1929 replies to this topic

[Quint]

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.]

Spoiler

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).

Spoiler

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?

Spoiler

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]

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]

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]

Saw it again. I liked it.

[Chaac]

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

Like for example?

[Quint]

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]

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.

[Quint]

Do you suffer from motion sickness?

[Thor]

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

[Chaac]

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

[Quint]

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

[Chaac]

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.

[Quint]

"Why we love Ridley Scott Sci-Fi"

http://uk.ign.com/ar...ey-scott-sci-fi

[Blumenkohl]

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]

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]

Hmmm... Semen...

[Koray Savas]

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]

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]

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.

[Koray Savas]

Thor what are your thoughts on the score? I'm loving it on album. Atonal yet listenable. Something I found Goldsmith's original to never be.

[Thor]

Thor what are your thoughts on the score? I'm loving it on album. Atonal yet listenable. Something I found Goldsmith's original to never be.

Need to see the film again, but I liked what I heard the first time around -- not only the expansive main theme (by HGW), but also some of those cool brass clusters, Goldenthal-style for some of the action parts.

Not sure how I would like it on album, though. I'm not really into 'horror film music' on album. But I think I'm gonna try and stream it just to check its 'listenability'.

[Koray Savas]

"Going In" (The video is incorrectly tagged)

[Pasi Tiitinen]

Well this thread is too difficult to follow because of the spoiler tags and all the negative comments but I'm going to see this next week

and you will have very fresh and mature opinion here. Cool!

[publicist]

Thor what are your thoughts on the score? I'm loving it on album. Atonal yet listenable. Something I found Goldsmith's original to never be.

'Atonal'? 'Atonal'? It's about as atonal as the RAIDER'S MARCH.

[KK.]

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.

Agreed. No one was laughing at my showing either. And there were certainly thrilling scenes, and then there were the stupid scenes too...but nothing to induce laughter.

You should stop thinking and just dislike it.

I don't know....its hard to define exactly how I feel about the film.

Spoilers below:

It's not as horrible as Quint and crocodile seem to describe it. It actually has a lot of merit to it. Its just frustrating how dumb characters (a lot of them really are stupid) and poor writing seems to bog down this film. I think this film really would have benefitted from an extra half hour to develop things properly. Oh and I forgot to mention how much I hated Weyland's role in the film...I really would have preferred if they kept him out of this, or if he had at least a better motive.

Regardless, its an enjoyable film and its refreshing change from the mundane stuff thats come out of this year. I want more sci-films to be made like this minus the obvious plot holes, poor character development, the general silliness of certain bits, etc.

I would want to watch this again, and there is admittedly a certain degree of craftsmanship with this film (maybe I'm using the wrong word, but there is something that puts this film above the usual summer sci-fi flare, the Ridley Scott touches you've got to appreciate). As it is, I might give it a 7/10. This could have been an easy 8 or a 9 if it was done with better execution. That's what frustrates me so much, the film's huge amount of potential ruined by such irritating flaws. Make the film less rushed, give us less characters with greater development, fix a few plotline bits and you could have gotten a brilliant film out of this.

I'd like to see a sequel and see if Scot would make such amendments.

Thor what are your thoughts on the score? I'm loving it on album. Atonal yet listenable. Something I found Goldsmith's original to never be.

'Atonal'? 'Atonal'? It's about as atonal as the RAIDER'S MARCH.

Ya, its not very atonal. Very atmospheric with some pleasant melodramatic moments of beauty. And lots and lots of sound design! But its tolerable.

[Taikomochi]

I found the film... frustrating. There's a lot of incredibly awesome stuff floating around. Visually, it's probably the best looking Sci Fi film since Avatar, maybe better. So many scenes were great: the surgery, the collision, the ambiguous opening. And I really liked Michael Fassbender. At the same time, the pacing was kind of terrible at parts. The climactic attack of the Engineer on Shaw was heavily rushed. I couldn't admire the action, and that should have been the scariest scene in the film. Similarly, I felt the film jumped into the action, namely entering the dome/whatever, without any sort of build up. The characters were scarcely developed. I shouldn't have gotten to know Shaw better during the surgery scene. I should have gotten to know her before, adding tension to the scene. The ending also felt a bit rushed and hokey. And I don't even want to acknowledge how stupid the one crew member smoking weed through his ventilator was. But I will. It was extremely so.

It's just filled with the components of a great Sci Fi film, punctuated with a lot of poorly handled elements, and I don't know what to make of it yet

[Chaac]

Thor what are your thoughts on the score? I'm loving it on album. Atonal yet listenable. Something I found Goldsmith's original to never be.

This score tired me after a few listens, I find the Goldsmith score more exciting and otherwordly.

[Blumenkohl]

I've seen the film twice, and I enjoyed as much as I enjoyed the first time. I'm trying to wrap my head around the negative reviews which cite commonly accepted storytelling principles to pan a film set in a universe whose original film was handled very uncommonly.

Those of you who are complaining about lack of character development in Prometheus, I'm curious what your thoughts were on the character development in Alien? Because in Alien there was deliberate effort to avoid delving into the characters stories and instead allow their response to the scenarios in the film to define them as characters.

I watched Alien before going in for Prometheus the second time and I think it helped me appreciate Prometheus more rather than less. It's obvious they kept the same character development principle from Alien in Prometheus, but somehow it seems to be a point of issue for fans of the original Alien. Weird.

As for the music, I felt it was pleasantly orchestral and unobtrusive but it did not elevate any scene. It just went along with the film so I can't complain given the portfolio of the folks behind the music for this film.

[Koray Savas]

I haven't seen Alien in years, can't remember a frame, so I am viewing this as its own entity. I never considered it a masterpiece of cinema like Alex.

[QuestionMarkMan]

Drew hit on a lot of my problems

[Chaac]

I haven't seen Alien in years, can't remember a frame, so I am viewing this as its own entity. I never considered it a masterpiece of cinema like Alex.

For shame, for shame.

[Koray Savas]

I have to go through the anthology on Blu, so who knows how I'll react to it now. Now is actually a perfect time to do so, while Prometheus is still fresh.

[Drax]

Thought provoking sci-fi, for once these days, although a lot of its ideas and themes seemed to get a bit muddled as the film went on. Was that Mark Strong playing the Engineer at the beginning?

[BloodBoal]

Drew hit on a lot of my problems

I agree with a lot of things that are being said in this article. A must-read.

Was that Mark Strong playing the Engineer at the beginning?

What makes you think that?

[Drax]

Because it resembled him.

[crocodile]

What kind of thoughts did it provoke then?

(I'm not being sarcastic, just want to know)

Karol

[Quint]

Drew hit on a lot of my problems

I agree with a lot of things that are being said in this article. A must-read.

I couldn't get into the article from the moment the writer declared how astoundingly beautiful to look at he thinks the film is. Truly, I think this aspect is being grossly exaggerated by those whom want to be seen to have a highly refined and intellectually discerning taste - because hey, this is a Ridley Scott sci-fi film, so it must be beautiful, right? In other words: they think it's a safe bet with which to showcase their art skillz.

Again, I'm not saying Prometheus doesn't have some aesthetic and artistic merit - it's clearly a decently shot movie - but I do think think people have gone overboard in their hurry to declare it a bona fide work. of. art.

Nah, I think that's hysterical bullshit.

[Thor]

Drew hit on a lot of my problems

I agree with a lot of things that are being said in this article. A must-read.

I couldn't get into the article from the moment the writer declared how astoundingly beautiful to look at he thinks the film is. Truly, I think this aspect is being grossly exaggerated by those whom want to be seen to have a highly refined and intellectually discerning taste - because hey, this is a Ridley Scott sci-fi film, so it must be beautiful, right?

Again, I'm not saying the Prometheus doesn't have some aesthetic and artistic merit - it's clearly a decently shot movie, but I do think think people have gone overboard in their hurry to declare it a bona fide work. of. art.

Nah, I think that's hysterical bullshit.

Vice versa, I think that's the right way to approach a Scott film.

What's frustrating to me is to read all the negative comments I read in forums such as this almost ALL have to do with story, story, story. Now, I'm not saying that there are a couple of issues in that department, but many of them are seemingly also 'created' out of nothing, as if the critic is too caught up in the moment and the deconstruction.

In any case, I never - NEVER - go into a Ridley Scott film for his storytelling skills. To me, it's all about how he exploits the film medium's audiovisual possibilities to create moods, sensations, tableaux, ideas. That's where his true strenght lies, IMO, and that's where PROMETHEUS really excels as an ART WORK.

Screw the story, I just want to delve into his universe, and his execution of it.

[crocodile]

I can do this with Terrence Malick or Parajanov. Why not with this film then?

Because, while great looking, the film is much too talky and wordy. The script and it's "ideas" are too insistent on themselves. If it was completely silent, could have appreciated it on purely visceral level. But after really good opening sequence (which promised great cinema), the character start to talk, and talk, and talk. They don't even fit into this film. And I can't work out what all these things mean, because they are spelled out for me.

Karol