|
Taken from wikipedia :
As a direct prequel to Alien, it was focused on leading into that film's story, and recreating the familiar cues of that series,[76] and Scott wanted to avoid repeating his previous accomplishments.[78] Lindelof said, "If the ending to [Prometheus] is just going to be the room that John Hurt walks into that's full of [alien] eggs [in Alien], there's nothing interesting in that, because we know where it's going to end. Good stories, you don't know where they're going to end."[78] "A true prequel should essentially proceed [sic] the events of the original film, but be about something entirely different, feature different characters, have an entirely different theme, although it takes place in that same world."[72]
Lindelof said that the film could instead run parallel to the Alien series, and that a sequel would be Prometheus 2 and not Alien, and submitted an idea for how such a sequel could work
So basically there was a first draft that was an actual prequel but then some douche came and changed it all so they could pump one more movie. I didn't dislike the movie, but it just doesn't make sense, especially if you consider it's an alien prequel.
|
On September 23 2012 16:00 VashtaNerada wrote:
Prometheus is a modern form of a Greek tragedy. One the action begins, it maintains unity of location (the small area defined by the two ships), unity of time (the main action appears to take place within 24 hours or so) and unity of theme (hubris). The structure is correct as well: a prologue introducing the characters, an episode/stasimon mixture (the stasimon is updated somewhat, rather than being a choral song and dance number, it's the action sequence, so you have dialog, then action, then dialog, then action, in a repeated alternating sequence), and the exodos where the actors would exit with dialog. The theme is even right on topic for a Greek tragedy: gods and hubris.
I didn't come out of Prometheus thinking it was a great movie. Not bad, but not great. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to place what I'd seen in the framework of a Greek tragedy, and once I realized how well it fit, I've come to think of the movie as a remarkable piece of artwork. As a work of science fiction, its value is questionable, relying on a reverse Frankenstein complex as the underlying conflict (humans are the creation this time) and a lot of stupid sci-fi movie cliches (things that rapidly gain mass out of nothing, things making noise in a vaccuum, etc.) As a Greek tragedy, though, it's fantastic.
So, I guess I still don't know how I feel about it because I really wanted to see a good sci-fi movie. I suppose I'll content myself with appreciating what the movie did well (a modern Greek tragedy, now in theaters!) while being irritated at the lack of really good science fiction movies.
I like this post. I don't know much about Greek tragedy beyond your explanation, but there wasn't definitely something special about this movie. I watched it with my girlfriend who doesn't enjoy sci-fi OR action movies, and even she enjoyed it.
There's a laundry list of stupid things that happen in this movie accompanied by glaring plot gaps, but despite this, it was a great show. It's got my interested, it's got me excited for the sequal, and it actually got me to go back and watch it again, and I'll probably watch the extended version when it comes out.
I've read ~10 pages or so of this thread and I haven't seen it mentioned, but what happened with the biologist and red headed map dude? I mean yes, the whole scene where they encounter the snake thing was ridiculous, but what next? In Aliens, a similar creature plants an egg inside a host (leaving them alive) which erupts through their stomach later on and kills them. Then it grows into a big nasty.
In this one, the snake thing appeared to jump out of the biologists neck?....Then that was it. Was it still the snake that jumped out, or had it evolved into a small alien who would grow into a big one given time? Maybe we'll find out more in the sequal. Why didn't it make another appearance in the movie? Was it just bidding its time? Why even have this scene if it's not going to impact the movie...guess to set up the trilogy?
There were lots of "plot gaps" that are only explained by the idea that they are to "set up the sequal/trilogy." Seems like there might be a few too many of these imo, some of the lose ends should have been expanded on or removed entirely to focus on the core of the movie. You don't need half of this movie to be a teaser for the next one....save that for the final scene.
Another thing, the guns! First of all the whole "it's a scientific mission so no guns on this potentially hostile planet" was stupid, but even if they did bring guns, apparently they're worthless anyways! When Holloway gets contaminated, he takes about 50 shots on top of a good old fashioned flame thrower torching and still only goes down when his body is crushed by a giant truck and repeatedly shot. (won't even get into why Charlize decides the flame thrower is the most humane way of euthanizing an infected crew member instead of a bullet to the head, lol)
Then the big Engineer takes a few shots to the chest without flinching...what the hell? Without changing the outcome of either situation, they could've made the guns more badass. You know darn well there's going to be a future scene where a badass hero goes on a rampage and kills hordes of baddies with the same weak-ass guns...only they'll work this time, so why not just make them reasonably powerful to begin with? Have them blow off an arm and/or part of Holloways head, but still have him attacking due to his messed up genetics. Have the engineer protected by some sort of visible shielding device, or have him take out the gunman before he gets a shot off.
The gun thing is pretty minor despite my 2 paragraph rant 
I really enjoyed the movie on the whole and I look forward to more installments in the trilogy!
Cheers,
Ramone
|
9/10 movie, and I dont even know why, but I just loved the ending and the entire movie so much. Luckily I was a bit high when I saw this movie, so everyone seemed pretty smart to me, even the bio guy who liked that aggressive snake.
I think this movie will be better as people who wanted it to be something else, will adapt and accept this movie who only gives questions and yes, we never really seem to get rid of the Hollywood stupidity characters that is in most movies. I still liked that red-head, she was insane, sane and had courage, and most of all, not a bitch.
|
On October 07 2012 20:51 crappen wrote:
9/10 movie, and I dont even know why, but I just loved the ending and the entire movie so much. Luckily I was a bit high when I saw this movie, so everyone seemed pretty smart to me, even the bio guy who liked that aggressive snake.
I think this movie will be better as people who wanted it to be something else, will adapt and accept this movie who only gives questions and yes, we never really seem to get rid of the Hollywood stupidity characters that is in most movies. I still liked that red-head, she was insane, sane and had courage, and most of all, not a bitch.
lmfao! Norway representing! just awesome dude
|
On September 23 2012 16:00 VashtaNerada wrote:
Prometheus is a modern form of a Greek tragedy. One the action begins, it maintains unity of location (the small area defined by the two ships), unity of time (the main action appears to take place within 24 hours or so) and unity of theme (hubris). The structure is correct as well: a prologue introducing the characters, an episode/stasimon mixture (the stasimon is updated somewhat, rather than being a choral song and dance number, it's the action sequence, so you have dialog, then action, then dialog, then action, in a repeated alternating sequence), and the exodos where the actors would exit with dialog. The theme is even right on topic for a Greek tragedy: gods and hubris.
I didn't come out of Prometheus thinking it was a great movie. Not bad, but not great. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to place what I'd seen in the framework of a Greek tragedy, and once I realized how well it fit, I've come to think of the movie as a remarkable piece of artwork. As a work of science fiction, its value is questionable, relying on a reverse Frankenstein complex as the underlying conflict (humans are the creation this time) and a lot of stupid sci-fi movie cliches (things that rapidly gain mass out of nothing, things making noise in a vaccuum, etc.) As a Greek tragedy, though, it's fantastic.
So, I guess I still don't know how I feel about it because I really wanted to see a good sci-fi movie. I suppose I'll content myself with appreciating what the movie did well (a modern Greek tragedy, now in theaters!) while being irritated at the lack of really good science fiction movies.
Give me a break. There are quite a few movies that would fit that mold unintentionally. Don't give it more credit than it deserves.
The movie was trash, and the 'big ideas' that it attempts to explore (which it doesn't, at all) are not even profound. The whole 'why are we here, what is our purpose' thing is a confused question to begin with, and this particular film doesn't add anything to the equation.
The characters were one dimensional at best, the writing was kitsch, the message was bloated with self importance and honestly embarrassing in a modern, secular age. (a scientist who believes in the makers because "its what she chooses to believe", evolutionary theory called "darwinism", Weyland believes that robots can't appreciate anything because they "lack souls")
Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a a sci-fi romp with pretensions of grandeur is dreaming.
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 07 2012 20:51 crappen wrote:
9/10 movie, and I dont even know why, but I just loved the ending and the entire movie so much. Luckily I was a bit high when I saw this movie, so everyone seemed pretty smart to me, even the bio guy who liked that aggressive snake.
I think this movie will be better as people who wanted it to be something else, will adapt and accept this movie who only gives questions and yes, we never really seem to get rid of the Hollywood stupidity characters that is in most movies. I still liked that red-head, she was insane, sane and had courage, and most of all, not a bitch.
It is true that they managed to write a female action lead who wasn't a complete cunt. Last one before that being Ripley I guess.
Rest of the movie tho? Sigh. You did yourself a favour watching it high.
|
On October 07 2012 21:29 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 16:00 VashtaNerada wrote:
Prometheus is a modern form of a Greek tragedy. One the action begins, it maintains unity of location (the small area defined by the two ships), unity of time (the main action appears to take place within 24 hours or so) and unity of theme (hubris). The structure is correct as well: a prologue introducing the characters, an episode/stasimon mixture (the stasimon is updated somewhat, rather than being a choral song and dance number, it's the action sequence, so you have dialog, then action, then dialog, then action, in a repeated alternating sequence), and the exodos where the actors would exit with dialog. The theme is even right on topic for a Greek tragedy: gods and hubris.
I didn't come out of Prometheus thinking it was a great movie. Not bad, but not great. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to place what I'd seen in the framework of a Greek tragedy, and once I realized how well it fit, I've come to think of the movie as a remarkable piece of artwork. As a work of science fiction, its value is questionable, relying on a reverse Frankenstein complex as the underlying conflict (humans are the creation this time) and a lot of stupid sci-fi movie cliches (things that rapidly gain mass out of nothing, things making noise in a vaccuum, etc.) As a Greek tragedy, though, it's fantastic.
So, I guess I still don't know how I feel about it because I really wanted to see a good sci-fi movie. I suppose I'll content myself with appreciating what the movie did well (a modern Greek tragedy, now in theaters!) while being irritated at the lack of really good science fiction movies. Give me a break. There are quite a few movies that would fit that mold unintentionally. Don't give it more credit than it deserves. The movie was trash, and the 'big ideas' that it attempts to explore (which it doesn't, at all) are not even profound. The whole 'why are we here, what is our purpose' thing is a confused question to begin with, and this particular film doesn't add anything to the equation. The characters were one dimensional at best, the writing was kitsch, the message was bloated with self importance and honestly embarrassing in a modern, secular age. (a scientist who believes in the makers because "its what she chooses to believe", evolutionary theory called "darwinism", Weyland believes that robots can't appreciate anything because they "lack souls") Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a a sci-fi romp with pretensions of grandeur is dreaming.
true, this film was garbage, an insult to the original
|
1019 Posts
On October 07 2012 21:29 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 16:00 VashtaNerada wrote:
Prometheus is a modern form of a Greek tragedy. One the action begins, it maintains unity of location (the small area defined by the two ships), unity of time (the main action appears to take place within 24 hours or so) and unity of theme (hubris). The structure is correct as well: a prologue introducing the characters, an episode/stasimon mixture (the stasimon is updated somewhat, rather than being a choral song and dance number, it's the action sequence, so you have dialog, then action, then dialog, then action, in a repeated alternating sequence), and the exodos where the actors would exit with dialog. The theme is even right on topic for a Greek tragedy: gods and hubris.
I didn't come out of Prometheus thinking it was a great movie. Not bad, but not great. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to place what I'd seen in the framework of a Greek tragedy, and once I realized how well it fit, I've come to think of the movie as a remarkable piece of artwork. As a work of science fiction, its value is questionable, relying on a reverse Frankenstein complex as the underlying conflict (humans are the creation this time) and a lot of stupid sci-fi movie cliches (things that rapidly gain mass out of nothing, things making noise in a vaccuum, etc.) As a Greek tragedy, though, it's fantastic.
So, I guess I still don't know how I feel about it because I really wanted to see a good sci-fi movie. I suppose I'll content myself with appreciating what the movie did well (a modern Greek tragedy, now in theaters!) while being irritated at the lack of really good science fiction movies. Give me a break. There are quite a few movies that would fit that mold unintentionally. Don't give it more credit than it deserves. The movie was trash, and the 'big ideas' that it attempts to explore (which it doesn't, at all) are not even profound. The whole 'why are we here, what is our purpose' thing is a confused question to begin with, and this particular film doesn't add anything to the equation. The characters were one dimensional at best, the writing was kitsch, the message was bloated with self importance and honestly embarrassing in a modern, secular age. (a scientist who believes in the makers because "its what she chooses to believe", evolutionary theory called "darwinism", Weyland believes that robots can't appreciate anything because they "lack souls") Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a a sci-fi romp with pretensions of grandeur is dreaming.
Couldn't have said it better.
And you know you watched a good movie when you are left amazed when it ends. It doesn't become a good one after you start thinking about later.
|
On October 07 2012 21:29 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 16:00 VashtaNerada wrote:
Prometheus is a modern form of a Greek tragedy. One the action begins, it maintains unity of location (the small area defined by the two ships), unity of time (the main action appears to take place within 24 hours or so) and unity of theme (hubris). The structure is correct as well: a prologue introducing the characters, an episode/stasimon mixture (the stasimon is updated somewhat, rather than being a choral song and dance number, it's the action sequence, so you have dialog, then action, then dialog, then action, in a repeated alternating sequence), and the exodos where the actors would exit with dialog. The theme is even right on topic for a Greek tragedy: gods and hubris.
I didn't come out of Prometheus thinking it was a great movie. Not bad, but not great. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to place what I'd seen in the framework of a Greek tragedy, and once I realized how well it fit, I've come to think of the movie as a remarkable piece of artwork. As a work of science fiction, its value is questionable, relying on a reverse Frankenstein complex as the underlying conflict (humans are the creation this time) and a lot of stupid sci-fi movie cliches (things that rapidly gain mass out of nothing, things making noise in a vaccuum, etc.) As a Greek tragedy, though, it's fantastic.
So, I guess I still don't know how I feel about it because I really wanted to see a good sci-fi movie. I suppose I'll content myself with appreciating what the movie did well (a modern Greek tragedy, now in theaters!) while being irritated at the lack of really good science fiction movies. Give me a break. There are quite a few movies that would fit that mold unintentionally. Don't give it more credit than it deserves. The movie was trash, and the 'big ideas' that it attempts to explore (which it doesn't, at all) are not even profound. The whole 'why are we here, what is our purpose' thing is a confused question to begin with, and this particular film doesn't add anything to the equation. The characters were one dimensional at best, the writing was kitsch, the message was bloated with self importance and honestly embarrassing in a modern, secular age. (a scientist who believes in the makers because "its what she chooses to believe", evolutionary theory called "darwinism", Weyland believes that robots can't appreciate anything because they "lack souls") Anyone who thinks this is anything more than a a sci-fi romp with pretensions of grandeur is dreaming.
I just watched it last night and felt compelled to air out my frustrations. I was really looking forward to see this movie for months and was really disappointed after I saw it. Compare say, Blade Runner to Prometheus and you will see the chasm between the two in terms of writing, depth and consistency (I wasn't expecting it to be the next Blade Runner, but this wasn't supposed to be a horror movie anyways). The characters, or should I say caricatures were annoyingly stupid at times, the scenes lacked tension, the dialogue was clumsy and the writing was really sloppily done i.e. big dramatic events that were established would be completely forgotten a scene later). Ridley should've hired better writers for the screenplay. Of course, the CGI was incredible for the most part as was the scenery.
|
I really liked this movie. I thought it was entertaining and the special effects were very nice.
|
I for one enjoyed the movie.
|
I too enjoyed this movie, but on a very shallow level. The writing was pretty bad for the most part, but the sets and CGI were amazing. There was some good gore and at least 9000 homages to the first Alien movie. I was pretty disappointed with the shitty lines they gave Idris Elba's character since he is capable of so much more. The effects and sets carried this movie to a 9/10.
|
|
|
Is there going to be a sequel? i mean the ending was open-ended....
|
On December 04 2012 17:32 banatboy wrote:
Is there going to be a sequel? i mean the ending was open-ended....
Yeah, there are plans for a trilogy actually.
|
On December 04 2012 17:32 banatboy wrote:
Is there going to be a sequel? i mean the ending was open-ended....
The big film companies make sequels and sequels of the sequels to even the worst movies, nowadays. There is no way this cash cow is not going to have a sequel.
|
I do hope the sequel takes into account some of the ideas I've been throwing around in my blog:
http://thinbastard.blogspot.com/2012/06/better-theory-of-prometheus.html
I've been trying to answer some of the nagging questions about the movie. They are not canon in anyway, but I prefer this theory rather than the one passed around the internet: - That the Engineers wanted to kill the humans because they crucified Jesus (who was apparently an Engineer).
That theory is stupid as shit.
Here's an excerpt from the discussion at the blog:
"The title of a movie is the window to its soul. And, yes, it is also the name of the damned ship. The Jesus theory does not But why stop there?
The myth of Prometheus is essentially about a God who created mankind and stole fire from the heavens to give to the humans. The Gods then punished Prometheus not because of the theft, but because he gave the humans an opportunity to be equal or even better than the gods.
It doesn't makes sense for the Engineers to sacrifice themselves to give life to a planet, and then decide to eradicate it on a whim.
The only way that this myth becomes a central point of the movie is if we consider the Engineers as the modern-day Prometheus, and their own makers, to be the Gods. The Engineers gave life to us (probably against the Gods' wishes), and now gives us the equivalent of "fire" - the black ooze."
TL;DR: “The Engineers wanted to evolve humans, not destroy them.” The Why: “To save them from the fate they faced against their own makers."
|
On September 27 2012 02:45 Ramone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 16:00 VashtaNerada wrote:
Prometheus is a modern form of a Greek tragedy. One the action begins, it maintains unity of location (the small area defined by the two ships), unity of time (the main action appears to take place within 24 hours or so) and unity of theme (hubris). The structure is correct as well: a prologue introducing the characters, an episode/stasimon mixture (the stasimon is updated somewhat, rather than being a choral song and dance number, it's the action sequence, so you have dialog, then action, then dialog, then action, in a repeated alternating sequence), and the exodos where the actors would exit with dialog. The theme is even right on topic for a Greek tragedy: gods and hubris.
I didn't come out of Prometheus thinking it was a great movie. Not bad, but not great. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to place what I'd seen in the framework of a Greek tragedy, and once I realized how well it fit, I've come to think of the movie as a remarkable piece of artwork. As a work of science fiction, its value is questionable, relying on a reverse Frankenstein complex as the underlying conflict (humans are the creation this time) and a lot of stupid sci-fi movie cliches (things that rapidly gain mass out of nothing, things making noise in a vaccuum, etc.) As a Greek tragedy, though, it's fantastic.
So, I guess I still don't know how I feel about it because I really wanted to see a good sci-fi movie. I suppose I'll content myself with appreciating what the movie did well (a modern Greek tragedy, now in theaters!) while being irritated at the lack of really good science fiction movies. I like this post. I don't know much about Greek tragedy beyond your explanation, but there wasn't definitely something special about this movie. I watched it with my girlfriend who doesn't enjoy sci-fi OR action movies, and even she enjoyed it. There's a laundry list of stupid things that happen in this movie accompanied by glaring plot gaps, but despite this, it was a great show. It's got my interested, it's got me excited for the sequal, and it actually got me to go back and watch it again, and I'll probably watch the extended version when it comes out. I've read ~10 pages or so of this thread and I haven't seen it mentioned, but what happened with the biologist and red headed map dude? I mean yes, the whole scene where they encounter the snake thing was ridiculous, but what next? In Aliens, a similar creature plants an egg inside a host (leaving them alive) which erupts through their stomach later on and kills them. Then it grows into a big nasty. In this one, the snake thing appeared to jump out of the biologists neck?....Then that was it. Was it still the snake that jumped out, or had it evolved into a small alien who would grow into a big one given time? Maybe we'll find out more in the sequal. Why didn't it make another appearance in the movie? Was it just bidding its time? Why even have this scene if it's not going to impact the movie...guess to set up the trilogy? There were lots of "plot gaps" that are only explained by the idea that they are to "set up the sequal/trilogy." Seems like there might be a few too many of these imo, some of the lose ends should have been expanded on or removed entirely to focus on the core of the movie. You don't need half of this movie to be a teaser for the next one....save that for the final scene. Another thing, the guns! First of all the whole "it's a scientific mission so no guns on this potentially hostile planet" was stupid, but even if they did bring guns, apparently they're worthless anyways! When Holloway gets contaminated, he takes about 50 shots on top of a good old fashioned flame thrower torching and still only goes down when his body is crushed by a giant truck and repeatedly shot. (won't even get into why Charlize decides the flame thrower is the most humane way of euthanizing an infected crew member instead of a bullet to the head, lol) Then the big Engineer takes a few shots to the chest without flinching...what the hell? Without changing the outcome of either situation, they could've made the guns more badass. You know darn well there's going to be a future scene where a badass hero goes on a rampage and kills hordes of baddies with the same weak-ass guns...only they'll work this time, so why not just make them reasonably powerful to begin with? Have them blow off an arm and/or part of Holloways head, but still have him attacking due to his messed up genetics. Have the engineer protected by some sort of visible shielding device, or have him take out the gunman before he gets a shot off. The gun thing is pretty minor despite my 2 paragraph rant I really enjoyed the movie on the whole and I look forward to more installments in the trilogy! Cheers, Ramone
I just watched this movie for the second time now that it's on blu ray. I was hoping to get more out of the second time after reading so many explanations etc., although I did notice a few things.
I am gonna say I hope the sequels explain the purpose of making the black ooze. It wasn't the same as the weird stuff the guy at the beginning drank because that makes you disintegrate. Were they just messing around with ways to mix their DNA? Could it be to create the aliens for the Predators to hunt (remember those are in the same universe and they seem to like hunting the aliens as it's the only species strong enough to challenge them)? I thought it was pretty funny that creating the alien required giving some of the ooze to Charlie, and then impregnating a woman, and then that hybrid hybrid lays eggs in an engineer.
The space jesus thing is the dumbest thing ever to anyone who has ever read the bible.
A lot of the criticism of the movie is pretty nitpicky. All the stuff about David acting weird are totally explainable. He had one mission, and that was to find out how to save Peter Weyland. He was curious from the beginning about all the gooey stuff that none of the scientists seemed to care about. All the stuff about how Shaw just went and did surgery on herself and everyone just kind of got over it is explainable. David was quite possibly the only person that knew and he didn't give a crap if she's infected or not.
The copilots who stay on the ship really have nothing to lose. It's either die by ramming the alien ship or living for a few months (the 2 years of resources on the standalone pod would be divided by 3 instead of just one person giving them 8 months) on a hell hole of a planet with Ms Vickers. I think I'd have done the same thing.
Why did she choose a flame thrower? Bullets tend to spew blood and guts everywhere. Fire consumes. Why did the engineer not go down when he got shot? He's super human of course.
|
Although I did not like the movie, yeah apparently there's a sequel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
