Prometheus (2012) discussion - *SPOILERS!*

[wonkishere]

Well that's absolutely bananas. In no particular order...

The questions were unanswered but um, a lot of them do make sense. Nitpicking science details on the changing of constellations is fine up to a point. It's similar to the critique of the original Alien were people point out how much mass the Alien gained without apparently consuming any mass. True... but irrelevant. It was a classic movie, and what was good about it was more important then some scientific inaccuracies. I get the sense that you made a decision at some point to dislike the movie, which is fine I guess.

Vickers didn't have inhuman strength. I saw no scene where she possessed that. The reasons given by the characters needn't have been true. Part of the motivation of the characters is their obsessive desire to know what the hell the Aliens wanted, and their frustrations at the fact that rather than being omnipotent godlike beings with a grand plan, they turned out to be petty, pissed off beings whose motivations are hard to understand, and possibly irrational even if you do understand them correctly. In a sense, though he was a scientist, he wanted his creators to be godlike, but instead they proved to be very imperfect.

You know I look at conversations like this one, and I understand why Hollywood doesn't try very hard to make intelligent movies. People here are taking the position that you are only allowed to raise a question if you answer it.

I have no respect for that position. And this kind of thing that's going on right here, is why in a few years, some new writer will go present a complicated intelligent script that demands a lot of his viewers, something brilliant and original; they will look at it, see it's complexity, and that it raises questions it might not be able to answer in two hours of screen time, and then say, "No, we don't want this." And then having done that, they will go make the sequel to Independence Day.

1. They left the truck outside... and nobody found it. Why is it a problem that the truck was abandoned? It's a big planet, and they didn't have time to get the truck. I'm not clear why that would bother you. That has got to be one of the strangest reasons to dislike a movie I have ever heard.

2. Would they listen to him? Could be. The work of artists of all sorts of different times survive to different ages. Some of the artists famous today were unknown during their own time. Just because they were unsuccessful when they were producing, doesn't mean they won't be more successful after they are dead. Frequently, the people we like at present, are NOT famous in the future. And frequently, the people we ignore today ARE famous in the future.
Vincent Van Gogh comes to mind. Philip K. Dick is respected now, but had a lot of trouble selling his work in his lifetime and was not well known. Virtually every Blues musician who practiced his craft had trouble in his own life making enough money to buy food and pay rent, but many are famous today and the rights to their music can be valued at millions now.

You seem to be arguing that it is a rehash... because it didn't do a better job of doing things they did in the last movie.

That's really bizarre.

If you didn't like the movie fine... but you have not convinced me it's a rehash. It is the opposite of that; they are not required to focus on Weyland-Yutani, or do any of that other stuff you mentioned.

I agree with your criticism that they went in the direction of removing suspense, by showing everything and hiding nothing. It would be nice if suspense were valued a little more.

I think the problem some have with it, is that it was not a rehash, and it was a little too interesting of a movie for today's movie audience. I thought the acting was great, and I liked the philosophical questions raised. I thought the conversation that one of the protagonists had with the android on the ship in the beginning was brilliant, and did a really good job of setting the themes raised in the movie. Michael Fassbender did a great job.

I don't believe that the Engineers couldn't be killed by low-tech weapons. They are big, but I didn't see any signs they were invincible. I also don't think the mechanics of the plot were particularly poor, really. People who want to pick at tiny little details always will. I've never known a science fiction novel that someone couldn't find fault with if they wanted to. The more obsessive a writer becomes about 'realism,' the more he opens himself up to it. That's why people write more 'fantasy' than science fiction now; you don't have to justify science behind magic.

The big giant head... I sense you were making a joke about that? The point was that the looked like us. Don't get the William Shatner reference but whatever.

Originally Posted by Dave

You want to know why I say that? Then I'll get off the fence, because as others have said, when you sleep on this film, you don't wake up thinking any kinder of it. I certainly did want those other ideas to come across and for it to be about that. I wanted it to be a 'First Contact' film. I wanted to know who the jockey/engineer/creators were. However, we learned nothing about their motives. You say the plot was "convoluted". You are being very kind. The plot was full of holes and practically unfathomable.

You have surmised all of what you say about the jockey/engineer/creators; really the film just left lots more questions unanswered, and those answers it did present, I think we have shown already, made little sense. We aren't even sure if some of what the humans said was true or just their own assumptions.

Take away that and what remains is a ship investigating a planet where there are creatures that grow inside us and burst out of our chests. After the release of Alien in 1979, it literally spawned another film with this same theme every month. It is a tired old concept now.

Alien was a classic 'horror'. The creature was largely unknown and unseen until later in the film. The story was shocking for its sexual themes and the chest bursting (which even the actors didn't know about until filming.)

Dan O'Bannon from http://www.cracked.com/article_18932...rely-rape.html

Didn't this film just try to go one step further with that abortion?

Only now we already know all about the alien life cycle, and almost everything else about it, so no suspense there at all, just the shock factor remains. That is what all horror films have now become; blood gushing and explicit gore. Nothing is left to the imagination; there is no suspense.

Even the evil Weyland-Yutani corporation was done better in the earlier films - consistently portrayed as exhibiting the worst aspects of company profiteering and corporate greed; quite willing to sacrifice decency and human life for the pursuit of profit.

Here we had that exchanged instead for a vain old man suffering the depredations of ageing and looking for the secret of eternal life from his maker. All a part of this new religious theme that was introduced from nowhere.

I do think the sign of a good film is one that can be talked about for a long time after, but that should be for the right reasons. As I see it, most discussions here at Chronicles (after the liked it-didn't like it) start with nit picking the plot and the bad science, then they move on to the characters motives and 'mechanics' of the plot (as in which level they were on in Inception). The films people discuss for ever (such as the Matrix and Bladerunner) then focus mostly on the symbolism contained within, together with the questions they pose about our own morality and future.

If we are still discussing the 'mechanics' of the plot here then I agree it can not have been very well plotted. (And I also find the religious symbolism in this film lazy. Even the Da Vinci Code did a better job.)

PS: Some questions that also bothered me:

1. If the, "I'm a F***ing Geologist and I like Rocks" guy, and "I'm a Biologist" who pets extra-terrestrial creatures guy, really stayed behind, and they didn't take that huge, enormous, six-wheeled truck, back to Prometheus, where did the truck go to instead? Who took it?
2. Do people still listen to Stephen Stills eighty years from now? And would his Accordion be something someone would really take on a long space voyage?

And I've been reading some of the links here now. It seems that the ambiguity of Vickers being an Android was deliberate. Hence, her super-human strength, and yet everything else pointing to her humanity. It is a subject close to Ridley Scott's heart, which begs the question even more of why he didn't do the Bladerunner sequel instead, and why tie this film to the Alien universe at all, and not just do a completely different film which would not have had as many problems.

From interviews with Ridley Scott, most of what has been surmised about a 'Jesus Engineer' visiting Earth 2000 years ago is all intended. My problem is that none of that is in this film. I don't want to have read interviews with the Director, to read the things he forgot to put in, to understand the film.

Many people with questions about the Big Giant Head too. One person said it was a crossover to Third Rock From the Sun leaving the possibility of William Shatner being in the sequel.

I'd failed to mention what a visual feast this was, but that's because I need more than that in a film. The cinematography, the design, all of that was good. I didn't watch in 3D, but I expect that even the very, very beginning (the shots of the glaciers and mountains, lakes and streams) would have been 100% better than the other 3D films I have seen. Still, if I wanted that I'd watch David Attenborough.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

In order to have a profitable sequel he needs to have a profitable Prometheus! Thus far the film has only made 75% of the production costs. Of course, BR/DVD sales will probably save his skin as that seems to be where the real money in profits are these days.

That's true. Really, they don't have to make all their money off tickets anymore, and at this point, I do not believe they are worried. They don't need to "save their skin."
In today's market, if you can cover 75% of production costs in a couple weeks after release, then you're going to make a profit on the movie in the years that follow, and you are judged to have done pretty well. Online sales, DVD's, licensing to Netflix, and so on, can easily make more money total then the movie made at the movie theater. Movies don't need to do quite as well at the movie theater as they used to, to make a profit.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

Vickers didn't have inhuman strength. I saw no scene where she possessed that.

That would be when she lifted David completely off the floor.

Originally Posted by wonkishere

They left the truck outside... and nobody found it. Why is it a problem that the truck was abandoned?

The truck clearly was no longer there. That is why they had been believed to have gone back to the ship. It isn't a prime reason to dislike the film, but it is further evidence of the poor scriptwriting.

Originally Posted by wonkishere

I get the sense that you made a decision at some point to dislike the movie, which is fine I guess.

I did, about three quarters of the way through. Probably about the same time when the C-sectioned woman began running and jumping around. I'm more disappointed than anything else.

I really don't like the "Space Jesus" idea. It wasn't in the Alien films before and it does not stand up to close scrutiny. And that isn't a new thought-provoking idea. Behold the Man was more historically accurate. This could in no way be described as an "intelligent movie". Even the characters made stupid ridiculous decisions.

[TheTomG]

I agree that not all questions need to be answered, I love hanging questions - but ones with mystery, wonderment, that leave room for discussion. Not things that just don't plain make sense.

I don't think it's nitpicking to say you have bad character development when the same person who was desperate to move AWAY from a lifeform was suddenly all about sticking his finger in the mouth of the next one. He has to be consistent, and either both times want to investigate this marvellous new life, or both times want to get away from it. Having him do one thing then another just doesn't make sense - either he's a fraidy cat, or he's recklessly curious, but he should be the same thing each time.

So, I don't find plot holes and poor character development to be at all the same as writing a script that poses, but doesn't answer, some great questions. In fact that's the very criticism leveled at this movie - Alien never did say what the weird space jockey was, and that made it wonderful, not a plot hole. This movie has none of that mystery-that-leaves-you-guessing, and instead just has bad script writing

[TheTomG]

PS - another example is having the one guy in charge of the tech that maps the structure being the one guy who manages to get lost while everyone else is just fine at finding their way around. Again, that's just bad writing, not an intriguing unanswered question.

[PTeppic]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

You know I look at conversations like this one, and I understand why Hollywood doesn't try very hard to make intelligent movies. People here are taking the position that you are only allowed to raise a question if you answer it.

I don't mind unanswered questions. But I don't want careless or stupid "science" in my science-fiction. A little leeway maybe, like the fantastic growth capabilities of the alien creature, but some of the other bloopers in this thread. As others have said, it's like they didn't even try to check the maths.

[Judderman]

If only they could have had the "space-jockeys" as another alien (perhaps aggressive) race that a human ship comes across rather than suited giant humans who have created us. The idea of them engineering the aliens we know and love would have been fine but not the humanity aspect.
But the main problem, ignoring incorrect science or plot holes or unanswered questions, is simply too many uninteresting characters whose actions make little sense. All that said it is quite a fun (and visually pleasant) movie but we expected more (It is not Transformers after all). It definitely would get better reviews from someone who hasn't seen / doesn't revere Alien 1-3 highly. Really the prequel should appeal to fans of the originals.
I will watch the next one and it will probably be ok but I doubt very much that it will answer the questions we have. We can still hope, but it would be safer to expect an action movie.

[iansales]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

That's true. Really, they don't have to make all their money off tickets anymore, and at this point, I do not believe they are worried. They don't need to "save their skin."
In today's market, if you can cover 75% of production costs in a couple weeks after release, then you're going to make a profit on the movie in the years that follow, and you are judged to have done pretty well. Online sales, DVD's, licensing to Netflix, and so on, can easily make more money total then the movie made at the movie theater. Movies don't need to do quite as well at the movie theater as they used to, to make a profit.

Not true. If the film doesn't have good opening weekend, and earn back during its US release, then it will be classified as a flop. It may later make a profit on international release or via merchandising or sell-through DVD/Blu-Ray/PPV. But it will still be a flop. Like John Carter.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by iansales

Not true. If the film doesn't have good opening weekend, and earn back during its US release, then it will be classified as a flop. It may later make a profit on international release or via merchandising or sell-through DVD/Blu-Ray/PPV. But it will still be a flop. Like John Carter.

Well, "the" may call it a flop, because they like to go by years of past history that no longer apply, and because they like calling things a flop. But the people who paid for the movie are the ones who will generally be deciding about investing in a sequel. And if they make their money back on their investment, the silliness of other people's judgement on their matter will not likely matter to them.

[wonkishere]

Sigh. No, she really didn't. I saw the scene. She grabbed him and threw him against the wall. She did not pick him up and hold him unsupported in the air. And you will notice that he didn't actually resist. There was nothing remotely superhuman about what she did, I've seen people do it. He (the android) allowed himself to be thrown against the wall. He did not physically resist, probably because of the nature of his programming.

Go watch it again. You are now so committed to your point, that you are reorganizing facts in your brain. It just didn't happen the way you described.

I'm going to go ahead and say it. Just because you didn't see something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. The theme I described was very, very obvious, and you would probably have picked it up if you weren't obsessing over strange stuff.

And I do not concur that the truck was lost incidentally... anyway have fun picking it to death.

I congratulate you guys on managing to dislike the first intelligent science fiction movie I've seen in the theaters in years. I despair of the genre that science fiction used to be sometimes. When Independence Day the sequel hits the theaters, I'll think of you.

Originally Posted by Dave

That would be when she lifted David completely off the floor.
The truck clearly was no longer there. That is why they had been believed to have gone back to the ship. It isn't a prime reason to dislike the film, but it is further evidence of the poor scriptwriting.
I did, about three quarters of the way through. Probably about the same time when the C-sectioned woman began running and jumping around. I'm more disappointed than anything else.

I really don't like the "Space Jesus" idea. It wasn't in the Alien films before and it does not stand up to close scrutiny. And that isn't a new thought-provoking idea. Behold the Man was more historically accurate. This could in no way be described as an "intelligent movie". Even the characters made stupid ridiculous decisions.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by TheTomG

PS - another example is having the one guy in charge of the tech that maps the structure being the one guy who manages to get lost while everyone else is just fine at finding their way around. Again, that's just bad writing, not an intriguing unanswered question.

Well, when the android went wandering off, he was working on something nobody else knew he was working on, which was finding a living alien for the old guy living in his old.

He wasn't lost. He was deliberately avoiding the rest of the group, so he could accomplish his real primary goal, which he had to do while the others were not around.

If you're talking about the jerk who ran the robots for mapping the structure, I do not recall that the he got lost. He wandered off with the biologist to go check out his geology and beloved rocks... which was stupid, but stupidity on the part of a character is not a plot hole.

The person who didn't fear the small alien was the biologist, not the geologist, and it's not hard for me to imagine that a guy who must have made his living studying life would have been thrilled to see something truly Alien. He didn't know it was a bio-engineered creature.

I haven't heard a plot hole yet. What I'm hearing from are bunch of a guys who didn't understand what they saw.

As of yet, I haven't seen any plot holes in the movie.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

As of yet, I haven't seen any plot holes in the movie.

I'm really glad you liked it, but the consensus here, and from other people I've talked to, and a quick Google at any online forum, would say you were in an unusual position. You may well be right, and everyone else is wrong, but I won't be watching this at the cinema again to check the points you made, and I doubt it will make my Christmas DVD wish list.

[TheTomG]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

Well, when the android went wandering off, he was working on something nobody else knew he was working on, which was finding a living alien for the old guy living in his old.

He wasn't lost. He was deliberately avoiding the rest of the group, so he could accomplish his real primary goal, which he had to do while the others were not around.

If you're talking about the jerk who ran the robots for mapping the structure, I do not recall that the he got lost. He wandered off with the biologist to go check out his geology and beloved rocks... which was stupid, but stupidity on the part of a character is not a plot hole.

The person who didn't fear the small alien was the biologist, not the geologist, and it's not hard for me to imagine that a guy who must have made his living studying life would have been thrilled to see something truly Alien. He didn't know it was a bio-engineered creature.

I haven't heard a plot hole yet. What I'm hearing from are bunch of a guys who didn't understand what they saw.

As of yet, I haven't seen any plot holes in the movie.

The biologist and geologist were heading back to the ship, disliking the discovery of the dead engineer (wait, who is the guy who didn't understand what they saw again?) They do not go in search of rocks. They do get lost (characters inquire why they are not back yet.)

The fact they got lost is silly, as the geologist was the one in charge of the mapping technology. David was not in charge of the mapping bots, so no, I wasn't talking about him. And the geologist seems to think a lot of the bots, referring to them as his pups if I heard him right. Yet he seems clueless on how to read the map they generate.

Biologist was thrilled to see an alien - but he just ran away from one when the probe detected a life form, when he declared with obvious fear that they should go in the other direction from the detected ping. I can get if he is thrilled on discovering life being a biologist, but then he would move TOWARD that first ping of life, excited to see what it is.

Yet when a lifeform shows up, he goes right up close. I get if he is afraid of unknown life even as a biologist, especially given that he and geologist buddy just discovered huge pile of dead bodies, but then he should move AWAY from this life form just like he did the first detection of one.

He should be consistent in his desires, and he isn't.

I don't think we are picking apart the first intelligent sci fi movie in ages, because it just is not intelligent, sorry. We're picking apart a sci fi movie we hoped would be intelligent, that perhaps the director intended to be intelligent, but that has so many badly written characters and events that any pretension to the throne of being a smart sci fi that makes you think is totally lost.

We discuss it in such detail, because we had such high hopes, sadly dashed.

[TheTomG]

To dig up the quote that makes it quite clear where Laurel and Hardy are headed:

Fifield: What? Look, I'm just a geologist! I like rocks! I love rocks! Now it's clear you two don't give a **** about rocks. But what you do seem to care about is gigantic dead bodies, and I don't really have anything to contribute in the gigantic dead body arena! I'm gonna go back to the ship, if you don't mind.
[he turns to face the others]
Fifield: Anyone want to join me, hey?
[to Millburn]
Fifield: You staying?
Millburn: Uh...no. Ship's good.
Fifield: Yeah. Ship very good.

[Gordian Knot]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

I congratulate you guys on managing to dislike the first intelligent science fiction movie I've seen in the theaters in years. I despair of the genre that science fiction used to be sometimes. When Independence Day the sequel hits the theaters, I'll think of you.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. I wouldn't call the rest of us, in effect brain dead, because we disagree.

It is difficult for me to see this as the intelligent SF movie you believe it is. There is a big difference between vagueness done on purpose to get one to think, and vagueness because plot points are just picked up and dropped at random.

Prometheus was definitely the latter.

There is also the inevitable, and I believe appropriate comparison between his two movies, Alien and Prometheus. Alien was well thought out, indeed brilliantly so. Directed to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, both wondering and fearing what is going to happen next.

It is hard to believe Prometheus was directed by the same guy. It has none of the cohesiveness and intensity of Alien.