Kanedas Bike Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 shaw - true believer; her faith has been tested and she still believes in something greater than herself or even the Engineers. holloway - has a child like faith, and like a child, his world is shattered when he doesn't get what he wants David - he's a child, emotionally and metaphorically. His child like demeanor is shown as he plays ball, the way he tries to act like people he admires (lawerence, an outsider who was accepted). But like a child he's also jealous and emotionally fragile, he sees his attempts to be accepted by the crew and by his "father" rebuffed and continually insulted.. eventually he lashes out against them. Vickers - the angry, neglected child. She's jealous of the affection that Weyland shows David. She wants Shaw and Holloway to be wrong so she can see Weyland suffer the same loss and disappointment she feels. Weyland - true believer but unlike shaw and holloway has the sort of faith that many fundamentalists espouse... selfish and entitled. He doesn't care about anything other than his own "salvation" The story is the relationship between parents, siblings and children... between god and his creation(s). I get that this is a subject that isn't going to track for everyone, but it's ridiculous to claim that it isn't there on screen. That's all good and well, but the observation remains that the characters acted in a way that was very counter-intuitive to the type of intellectual savants you'd think would be on the crew of a trillion dollar ship/expedition let alone to basic survival instincts (let's play with the ominous alien snake/worm thing while lost and separated from our only save haven, Prometheus) doesn't mean I, or others don't track the high-level concepts the movie put forth. My opinion remains that child/parent, god/creation relationships and motivations built around those assumptions aside, the characters and the way that they acted in the situations they were placed in were either DUMB or poorly written. I mean hell, Shaw just had an emergency alien c-section and she didn't even tell anyone! One could possibly assume that when she showed up in Weyland's quarters in only her Victoria Secrets covered in blood that a conversation occurred off-screen about why. But the way the characters continued to act by going straight to "converse" with the Engineer with not even a passing mention of the alien baby in the emergency medical pod or the events that led up to that is just asinine. How did she get pregnant? How did Baby Holloway get infected? How did Geologist guy turn into a mutant monster? Is this place a military installation? What is this places true purpose? What killed the Engineers? What were they running from? Etc., etc., etc. You had characters that either didn't ask those questions or any of the other thousand logical questions one would ask to try and determine if their own safety was in jeopardy or those that did just shrugged it off while everyone went on their merry way. Child-like motivations or emotional state or not, the lack of rational thought or reasoning was astounding. And I don't agree or disagree with your interpretations, I say again that the character's were so stupid that it made it very hard to concentrate on the ideas the filmmakers tried to present because said stupidity was so distracting. -b. Quote
Vespaeda Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 Purchased the DVD and watched it for the first time yesterday evening. I've had several months of reading everyone's import here and linked spoiler sites and my biggest concern was complaints on the story being disjoint, poorly paced w/inconsistency of story topped off with poorly written characters. Have to agree w/eugimon and shake my head at Kanedas bike's disappointments. I'm an old phart who saw the original Alien in the theatre w/my adventurous godmother 33yrs ago. One thing that R. Scott's 'Blade Runner' & 'Alien' franchise universes accomplished well and Cameron's 'Aliens' successfully embodied, was of a corptocracy-run Earth and similar hierarchy of all other human disciplines of the near future. Resources, wealth, R & D, luxury and freedom to come and go or engage the benefits of society, reflected by wealth/education caste/class--only trumped by corporate wealth intervention and/or power. The world of the 1970's was recovering from the post-VietNam/Watergate politics, turn-around in U.S. international influence as the prime policy driver post WWII and the OPEC gasoline crisis, global resource access and rise of Iran and other Arab states to affect the greater world at large with their own internal fights, vice Europe, Russia & America exclusively. Corporations and their power replacing nations and allied governments as world shapers: with everyone being offered a 'stake' from janitor to rocket scientist and religious philosopher...was the new paradigm. The romantic faith of our grandparents generation and before--in God, tradition and purity of principles--is long dead, quaint and smarmily replicated in consumer logos and advertisement. Archtype unto memes that persist usefully. The post-stasis breakfast, then briefing in the Prometheus' ready-room/forward bay revealed why everyone was there. The geologist job was thorough terrain mapping; the "I'm chicken-crap & lost, but I'll pet the cute worm/cobras" dude Millburn was another biologist along with the Dublin-accented female, Ford? The captain Janek and two deck crew(Tweedle-Dee & Tw'dl-Dum) were mil. type flight crew--with responsibility for the vessel's operations and thats it. Military cut & dry. Why are they SO stupid/clueless/irrational? The ultimate wisdom of Weyland, his 'Corp.' execs, including Vickers(whether robot daughter of Weyland, biologic/adopted or former squeeze w/geriatric fetish) is just like that underlying the Nostromo's mission, charter and crew, Carter Burke and the Sulaco contingent and by extension of recent universe tie-in, 'Blade Runner'/Tyrell corporate think. People are plentiful(overpopulated) & expendable, regardless of great individual talent; however there are enough of them that they need to be kept fed, housed and employed like worker ants lest they turn on and consume the defacto order. A galaxy is a big place for rebellions and piracy to grow on far flung worlds with light-years in between. The 'genius corp.' of mission specialists are good at what they can bring to bear on Weyland's mission, but quirky enough not to threaten the decision making of Vickers or derail unorthodox changes in mission goal--get Weyland immortality. They are expendable idiots who aced the placement exams and are satisfied with their wages, but are not a threat to getting them all to LV 333(or whatever its number). I'd say the 2 biologists were the biggest waste; only additional time analyzing the primordial goo and Engineer's remains could have allowed them growth. Once their specialties are made clear, Weyland & Vickers understand clearly that anything they individually could bring to the table could be reasonably replicated by David. Matter of fact, David's capabilities underly much of this venture going forward. Although not stated, I am quite comfortable ASSUMING Shaw's 'adventures-in-childbirth' were data-liked to David's 'positronic'brain and that Ford and the other tech brought him & Vickers up to speed when she escaped. That she was the 'religious-motivated' scientist, as well as being a small statured female, I'd assume few took her as a serious opponent/distraction. Ultimately, this entire space mission is not 'enterprising humanity' discovering the unknown...it is a ship of calculated fool's on varying ego quests, funded by Weyland's dream fortune. In a Star Trek-like universe, there might be several droids or Datas or Davids onboard to assist mission completion or protect fragile, irrational humans in unexpected circumstances. That is only a plausible consideration because 'Star Trek' is a nice, happy future where people work together and care. R. Scott's futures are slogging, carnivorous food chains only slightly domesticated by the needs of capricious mega-corps--evolution to egalitarian ideals takes third place to profit and maintenance of the corporate power structure. The galaxy is vast is, holds untold bounties for those who have the financial means to get the political & military go ahead to explore then rape it appropriately. As it is today, every business corp. is hoping to monopolize the 'next big thing' and find as close a guarantee to protracted, unrestricted/exclusive profit mining. The only obstacles are gov'ts and military that serve one purpose: maintain law & order and keep it in the hands of those 'chosen/designated/paid-off/can afford to pay-it-off'--for the greater good of the empire/domain/federation...what have you. That is where Weyland dwells; he's not dictator or Lord Emperor, but is probably one of a handful of similar moguls/execs with such incredible brains, ambition and resources. Parallel: The oil companies and industrial resource global contractors of the future--Koch Bros., Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, Pfizer and Monsanto. Deny global climate change so that a thawed Arctic Circle & open N'West Passage guarantee King Solomon's grade resource mining and access for the nations that can access it for the next 100yrs--without overflight treatise or negotiating w/militarized religious zealots=WIN/WIN! Phkk the environment-->thusly, fewer competitors, who will be too busy pumping rising sea levels out of their capitol cities to invest in deep sea drilling/fracking. Pumping sea water that is, w/YOUR proprietary, 'Gulf Spill'-heavy duty, drilling/pumping technology!! Aside from 'Aliens' which used the Reagan deregulated/'Gordon Gekko' Wall St. mentality of the mid-80's as a back drop for corporate-think and archtypic mentality, the political/military are not discussed at all because they are not the movers & shakers...they are the dependable & nec. paid-off tools. According to H. Kissinger's oft quoted dig at Alexander Haig concerning 'military men', Janek and company embodied to me, consummate dedicated merchant marine/Maritime Sealift Command veteran types who put mission and the safety of their charges first--ultimately seeing the big picture clearly=save Earth at all costs. Give us the right, 'ultimate' mission and I believe most of those whom I've served with the last 18yrs would sacrifice their lives once they weighed the obvious costs. Lastly, Janek was written like a stereotype of many career naval/maritime staff I've served around too: dedicated, straight to the point, short on words and externally simple, but running all the numbers & cross-filing the 'crazy characters' onboard thru his head clearly. Meanwhile, always looking to crack open some p00n with the correct angle...8^7. He KNEW Vicker's story, her weakness for 'human-like' sentimentality & family warmth(Christmas) and figured why not go fishing for 'it' early on. Just like a WestPAC cruise shakedown! All of the other unexplained detail, Kaneda bike...those NEED NOT be explained->can be sufficiently deducted/approximated and are fodder for sequels. Scott assumes his audiences are students of history/classics, current events and basic human nature/society--they are the back drop of his stories. Quote
GU-11 Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 After reading all the reviews on this movie, I guess I won't be adding it to my BD list. At this rate, I'm not even sure if I want to watch it when it comes out on HBO. Quote
eugimon Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 I love Prometheus and I agree most of the stuff you just said. But I think there are some plots are debatable - Fifield (the map guy) and Milburn did not have a map and get loss. The Biologist (Millburn) was being stupid, and too friendly to the alien 'worm'. And those 2 co-pilots who are too willing to sacrifice themselves at the end. I kinda agree about fifield and millburn. But, I think their actions work within the genre... people are always doing stupid things in horror movies. Why do people run up stairs to escape from the bad guys, where are they going to go? Why do they knock out the bad guy and then run away? Why do seasoned marines start shooting each other? But in the metaphorical sense, neither of these guys are believers. Their interests are selfish, their vision myopic. Both are betrayed by the things they love. As for the crew of the prometheus sacrificing themselves... again, that's a pretty common thing for the genre... but also within the context of the story, they know what's at stake. They've seen the monster tear the crew apart and they know the Engineers are heading towards earth. Even if they bailed on the captain, what are they going to do? Suffocate or starve after two years of being stuck in an escape pod with Vickers? I agree that there are parts of the story that needs work and if people want to get hung up on those or if they just plain don't like it... fine. Good for them. I think that there's enough going on in Prometheus to over look the negatives. I find the discussion on parents/children, creator/creation to be thought provoking and interesting and it doesn't hurt one bit that the movie is beautifully shot and has some wonderful and nuanced performances in David and Shaw. Quote
eugimon Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 That's all good and well, but the observation remains that the characters acted in a way that was very counter-intuitive to the type of intellectual savants you'd think would be on the crew of a trillion dollar ship/expedition let alone to basic survival instincts (let's play with the ominous alien snake/worm thing while lost and separated from our only save haven, Prometheus) doesn't mean I, or others don't track the high-level concepts the movie put forth. My opinion remains that child/parent, god/creation relationships and motivations built around those assumptions aside, the characters and the way that they acted in the situations they were placed in were either DUMB or poorly written. I mean hell, Shaw just had an emergency alien c-section and she didn't even tell anyone! One could possibly assume that when she showed up in Weyland's quarters in only her Victoria Secrets covered in blood that a conversation occurred off-screen about why. But the way the characters continued to act by going straight to "converse" with the Engineer with not even a passing mention of the alien baby in the emergency medical pod or the events that led up to that is just asinine. Who would she tell? She knows that David infected Holloway, knows that the other scientists tried put her in stasis, she does't trust anyone? And the rest of the crew wasn't allowed in Vicker's apartment... that's spelled out pretty explicitly in the beginning. How did she get pregnant? How did Baby Holloway get infected? How did Geologist guy turn into a mutant monster? Is this place a military installation? What is this places true purpose? What killed the Engineers? What were they running from? Etc., etc., etc. Honestly... if you can't figure those parts out on your own, then you weren't paying attention. David brings home one of the jars, he opens the jar and breaks open one of the containers and puts some of the goo on his finger. He then finds Holloway, and Holloway is a giant douche bag to David and so David decides to use Holloway as a guinea pig to find out what the good does, so, Holloway gets infected by David. Holloway infects Shaw when they have sex. The weapon causes Shaw to become pregnant with the big starfish. And yeah, the bits about the Engineers aren't spelled out for you, just like the bit about the space jockey in Alien isn't spelled out. You had characters that either didn't ask those questions or any of the other thousand logical questions one would ask to try and determine if their own safety was in jeopardy or those that did just shrugged it off while everyone went on their merry way. Child-like motivations or emotional state or not, the lack of rational thought or reasoning was astounding. And I don't agree or disagree with your interpretations, I say again that the character's were so stupid that it made it very hard to concentrate on the ideas the filmmakers tried to present because said stupidity was so distracting. -b. Sorry, but if you missed out on all the bits between David/holloway and Shaw, I question how much you were paying attention. Quote
Duke Togo Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Have to back up Eugimon here. Outside of glaring character issues with Fifield, Millburn, and Holloway, the film is quite good. And most of the answers are either in the movie, will be answered in the sequel (which is in pre-production), or are never meant to be answered. And GU-11, don't be such a puss--watch it. Edited October 15, 2012 by Duke Togo Quote
jenius Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 A couple good videos from the past of this thread: So much yes - this guy articulates my thoughts exactly. Goddamn I love this movie. Me wants it on bluray. Like, yesterday. bwahahahahah!!! Quote
renegadeleader1 Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 Have to back up Eugimon here. Outside of glaring character issues with Fifield, Millburn, and Holloway, the film is quite good. And most of the answers are either in the movie, will be answered in the sequel (which is in pre-production), or are never meant to be answered. That's the point I was trying to make with those Kong quotes. Those glaring character issues hurt the movies believabilty pretty badly and the film loses its sence of grounding. All Eugimon has done to explain it is make conjecture, and cite bad horror movie tropes, like its suddenly okay for a movie to be poorly written because other films were poorly written first. Yes the movie has dialog on creation/religion/father/son/offspring, but once the idiot pets the worm it all gets dumped for an uneven zombie murderfest combined with "hey I want immortality dammit! Wake the cranky alien!" Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 My wife and I just watched this film, and boy did it suck. It was awful. Awful. Awful. There are so many things that are glaringly wrong with this film, from story, plot, character development, acting, cinematography, direction... ugh. Methinks that Ridley Scott meant to distance this film from Alien because, in the one time he actually did something right, he decided that purposefully connecting the two would probably infect the original with Prometheus' crappiness. Did I mention this movie was really awful? Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 Seriously... no one has posted this yet? Spoilers below... don't watch if you haven't... oh, who cares. It won't ruin the movie if you watch it. Quote
Mr March Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 I've seen the Honest Trailers series before but missed the Prometheus one. Great job mocking this film. I particularly enjoyed the dig at Lost Quote
eugimon Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) That's the point I was trying to make with those Kong quotes. Those glaring character issues hurt the movies believabilty pretty badly and the film loses its sence of grounding. All Eugimon has done to explain it is make conjecture, and cite bad horror movie tropes, like its suddenly okay for a movie to be poorly written because other films were poorly written first. Yes the movie has dialog on creation/religion/father/son/offspring, but once the idiot pets the worm it all gets dumped for an uneven zombie murderfest combined with "hey I want immortality dammit! Wake the cranky alien!" Conjecture? LOL. Again, watch the movie; they EXPLICITLY state the motivations for Shaw, Holloway, Vickers and Weland. The only character where you need to use even the tiniest bit of reasoning is with David. If those motivations don't do anything for you... fine, but stop pretending like they aren't valid... billions of people around the world spend their entire lives grappling with those ideas. As for it being unrealistic for millburn to try and pet the snake thing... I advise you to go watch Discovery Channel for any length of time. You'll find people of all sorts sticking their hands into pits filled with venomous snakes, spiders, into the mouths of alligators, sharks, tigers, etc. People doing dumb things around animals has been going on for a hundred thousand years, I don't see any reason why it would suddenly stop 70 years from now. If you don't like it, fine. Go watch whatever you want.. but I find no reason to hold the opinions of people who apparently missed huge portions of the beginning, middle and end of the movie... where they explain stuff... with any degree validity. Edited October 15, 2012 by eugimon Quote
TehPW Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 and on that note, can we PLEASE get a lock. pretty much the clip provided by TWDC was enough for me to know about the film without seeing it (Please dont Fup Blade Runner, LOL) Quote
Kanedas Bike Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Who would she tell? She knows that David infected Holloway, knows that the other scientists tried put her in stasis, she does't trust anyone? And the rest of the crew wasn't allowed in Vicker's apartment... that's spelled out pretty explicitly in the beginning. Honestly... if you can't figure those parts out on your own, then you weren't paying attention. David brings home one of the jars, he opens the jar and breaks open one of the containers and puts some of the goo on his finger. He then finds Holloway, and Holloway is a giant douche bag to David and so David decides to use Holloway as a guinea pig to find out what the good does, so, Holloway gets infected by David. Holloway infects Shaw when they have sex. The weapon causes Shaw to become pregnant with the big starfish. And yeah, the bits about the Engineers aren't spelled out for you, just like the bit about the space jockey in Alien isn't spelled out. Sorry, but if you missed out on all the bits between David/holloway and Shaw, I question how much you were paying attention. You misunderstand the intent of me asking those questions, I wasn't asking how she got pregnant, why she didn't explain why she showed up bloody, etc. etc. as an audience member, I'm very capable of getting the "why's and how's" in the movie - and I "got it/paid attention" when I saw the movie in the theater. My point was only to ask why the characters didn't ask, and in them not asking made the characters, IMO, not very smart. That's all. And again, I'm not at all trying to dissect the movie, it's plot or intent, just that it's really, really hard to even care about the overall themes because other elements (characters) detract from the big picture. Also disappointed that the deleted and extended scenes didn't help the intellect level, and in many cases made characters like Holloway, seem even less intelligent (and like an insensitive drunken ass in one scene). But hey, those that like it - cool. Those that don't - cool. And those like me that are middle-of-the-road - cool. *edit for formatting issues -b. Edited October 16, 2012 by Kanedas Bike Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Eugimon- I wish I could've have seen this movie with your pure, innocent, naive eyes... Edited October 16, 2012 by the white drew carey Quote
anime52k8 Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Eugimon- I wish I could've have seen this movie with your pure, innocent, naive eyes... Where we're going... we don't need eyes to see. (oh my f**king god I'm so tired right now...) Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Now THAT brings up bad memories! Quote
Duke Togo Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 There are so many things that are glaringly wrong with this film, from story, plot, character development, acting, cinematography, direction... ugh. I like you, Drew, but I have to ask: did you even watch the movie, or are you just trying to get in on the gang-bang? I myself go back and forth on some of the plot issues and character development, but the cinematography and direction? Really? You lost me, you completely lost me. Not directed at Drew: There is a lot of Alien fan-boy hate going on in this thread, which is glaringly obvious when you consider some of the absolute shite movies a good number of the members here love. But hey, to each their own--right? Quote
nautilus Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 Rule of thumb: Don't give the Scooby Gang a trillion dollar space ship. Quote
Axelay Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 The Honest Trailer up there is brilliant. Totally sums up my disappointment in this movie. Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 I like you, Drew, but I have to ask: did you even watch the movie, or are you just trying to get in on the gang-bang? I myself go back and forth on some of the plot issues and character development, but the cinematography and direction? Really? You lost me, you completely lost me. Not directed at Drew: There is a lot of Alien fan-boy hate going on in this thread, which is glaringly obvious when you consider some of the absolute shite movies a good number of the members here love. But hey, to each their own--right? Totally watched it and, even with lowered expectations, was still totally let down by almost every aspect. I was being silly with the cinematography, but I am dead serious about the direction. The pacing of this film is so off, and the timeframe of events happening, especially at the end, is so rushed and ludicrous. I think the reason some people (myself included) disliked it so much is that expectations were high for Scott to return to form. Instead, we get a generic and convoluted movie that tries to be a lot loftier than it really is. Scott really screwed the pooch on this one. I think he has finally and completely lost his touch. Quote
Vic Mancini Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Totally watched it and, even with lowered expectations, was still totally let down by almost every aspect. I think the reason some people (myself included) disliked it so much is that expectations were high for Scott to return to form. Ehh? You sure about those lowered expectations? Well I finally got around to seeing it. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, I thought it was pretty enjoyable and this is coming from someone who hates almost all new movies. I didn't think it was a lesser film than Alien. Quote
taksraven Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Come on, I can't believe that people are arguing so much about this film. Lets look at the reality of it. * Ridley Scott sat down, watched "2001 A Space Odyssey" and decided he could do better. * He created a film that copied "2001" on nearly every single major plot point that was also based on an existing intellectual property. * This film he created, known as "Prometheus" demonstrated that Ridley could not improve on Kubrick. * Much fanrage. * End of story. Quote
EXO Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 and on that note, can we PLEASE get a lock. Are you kidding? This thread is better than the movie... *grabs popcorn* Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Ehh? You sure about those lowered expectations? Well I finally got around to seeing it. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, I thought it was pretty enjoyable and this is coming from someone who hates almost all new movies. I didn't think it was a lesser film than Alien. Pretty sure about those lowered expectations, but they were for a lot of the terrible plot points and inconsistencies I had heard about. I was still hoping that Scott would put together an entertaining movie despite those flaws but... nope. I found it dull, forced, full of cliches and just... bad. Quote
mpchi Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Seriously... no one has posted this yet? Spoilers below... don't watch if you haven't... oh, who cares. It won't ruin the movie if you watch it. This is simply brilliant!!! While I am not a Alien nut, I did enjoyed the first 2 movies back then and has some expectations on Prometheus (keep reminds me of the one in Macross). As I was watching it in the theatre, the visuals are breath-taking. I don't mind the slow start either, as the beginning of an expedition can't be all that exciting or action packed. But as the story progressed and the crew start acting weird and stupid, it start to rub me in the wrong way. Pretty much all the things mentioned in this 'Honest Trailer' sumed it up. And I am thinking, is that the best Ridley Scott can do? Really?! The set up and the big premise of the whole movie is interesting. The visual is cool. It has all the techincal stuff it needs to be a great looking film. But when it comes to the characters and the finer details, the movie falls right out from an A class storytelling to some botherline B movie plot with generic cliches. Wishe it was better, since it is a movie fans waited for a long time. Quote
jenius Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 I knew Prometheus had some problems... but 100? I'll have to make some time to read through this: http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/fictional-science-100-glaring-logical-issues-with-prometheus/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_33419 Saw it while reading Ghostbusters 3 information. Quote
Noriko Takaya Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Said it before and I'll say it again. Loved this movie. Quote
mpchi Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 I knew Prometheus had some problems... but 100? I'll have to make some time to read through this: http://wegotthiscove...n=zergnet_33419 Saw it while reading Ghostbusters 3 information. Thats a pretty good read actually. Pointed out more small details/discrepencies I missed from my watch. Makes me wonder what Ridley Scott and his crew's reaction was when they have to answer similar questions and criticism themselves. Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 I knew Prometheus had some problems... but 100? I'll have to make some time to read through this: http://wegotthiscove...n=zergnet_33419 That was awesome. Quote
electric indigo Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 I knew Prometheus had some problems... but 100? I'll have to make some time to read through this: http://wegotthiscove...n=zergnet_33419 Saw it while reading Ghostbusters 3 information. Erm, Nerdrage much? Even most non-SF movies would fall apart from that angle. Quote
Tober Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Come on, I can't believe that people are arguing so much about this film. Lets look at the reality of it. * Ridley Scott sat down, watched "2001 A Space Odyssey" and decided he could do better. * He created a film that copied "2001" on nearly every single major plot point that was also based on an existing intellectual property. * This film he created, known as "Prometheus" demonstrated that Ridley could not improve on Kubrick. * Much fanrage. * End of story. Come on, I can't believe that people are arguing so much about this film. Let's look at the reality of it: * Ridley Scott sat down, watched "Alien: Resurrection" and decided he could do a better parody. * He created a film that copied "Aliens" on nearly every single major plot point that was also based on an existing intellectual property. * This film he created, known as "Prometheus" demonstrated that Ridley could not disprove Einstein's Theory of Stupidity: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." * Much spamage. * End of story one. Sequel to follow... Quote
the white drew carey Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Erm, Nerdrage much? Even most non-SF movies would fall apart from that angle. But isn't a sign that its obvious flaws were so glaring that people began noticing and complaining about flaws found in almost all sci-fi films? It was SO BAD that we started bitching about things that we normally just suspend our disbelief for. Quote
Chronocidal Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 You know, I can't say I've seen this yet, but the impression I get from most of the details I've read reminds me of my overall impression of "The Great Gatsby" when I had to read it for a lit class. I don't remember much of the book, but my overall impression was that the story was full of the completely meaningless fluff that people filled their lives with. I think I got away with an A on a paper explaining that the point of the book was that there actually was no point at all. Obviously this isn't trying to make (or not make) the same point, but the idea of the meaning being so obvious that everyone misses it by way of overanalysis, expecting it to be deeper.. Bottom line, and the impression I get from this? The human race is still too stupid to deserve any answers about their existence, and they repeatedly prove it throughout the movie. Quote
anime52k8 Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 But isn't a sign that its obvious flaws were so glaring that people began noticing and complaining about flaws found in almost all sci-fi films? It was SO BAD that we started bitching about things that we normally just suspend our disbelief for. I think it just means someone has way too much time on their hands, and probably needs to get out and socialize with actual people every once and a while. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.