|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.81.116.219
I forgot to take it off my NF list but quite surprisingly enjoyed it again. Things just seem to snap into focus on the third try. I think one of the bigger quandaries is why the Engineers wanted to annihilate Earth about 2K years ago? This is only for conjecture but perhaps they had seen enough of man's crap or they were disappointed with his "evolution" since they would consider themselves perfect. BUT, maybe they had a feeling for the Jesus character and they projected they would finally lose their god-like status among mankind.
Whatever it was, the last surviving Engineer took after Noomi with a vengeance. They had decided to have a full hate-on of humanity.
Not sure if Ridley has allowed to release their concepts for what the answers really are...anybody know?
Follow Ups:
Realy looking forward to it. So much for the NT.
I don't know why. This movie leaves me underwhelmed. Here I am, so starved for a good space-faring swashbuckling sci-fi movie that I leap at the first indication toward any new offering to come from the movie industry. Wherever it may be.
This movie starts out to go find and, hopefully, talk to the makers/creators of the human race. Fine, lets call them "Engineers". It seems more adult than to refer to any of them as a god. Perhaps Prometheus himself? But in the end we find that the "Engineers" are not at all benevelent and in fact wish to destroy the human race.
Dare we ask why? The movie doesn't chose to answer why.
Will the sequel answer this question, or will it devolve into another Alien film with the monsters getting out and killing and maiming more sentient beings like ourselves and among them our not-so-benevolent creators? Probably. Ho hum. I've yet to see P2, yet I suspect that I already have, and it was years ago.
-Steve
Sci fi always asks the question "what if" and even when it's answered and tied up neatly at the end, you're still supposed to be left thinking of other outcomes/permutations--otherwise it's not good sci fi. The way some want this to be a mindless checklist of "answers" so they don't have to think too hard or interpret too much is silly--abandons the whole point of the movie. No, it may not have telegraphed an answer, but it sure hinted at some.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
I will concede that the movie has aroused enough curiosity to cause this discussion in this forum. Yet I remain a disappointed viewer. Probably because I was never that great of a fan of the Alien movies to begin with.
The glass is half empty. In an Alien movie, the glass is always half empty.
This movie,Prometheus, indicates that the monsters are actually living weapons designed for the depopulation of a planet. Ours. And that like us, the monsters were constructed by the engineers. But for some unknown reason, the monsters have turned on their creators at this remote installation and killed them all except for the one remaining survivor, who later is consumed by a monster and dies.
The Elizabeth Shaw character, the story's protagonist is, at the end, seen blasting off the planet in one of the Engineer's ships. She, along with the robot, David, are off to find the Engineers and have that talk with them that her dead husband originally so strongly desired to have.
Do I detect potential for the sequel to develop into a huge sweeping saga about planet Earth's desperate attempt to avoid extinction and find a way to defeat the Engineers.
Could we learn that there is something more that the monsters and us humans have in common? What did the Engineers learn that made them want to depopulate the Earth? Should we be? Or are their motives less than noble. Do they just covet our planet for their own population? A sequel could explore stuff like that.
But, having seen the other Alien movies I know it will be something downbeat. There will be corporate greed. There will be villainous, traitorous corporate officers. And actions that shows humans, by their own behavior, that they deserve nothing less than extinction. It will be depressing and demoralizing. Like all the other alien movies.
Compare it to 2001 where, at the movie's end, Bowman is rescued by the unnamed beings who left the monolith on Earth. The viewer then is allowed to see that Bowman grows old in comfort, dies, and then reincarnates into something different. And then the movie ends but leaving the viewer to wonder if the answers to life's biggest questions aren't about to show themselves.
I think we are putting too much thought into an "Alien" movie.
-Steve
If they just wanted to kill people there would be an easier way. Super scary monster creating black stuff is for tinkerers. They're just screwing around.
.
I will concede that the movie has aroused enough curiosity to cause this discussion in this forum. Yet I remain a disappointed viewer. Probably because I was never that great of a fan of the Alien movies to begin with.There was only one Alien movie worth viewing--the first one--directed by Ridley Scott, who not coincidentally directed Prometheus.
The glass is half empty. In an Alien movie, the glass is always half empty.
The first Alien (again, the only one worth viewing and repeat viewing) is a brilliant visual poem exploring the human consciousness of "other". From design of set structures that conjured comparison to sexual organs to the juxtaposition of different races, sexes, species and indeed experiences.
This movie,Prometheus, indicates that the monsters are actually living weapons designed for the depopulation of a planet. Ours. And that like us, the monsters were constructed by the engineers. But for some unknown reason, the monsters have turned on their creators at this remote installation and killed them all except for the one remaining survivor, who later is consumed by a monster and dies.
That's just the outer layer. As you say, the question is "why". Why would the creators of life decide to snuff it out? Why would tools made of the stuff of creation not work as intended?
The Elizabeth Shaw character, the story's protagonist is, at the end, seen blasting off the planet in one of the Engineer's ships. She, along with the robot, David, are off to find the Engineers and have that talk with them that her dead husband originally so strongly desired to have.
Yes, but that conversation is like "talking about God"...you just don't do that in a movie script, unless you want to sound stupid. A good advertisement doesn't tell you "go out and buy some potato chips; it makes you feel--through words and images--like tasting them. That is exactly what needs to happen in films that dance around questions about the meaning of life and its origins. You don't go and show what happened, or have the creator sit down with the created for a cup of tea and a friendly chat. That just doesn't do justice to the gravity and importance of the question--and in the context of sci fi, establishing a mythology must remain mysterious in order to inform real life, in which the answers to these questions are unknowable.
Do I detect potential for the sequel to develop into a huge sweeping saga about planet Earth's desperate attempt to avoid extinction and find a way to defeat the Engineers.
I could just as easily dream up a narrative where Shaw is sucked up in a plot for the engineers to save themselves from their own creations. Or where they try to find their creator(s) to beg to be spared.
Could we learn that there is something more that the monsters and us humans have in common? What did the Engineers learn that made them want to depopulate the Earth? Should we be? Or are their motives less than noble. Do they just covet our planet for their own population? A sequel could explore stuff like that. But, having seen the other Alien movies I know it will be something downbeat. There will be corporate greed. There will be villainous, traitorous corporate officers. And actions that shows humans, by their own behavior, that they deserve nothing less than extinction. It will be depressing and demoralizing. Like all the other alien movies.
Well, so far Scott is slated to produce if not direct the sequel. So I hold out hope that it will not rapidly degrade into mediocrity like the Alien series. Certainly if Cameron gets involved it will become a joke.
Compare it to 2001 where, at the movie's end, Bowman is rescued by the unnamed beings who left the monolith on Earth. The viewer then is allowed to see that Bowman grows old in comfort, dies, and then reincarnates into something different. And then the movie ends but leaving the viewer to wonder if the answers to life's biggest questions aren't about to show themselves.
See, I thought those kinds of things were rather silly and undermined the importance of the subject matter.
I think we are putting too much thought into an "Alien" movie.
I don't think you can put too much thought into something produced by one of the greatest working directors who worked on the film for over a year at the cost of about $125 million. I think what bothers many sci fi fans about Prometheus is the way it is largely an anti-scifi film, the way Unforgiving was an anti-Western. If we take Prometheus at face value, scientists are the retards. Faith in God is the saving grace of humanity. This conclusion alone is worth meditation.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Edits: 11/11/12
"If we take Prometheus at face value, scientists are the retards. Faith in God is the saving grace of humanity."
If we take Prometheus at face value, we get a botched screenplay with nary a trace of intelligence, wonder, discovery or even basic continuity, written by a couple of hacks (Lindelof, in particular) with unbelievably rushed and disjointed pacing, two-dimensional placeholder characters and a few pretty (mostly recycled) set and effect designs.
The "scientists" showed no hint of their calling because the writers were dumbing-down (assuming they had anywhere else to go) to a juvenile, instant-gratification, generation-video-game audience. Hint: actual scientists employ the rigorous painstaking discipline known as scientific methodology; so "retarded." On the other hand, shoehorning in a smattering of phony Bronze Age spiritual hokum fit this train wreck of a story perfectly, as it was a transparently forced attempt to add the illusion of depth where none existed.
If anything, the message I took away was that blind selfish grovelling to fantasy thunder gods--recall the enraged reaction of the giant gray bodybuilder when asked for a boon--continues to plunge an unenlightened mankind into darkness and ignorance; a failed experiment and time to sterilize the Terran petri dish and start over. IOW, we can take away anything we choose from a story that has nothing to offer in the way of narrative substance.
I loved the original "Alien"-- that was a study in deliberate pacing and the slow buildup of tension--but the rest of the franchise provided varying degrees of awful. Has Ridley Scott done anything of value beyond "Alien" and "Blade Runner"? If so, it eludes me.
If we take Prometheus at face value, we get a botched screenplay with nary a trace of intelligence, wonder, discovery or even basic continuity, written by a couple of hacks (Lindelof, in particular) with unbelievably rushed and disjointed pacing, two-dimensional placeholder characters and a few pretty (mostly recycled) set and effect designs.I'll address this at the end.
The "scientists" showed no hint of their calling because the writers were dumbing-down (assuming they had anywhere else to go) to a juvenile, instant-gratification, generation-video-game audience. Hint: actual scientists employ the rigorous painstaking discipline known as scientific methodology; so "retarded." On the other hand, shoehorning in a smattering of phony Bronze Age spiritual hokum fit this train wreck of a story perfectly, as it was a transparently forced attempt to add the illusion of depth where none existed.
It wasn't a mistake or shortcoming of the screenplay that the scientists were cast as imbeciles, and it wasn't to dumb down the movie. Plenty of dumbed down movies cast scientists as geniuses. Prometheus was a refreshing change. If you think scientists are smart--most of them are not. They're like chefs, but without creativity. More like prep cooks. They're also cut-throat, elbowing each other out of the way for grants in a system of cronyism and elitism that is not conducive to the best researchers or research. We live in a time when the human genome has now been sequenced and uploaded to PubMed Central. We are told this will unlock the key to curing all kinds of horrible diseases and retard aging.
If anything, the message I took away was that blind selfish grovelling to fantasy thunder gods--recall the enraged reaction of the giant gray bodybuilder when asked for a boon--continues to plunge an unenlightened mankind into darkness and ignorance; a failed experiment and time to sterilize the Terran petri dish and start over. IOW, we can take away anything we choose from a story that has nothing to offer in the way of narrative substance.
The story had a beginning, middle and end, and I understand you didn't like any of it, but it wasn't empty or devoid of a narrative. Mankind, as portrayed in the film, is not unenlightened. The movie made a distinction between those who act purely on "scientific methodology" as you say, with no hint of ethics or faith to guide them, vs placing faith above empirical knowledge. Granted, you would rather take away "anything you choose" from what the movie actually points toward, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a narrative substance--it just means you choice to ignore the substance because you refuse to accept the concept that science may not unlock all the secrets after all.
I loved the original "Alien"--that was a study in deliberate pacing and the slow buildup of tension--but the rest of the franchise provided varying degrees of awful. Has Ridley Scott done anything of value beyond "Alien" and "Blade Runner"? If so, it eludes me.
I agree that Alien was a more masterful study in old fashioned suspense, horror and pacing. But Prometheus was no lighweight fare and didn't dial in any of the scenes that erupted in violence. There was very good build-up to the abortion scene in particular. And Prometheus had things that Alien did not--namely a totally masterful performance by Fassbender, who tied in Lawrence of Arabia in a brilliant way. Did you miss the connection? Do you know what LoA says about humanity? Because it's not that mankind is plunged into darkness and ignorance--it's a bit more complicated than that. I also disagree with you that Scott has not done anything of value besides Alien and Blade Runner (ironically, I didn't care for that one but more power to you if it was your cup of tea). I think Black Hawk Down was one of the greatest war/combat movies ever made, and Gladiator was about as close to Shakespeare as Hollywood can get.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Edits: 11/12/12
I don't get this business of being unhappy because we're never told why the world is round. Just live with it and realize that we'll always have questions. That's how life is; yet we expect movies to be otherwise.
It's a better movie because of the hanging chads.
WTF were they thinking?
Any movie that is supposed to answer questions and DOES NOT ANSWER A SINGLE ONE but instead just leave you with twenty more is a joke.
Josh Whedon once said, 'tv shows are about questions. movies are about answers'.
He got that right.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Dr. Greg House
.
You pretty much said it all.
.
Edits: 02/27/18
After the c-section abortion she stumbles around the corridors of the ship covered in blood with staples in her stomach and then encounters other crew members who seem not to take notice of her predicament. Not so much as a "Had a tough day at the office, Liz?". Guess she ignored their Facebook Friend Requests.
*
The mission was privately funded, like they want Planned Parenthood to be.
When she leaped and caught the edge of the other side of the platform, the whole family winced on her behalf.
d
Typical hack liberal response from Tin...."Prometheus? What's next, Slasher Maniac?"
Right, Prometheus is a gateway to torture porn.
Dolt.
Actually, it was "Moonrise Kingdom."
Ask you daughter, maybe she can explain that one to you; since she's graduated from Star Wars and all!
;D
d
Dumbass.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
*
.
Yeah, she was running around and jumping a lot after that--obviously in some discomfort. Chalk it up to better drugs in the future.
It's always slightly bizarre, when discussing a sci-fi movie in which not one frame of the film is realistic, to get hung up on a technicality like that.
Nothing about this movie is realistic. I mean there are huge silicon beings, black goo and hostile snakes...why let that slide and focus on a lady running around after undergoing c-section?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
It commanded the same kind of suspense and horror that Scott developed in Alien, but took it to another level. I was on the edge of my seat. It was a bit like the final encounter in Alien, when Weaver stripped down to her undies and then realized the alien was in her escape pod. But that paled in comparison to Noomi's scene.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Edits: 11/08/12
Lots of great 'fun style' questions.
I'm sure Tin still hates it.
There are some continutiy gaps that just kill it for me, however.
Taking off the helmets...crap.
The biologist 'talking' to the cute cobra alien...he deserved worse than a quick death.
The geologist as dickhead...meh.
The list goes on.
Still loved it.
ten minutes, through the corporal dissolution scene.
The characters weren't particularly interesting.
The scenes in the interior of the fortress were very good.
The robot guy was cool.
But the rest was kind of stock.
In other words, I liked the more intellectual parts of the story but the director seemed to feel he had to make it more of an action feature and that lowered it far below "2001" or "Forbidden Planet," for me. I'd also include the remake of "The Thing" with those two, as well.
I have never seen such a list of digital artists and technician in me life. The whole film was a visual knockout. Kudos to Iceland for giving them so much to work with.
*
There are some continutiy gaps that just kill it for me, however.
Well you say you love it, so it couldn't have killed it for you. It sketches out enough continuity to hang together.
Taking off the helmets...crap.
The atmosphere in the structure was found to be breathable. The helmets became redundant. Besides, it showed the main archeologist to be a thrillseeking jerk, which was kind of the point.
The biologist 'talking' to the cute cobra alien...he deserved worse than a quick death. The geologist as dickhead...meh.
Yeah, see a pattern here? All the scientists were cast as imbeciles, except for Noomi who put her faith before her science. The whole point of the film is to emphasize the importance of faith in human consciousness, as more important than empiricism and in guiding creation.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
If the geologist and biologist are meant as representative samples of a trade....no.
I don't think they would ever have survived a real vetting process, do you?
Talk about signal to noise ratio--meaningless scientific work and bad data drowns out meaningful experiments and good research. It's an industry now. Universities churn out PhDs, but there is no real quality control. So we have skyrocketing instances of fraud, retractions, conflicts of interest, etc. Yet scientists remain "the geniuses" of society. So then we have situations where the world celebrates a fraud like Hwang Woo-suk. Or where bogus stem cell therapies vastly outnumber effective stem cell therapies. Or where antisense technology that launched many biotech startups and was supposed to be a no-brainer approach to gene therapy turns out to be a crock of shit.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
If you notice, the engineer that David wakes up from his slumber in the pod doesn't really go ballistic until he lifts David up, realizes that this is a droid developed by humans--i.e., the created have become creators not at all unlike the engineers--and this seems to infuriate him. He then goes to town, murdering everyone in the room (except Noomi, who gets away), and then takes off in his ship to go destroy humanity on Earth. Of course, his ship is rendered kaput and he has to settle for trying to destroy Noomi. He faith carries her through!
I also point out again the ties to the myth of Prometheus. It seems clear that the engineers have been paying for their bioengineering ventures for quite some time, just as Prometheus had to suffer for an eternity after giving life and fire to mankind. Same concept here. There is a higher "engineer" and we'll see where the story goes in Prometheus 2.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
to re-register the moment the Engineer turned on the crowd. I'm sure your instincts are correct with David setting him off. I thought the audacity of Weyland seeking immortality was the offending stroke the Engineer perceived but I see your point.
This is not a "see it one time" movie.
An interesting interpretation, but wouldn't the engineer have lashed out immediately at Weyland instead of David?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
My initial reaction but thinking back but I see the scene differently after thinking back on the Engineers action. It appeared that David was very pleased to be touched by an "intellectual equal".
This plays into an earlier conversations/statements in other scenes. David was also experiencing the irony of being disassembled by his maker's maker. It was a powerful moment/scene. You knew it would rapidly go brutal but it was interesting how the violence erupted. The other cool thing about how David lost his head was as a redux of Ash losing his head in the original Alien.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Edits: 11/09/12 11/09/12
Good point, Jazz.
This was almost a great movie. If a person leaves scratching his head, he'll keep it fresh longer, and that's certainly what Scott did to most viewers.
You might pick up some insights from the Pro forum, which also ... get this ...
says there will be a "Blade Runner" sequel !
I hope its soon.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: