So Ridley Scott is directing an Alien prequel... (The official Prometheus Thread)

[A24 5,155]

RT: Prometheus: 206 reviews counted: 74%! Damn, I'm still 4% off!

Audience: 75%

Audience and critics agree, it's a good 7/10 movie.

[Quintus 6,494]

Hey score boy, what percentage do you forsee yourself giving the movie?

[crocodile 9,724]

Its better than the Avengers.

No it's not, that's the great irony, because The Avengers doesn't aim high. But at least it has character and plot. And themes and ideas that actually pay off (however simple they are). Prometheus has none of that.

Karol

[Quintus 6,494]

The Avengers is brisk and fun. A more successful movie than Prometheus.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

The courtesy has sort of been ignored in this thread but I'll warn anyway - spoilers below.

I just got out of the film earlier tonight, so while it's still fresh I'll try to analyze it with everyone else's criticisms in mind. Lee and Karol severely overreacted here. Trash, shite? Really? Get over your disappointment and look at this rationally, the film is far from bad. I'll start off with the visuals; I saw it in 2D (I hate how we have to clarify this nowadays, I'll never watch a film in 3D again). The effects are nothing short of superb; paired with the cinematography they blend well and look as convincing as anything I've seen to date. The film has a really nice color tone to it, a bit gray but enough starkness and contrast to keep it looking sharp.

Obviously the major problem with this film lies in its script, which is not poorly written, but problematic nonetheless. Its story is simple: scientists discover a planet that could explain the origin of our species. They go check it out, problems ensue. That's more or less it, and what makes it problematic are the characters. I had no trouble understanding what happened on this planet. Our species, which is much more advanced than what we thought, ran into a little problem here with another life form. How it connects to Alien is simple. The alien DNA got filtered through ours and that spawned the giant face hugger which led to the xenomorph. It figured a way off the planet and voila. How these more advanced humans relate to us is not really explained. Obviously they want us dead, Shaw wants to know why but she doesn't get the answer. We don't need to know it. The prologue doesn't make sense to me, however. The guy consumes the black liquid, and it destroys him on a molecular level. It is the source of everything it seems, but this where I would have liked to know more. What it did to Charlie and how it resurrected him; and what was it meant to do initially? Tying it all back to the character issue, they are all poorly developed, so it doesn't help the story they're in. Clearly Shaw is the protagonist, but in terms of screen time and how she relates to the events in the film, she doesn't stand out. Everyone blends into a group quite well, and thus none of them gets the arc that they need to make the film work on a greater level. As I mentioned in the other thread, Janek is my favorite character. His character works and Elba brings a lot to it. Everyone else are kinda just there, and it gets a bit messy when Guy Pearce is introduced and Shaw gives herself the cesarian (though that scene in particular was great).

Streitenfeld's underscore and Gregson-Williams' theme work to great effect in the film. It really punches the film forward when it needs it, and sits back when it doesn't. Well spotted, I thought, and the classical piece at the credits was a good choice too. Pietro Scalia's editing is on point as usual. Elba, Fassbender, Rapace, and Theron all deliver fine performances, but again no one really shines, and that has to do with the screenplay, which I see was written by a first-timer. I believe Lindelof was brought in to rewrite it, no?

Anyway, a good movie, an enjoyable experience, but really held back by the script, in my opinion.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[Quintus 6,494]

Charlie was the second biggest dickhead in the movie. Just sayin'.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[crocodile 9,724]

The courtesy has sort of been ignored in this thread but I'll warn anyway - spoilers below.

I just got out of the film earlier tonight, so while it's still fresh I'll try to analyze it with everyone else's criticisms in mind. Lee and Karol severely overreacted here. Trash, shite? Really? Get over your disappointment and look at this rationally, the film is far from bad. I'll start off with the visuals; I saw it in 2D (I hate how we have to clarify this nowadays, I'll never watch a film in 3D again). The effects are nothing short of superb; paired with the cinematography they blend well and look as convincing as anything I've seen to date. The film has a really nice color tone to it, a bit gray but enough starkness and contrast to keep it looking sharp.

Obviously the major problem with this film lies in its script, which is not poorly written, but problematic nonetheless. Its story is simple: scientists discover a planet that could explain the origin of our species. They go check it out, problems ensue. That's more or less it, and what makes it problematic are the characters. I had no trouble understanding what happened on this planet. Our species, which is much more advanced than what we thought, ran into a little problem here with another life form. How it connects to Alien is simple. The alien DNA got filtered through ours and that spawned the giant face hugger which led to the xenomorph. It figured a way off the planet and voila. How these more advanced humans relate to us is not really explained. Obviously they want us dead, Shaw wants to know why but she doesn't get the answer. We don't need to know it. The prologue doesn't make sense to me, however. The guy consumes the black liquid, and it destroys him on a molecular level. It is the source of everything it seems, but this where I would have liked to know more. What it did to Charlie and how it resurrected him; and what was it meant to do initially? Tying it all back to the character issue, they are all poorly developed, so it doesn't help the story they're in. Clearly Shaw is the protagonist, but in terms of screen time and how she relates to the events in the film, she doesn't stand out. Everyone blends into a group quite well, and thus none of them gets the arc that they need to make the film work on a greater level. As I mentioned in the other thread, Janek is my favorite character. His character works and Elba brings a lot to it. Everyone else are kinda just there, and it gets a bit messy when Guy Pearce is introduced and Shaw gives herself the cesarian (though that scene in particular was great).

Streitenfeld's underscore and Gregson-Williams' theme work to great effect in the film. It really punches the film forward when it needs it, and sits back when it doesn't. Well spotted, I thought, and the classical piece at the credits was a good choice too. Pietro Scalia's editing is on point as usual. Elba, Fassbender, Rapace, and Theron all deliver fine performances, but again no one really shines, and that has to do with the screenplay, which I see was written by a first-timer. I believe Lindelof was brought in to rewrite it, no?

Anyway, a good movie, an enjoyable experience, but really held back by the script, in my opinion.

So you're saying the script is not that bad, but the characters are poorly developed. Doesn't make sense to me, mate.

You see, I have no problems with the concept and basic story idea of this film, the thing that you seem to be so excited about. I get what it's trying to do. I get all the "irony of a sterile woman that gives birth to the new species" theme and all that. It's not WHAT story they're telling, but the EXECUTION of these ideas through characters and plot. On this level the film is a massive, massive failure. On top of that, it's not interesting, or scary, or exciting. The audience talked and laughed over the film at my showing. It's a fairly good idea badly put together.

And I would have liked had the film stayed away from the Alien series, as they promised. It's not good if you know exactly what the last shot will look like 60 minutes before it happens. You're watching a movie about "engineers', "gods" and "creating life" and, yeah, "sterile woman" set in the same universe as the Alien films. What a surprise, schock, horror! It's all so ham-fisted.

Add al this pompous cosmic-scale speeches on top of that where characters explain why this film is a serious s-f, and you end up with bad indigestion.

Karol

[Thor 9,362]

Man, I have to stop clicking on this thread. The negativity is stunning. Guess I'm still hoping for a bit of 'balance to the force'.

[Quintus 6,494]

Sorry we didn't all love it, Thor. On the plus side I did love Tintin - a movie of equal hype and expectation. I mention that because it almost seems like you believe the "negativity" surrounding Prometheus is trollish and mean spirited.

[publicist 4,650]

Normally he relishes being the odd man out-role, so don't worry.

[Quintus 6,494]

Yep.

[A24 5,155]

Man, I have to stop clicking on this thread. The negativity is stunning. Guess I'm still hoping for a bit of 'balance to the force'.

I'm trying to offer that by placing the negativity of an enclosed place like JWfan against the reality of the real world.

[Quintus 6,494]

Again, because on this occasion it suits him, Alex is all for the opinion of average Joe and his buddies on imdb.

Let us just remember that the next time he's sneering at 'them' as if he's trying to pass himself off as some sort of aloof erudite (in his dreams).

[A24 5,155]

Again, because on this occasion it suits him, Alex is all for the opinion of average Joe and his buddies on imdb.

There's nothing wrong with IMDb. In the end, the opinion of the general audience is never that different from the critics. Say, why do you speak about me as if I'm not here, Quint, the negative?

Hey score boy, what percentage do you forsee yourself giving the movie?

Knowing myself, I'll probably flush it through the toilet.

Nobody here is more critical for the science fiction genre than me. I hate most of them, even though it's my favorite genre.

[Quintus 6,494]

For comic effect. It's all in jest, Alex. Fellas in groups continuously take the piss out of each other, directly and indirectly. It's a basic and very much practised form of social interaction.

You can counter it if you want by telling me it's merely my way of hiding and drawing attention away from my own failings and inner demons. If you can do it in the form of a deeply cutting joke then you have cracked it!

[A24 5,155]

Yes ... it's something the Koray still must master.

[Quintus 6,494]

Glad you didn't take issue with my deliberately patronising tone

[Thor 9,362]

Normally he relishes being the odd man out-role, so don't worry.

Not really, no. I just like to be honest, and it appears that my opinions and preferences frequently run counter to the majority views on some issues.

But nice to know that you enjoyed TINTIN, Quint. We agree on that. Except for an over-reliance on swirling cameras (digital cinematography gone haywire!), it was a pure feast!

[Jay 46,241]

I don't think he's seen it either.

Are you calling me a liar?

Woah, why jump to an insane conclusion like that? I just couldn't remember if he had seen it or not. That's why I said "think". Sheesh!

[Brónach 1,330]

Nobody here is more critical for the science fiction genre than me. I hate most of them, even though it's my favorite genre.

I identify with this sentiment.

[A24 5,155]

Woah, why jump to an insane conclusion like that? I just couldn't remember if he had seen it or not. That's why I said "think". Sheesh!

Are you calling me insane?

[Quintus 6,494]

Normally he relishes being the odd man out-role, so don't worry.

Not really, no. I just like to be honest, and it appears that my opinions and preferences frequently run counter to the majority views on some issues.

But nice to know that you enjoyed TINTIN, Quint. We agree on that. Except for an over-reliance on swirling cameras (digital cinematography gone haywire!), it was a pure feast!

But that ridiculously long one-shot action sequence was a major highlight and an absolute marvel of staging, man!

[KK 3,313]

Its better than the Avengers.

No it's not, that's the great irony, because The Avengers doesn't aim high. But at least it has character and plot. And themes and ideas that actually pay off (however simple they are). Prometheus has none of that.

Karol

I get what you mean. But Prometheus was at the very least engaging and entertaining while viewing it. The Avengers was predictable in every sense (understandably of course) with the occaisonal jabs at humour which helped sustain the film.

Prometheus is a flawed work, but at the very least it is an engaging film. If you're able to let go of all the thin characters and plot holes, then you could come out of the film very entertained. Only later will you realize how flawed it was.

The prologue doesn't make sense to me, however. The guy consumes the black liquid, and it destroys him on a molecular level. It is the source of everything it seems, but this where I would have liked to know more. What it did to Charlie and how it resurrected him; and what was it meant to do initially?

This is exactly I was wondering about Koray and I mentioned it in my write up.

What are you talking about? It never resurrected Charlie.

Yes it did. Somewhere during Shaw's surgical procedure (which was pretty damn scary), Charlie was resurrected into some mindless, man-killing zombie. That was a big wtf moment because it completely breaks down the purpose of the black liquid. That and the reptile that killed the two guys in the cave...where did that come from? And what did it have to do with the black liquid?

Ultimately those scenes were just added to pump up the adrenaline and scare the audience even more. Its meaningless and cheap attempts to keep the audience frightened like that bring down the film.

David's plan was to have Charlie drink the black goo, because he kew Charlie would have sex with Shaw later on (how did he know they would have sex before Charlie would die? Ask Lindelof!) and that would create some biological mumbo-jumbo that would lead to the birth of the very first facehugger. And what a cutie pie it is!

I got that. And that first facehugger is huge. But it completely ruins the point of the prologue (although it was a beautiful sequence). The black liquid killed the engineer, as Koray said, on a molecular level. But later it seems to give birth to aliens and resurrect its victims. Did the engineers know that? Seems like a bunch of plot holes to me....

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[KK 3,313]

What are you talking about? It never resurrected Charlie.

Yes it did. Somewhere during Shaw's surgical procedure (which was pretty damn scary), Charlie was resurrected into some mindless, man-killing zombie. That was a big wtf moment because it completely breaks down the purpose of the black liquid. That and the reptile that killed the two guys in the cave...where did that come from? And what did it have to do with the black liquid?

It wasn't Charlie. It was Fifield. If you're gonna criticize the film, at least do it properly!

The reptile thing was some sort of worm that mutated when it entered in contact with the black goo. You see it when they first enter in the jars room.

Oh, I remember that...thanks for the clarification!

David's plan was to have Charlie drink the black goo, because he kew Charlie would have sex with Shaw later on (how did he know they would have sex before Charlie would die? Ask Lindelof!) and that would create some biological mumbo-jumbo that would lead to the birth of the very first facehugger. And what a cutie pie it is!

I got that. And that first facehugger is huge. But it completely ruins the point of the prologue (although it was a beautiful sequence). The black liquid killed the engineer, as Koray said, on a molecular level. But later it seems to give birth to aliens and resurrect its victims. Did the engineers know that? Seems like a bunch of plot holes to me....

Well, like I said, it didn't resurrect Charlie (see above), it killed him. You fail. Lindelof wins!

Ok, but still fails to explain the purpose of the black stuff. First of all, it didn't kill Charlie. Charlie died by Vicars' flames. Next, if the black stuff is supposed to kill instantly, why did it make Fitfield the mindless zombie with super-human strength?! And if Charlie wasn't burned, would the same have happened to him? And all of this still doesn't explain how the freakin' alien fetus got into Shaw. The purpose of the black liquid continues to remain ambigious. Still smells like plot holes to me. I win

[crocodile 9,724]

What are you talking about? It never resurrected Charlie.

Yes it did. Somewhere during Shaw's surgical procedure (which was pretty damn scary), Charlie was resurrected into some mindless, man-killing zombie. That was a big wtf moment because it completely breaks down the purpose of the black liquid. That and the reptile that killed the two guys in the cave...where did that come from? And what did it have to do with the black liquid?

It wasn't Charlie. It was Fifield. If you're gonna criticize the film, at least do it properly!

The reptile thing was some sort of worm that mutated when it entered in contact with the black goo. You see it when they first enter in the jars room.

Oh, I remember that...thanks for the clarification!

David's plan was to have Charlie drink the black goo, because he kew Charlie would have sex with Shaw later on (how did he know they would have sex before Charlie would die? Ask Lindelof!) and that would create some biological mumbo-jumbo that would lead to the birth of the very first facehugger. And what a cutie pie it is!

I got that. And that first facehugger is huge. But it completely ruins the point of the prologue (although it was a beautiful sequence). The black liquid killed the engineer, as Koray said, on a molecular level. But later it seems to give birth to aliens and resurrect its victims. Did the engineers know that? Seems like a bunch of plot holes to me....

Well, like I said, it didn't resurrect Charlie (see above), it killed him. You fail. Lindelof wins!

Ok, but still fails to explain the purpose of the black stuff. First of all, it didn't kill Charlie. Charlie died by Vicars' flames. Next, if the black stuff is supposed to kill instantly, why did it make Fitfield the mindless zombie with super-human strength?! And if Charlie wasn't burned, would the same have happened to him? And all of this still doesn't explain how the freakin' alien fetus got into Shaw. The purpose of the black liquid continues to remain ambigious. Still smells like plot holes to me. I win

Whoever wins, the film loses

Karol

[Brónach 1,330]

I'm starting to think I'm going to dislike this film.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

You should stop thinking and just dislike it.

Ok, but still fails to explain the purpose of the black stuff. First of all, it didn't kill Charlie. Charlie died by Vicars' flames. Next, if the black stuff is supposed to kill instantly, why did it make Fitfield the mindless zombie with super-human strength?! And if Charlie wasn't burned, would the same have happened to him? And all of this still doesn't explain how the freakin' alien fetus got into Shaw. The purpose of the black liquid continues to remain ambigious. Still smells like plot holes to me. I win

First, it's "Vickers", not "Vicars". There was no vicar on that ship.

Next, it's "Fifield", not "Fitfield", because that character clearly was not fit for the field.

Thirdly, Fifiled entered in contact only with the "blood" of the snake, not with black goo. Who knows what effect this should have on him? But whatever, that scene was moronic indeed.

Regarding Charlie, he died, so we'll never know. End of discussion here!

You don't know how the alien foetus got into Shaw? Do you need me to do a drawing?

[Quintus 6,494]

A vicar not being onboard was a missed opportunity in this movie of clichés. Gene Hackman would've made it 10x better.

And I was really disappointed there were no scenes where the cast had to hold their breath and swim a great distance.

Still, there was a Christmas tree in there, which is a small consolation.

[KK 3,313]

Ok, but still fails to explain the purpose of the black stuff. First of all, it didn't kill Charlie. Charlie died by Vicars' flames. Next, if the black stuff is supposed to kill instantly, why did it make Fitfield the mindless zombie with super-human strength?! And if Charlie wasn't burned, would the same have happened to him? And all of this still doesn't explain how the freakin' alien fetus got into Shaw. The purpose of the black liquid continues to remain ambigious. Still smells like plot holes to me. I win

First, it's "Vickers", not "Vicars". There was no vicar on that ship.

Next, it's "Fifield", not "Fitfield", because that character clearly was not fit for the field.

Alright, alright, I got the spelling wrong, sue me. (Wait, I take it back, knowing you, you'd probably do it).

Thirdly, Fifiled entered in contact only with the "blood" of the snake, not with black goo. Who knows what effect this should have on him? But whatever, that scene was moronic indeed.

Regarding Charlie, he died, so we'll never know. End of discussion here!

You don't know how the alien foetus got into Shaw? Do you need me to do a drawing?

No, the blood of the snake melted his helmet, then he fell face first into the black goo an he died....until we find out he becomes a zombie.

As for the alien, I was questioning its relation to the black goo....I know how it happened you fool. So is the theory that anyone who gets exposed to the black goo has sex before they die, you'll have alien fetus in the female? Thats freaking stupid.

[crocodile 9,724]

A vicar not being onboard was a missed opportunity in this movie of clichés.

Gene Hackman would've made it 10x better.

And I was really disappointed there were no scenes where the cast had to hold their breath and swim a great distance.

I wish there was a scene where the Shaw says: "We're alone. There's nothing out there" and then someone replying "You're not alone, you were never alone".

But at least we got ever reliable: "If we don't stop it, there won't be any home to go back to!" and "It's not what we thought it was" so I cant complain.

Karol

[Thor 9,362]

Normally he relishes being the odd man out-role, so don't worry.

Not really, no. I just like to be honest, and it appears that my opinions and preferences frequently run counter to the majority views on some issues.

But nice to know that you enjoyed TINTIN, Quint. We agree on that. Except for an over-reliance on swirling cameras (digital cinematography gone haywire!), it was a pure feast!

But that ridiculously long one-shot action sequence was a major highlight and an absolute marvel of staging, man!

It was, it was. It was in scenes like that that the film really lived and breathed.

I just don't understand why they had to continue the crazy camera movements even in lowkey dialogue scenes.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Saw it again. I liked it.

[Brónach 1,330]

I just don't understand why they had to continue the crazy camera movements even in lowkey dialogue scenes.

Like for example?

[Quintus 6,494]

Normally he relishes being the odd man out-role, so don't worry.

Not really, no. I just like to be honest, and it appears that my opinions and preferences frequently run counter to the majority views on some issues.

But nice to know that you enjoyed TINTIN, Quint. We agree on that. Except for an over-reliance on swirling cameras (digital cinematography gone haywire!), it was a pure feast!

But that ridiculously long one-shot action sequence was a major highlight and an absolute marvel of staging, man!

It was, it was. It was in scenes like that that the film really lived and breathed.

I just don't understand why they had to continue the crazy camera movements even in lowkey dialogue scenes.

I thought it worked superbly. The whole movie barrelled along at a breakneck pace and I think the outstanding camera work contributed hugely towards that.

[Thor 9,362]

Saw it again. I liked it.

I just don't understand why they had to continue the crazy camera movements even in lowkey dialogue scenes.

Like for example?

There is one scene I remember, in particular....I think they're in a loft or something and look through a treasure chest. It could have offered a much-needed break, visually and emotionally, but instead the camera swirls around the characters to a dizzying effect.

[Quintus 6,494]

Do you suffer from motion sickness?

[Thor 9,362]

No, not like I did in CLOVERFIELD (where I was really nauseous), but almost at times.

[Brónach 1,330]

That didn't happen to me at all. I thought the camera work was wonderful.

[Quintus 6,494]

I had a friend nearly throw up during Blair Witch. Erratic and dizzying camera motion ever affected me in that way.

[Brónach 1,330]

I had no problem seeing Cloverfield. The flaws of that film are others. I never saw Blair Witch.

In any case the camera work of these is the opposite of Tintin.

[Quintus 6,494]

"Why we love Ridley Scott Sci-Fi"

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/06/05/why-we-love-ridley-scott-sci-fi

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

Ridley, despite having little to no theatre experience to my knowledge, creates movies that exhibit a sense of theatre that seems to be largely limited to directors who have stage experience. There's always something very "thoroughly choreographed" about his films...an attention to detail you don't see from most filmmakers. But he also is daring enough to hire great people and let them explore on the spot now and then.

He's simply very talented and most people aren't. So he does most things in a movie better than most directors. So we like him.

[Koray Savas 2,260]

Now the spoiler tags are going crazy, again spoilers below if you haven't seen it.

That and the reptile that killed the two guys in the cave...where did that come from? And what did it have to do with the black liquid?

Ultimately those scenes were just added to pump up the adrenaline and scare the audience even more. Its meaningless and cheap attempts to keep the audience frightened like that bring down the film.

The giant snake/worm, like Boal said, were the tiny worms that were on the ground in the beginning. The black liquid I assume is some sort of mutagen. As to how it ended up in Shaw, well Charlie saw the worm in his eye in the mirror. That swam its way in along with his semen.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

Hmmm... Semen...

[Koray Savas 2,260]

So you're saying the script is not that bad, but the characters are poorly developed. Doesn't make sense to me, mate.

You see, I have no problems with the concept and basic story idea of this film, the thing that you seem to be so excited about. I get what it's trying to do. I get all the "irony of a sterile woman that gives birth to the new species" theme and all that. It's not WHAT story they're telling, but the EXECUTION of these ideas through characters and plot. On this level the film is a massive, massive failure. On top of that, it's not interesting, or scary, or exciting. The audience talked and laughed over the film at my showing. It's a fairly good idea badly put together.

The characters are poorly developed, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean they are poor characters. I found all of them to have enough substance and potential to make great characters, its just that they never got to that point. Most likely due to the 2 hour running time and large number of characters. I found the film interesting and exciting. It wasn't scary, nor did I think it was trying to be. No one laughed in my showing.

[Bryant Burnette 790]

Hmmm... Semen...

My assumption is that the alien which Shaw has to have removed from herself is actually a mutated sperm, sorta like the white snake thing is a mutated form of whatever those worms are you see in the dirt inside the chamber.

[Thor 9,362]

I had a friend nearly throw up during Blair Witch. Erratic and dizzying camera motion ever affected me in that way.

Not usually for me either when I watch it on the small screen. But when it's on the big cinema screen, it's different. Maybe I'm more receptive to motion sickness in those circumstances.