[cerveza_fiesta]

I saw it Saturday night in 3D, and it was very good I thought. The 3D-ness was an immersion enhancer and I liked that it didn't get all douchy with shit flying out of the screen every 5 seconds. The depth it gave some scenes was pretty spectacular. Like the ship crash when it's rolling down ontop of the ladies, and the starmap scene where David is figuring out the engineers' planned target.

It wasn't that bad RE scientific nitpicks and I definitely am of the opinion that people expect waaaay too much in that vein. The auto surgery booth was a bit stupid and sure she was running around after an emergency C-Section, but who the fuck knows what that machine might do. Maybe it sprayed magic healing juice on the incision so that it healed in 10 minutes instead of weeks. They arrived at the planet in 2 years with "ion drives", which are not FTL engines, and yet the planet is more than 2 light-years away. Who cares? It's scifi. Just use your imagination a bit.

By contrast, I find the comments RE the plot valid. Although it is possible to make sense of what happened, the fact that I need to make such an effort is bad. The whole linkage between Weyland, his motivations, the reasons for the trip, the selection of the crew, it was all a bit hazy and only became clear with some thought afterward. The complete lack of command structure was probably intentional, aimed at giving the idea that it was a cobbled-together mission of desperation by a dying old man. They carried it a bit too far though, as if command structure on such a mission was totally unnecessary and a massive trillion-dollar interstellar exploration mission could be managed by warring factions.

Honestly, I think this film's plot suffered most from the red ink of the cinematic editor. It's like "chronicles of riddick". In the cinematic release, they left out all the bits RE him being a Furian and what that meant to everybody. Without those scenes, nobody watching could possibly have a clue as to anybody's motivations for anything. In the director's cut of CoR, the whole plot miraculously makes sense with only 15 minutes of extra footage. Once the D.C. for Prometheus comes out, I'm confident we'll see a much better movie that will satisfy the hardcore fans and skeptics alike.

Mezla PigDog, on 11 June 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

Then we get to the planet and the black ooze. Fine, it's hyper evolving primordial slime that responds to whatever biological stuff it's exposed to. Different people/events/environment factors mean that it produces something different each time - geologist with a melted face = psycho spider walking killer, a drop in some champagne followed by sex with barren women = worm in eyeball/octo-embryo. Giant octopus biomass issues aside, I'm chosing to believe that the xenomorph prototype that bursts free at the end will then undergo more hyper-evolution once it is exposed to humans/humanoids to become the apex human killer in the universe. If you notice in Alien 3, the alien that gestates inside the dog is actually a bit different from the previous aliens and I read somewhere Alien 3 related that it was intentionally that way.

I'm very much in line with Mez's comments RE the ooze. Pretty much sums up my theory in not so many words.

You notice too at the start when the ooze jars start bubbling over for the first time that little wormlike creatures, which I assume are endemic, crawl through it. What is the first alien morphology we see? A wormy snakelike face-fucker. As mez says, the alien that came out of the dog, decidedly more doglike than the previous iterations.

If the planet were LV426 (and I know it isn't supposed to be Illy) it's possible that the not-so-xenomorph from the final scene laid all the eggs and then wandered off, or maybe took advantage of some other endemic species to "evolve" further and then laid the eggs. Hell, maybe the whole planet was swarming with them between the events of Prometheus and Alien, and all that remained were the eggs. Remember we don't see a xenomorph in Alien before the one that bursts out of buddy's stomach after being facehugged. The alien that laid those eggs could have looked very different.

Given that the planet wasn't LV426, it gives a half-decent plot for the prometheus sequel. They get on a ship filled with more ooze jars, and more living engineers in hypersleep. They revive and somehow team up with the engineers and learn what their intentions for Earth were. Ooze excapes, infects engineers, xenomorph results, chaos ensues, ship crashes on LV426, Noomi broadcasts distress/warning signal with her dying breath, final scene queen lays a shit-tonne of eggs.

YAY!

[QuickTidal]

cerveza_fiesta, on 11 June 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Given that the planet wasn't LV426, it gives a half-decent plot for the prometheus sequel. They get on a ship filled with more ooze jars, and more living engineers in hypersleep. They revive and somehow team up with the engineers and learn what their intentions for Earth were. Ooze excapes, infects engineers, xenomorph results, chaos ensues, ship crashes on LV426, Noomi broadcasts distress/warning signal with her dying breath, final scene queen lays a shit-tonne of eggs.

Awesome, and I would totally watch that!

I also never gave too much thought to the command structures aboard. Good point indeed! I always got the feeling that you didn't exactly know who was calling the shots, Vickers, or the Captain or even Weyland himself VIA David.

Some food for thought there CF!

[blackzoid]

QuickTidal, on 11 June 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

You are presenting me the same principle. Because some people believe that those white masks are a help doesn't mean it is so. So because previous missions used these suits (or variations thereof) that means that this planet will present the same things? No. I'm saying that the choice to remove the helmet once it seemed okay to do so, while maybe not the brightest idea, is no less bright than going to the planet in the first place. I'm merely stating it's the same thing. The same risk. The suit/helmets not having been on LV 223 before means that NO ONE knows if it will be a help or a hindrance.

Sorry, I am not presenting you the same principle at all as your example. You are giving me an all or nothing/black and white choice. Risk is never that simple. I would reduce the risk as much as possible by having an air-tight physical barrier at all times. Air-tight, not a mask over the face. Reduce, not eliminate altogether. There is no 100% sure chance of being safe, otherwise you would not step foot on the alien planet as you say. However, your two choices given to me are: 100% safety, or 0% safety. Whats wrong with say, 60% chance of not catching something by keeping the helmet on for the first excursion.
Its important to note that the helmet on will not INCREASE the chances of exposure, which is what taking it off does. If you leave it on and you still catch ill, well then you are the same as your friend who took his off, just having to deal with the inconvenience of an annoying helmet too. If it actually does protect you to some extant, than isn't that a good thing?

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 11 June 2012 - 07:45 PM

[QuickTidal]

blackzoid, on 11 June 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 June 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

You are presenting me the same principle. Because some people believe that those white masks are a help doesn't mean it is so. So because previous missions used these suits (or variations thereof) that means that this planet will present the same things? No. I'm saying that the choice to remove the helmet once it seemed okay to do so, while maybe not the brightest idea, is no less bright than going to the planet in the first place. I'm merely stating it's the same thing. The same risk. The suit/helmets not having been on LV 223 before means that NO ONE knows if it will be a help or a hindrance.

Sorry, I am not presenting you the same principle at all as your example. You are giving me an all or nothing/black and white choice. Risk is never that simple. I would reduce the risk as much as possible by having an air-tight physical barrier at all times. Air-tight, not a mask over the face. Reduce, not eliminate altogether. There is no 100% sure chance of being safe, otherwise you would not step foot on the alien planet as you say. However, your two choices given to me are: 100% safety, or 0% safety. Whats wrong with say, 60% chance of not catching something by keeping the helmet on for the first excursion.
Its important to note that the helmet on will not INCREASE the chances of exposure, which is what taking it off does. If you leave it on and you still catch ill, well then you are the same as your friend who took his off, just having to deal with the inconvenience of an annoying helmet too. If it actually does protect you to some extant, than isn't that a good thing?

Sure, on earth. I'll accept that. I'm not accepting it on other planets, of which you have no knowledge. End of story. Yours is speculation based on earth science of "airtight". The helmet could cook your head or make it implode on another planets due to environmental factors earth science can't comprehend...without you knowing it would do so beforehand. You don't know. Nothing you can say makes you know.

My example was an earth based example too, so also flawed.

We're done discussing this I think and have begun shouting past one another.

My stance is that I'm okay with them removing their helmets if the air is breathable and their tech says it's safe to do so (which it did in the script).

You aren't.

Let's be done with this line of argument shall we?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 June 2012 - 08:10 PM

[blackzoid]

"The helmet could cook your head or make it implode on another planets due to environmental factors earth science can't comprehend...without you knowing it would do so beforehand"
Aye, thats a risk I take every time I go cycling. Its a scary helmet imploding universe out there folks. Take care.

Ookie-Dookie on the agree to disagree thing then.

[champ]

http://uk.ign.com/ar...-damon-lindelof


Interview with Lindelof about his role in the creation of Prometheus!

[A Demon Llama!]

CF: I dont think that something could have laid the eggs there since they were obviously being transported in neat rows with that mist protecting them. But who knows, might have been an alien queen with OCD.

Also the problem with any movie is that if people have to go on explaining and trying hard as shit to find reason in some of the questionable plot points, then its not that good of a movie. Everything should flow nicely and make sense and not create debates as to why a damned scientist that was just way running away from shit decided to adopt a vagina snake as a pet,.

[Illuyankas]

Hey, the air is breathable, let's all take our helmets off! Well, you checked there's nothing in the air, no horrible particles or anything? No? Great! Let's just stir the air in here by running around opening up all these doors and sending floods of whatever's coating the surface after settling for two thousand years up and into our lungs, could be anything from naive pathogens to fucking asbestos, we don't care! What, you didn't find anything on the scanners? Did you think to put your helmets on before opening the doors to unscanned areas? How much are we paying you? We aren't? Oh.

Fuck, just dust or other particulates will shaft your lungs, alien planet or not.

[cerveza_fiesta]

A Demon Llama!, on 11 June 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

CF: I dont think that something could have laid the eggs there since they were obviously being transported in neat rows with that mist protecting them. But who knows, might have been an alien queen with OCD.

Forgot about those fields. It could still work in the plot pretty easily. Maybe the fields were intended for something else and a xenomorph queen just finds them to be a convenient place to lay eggs, like how she lays them in the warmer parts of the facility in Alien2. Hard to say.

A Demon Llama!, on 11 June 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Also the problem with any movie is that if people have to go on explaining and trying hard as shit to find reason in some of the questionable plot points, then its not that good of a movie. Everything should flow nicely and make sense and not create debates as to why a damned scientist that was just way running away from shit decided to adopt a vagina snake as a pet,.

The problem i have with the vast majority of sci fi fans (despite myself being one) is that they make a huge deal out of small questionable plot points no matter how much flow there is to a movie, all the while touting Star Wars as the pinnacle of Sci fi achievement. I just wish folks could enjoy a movie for its good points and not always have it "ruined" by a few bad points. Prometheus wasn't some crazy departure from the earlier Alien movies or something. Much as I love them, they all have lean, cheesy dialogue, a monster that chases them around for a few hours and a heroine that somehow overcomes the odds to kick its ass in the end. Why everybody thought Prometheus was supposed to be this oscar winning tour de force with the best script ever written is beyond me. There's only so much you can do in the sci fi thriller genre without changing genres and becoming a star trek movie.

I stand by assertion that the director's cut will change the game for the quality of prometheus. When it comes to striking scenes to fit a cinematic release, what is the editor going to choose? A flashy, expensive fight scene where somebody gets burned and shot for 5 minutes or some "boring" dialogue between David, Weyland and Charlize? Do they keep the mostly unnecessary (but expensive) CGI scene where David stands inside a starmap for 5 minutes or the cheap character development scene where we see some crew bonding? Those extra scenes, even 15-20 minutes worth (which is about 1/8 of the total movie length), are enough to completely change a movie. Have faith doubters!

[QuickTidal]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

I stand by assertion that the director's cut will change the game for the quality of prometheus. When it comes to striking scenes to fit a cinematic release, what is the editor going to choose? A flashy, expensive fight scene where somebody gets burned and shot for 5 minutes or some "boring" dialogue between David, Weyland and Charlize? Do they keep the mostly unnecessary (but expensive) CGI scene where David stands inside a starmap for 5 minutes or the cheap character development scene where we see some crew bonding? Those extra scenes, even 15-20 minutes worth (which is about 1/8 of the total movie length), are enough to completely change a movie. Have faith doubters!

This is especially true with Ridley's films. BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT was better than the theatrical and previous directors Cut, GLADIATOR directors cut adds significant weight to Maximus' back story, ROBIN HOOD directors cut adds just NINE minutes, but even that makes the film better. The best of Ridley's director's cut's though is the one for KINGDOM OF HEAVEN...what was a decent, but kind of scattered narrative with some questionable choices in the theatrical cut becomes an incredible tour de force and probably ranks as one of my favourite Ridley Scott films in the directors cut which is 45 minutes longer and actually gives motivation to like 5 different plot points that made no sense in the theatrical cut. He always gives us the goods.

[blackzoid]

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

The problem i have with the vast majority of sci fi fans (despite myself being one) is that they make a huge deal out of small questionable plot points no matter how much flow there is to a movie, all the while touting Star Wars as the pinnacle of Sci fi achievement.

That would possibly be 2001 you meant to say as the pinnacle of Sci Fi achievement. Star Wars is fantasy from the get go. Different standards apply. And frankly I never understood the fanaticism with which Star Wars is viewed, but I understand your point. Why does that film get a pass? Its simple: Consistancy of the Rules.
If you include spacesuits in your film, and then actively ignore them, I get annoyed. You have broken your own rules. Star Wars doesn't include space suits on alien planets, it's consistant with its own rules.

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

I just wish folks could enjoy a movie for its good points and not always have it "ruined" by a few bad points. Prometheus wasn't some crazy departure from the earlier Alien movies or something. Much as I love them, they all have lean, cheesy dialogue, a monster that chases them around for a few hours and a heroine that somehow overcomes the odds to kick its ass in the end. Why everybody thought Prometheus was supposed to be this oscar winning tour de force with the best script ever written is beyond me. There's only so much you can do in the sci fi thriller genre without changing genres and becoming a star trek movie.

Remember Cabin in the Woods this year? Remember the way it lampooned stupid character decisions in horror movies? If characters (in a supposdly serious film) share no sense of basic self-preservation I actively begin to resent the movie for wasting my time. I'm not watching people, I'm watching plot-devices interact.
Hudson and co wanted to nuke the planet from orbit in Aliens after their mauling in the Alien nest. A perfect non-stupid solution. At the end of this film even after everything she had witnessed, Shaw still wanted to talk to (not attack) the Engineers who want to wipe out humans. Moronic.

cerveza_fiesta, on 12 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

I stand by assertion that the director's cut will change the game for the quality of prometheus. When it comes to striking scenes to fit a cinematic release, what is the editor going to choose? A flashy, expensive fight scene where somebody gets burned and shot for 5 minutes or some "boring" dialogue between David, Weyland and Charlize? Do they keep the mostly unnecessary (but expensive) CGI scene where David stands inside a starmap for 5 minutes or the cheap character development scene where we see some crew bonding? Those extra scenes, even 15-20 minutes worth (which is about 1/8 of the total movie length), are enough to completely change a movie. Have faith doubters!

Unless Scott starts actually deleating scenes, it will not change the quality of the film for many people (myself included).

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 12 June 2012 - 01:20 PM

[QuickTidal]

blackzoid, on 12 June 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Remember Cabin in the Woods this year? Remember the way it lampooned stupid character decisions in horror movies? If characters (in a supposdly serious film) share no sense of basic self-preservation I actively begin to resent the movie for wasting my time. I'm not watching people, I'm watching plot-devices interact.
Hudson and co wanted to nuke the planet from orbit in Aliens after their mauling in the Alien nest. A perfect non-stupid solution. At the end of this film even after everything she had witnessed, Shaw still wanted to talk to (not attack) the Engineers who want to wipe out humans. Moronic.

You clearly have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what actually DRIVES scientists, let alone archeologists. In 1922 Howard Carter and Co. were told in no uncertain terms that a curse lay on plundering a pharoah's tomb, and that if he excavated Tutankhamun's final resting place, the curse would affect him and probably kill him. He did it anyways, even in the face of supposed death during an era where a lot of people still believed in things like curses and spirits. He coincidentally got bit by a mosquito on his way out of the tomb and died a week later from Malaria. That's beside the point. It was a stupid decision to go into the tomb when he was warned against doing so. In 1871 Heinrich Schliemann excavated in Turkey at the site of ancient Troy, and he snuck around permits, dug before he'd been given proper permission and dug at night to avoid the Turkish gov't stopping him. This could have gotten him thrown into the clink quite easily at the very least...since Troy is technically Turkey's #1 historical site (after the Hagia Sofia)...but he did it anyway and actually destroyed a LOT of the archeological evidence of the city in the process. archeologists (like Shaw) are driven by their desire to KNOW. They are driven to find answers to life and civilization's mysteries. In the case of Shaw she is driven to find out the why's we are left wondering at the end. It might be stupid, but it's perfectly in line with the way that type of scientist thinks and desires.

Quote

Unless Scott starts actually deleating scenes, it will not change the quality of the film for many people (myself included).

You say this, but then why are you still on thread then? If you hated the film so much do you think that pissing and moaning about it here is going to serve anyone? Will it stop people from going to see it? Probably not. Will you change the minds of those who did like it? Certainly not. So why continue to spout sour grapes? I simply see no purpose. All you seemingly can be set on is having people agree with your vitriol about it...which kind of defeats the purpose of discussing it. If you want to debate certain points, that's cool. Let's do that, but comments like the above serve nothing and are fairly petty snark.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 12 June 2012 - 02:06 PM

[blackzoid]

Heh, some cool agreeing to disagreeing action right there QT. I like your style.

I'd advise caution however, I have a helmet that could implode at any time near my desk. And while "implosion" doesn't technically radiate outwards, who knows what could happen with my web broswer set to a Prometheus thread? I mean who really knows what DRIVES helmet-implosion anyway?

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 12 June 2012 - 02:14 PM

[McLovin]

Well, since QT brought up BLADE RUNNER and director's cuts, here's a question: does the director's cut make Deckard actually relevant to the story? Watch the movie closely - all Deckard does is follow a chain of evidence that leads to one ass-kicking after another. Does Deckard actually do ANYTHING that affects the outcome of that story? Not really.

Hopefully, the director's cut of PROMETHEUS delves deeper into David's motivations for what he does. No amount of additional footage will make the crew seem less dumb, but at least if that one point could be cleared up, I might be willing to give it a second viewing.

[cerveza_fiesta]

@McLovin

That's mostly what I was talking about. Dumb crew is dumb, no argument there. It was the interaction between David, Weyland, Deckerd and the kind of out-of-order out-of-place-ness of their actions that was weird for me. Like I said above, I was able to fill it in with the most likely interpretation; it was just a little too much "filling in" for my liking. It reeked of missing dialogue scenes, which is exactly what a Director's Cut would address.

Fuck all the boring details though, Prometheus ruled.

Perfect near-seamless special effects that didn't look at all fake, tasteful 3D, giant alien engineers, blood and guts, beautiful set designs, mouth-raping alien snakes, robots, people set on fire, everybody dies horrifying deaths, Not 1 but 2 spaceships crashing plus a lifeboat crash, Charlize in a tight suit with heels and constant nip stance, Noomi running around in gauze bandages for 10 minutes, a hilarious antagonist death scene (splat), an out-of-the-blue tentacle monster versus engineer fight at the end, and the MOTHERFUCING SPACE JOCKEY.

Gods people, how could the movie taste that bad when it's smothered in such a hefty dose of awesomesauce!

[A Demon Llama!]

i feel like this movie is insulting. theres a difference in being warned not to go into a tomb because you are driven, and its completely different to just have a movie rely on stupid decisions of people and poor writing i can guarantee you that if he saw a mummified cat growling at him he wouldn't approach it and try to pet it. the whole idea is that the two scientists got lost. how did they get lost if they had all their shit mapped out and they could still communicate with the captain on board who also had the goddamned map.. i can understand them wanting to leave, but not getting lost nor wanting to pet that snake. they could have fallen in a hole or gotten stuck and been jumped at from behind by those things. minor problems with the operation (how did it not detect she wasn't male? no anesthetics?) but i can let that go. its just insulting, and lazy, you guys cant deny that. I am fucken obsesed with Alien and Aliens. Alien is my favourite movie and you can bet your ass i wanted this movie to be good. i saw it and was disappointing and tried to give it the benefit of doubt, tried to give reason to some of the shit that happened there, but couldnt. this movie could also have been much deeper, it only scratched the surface of some potentially good ideas. also was it necessary to have weyland in an old suit that looked somewhat wierd? he didnt play a younger version of himself so they could have gotten an old guy.

on on unrelated not: OH GOD YES POLAND SCORED

[RACHEL]

It always amazes me how defensive some people get on this site. If someone hates a movie they just do. If someone likes it they just do. Who cares. I think it's a bit silly how people get so "mother bear in defense of her cub" when it comes to a movie, book, or song that they like. If someone says they don't like something about the movie, fine, let it go. You don't have to form a line of defense and give a reason why you think they are wrong for each one of their dislikes. If I like a movie and someone doesn't I don't need to defend my movie of choice and convince them that it's awesome. I don't care. It's not a personal attack, don't take it that way.

[A Demon Llama!]

Of course everyone has the right to their opinion, but Isnt t a forum a place to post your thoughts, engage in conversation and arguments and to defend (if you so want) your opinion? That's what its here for. If someone doesn't want to participate they don't have to. Because of these arguments I actually got some stuff that I missed in the movie, and I don't mind, and in this case kind of want to be proven wrong. I don't think anyone is actually taking these things personally anyway.

[McLovin]

I am. THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[cerveza_fiesta]

McLovin, on 13 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

I am. THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

I agree....and you're lucky.

Every disagreement I have on here is 100% personal and I am currently in hate and at war with ADL because he thinks prometheus is dumb.

AND YOU'RE NEXT RACHEL

Because I happen to disagree with you by agreeing with McLovin that the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS.