Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It worked best as a Bloodboalian JWFan fan film.

Obviously the film was thought provoking, provoking us to ask "Why was this movie made and why is it so patronizing?".Oh btw were the characters relatable at all?

That video is funny. So is this one:

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'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Yes the movies of Scott are very much visual and sensory experiences, but Prometheus ain't no Blade Runner, sorry. In my opinion. And you mentioned execution. Well even those who profess to be dazzled by the look of the movie seem to be in agreement that Ridley's execution in general is one of the most damaging aspects.

I think placing Prometheus alongside Scott's real masterpieces is insulting to them and their legacy.

Lee - who thinks a lot of Scott's movies have great scripts and stories, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prometheus doesn't stand with Scott's masterpieces, but at the very least it was an entertaining experience, despite all its flaws. It was the most engaging film of the year so far (although that will undoubtedly change).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of thoughts did it provoke then?

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

Karol

Sar... cas... tic...? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that term, you adorable little ragamuffin.

I rather liked the question of asking your maker "why did you make me?", which is exemplified in the conversation between Charlie and David, where Charlie's drunken response was "because we could". He probably wasn't the best person to ask at that time because he was being a bit of a prick to David, who ended up slipping him a very nontraditional mickey anyway. Alas, like in Blade Runner between Roy and Tyrell, don't upset your artificial offspring. David was certainly no accident, but it doesn't seem all that different to a human child asking their parents "Why am I here?" and the parent responds "You were an accident!"

It goes a step further where Weyland asks one of the supposed creators of humanity for more life, but then the creator goes berserk by that question (or what ever David said to the Engineer in his own language, which will probably become an internet meme successor to the Hitler bunker in Downfall) and kills Weyland with his own creation, David. All the while, Elizabeth is in the background asking the more logical question of "why do you hate us? Why do you want to destroy us?" However, she is outnumbered and overpowered by the selfishness and stupidity in the room that wanted more life for no other reason but to satisfy one's own hubris and vanity, which obviously offended the Engineer and his apparent "purity".

Even after all of this chaos, death and destruction, Elizabeth doesn't want to go home as Vickers selfishly wanted, rather she selflessly wanted to reach the Engineers' home world, at risk to own life and safety, to find out the Engineers' intentions for Earth and destroy them if she can. I think she'll fail at this, but I'd rather not see it anyway since the ending leaves it to the imagination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Yes the movies of Scott are very much visual and sensory experiences, but Prometheus ain't no Blade Runner, sorry. In my opinion. And you mentioned execution. Well even those who profess to be dazzled by the look of the movie seem to be in agreement that Ridley's execution in general is one of the most damaging aspects.

I think placing Prometheus alongside Scott's real masterpieces is insulting to them and their legacy.

Lee - who thinks a lot of Scott's movies have great scripts and stories, actually.

PROMETHEUS doesn't quite stand with the other classics, I agree, but it's pretty damn close. I don't think I will ever get the whole 'yes, it's great visually, but...' approach. To me, it's 'yes, it's great visually, PERIOD!". But it's not just that. It's style with substance; it's weighty material communicated to us through the way we experience visuals (much like in fine arts) and sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of thoughts did it provoke then?

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

Karol

Sar... cas... tic...? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that term, you adorable little ragamuffin.

I rather liked the question of asking your maker "why did you make me?", which is exemplified in the conversation between Charlie and David, where Charlie's drunken response was "because we could". He probably wasn't the best person to ask at that time because he was being a bit of a prick to David, who ended up slipping him a very nontraditional mickey anyway. Alas, like in Blade Runner between Roy and Tyrell, don't upset your artificial offspring. David was certainly no accident, but it doesn't seem all that different to a human child asking their parents "Why am I here?" and the parent responds "You were an accident!"

It goes a step further where Weyland asks one of the supposed creators of humanity for more life, but then the creator goes berserk by that question (or what ever David said to the Engineer in his own language, which will probably become an internet meme successor to the Hitler bunker in Downfall) and kills Weyland with his own creation, David. All the while, Elizabeth is in the background asking the more logical question of "why do you hate us? Why do you want to destroy us?" However, she is outnumbered and overpowered by the selfishness and stupidity in the room that wanted more life for no other reason but to satisfy one's own hubris and vanity, which obviously offended the Engineer and his apparent "purity".

Even after all of this chaos, death and destruction, Elizabeth doesn't want to go home as Vickers selfishly wanted, rather she selflessly wanted to reach the Engineers' home world, at risk to own life and safety, to find out the Engineers' intentions for Earth and destroy them if she can. I think she'll fail at this, but I'd rather not see it anyway since the ending leaves it to the imagination.

Excellent post, Drax. You make it sound like a brilliantly intriguing movie.

On the subject of Weyland; is it just me or is his own motivation (the laughably awful quest for immortality, as per Hollywood megalomaniac ruleset) the least interesting and most pointless of all the various characters reasons for being there? Which I find to be staggeringly incompetent on a writing level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

conversation between Charlie and David, where Charlie's drunken response was "because we could".

That's one of the bits in the film I really liked, but which also makes me angry, because I wish it would have been developped further, and not just thrown like that in order for the plot to move to something else.

PROMETHEUS doesn't quite stand with the other classics, I agree, but it's pretty damn close. I don't think I will ever get the whole 'yes, it's great visually, but...' approach. To me, it's 'yes, it's great visually, PERIOD!". But it's not just that. It's style with substance; it's weighty material communicated to us through the way we experience visuals (much like in fine arts) and sound.

You're closer to Cremers' way of thinking than we originally thought. That is a frightening thought...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On the subject of Weyland; is it just me or is his own motivation (the laughably awful quest for immortality, as per Hollywood megalomaniac ruleset) the least interesting and most pointless of all the various characters reasons for being there? Which I find to be staggeringly incompetent on a writing level.

Just ask the Engineer what he thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the film is fine as it is, but I wouldn't say no to more time in that glorious universe. So bring on THE EXPANDED RELEASE!! He, he....

And now you can't avoid it. It will be EXPANDED AND CHRONOLOGICAL MUAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAA! :devil:
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm in the same boat. I remember the infamous chestburster scene, the final 20 minutes, and Ian Holm's android character being smashed up. And Goldsmith's weird and terrifying score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectively, it's fine.

"Objectively"? What the fuck is that?

What it fucking means is that taking my subjective fucking reaction out of the fucking equation I can see that runtime is not a fucking issue where this movie's problems are fucking concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the film is fine as it is, but I wouldn't say no to more time in that glorious universe. So bring on THE EXPANDED RELEASE!! He, he....

And now you can't avoid it. It will be EXPANDED AND CHRONOLOGICAL MUAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAA! :devil:

+ 10,000,000 internets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too short on character development.

Then more scenes involving character development might help but usually deleted scenes are deleted for a good reason.

That's not entirely true.: it depends on who decided to delete them (The director? The producer(s)?) and why (because of the pace? because they just suck? because they didn't have time to finish the FX in time?).

THIS. You just can't lump all deleted scenes together into any category. The reasons for deletion can be vastly different from film to film. Sure, a lot of time its for pacing or sub-par acting or effects, but sometimes even then the person who decided to make those trims feels differently about them than 90% of the viewing audience would. Based on everything I've read about this film, the ones for Prometheus would be very interested to see indeed. Sounds like one character does a total 180, and if a deleted scene explains why that could make a huge impact on the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the film is fine as it is, but I wouldn't say no to more time in that glorious universe. So bring on THE EXPANDED RELEASE!! He, he....

And now you can't avoid it. It will be EXPANDED AND CHRONOLOGICAL MUAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAAAA! :devil:

Yeah, that was the joke I was trying to make. I certainly hope it will be! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite people's claims about Alien here being similar to Prometheus as far as character development, I believe they are quite wrong.

In Alien there are 7 characters, Dallas, Lambert, Kane, Ripley, Brett, Ash, and Parker.

There is the Alien, and there is Mother.

Each character is there to die except for Ripley. All are well written and very succinct. A well written character doesn't have to have a grandeous character arc. Each character is given sufficient quirks and direction that you can identify each. Unlike David in Prometheus Ash's synthetic backstory is left for a final reveal.

Dallas, strong leader, take charge personality.

Kane, sympathetic likeable character whose demise is completely shocking.

Brett, right, smart but socially stupid character, cliched but real repairman in space.

Parker, smart assed, cocky but good hearted man who cares for his money but in danger cares for people.

Lambert, she is the emotional wreck of the crew, but she is the voice of terror for the audience.

Ash is the man of science, he's the voice of reason and guidance, he's every bit as dangerous as the Alien

Ripley is the bitch, she's not very likable, she seems cold hearted, slow to action. She's the lone survivor because she has to give into her fears and overcome them. It's hard to look at her character quite the way it was meant to be looked at in Alien, having seen Aliens as her character arc changes and we see her as one of the great female characters in film history.

Sadly only David and the Captain end up treated well in Prometheus, Vickers is given a lot of backstory but some is hidden until the big reveal in the 2nd act. Shaw is sadly undwritten and while we should be most excited about her character, she's just so somber because of Naoomi's uninspired performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite people's claims about Alien here being similar to Prometheus as far as character development, I believe they are quite wrong.

In Alien there are 7 characters, Dallas, Lambert, Kane, Ripley, Brett, Ash, and Parker.

There is the Alien, and there is Mother.

Each character is there to die except for Ripley. All are well written and very succinct. A well written character doesn't have to have a grandeous character arc. Each character is given sufficient quirks and direction that you can identify each. Unlike David in Prometheus Ash's synthetic backstory is left for a final reveal.

Dallas, strong leader, take charge personality.

Kane, sympathetic likeable character whose demise is completely shocking.

Brett, right, smart but socially stupid character, cliched but real repairman in space.

Parker, smart assed, cocky but good hearted man who cares for his money but in danger cares for people.

Lambert, she is the emotional wreck of the crew, but she is the voice of terror for the audience.

Ash is the man of science, he's the voice of reason and guidance, he's every bit as dangerous as the Alien

Ripley is the bitch, she's not very likable, she seems cold hearted, slow to action. She's the lone survivor because she has to give into her fears and overcome them. It's hard to look at her character quite the way it was meant to be looked at in Alien, having seen Aliens as her character arc changes and we see her as one of the great female characters in film history.

Yeah but Joey, who cares? Dontcha know these movies are all about the AUDIOVISUAL experience? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...