 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.232.224.41
it "improved."
This film is complex enough, it has enough talented actors, that it rewards careful, multiple exposures.
The story becomes less of a distraction and I concentrate more on the pure story telling, which I find excellent: believable in the interesting world the writers created.
Some sneaky little Scott overtures to Kubrick, too: the axe-wielding scene w/the female principal, near the end; the androids "Hal-like" moments; the "Dr. Strangelove" scene wherein the pilot ship is sent into the WMD-bearing one.
With this summer such a bust for films, I'm glad to report this one is definitely worth a second or third glance.
I watched it on Vudu and I'm pleased to announce the HDX is spectacular (Netflix offers it not on download…..).
Edits: 07/31/14Follow Ups:
You read it here, folks. This franchise is dead.
They say they're going to make another movie, and then every other week we hear about Ridley doing some other, different movie next.
Put a fork in it, this is DONE.
This movie was a total conceptual disaster and one of the stupidest films I've seen in a decade.
'Repeated viewings' my ass. What next, a discussion of how STID 'wasn't that bad'?
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
If spec, then I pretty much agree. P left too many holes to backfill with a sequel, as witnessed by all the inferences below.
But Scott, for all I know (which is zip point zero), appears to be a guy who's a bit quest driven. He might just do it, and from things I've read, he's laid groundwork.
From somewhere in cyberspace so don't blame me if it's not true.
"Back in March, news broke that an untitled Ridley Scott film would open in March 2016. Rumors quickly suggested that film would be Prometheus 2, especially since the script for that was reportedly done. Well, the movie in that slot has now been moved up, to November 25, 2015. And it’s not Prometheus 2. It’s better. It’s Scott’s adaptation of the Andy Weir book The Martian, with Matt Damon reportedly set to star.
Box Office Mojo reported the date change on The Martian movie. The current adaptation was written by Drew Goddard, who was originally going to direct. He left the project some months ago, so there’s no word if Scott will shoot Goddard’s screenplay."
I hope somebody is attending to lubrication.
People making up shit right and left. Phone this stuff in and help the dude out.
N/T
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" - Michael McClure
Nt
Probably the only sci-fi movie where science takes a back seat to faith. The imagery of the "abortion" scene was probably the most powerful set to film since the original Alien "birth" scene.Fassbender is amazing, and it does get better with repeat viewing.
Edits: 08/02/14
I'd say it's juxtaposition with the science is critical; plus, it's argued by a person with deep scars and very needy.
The film itself hardly is supportive of her view: it shows human kind came from aliens, not from a OT Divine presence.
And I'd also mention the spiritual interpretation one could take away from 2001.
Pay attention to her conversation with her father in the dream David watches. Also consider when and why her crucifix which is removed symbolizing a loss of faith, and then it is ultimately returned as she chooses to restore her faith and believe. The scientists who lack faith quickly succumb to evil.
argument against it.
If she truly were religious, she wouldn't have an abortion. Hehe…
Now, if aliens created Man, what need of God? That's the bottom line of Scott's film, if you want to lower it to being some sort of cheesy religious message flick.
And surviving hardly is a moral victory, is it? Dying in opposition to evil, I'd argue, is just as righteous.
As Shaw says in the film when Holloway points out that the engineers created humans and Shaw can now stop wearing her crucifix, "who created them?" I don't think it's a cheesy religious flick at all. I just think it deals in the currency of imagery and ideas related to faith versus empiricism in much the same way that Alien deals in the consciousness "human versus other"...
There is no way to get around the fact that the scientists who lacked faith quickly were killed off in a way that would never be characterized by "opposition to evil" by anyone who has seen the film.
" I'm a Scientist, I don't believe in Anything!"
Read that somewhere recently.
I liked the film a lot, looking forward to what comes next.
Any idea when it migh be released?
The good news is Rapace and Fassbender have signed on. P2 has a different writer than those associated with Prometheus, which was heavily rewritten. Scott's production company is listed as producing, so that is a good sign. The screenplay is now being reworked.
Edits: 08/03/14
...except to say that it is a movie worth watching over and again. So much detail. Not just detail in the screenplay but also in the set design and artistic back-drops. Definitely, this is a very high quality production. The CGI is terrific.Below, some thoughts that come to mind.
It starts out to be a search to find the "ones who made us", then turns into a shop of horrors when they finally find them.
Shades of Kubrick? Or is that A.C.Clarke. But with Clarke's story, 2001:A Space Odyssey, the search to find the ones who left the monolith on the moon ends by not only refusing to answer the central question, (who were they), it depicts an artificial intelligence (HAL 9000) that goes bonkers on the journey to Jupiter, then turns homicidal, killing all but one of the crew. The surviving crew member does seem to meet with the "monolith leavers' but undergoes a kind of transcendence into another life state. Then he is seen , symbolically, as a human fetus in orbit and looking down upon planet Earth. And this answers nothing while raising more questions such as; What the hell is this? Answers are forthcoming by reading all the novels by Clarke in the series;2001, 2010, 2061 & 3001. The last novel answers all remaining questions if, by now,anyone is still interested.
At least in Scott's story the artificial intelligence (David) doesn't go bonkers, nor does he betray anyone. (not really) David is merely following the instructions from his master (Weyland). Also in Scott's story there are some clues to human origins given. Just clues, but enough to wet an appetite for the next sequel. By now the screen play must have been written. I'll go see the next installment.
At the core, these movies are sci-fi horror. And I suppose it would be a letdown if:
a)the horrific alien monsters did not begin killing off, one by one, a ships crew
b)all but one (maybe two) of the crew will be killed, but the survivor will be seen to have escaped by the skin of teeth to tell the tale, but....
c) the Weyland corporation will not want the story to get out, (there are commercial interests at stake) so the protagonist will ultimately be taken prisoner by the Weyland corp and put on ice. But wait we've already seen that movie. sigh.-Steve
Edits: 08/01/14 08/02/14
They made a *major* timeline faux pas if you're an astute watcher. This story supposedly pre-dates the Alien movies. However, the technology displayed in Prometheus is vastly superior to that shown in Alien. How is that possible?
There are many other mistakes made, and those can be found with even a cursory Google search. Nonetheless, I greatly enjoyed Prometheus and look forward to the sequel...
-RW-
Really?
Is every bit of technology shown in the "prequel" movie superior to that shown in the earlier films?
Or? Are there simply some things that seem more advanced?
On possible explanation (or at least kind of an example): I could probably name half a dozen or more things you could fairly easily do 20, 30, 40, or MORE years ago that you simply are unlikely to be able to do today - some examples would stand, almost no matter what cost.
Sure, we've become WAY more advanced over the years, but that doesn't mean that we can still do some of what we could. Sometimes it is due to regulation, and sometimes it is due to forgetting/abandoning technology.
The technology in Prometheus including the fancy spacecraft was built by the billionaire for his own use so makes sense it would be superior to the crappy old mining ship in Alien. The alien spacecraft in both movies were essentially the same technology, the one that took off at the end of Prometheus and the one that crashed in Alien.
Edits: 08/01/14
d
--------------------------
"E burres stigano"
I think that holds our fascination with this flick. Without those answers, mankind is left here floundering around, chasing its own collective ass to nowhere, murdering ourselves along the way.
The story's inside details kind of left us scratching our heads in other ways, like how can the woman do a monster self c-section, then jump off the op table, off of tall ledges, and run around the ship?
Things we want to believe and things we can't because they are ludicrous. It was stated before that Scott was looking for new writers for the sequel. Hope he found some and is on his way to the follow up.
The opening sequence answers the original question but the development of the creatures to devour us goes unanswered. Why not just poison the planet or sic special germs to kill off humans?
meant for earth--- and other places?
The green vial that David retrieved from the Temple actually contained a liquid that is not black goo. That is the liquid David used to spike Hollaway's drink, no?
...
Shaw says as much.
...and read the analysis.
But my impression was after creating human life they sent back one of their own (Christ) who we killed.
The "alien" creatures were to be their revenge.
fixation and religious fervor might have a deeper context...
> Scott has said there were sequences in the film that were going to explain why we’d angered the “gods” known as the Engineers. In one instance, it was going to be posited that Jesus was an emissary of the Engineers, sent to see how we were doing. And what did we do? We crucified him.>
This is the first analysis that came up when I Googled the film.
I've read the same theory in others as well.
The fact remains that nothing in the movie supports that. It takes place during Xmas, and the Xmas tree and crucifix are important symbols. But by all accounts in the film, the engineers were huge, hulking aliens. So I don't see anything there to support the idea that Jesus was an engineer.
...these are exerpts from my favorite analysis of the film:> Yeah. The reason the Engineers don't like us any more is that they made us a Space Jesus, and we broke him. Reader, that's not me pulling wild ideas out of my arse. That's RIDLEY SCOTT.
So, imagine poor crucified Jesus, a fresh spear wound in his side. Oh, hey, there's the 'lifegiver with his abdomen torn open' motif again. That's three times now: Prometheus, Engineer mural, Jesus Christ. And I don't think I have to mention the 'sacrifice in the interest of giving life' bit again, do I? Everyone on the same page? Good.>
> The 'Caesarean' scene is central to the film's themes of creation, sacrifice, and giving life. Shaw has discovered she's pregnant with something non-human and sets the autodoc to slice it out of her. She lies there screaming, a gaping wound in her stomach, while her tentacled alien child thrashes and squeals in the clamp above her and OH HEY IT'S THE LIFEGIVER WITH HER ABDOMEN TORN OPEN. How many times has that image come up now? Four, I make it. (We're not done yet.)
And she doesn't kill it. And she calls the procedure a 'caesarean' instead of an 'abortion'.>
> Here's where the Christian allegories really come through. The day of this strange birth just happens to be Christmas Day. And this is a 'virgin birth' of sorts, although a dark and twisted one, because Shaw couldn't possibly be pregnant. And Shaw's the crucifix-wearing Christian of the crew. We may well ask, echoing Yeats: what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards LV-223 to be born?
Consider the scene where David tells Shaw that she's pregnant, and tell me that's not a riff on the Annunciation. The calm, graciously angelic android delivering the news, the pious mother who insists she can't possibly be pregnant, the wry declaration that it's no ordinary child... yeah, we've seen this before.
'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.'
A barren woman called Elizabeth, made pregnant by 'God'? Subtle, Ridley.>
You see what you want to see...
Edits: 08/03/14 08/03/14
I agree with some of that, especially the significance of the abortion scene, which most certainly WAS in the movie. The space Jesus WAS NOT in the movie, and the idea that engineers living millions of light years away would have been upset about the crucifixion of a single man (the Romans crucified about 10,000 people and murdered a million in their conquest of Judea. Moreover, every life form shows cruelty, it's not just humans.
My interpretation of why the engineers turned against humanity is that humans were developing the ability to harness technology in ways that reminded the engineers of their own shorcomings, and were using technology in harmful ways. This is paid off by the large role David played in the film, and the hostility of the surviving engineer. The way that scene unfolded was very significant, when confronted by David and Weyland, the engineer yanked off David's head and used it to strike Weyland as if the intent was to punish humanity for its own technological attempt to create life.
...they would only be concerned about that single Man if they had put Him here.
That interpretation takes into consideration things Ridley Scott has said about the film.
Interpret the film any way you want.
You mean things Ridley Scott supposedly told a journalist, who supposedly wrote an article, which was supposedly read by someone who posts on a blog that you supposedly like. As wonderful as all that is, no mention--not even a small hint--was made in the movie of an "engineer Jesus" that the engineers might have put in Bethlehem. If you want to talk about the movie, you'll have to admit that it just doesn't support that idea.
Edits: 08/03/14
meaningful. A person looking for a thread will find thousands of them. Whether or not they are meaningful is a question for common sense. Would Scott make a gigantic Christian allegory film? I doubt it.
(nt)
...with you it's always a zero sum game.
You have to be right and everyone else is wrong.
Get over yourself.
As I said, interpret it however you want.
nt
Nt
Biotechnology can be used to create life or to destroy life. This was symbolized by the black goo having such a range of outcomes in the film, but it was ultimately a bioweapon that was impossible to control, and the engineers intended to bring it back to Earth to destroy humanity. The point of the movie is that technology and science, in relying purely on empiricism, lack a moral compass and that faith is the only way to guide it...as Einstein said, "science without religion is lame."
I think if you're looking for a biological explanation of exactly what the black goo does, you're going to be disappointed.
There is no proof that the engineers were planning to go to Earth and destroy it, just speculation by Dr. Shaw and others. "It's what I choose to believe," was Shaw's big line in the movie. That's strictly the anti scientific method. Lol
There was only one example of each of those, and they are open to interpretation. In other words, each equation is supported by a single data point, which isn't sufficient info to come to a conclusion. The broader message is that the black goo and whatever life-forms it spawns has very broad, unpredictable effects that seem to vary from person to person and situation to situation. If you recall, small worms were observed on the floor of the room with the mural and canisters. When exposed to the overflowing goo, the worms apparently turned into at least one snake-like creature that quickly killed the scientists Fifield and Milburn, who were a pair of morons.One possible interpretation of the data points is that the black goo effects people based on their condition, mood and mindset and is therefore a very complex substance that, like a living organism, has its properties subject to highly variable "expression" similar to how organisms show different gene expression during different stages in their development and lifecycle.
There is proof that the engineers were headed back to earth with a ship packed to the gills with the black goo canisters. This was not Shaw's idea, it was originally David's idea which he explained to Shaw. Also Janek (the captain) came to this same conclusion and was so convinced of it he decided to give up his life to stop the one remaining engineer. How quote of Shaw as saying "It's what I choose to believe" is totally unrelated to this issue. The quote was actually from something her father said in a dream at the beginning of the movie, and Shaw indeed repeated it later in the movie. But it's not impressive to use the quote to try to argue against the evidence that the engineers were headed to earth to destroy humanity. The evidence includes the flight plan of the ship that David uncovers, the fact that the ship is stocked to the gills with black goo, the hostility of the one surviving engineer against humans and his priority to take off in his ship and complete his mission. Certainly there is no evidence the ship stocked with black goo is headed anywhere else, other than Earth.
Edits: 08/03/14 08/03/14
I still maintain that we do not actually know what the last Engineer's mission is, the info that David sees in the hologram is that the Spacecraft is probably headed to Earth, but in no way indicates the mission. The black goo on board doesn't really prove what the mission is either, as the poster I posted earlier indicates (and as demonstrated in the opening scene of the movie) the black goo does have a good purpose (creating intelligent humans). The fact that the black goo also has very bad consequences in certain situations is more of a coincidence or accident. Even the Engineers found out the hard way. The human DNA was determined to be nearly identical to the DNA of the Engineers.
Edits: 08/03/14
Well, given that the entire film was a slow realization that the black goo was some sort of bioweapon and that the last remaining engineer was headed back to earth with a ship stocked with it, that the captain of Prometheus gave up his life to prevent that engineer's mission, and that Shaw and David zoomed off at the end to figure out why the engineers wanted to destroy humanity, I don't think any sequel will stray from that narrative. It was in essence the subject of the film and no another explanation was given.
As I already posted on this thread all of the crew of Prometheus are unreliable so you can't trust their observation or conclusions. As Dr. Shaw says near the end, we were so wrong. We were wrong about what this place is. Something along those lines. The point is, I have a the pilot Janek probably believed Dr. Shaw too implicitly and acted too quickly as did his crew and most likely ran his ship into the alien spacecraft. In other words, the entire movie is an exercise in red herrings and false leads and unreliable narrators. Everyone in the film has part of the truth in Prometheus but no one has ALL the facts.
Shaw says "we were wrong" to clue Weyland into the fact that the engineers should no longer be thought of as creators (as she had pitched the expedition to him) but as destroyers. Weyland took the trip to learn from the engineers so he could extend his life. Shaw was just trying to tell him that the surviving engineer would not be receptive to that kind of conversation, and she was right. The film shows David and Shaw were right, and they were the sole survivors so I see no reason to doubt them or to take Shaw's quotes so far out of context.
"You have to destroy before you can create." The black goo might have been for the purpose of producing an evolutionary kick start. Just as it was in the beginning of the movie. Recall all of the other Engineers had died 2,000 years ago in the accident with the black goo, so the lone surviving Engineer - who had been asleep the entire 2,000 years - would have no way to know the people he met when rudely awakened were even humans. It's also not quite clear in the movie where Engineers fit into the grand scheme of things - are they simply technical weenies doing the grunt work for their superiors? Are they the super race? It's not exactly clear. At the end of the movie I gathered that Shaw and David were off to see the wizard, as it were, to get to the bottom of who made whom.
d
Nt
Nt
Nt
d
Nt
d
He was also very gullible. He even believed Dr. Shaw when she told him the last Engineer was headed to Earth to destroy it.
d
Nt
d
Nt
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
