl harbor, and that’s a lot, baby!

  569. Mr. Majestyk, i’m bracing myself for that. Maybe i’ll follow your cue and skip town as well

  570. asimov: “More thinking and less puns, dude.”

    Is that what you’re doing? Thinking? Repeating 200 times that Prometheus is bad because you don’t like the writer isn’t “thinking”, my friend, that’s…well, I’ll stop here before I say something I’ll regrett.

  571. This conversation isn’t going too well…

  572. Shut the fuck up and move on,people. Can´t we just agree on disagreeing…?

  573. ShootMcKay, it’s a comendable attitude that you have, but if mankindhad been doing that since the begining, we would still be in the stone age and never had discovered fire. It’s not discussingthat’s the problem, that’a god thing, and why becuse of it the greeks build the civilizatin from with ours is based. It’s from discussion about things that science emerged. The problem is just if people get asshole about about it.

  574. pegsman, time to start ignorig you again.

  575. Shoot, Vern and everybody else, I’m sorry for having been one of the “assholes” (as asimov so delicately puts it, usually right before he starts ignoring me) that made this into one of the longest threads in the history of movie threads. I foolishly thought that the burden of proof lied with the accuser, but you can safely say that I was wrong about that. Oh, just ignore me…

  576. I’ma cut throught the babbling — This movie is wack as fuck.

    Nobody can answer my main questions & complaints —
    -FassbenderBot is ultra-powerful. Stupid powerful, insanely smart & autonomous. I do not accept him as a character, unless PROMETHEUS is supposed to be a silly knockoff of LIFEFORCE or FORBIDDEN PLANET or something.
    Dude knows every ancient language, with fluency. Dude viddies human dreams, with cinematic clarity. That shit is so goddamned stupid. At least in INCEPTION, the filmatists left some knowing ambiguity when they showed the dream-sleep-machines, tacitly acknowledging (by *not* acknowledging) the ridiculousness of the dream mechanism.
    FassbenderBot is beyond Dave from 2001, beyond C3PO. He’s like one of those computer systems in bad, goofy sci-fi where you go, “Computer, breakfast” and magically an omelet & bloody mary pops up, or you bring in an injured person and dude automatically scans the patient and has all the knowledge necessary to perform surgery & heal with a single scan of some mystery taser thingy.

    -Quit calling Vickers “ice queen.” That’s some sexist bullshit right there.

    -What the fuck is Shaw gonna eat & drink after she exits LV-226 at the end? She’s going to perish, Allah willing, within days after FassbenderBot magically achieves liftoff with his inexplicable Engineer finger-light-button prowess.
    There is no sequel to PROMETHEUS. Shaw is hours from death at the end, unless the writers ignore this narrative inconvenience.

  577. Oh yeah, and the timeline of the mission — when people upthread talk about “stupid scientists” this and that, I don’t agree or disagree, they might be smart or idiotic or both, but I just can not get over how fucking stupid & lacking every member of the Prometheus crews’s sense of urgency is.

    You don’t have to be an Army guy to grasp the significance of speed, efficiency, & thoroughness during the most important space mission of all human history, and every character fails on this front. None of these dickheads has the prudence & professional commitment to focus on the goddamn mission for 96 hours? They have to have sex breaks and a flask of liquor on them? They *just* got there, and they’re already in chill mode, like they’ve already seen everything, like it’s no big deal. What the fuck?!?!?!?

    One scene they’re on a minute-by-minute mission crunch, the next scene they’re decorating x-mas trees for no reason, the next scene they’re impatient to get to the Engineer lair, the next scene they’re hooking up and getting drunk on the ship while their colleagues play with a stray sidewalk pet that happens to be a snake dick monster, the next scene they’re guessing that the strange planet’s storm will pass (despite a baffling utter absence of local meterological data), the next scene…….

    It makes absofuckinglutely no fucking sense.

    This kind of jarring tonal shift from scene to scene is something I expect & enjoy in shitty high school comedies or musicals, not major blockbusters with A-level Hollywood talent at the helm.

  578. Yeah, sorry about getting all assholy and stuff. I do think it`s funny to discuss this movie, so I`ll try to offer my perspective on Mouths questions and complaints.

    “-FassbenderBot is ultra-powerful. Stupid powerful, insanely smart & autonomous… “

    Re Fassbinderbot: I didn`t really think about how powerful he is, but one of my issues with the movie while watching it, was that the ship and android are so advanced compared to Nostradamus and Ash. In hindsight, though, it makes sense that Weyland uses the best and most advanced technology on his own (ego)trip, and the crew of Nostradamus gets the shitty ship and android. Cause rich people suck. But I don`t really question the technology of the future in sci-fi movies, unless it is incredible stupid.

    “-Quit calling Vickers “ice queen.” That’s some sexist bullshit right there. “

    Why is it sexist? Should Quit call Vickers “Ice person” instead? Even if it is sexist, it doesn`t matter to me. A sexist character doesn`t make a movie sexist imo.

    “-What the fuck is Shaw gonna eat & drink after she exits LV-226 at the end? She’s going to perish, Allah willing, within days after FassbenderBot magically achieves liftoff with his inexplicable Engineer finger-light-button prowess. There is no sequel to PROMETHEUS. Shaw is hours from death at the end, unless the writers ignore this narrative inconvenience.”

    Cryosleep, dude…

    “You don’t have to be an Army guy to grasp the significance of speed, efficiency, & thoroughness during the most important space mission of all human history, and every character fails on this front. None of these dickheads has the prudence & professional commitment to focus on the goddamn mission for 96 hours? They have to have sex breaks and a flask of liquor on them? They *just* got there, and they’re already in chill mode, like they’ve already seen everything, like it’s no big deal. What the fuck?!?!?!?”

    I`m not sure that anybody, except Shaw, her boyfriend and Weyland, thinks of this mission as the most important mission ever. When Shaw briefs them about the spacemap, they either make fun of her or look bored. Also, the slogan of the company is “building better worlds”, so I assumed that most of the crew have been on several other planets before. Notice that the only crewmembers who pukes their guts out, are Shaw,her boyfriend and the 2 incompetent scientists. It`s just another day at the office for the rest of the crew and the characters doesn`t know that they`re in a Alien-prequel, so they might not be as alert as us, the audience.

    Anyway, that´s was my thoughts while watching the movie.

  579. It did piss me off that Shaw recorded a log-entry on an alien spaceship, though. That doesn`t make sense at all.

  580. At the risk of seeming pedantic, dna, it’s Nostromo, not Nostradamus.

  581. Can we get an official call for the comparison to nazis in this thread? It took a while but we finally got there.

  582. Since I was the one who brought in Josef Mengele, let me just say that I did so because you-know-who said that all scientists are top notch, great humanitarians that always work relentlessly for human good. And just to be an even bigger asshole than usual, let me also mention that the Nazis were christians.

  583. Mouth, alot of your complaints are true, but the “storm will pass” part is a brilliant moment because of the way Idris Elba winces when he says it. He really has no idea, he’s thinks he probly giving them a death sentence, but he has no other choice.

    I saw it again last night. The problems are amplified the second time for me, but so are the parts I loved. I forget, was it DNA who called it “Friday the 13th in space”? I see what you’re talking about now with the people hooking up and the mohawk guy smoking weed in his respirator (or maybe something else, since I really can’t believe weed will be rebellious in 80 years).

    But I feel stronger about my interpretation of the instant-classic medipod scene as having a satirical subtext about reproductive rights. Check out the scene where David tells her she’s pregnant. He talks about what “we” have to do and how “it must hurt,” robotic imitations of sympathy without giving her a say in her own health.

    I heard that alot of people say that it falls apart when Guy Pearce shows up, but I strongly disagree, I think that’s all the best stuff and what makes it stand out as something different and not just a dumber offshoot of the Alien series. I love what we were talking about earlier, Shaw being a final girl who goes through more bodily trauma that just about anybody. I see so many action movies, including ones I love, where people get thrown out of cars and dropped off of planes and keep going and you kind of forget that it even happened except they have a little blood on their forehead. Shaw is still dropping to her knees screaming, you always remember how much pain she’s in, and she keeps going.

    And I know at the end she’s stubbornly refused to learn her lesson, but I love the little character moment when she asks David’s head where her cross is. Like, we’ll have this truce, but you gotta give me my necklace back. My dad gave me that.

    Another great moment: Vickers pumping the flamethrower to make sure it works as she approaches the door. Wish she got more chances to be badass like that. Wish she didn’t get squooshed.

    Question: what was the footage of the little girl playing violin, wasn’t that from her flashback? I ask because it’s playing on the screen when she comes into Vickers’s pod at the end. Did she walk into a nightmare and see her own dreams playing?

  584. – vern

    I think that the little girl was Vickers. The pod was properly Weylands, that`s why the medipod was for a man. The big softie had holograms of his daughter on the wall.

  585. I thought the girl playing the violin was part of a *cultural montage* the ship had been beaming out towards the Engineers’ planet, hoping to get a response. It was an educational video demonstrating “hey we’re a civilized culture, here’s shit we accomplished”. So it’s probably not Vickers but some child prodigy, worthy of representing all of humanity or sumpin.

  586. This is no longer a thread; it’s a rope.

  587. The Original... Paul

    July 1st, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Did you guys go see this film two – or more – times, just so that you could make points on the internet about it?

    I’m not judging (I went to see “Cabin in the Woods” twice because I thought I’d been overly harsh to it in my first review and wanted to set things straight). I’m just curious.

  588. – paul

    Nope, I`ve seen it once in 2D. I had very low expectations, but totally loved it.

  589. Jareth Cutestory

    July 2nd, 2012 at 8:08 am

    I just saw it once too, in 2D. It’s difficult to justify sitting through such an unnecessary movie again. And anyway, the Red Letter Media guys did all the heavy lifting with their four-minutes-of-unresolved-questions routine.

    But I wonder if it would prolong the life of this thread if I admitted that I like PROMETHEUS way more than AVENGERS.

  590. Finally saw it with the lowest of low expectations (everyone I know in real life hated it, including people who like EVERYTHING) – and honestly I think it’s even worse than I’ve heard. It wasn’t scary, wasn’t exciting, wasn’t particularly thought-provoking (except for the dozens and dozens of wtf plot holes/questions). The performances (they tried their hardest) didn’t move me, the characters didn’t engage me. Granted, it’s kind of hard when the script makes everyone change their character from scene to scene. I didn’t even think it looked that great at my showing (in 3D but non Imax) – it basically looked about as good as Tron:Legacy, with a script to match. (Yes, i think the script is just as head-scratching and nonsensical as Tron 2. I might even go as far to say it’s as incoherent as Transformers 2 or 3.)

    This thread is long enough with complaints (almost all of which I agree with) – so the main thing I’ll add is that the only way this movie even passes muster (and I’m 100% positive it was NOT the filmmaker’s intentions) – is as a Vanilla Sky/Sucker Punch-esque popculture mashup of scifi genre iconography. Obviously the plot and design parallels to Planet of the Vampires are well-documented and obvious (it’s on Netflix Instant). The archaeology angle and hieroglyphics leading to the aliens/creators is straight from Stargate and AVP(!). The mysterious black goo from the X-Files that turns your eyes black. The body-horror via spiked alcoholic drink from Leviathan. (Plus the eel/snake from Leviathan) The hulking, scarred psychotic dude from Sunshine and Event Horizon. Hell, you could even throw in the “hey let’s take off our helmets!” bit from Red Planet and the giant octopus tentacles in the spaceship from The Darkness’ “I Believe in a Thing Called Love” video if you’re feeling generous. It’s like Lindelof got real high while watching a whole bunch of outerspace/horror movies and wrote a script incorporating ALL OF IT, and if you don’t like it, well that’s your problem pal, your expectations were too high/you were expecting Alien/it’s not Shakespeare/go back to watching romantic comedies/you’re not smart enough to understand/you need everything spelled out for you, etc….

    Anyways, I actually would seriously rank this below EVERY MOVIE I listed above. This movie would be lucky to have characters half as engaging as in Leviathan. I’d put Soderbergh Solaris and Mission to Mars over it as well (that one at least had a few amazing sequences, and addressed the “where did life come from?” question without a climax involving fighting a pro-wrestler-looking dude with a fireaxe)

  591. That’s an awesome bibliography you lay down for the film, neal2zod. Good journalism.

  592. Thx Renfield – oh and it seemed familiar at the time but I finally put my finger on it – didn’t Walter Hill’s Supernova also feature a hulking roided psycho killer and a lady who couldn’t get pregnant who is then later made pregnant via vague DNA nonsense? (And yes, I liked Supernova better than Prometheus too. Naked Robin Tunney goes a long way)

    I’ll add one more thing – I really don’t know ANYONE who gave a shit about the origin of the space jockey. None of my non-internet friends who aren’t film geeks like us even REMEMBER the fucking space jockey (I mean shit, if the internet didn’t exist, would anyone even be calling it the space jockey? I still don’t even understand why we call it that) In the last few months, I know you and I and everyone else had to explain to our girlfriends/significant others “yeah don’t you remember that giant elephant-looking statue thing in Alien 1? No?” It’s just dumb and kind of insulting that Ridley Scott tried to justify this whole movie like he was doing us some great favor by answering one of cinema’s greatest lingering questions.

    Personally I had more questions about the ‘arterian(?) poontang’ they spoke of in Aliens. I mean, there’s OTHER ALIENS in the Alien universe (that aren’t Predators), aliens that Colonial Marines like to have sex with and don’t even care if they’re male or female. Where’s the fucking James Cameron prequel to that?

  593. Neal, I like PROMETHEUS but you’re right. I NEVER wondered about the space jockey in ALIEN. And when Ridley started talking about the prequel and it was space jockey this, space jockey that, I was like, “What the fuck was the space jockey?” Now that it was pointed out to me, I thought, oh cool I’ll see a movie about that guy. But it was never something I even noticed in the first movie.

  594. Sad to hear that you hated PROMETHEUS, neal2zod. Despite our best efforts to lower expectations, it’s still a movie that causes the different compartments of a viewer’s brain to fight each other, a 2 hour excercise in frustration & futility, and nobody likes to spend money on that shit.

    Good point about MISSION TO MARS, a movie with her share of bizarre, baffling moments & almost-PROMETHEUSean plot holes. But I agree there are several stunning set pieces & moments that make it worthwhile, especially that wacky ending.

    I neither respect nor intellectually accept the answers offered by M2M’s ending, but I give her mad respect for providing a unique, stimulating climactic answer and for scriptorially & filmatistically aiming for the stars and at least landing on Mars, or something like that — that’s a clever twist on a metaphor/aphorism that shares a literal habitat with the title of the movie, which is a confusing metaphor to use in this situation in my opinion. Sorry.

  595. It’s funny, it seems like a clear majority here hate PROMETHEUS with a passion, but of the people I know in real life I have only talked to one person who didn’t like it, and one of his complaints was it “looked too slick” and he’s also my only friend who doesn’t like ALIENS (I’m not gonna defend him) so I don’t really take it too seriously. Literally ever other person I’ve talked to about it – 10 people so far I think – were on the exact same page as me: there were alot of things about it that were stupid. I really enjoyed it though and want to see it again.

    I’m not trying to prove anything, it’s just unusual for me to have that disparity. Or at least not in that direction, ’cause some of these guys can be snobs.

    As for the issue of “did people want to see what the deal with the space jockeys was?” Well, I did, and also think it should’ve been left (more of) a mystery. But I don’t think the movie ever does that prequel thing of acting like it’s important to explain something. For example it doesn’t in any way link up with the characters or locations of ALIEN. Until you asked that question it never occurred to me that anybody thought they should be going to it with burning questions. To me it’s not saying “here’s where that skeleton dude came from,” it’s saying “instead of doing the whole chestburster thing yet again why don’t we have a story about these other guys.”

    I think it’s badly written in many ways and obviously Lindelof deserves some blame (although Drew McWeeny claims he was basically just taking dictation from Scott). But I think he deserves credit for taking it a little bit away from ALIEN. Apparently the earlier draft was more the direct prequel to ALIEN that people expected and Lindelof’s contribution was to make it not about aliens or setting up ALIEN.

  596. Jareth Cutestory

    July 2nd, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Vern: In particular, I think it was quite deft how that self-surgery scene relied entirely on the audience’s knowledge of what the little bugger that was growing inside the main character would do if left to its own devices, yet Scott managed to construct a very tense sequence with overly-familiar elements without once pandering in a way that we’ve seen in any of the other iterations of chest-bursting, or in prequels in general. (Bonus points for the surgery machine not reminding me of the suicide booths from Futurama until long after leaving the theater.)

    The ham-fisted ending, of course, pretty much spent all the goodwill from the self-surgery scene.

    Personally, I think PROMETHEUS would have been so much better if 95% of the dialogue was simply removed.

    neal2zod: I watched the original ALIEN for the first time in years in preparation for PROMETHEUS, paying special note to the “space jockey” stuff. I was surprised at how little the dude is on screen, but also at how he isn’t even revealed in some dramatic way. The camera certainly doesn’t linger on him.

  597. Despite it having problems, it was a watchable film and enjoyable on the merits that it had. It’s not that bad.

    I just think a lot of people felt let down and just let it rip.

  598. I’ve hade the same experience. Everyone I’ve talked to, including people I really trust, liked it. And it got 5 out of 6 stars in all the major newspapers. Go figure.

  599. Jareth — I first watched ALIEN on a VHS I checked out of the local library on a TV which was regular-sized at the time but now would seem laughably small. Result: I never even noticed the Space Jokey was in there separate from the other architecture. I watched it that way long enough that I simply tuned him out each time I went back and did a double take when PROMETHEUS discussion started to focus on him.

    Vern — The movie is so full of problems its hard not to focus on them, but I honestly sort of enjoyed it, in a weird way. It’s such a bizarre and arbitrary film, but it’s also full of really fucking nutty and surreal moments you could never see in a normal film. My solution is to compare it to Spielberg’s A.I., another film which I think everyone can agree doesn’t work the way it ought to but nonetheless is really compelling in its own strange way. As flagrantly bad as lots about PROMETHEUS is, there’s really nothing else quite like it, at least the way in which it blends expensive effects with arbitrary plotting and intentionally antagonizing teasing details. I’ve only seen PROMETHEUS once, though, so I don’t know how well it will hold up on multiple viewings.

  600. That’s the thing – I think Ridley Scott has made 3 masterpieces worthy of putting in a museum or played in film class – Alien, Blade Runner, and Black Hawk Down – and I didn’t like any of these movies until maybe the 3rd or 4th viewing and a few years of perspective.

    Alien and Blade Runner got less “boring” and more mesmerizing to look at as I got older and started to appreciate film in a way I couldn’t when I was a kid. I thought Black Hawk Down actually had some Promethian flaws – it was fairly incoherent – you couldn’t tell who the hell was who, the main character (I guess) isn’t really engaging and fairly reactive to everything. But now it’s one of my favorite movies. I seriously doubt Prometheus will grow on me, but who knows.

    By the way, I think the only Ridley Scott movie I enjoyed right off the bat was Gladiator. People shit on it now, and the action sequences could be better, but it’s a really, really engaging story with a badass lead character and an awesome villain. I think if it didn’t win the Oscar, people would remember it as an excellent rock em sock em adventure and not give it such a hard time.

  601. Jareth Cutestory

    July 3rd, 2012 at 7:16 am

    Mr. Subtlety: I guess it says something about the dedication of the fans that they were able to plunder the depths of their grainy VHS copies of ALIEN for the crucial information of which kind of underwear the giant space dude was wearing (ie. not boxers or briefs). Good job, nerds!

    Although I have to say I wish these nerds had applied the same pressure on George Lucas to make a prequel movie about that little robot that looks like a car battery on wheels. The stories that little fellow could tell.

  602. I always kind of wondered about the space jockey, but only because I wanted to know if the alien that burst out of his chest would have been proportional to his size, the way the one in ALIEN 3 was bigger and more of a quadruped because (at least in the extended cut) it was born from a cow.

    It sounds like PROMETHEUS does not answer that question for me.

  603. Jareth Cutestory

    the last shot of the space jockey in ALIEN does in fact linger on him, as the light from the Nostromo guys move away. Indeed, I think it now has a more sinister feel now than it originally did with just the spooky music.

    I was pondering something Asimov said, as I often do, regarding Weyland as a mega rich guy choosing the best team as his best chance for a successful mission (his goal being immortality). Result – doom!

    Then it came to me (sorry about this): ‘George Lucas’. There’s a mega rich guy that had a chance to pick the best team as his best chance for a successful mission (making a good fucking STAR WARS movie again). Result – Jar Jar.

    I think that speaks for itself.

  604. Rehydrated Dehydrated Pirate Paul

    July 3rd, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Vern – I didn’t hate it. Can’t be much more positive than that, but I didn’t hate it. It just left me scratching my head that a film that tried to cram in as many ideas as this one did turned out to be as uninteresting as this one was. Although it definitely says something about a film when the audience reaction to it is arguably more interesting than the film itself.

    This is why you and I disagree on “Blade 2”. To me that was a film that just tried to throw EVERYTHING geeky / nerdy at the screen – hey look, vampire ninja battle! Death squad led by Ron Perlman! Science geek who turns out to be secretly evil! – with the end result that the film was actually a lot less compelling / cool to me than the original “Blade”, which I think was a lot more self-contained and tightly-plotted. I think that you – you specifically now Vern, not the general “you” – can separate these things out from the overall “experience” and judge them on their own merits. Whereas I have a problem doing that. If something doesn’t “fit” into a film, it will stick with me as a negative, even if it might be pretty awesome on its own.

    Going back to “Prometheus”… a prime example of that might be the “abortion” scene. (Although I do love what somebody above – please don’t make me wade through the fifty thousand comments to find out who! – pointed out regarding it being a metaphor for the American health services and anti-abortion lobby.) I think I could’ve “got into” this scene a lot more if it had been part of a better film, or if I wasn’t distracted by wondering where the hell the guards chasing Shaw had disappeared off to, or if I cared about Shaw’s character.

    But as it is… yes, it’s done very well, but I just can’t separate it from the rest of the movie surrounding it. And for that reason, as good as that one scene is, it leaves me cold. Which is a damn shame because it should’ve been a helluva lot more affecting than it was to me. (Although admittedly that might be the bodyshock horror fan talking. I’ve seen every permutation of the “alien invades human body”-type horror going.)

  605. I just watched this movie,you´ve all been bickering about and I really enjoyed it. The thing is, when I watch a movie in the theatre ( or for the first time ) I tend to look at the movie as a whole and don´t get bogged down in details as much. I liked the epic landscapes, the haunting soundtrack ( they even used music cues lifted from ALIEN) and the effects. Maybe I am more a fan of the concept behind the movie than the actual execution, but the story is fine with me. I like how it connects with ALIEN even though its more of a “George Lucasian”- afterthought with the aliens being a bio-weapon. and all that.

    The scientists are dumb in this flick,thats my only real complaint as of now. Pretty much anything that befalls them are their own damn fault

  606. Complaining about Blade 2? That’s just not okay.

  607. Also, what I find hilarious are these bio engineered things that was supposed to be used against humans actually backfired against our “creators”. Does that seem familiar? I thought this was a standard human trademark. I guess now we know were we got that stupid ability.

  608. I did not approve ofthe last sequence in the movie, where that “xenomorphic”-looking creature appeared. I was facepalming and going like “aww,muthafuckas,you didn´t?!”

  609. Vickers is actually the smart one here,despite her extreme bitchiness. She tells the do-gooders to NOT make contact with whatever aliens they can find. That´s as sensible behaviour as you´d expect from decent leadership on an expedition as this. But DO they? Oh no… they just let themselves get killed. You know, just because something is unknown, it doesn´t mean its friendly. But Jesus,Christ! This shit is as unknown as it gets! Act accordingly.

  610. I meant to write ” You know,just because something is unknown, doesn´t mean its hostile. But Jesus Christ! This shit is as unknown as it gets! Act accordingly!”

  611. I have to agree with Mouth about calling Vickers an “ice queen” or a “bitch”. If that character was male, I’m pretty sure people would be describing him with words like: stoic, tough, determined, pragmatic, all-business, professional or hard-boiled. These all have positive connotations. Even if you wanted to go more negative, maybe you’d call him hardheaded or cold. You certainly wouldn’t call him a bitch or an ice king or whatever.

    “Ice queen” just sou