OT- Prometheus

Submitted by dinsdale613 on June 9th, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I saw Prometheus last night.  It has been one of the most anticipated films of the year for me and i was not dissapointed.  Visually, it was absolutely stunning.  i won't give anything away, but they definetly did a good job of connecting it with the alien franchise while making an entirely different story and mythology.  If you love all the Alien movies like i do, you will certainly enjoy it.  And even if you never saw one of them, you will enjoy it as a great sci-fi move.

Comments

Chobee215

June 9th, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^

I was very dissapointed. Too many illogical things going on. Why would you put together a crew of instable people who havent met each other for something so costly and important? How does the map guy get lost? Whats the point of some of those charecters even existing?

Whithout spoiling anything I also didnt like that they left so many loose ends open.

It was still entertaining, but I was really frustrated with it all.

lhglrkwg

June 9th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^

I feel like most of those guys questions / complaints have fairly easy answers that could make sense. I actually thought there was very littlein the movie that made no sense. I'd recommend that people go see it (if you're ok with a lot of tense / gross / creepy alien stuff that is)

dinsdale613

June 9th, 2012 at 10:40 AM ^

However, one of the themes of the movie is about being satisfied with not knowing the answers to your questions.  Thats the way the movie is supposed to make you feel.  There were plotholes, yes, but every sci-fi movie has plot holes, usually glaring ones.  It's the difference between seeing a movie and being excited to fill in your own answers, and wanting everything answered for you.  Personally, what I love about movies like this is sitting around with my friends after wards and all speculating on what we think happpened and why this was answered or wasnt answered,  And remember, one of the writers created Lost, the King of unanswered questions.

maizenblueCW2

June 9th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^

I walked away from most of my favorite movies knowing about 1% of what was actually going on. Like all art, it takes study and insight to get all there is out of a film. Given that Ridley Scott also did Blade Runner, one of the more intellectually dense films ever made, you can logically assume there's a lot going on here. And like people have said, even if you don't look into all that stuff, it's just an entertaining and beautiful film.

 

Mad props to it for the opening shot being almost a direct match with 2001's as well. 

Placentasaurus

June 9th, 2012 at 2:46 PM ^

Sci Fi should make attempts to explain the improbable, thats what separates it from Fantasy. I'm not saying it has to be completely explained using current scientific principles, but there has to be an attempt. The Sci Fi elements of this movie were not the problem with it. in fact, if they had stuck with pure sci fi this would have been a better movie. The thriller/horror aspects of the movie really pulled me out of a pretty realistic sci fi world and just made it feel kind of cheesy. The character development, or lack thereof is what really destroyed this movie for me. The only character in the movie that really was relatable  was the android. His lack of humanity was really well conveyed through his reactions/responses, as well as how others perceived him. I still don't really understand why anyone else was even there outside of the two main scientists, no one had very clear motivations in the first place. 

Blazefire

June 9th, 2012 at 10:14 PM ^

At some point in the last 20 years, this became a sort of rule. "Sci-Fi is about the Sci". That was not always the case. Look at the things that truly popularized the genre. ST: TOS, Star Wars, classic ham movies like Flash Gordon.  These movies and series did little to nothing to put the science in a currently understandable context. They used the Science as a tool for the fiction.

M-Wolverine

June 9th, 2012 at 10:32 PM ^

To the hardcore Sci Fi fan, things like Star Wars is science fantasy. It's Lord of the Rings type of thing using machines rather than magic. They never care to explain why we can hear explosions in space, because it doesn't matter. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... is once upon a time.

I think where it gets tricky is something like the Alien films that strive to be "gritty and real", but fall on a lot of the conventions of fantasy, as opposed to say, 2001 (which seems to fall on a lot of drug use, but I digress).

And opposed to Sy Fy, which usually means cheesy-ass monster movies with horrible effects, and wrestling.

Blazefire

June 9th, 2012 at 10:44 PM ^

Look where Science Fiction has gone. SOme big "blockbuster" sci-fi over the past decade or so. What? Armageddon? The Core? Red Planet? They all make vauge attempts to put the science in context, but they totally fail at the science making them entirely unacceptable to most Sci-Fi fans.

I'll take a Battle Star Gallactica over a Star Trek: Enterprise any day. Some of the only guys who seemed capable of putting current or near future science into a Sci-Fi setting without killing the thing are dead. I mean, maybe Carl Sagan? Contact worked well, but then even he made no attempt whatsoever to explain the alien technology. It just was what it was.

If you want sci-fi that leverages the science effectively, the only guy I can think of doing it right right now is Ben Bova. Read his Grand Tour series (Mars, Return to Mars, Power Sat, Rock Rats Trillogy, Luar Series, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury). He gets the science down well enough to make it work, but they'd utterly fail as movies. Too much revolves around explaining the science. And evwn he ignores the science in some of his other works like the Sam Gunn series.

M-Wolverine

June 10th, 2012 at 5:57 PM ^

Just that there are those who are there for the entertainment, and those few who are expecting something else (don't think "more" is fair), the same group who are rarely satisfied.

I'm not sure the Armageddon's of the world are that different than the past. The budget is just better. There was a lot of B-SciFi back in the day. It was just a lot cheaper. So they weren't John Carter disasters if they didn't make a buck.

I'm not sure Battlestar and Enterprise are fair comparisons, just on quality. Unless you meant original Battlestar. Maybe a comparison with original Star Trek; very different, but high quality. And even then a lot of hard core explain it all people hated the BG end almost as much as Lost.

I don't think we're really disagreeing. Just looking at it from various angles.

Clemsonblue

June 9th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^

It was a good not great movie. I think Prometheus two( or whatever they call it) will be considered the prequel to the Aliens franchise. The door is definitely open for the next movie.

kakusei

June 9th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^

I am so torn about this movie. The alien trilogy shaped my childhood and are among my favorite movies of all times. The instant this movie was announced I was beyond excited and have been been following everything about this movie for the past year. With Ridley directing I was so confident that he would revive a franchise that had been killed by resurrection and avp. I was going into this with really high hopes and a fanboy mentality, and I've seen it twice already.

That being said, i was extremely disappointed. Visually, the movie is stunning and worth seeing in IMAX 3D for some of the shots - this is the first movie that I think has done 3D justice. The script, however, is just god awful. Dialogue is littered with cheesy one-liners that had me wincing throughout the entire movie - this stuff can be forgiven in a mind-numbing action flick like the avengers, but Prometheus has some pretty heavy and cerebral themes that this ridiculous dialogue is so distracting and self-defeating. The subplot with vickers and the old man was totally unnecessary, and there are so many plot holes that are unfilled or tied together sloppily. Character development was so bad that trying to figure out some of the character's motivations for some of theirs actions is nearly impossible.

I blame lindelof for this train wreck. His insistence on mystery for the sake of mystery, sloppy plot holes, and terrible character development are better left for his hack work on TV with jj Abrams. Keep your polar bears and lowest-common-denominator plot devices out of my beloved alien franchise. If they do make a sequel, I sincerely hope Ridley chooses someone who can handle the material to write the treatment.

theBigRagu

June 9th, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^

was kind of weak sauce if you ask me. They bit off way more than they could chew. Should have simplified the script in my opinion, too much going on with no great payoffs

snoopblue

June 9th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^

When you compare it to the other movies Hollywood releases today, it was a great movie. I understand the disappointment as well and felt some of it, but it still was a great movie and at least worth the exorbitant cost of a ticket price.

WMUgoblue

June 9th, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^

I enjoyed it, the script was a bit ADD but I still liked it. My god though the previews showed WAY too much, especially significant plot developments later in the film.

Maizenblueball

June 9th, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^

So, I saw Prometheus yesterday.  I am a HUGE movie buff.  Having said that, I thought Prometheus was very entertaining, however I did have my issues with the movie.  I won't give away any spoilers here.  I'll just say, that I had some issues with the plot, character development, and the fact that the movie didn't really invoke much emotion or passion in it's most climactic scenes, which is crucial for any GREAT movie.  Bottom line- it is an entertaining way to spend 2 hours or so, to escape the stresses of your job, life, etc.  It was pretty good (for sheer entertainment value), but I was disappointed, mainly because it had the potential to be GREAT.

Mr. Rager

June 9th, 2012 at 11:55 AM ^

A co-worker that I would describe as "acquantaince at best" started his own LLC this year to buy up crappy (sub-$50,000) real estate in Kentucky and then lease it to Section 8 tenants.  He named his LLC, "Prometheus". 

Had no idea the movie was coming out.

Also had no idea how hard it might be for tenants to spell "Prometheus", either.

Needless to say he has gotten a few barbs at work given his venture never really got of the ground.  

SalvatoreQuattro

June 9th, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^

sticking with the xenomorph. Sir Ridley made a huge error focusing on the Space Jockey rather than the xenomorph.  People who will see this movie will largely be Alien fans. They like Aliens mainly because of the Xenomorph.In knowin that  how do you minimize the most interesting part of the films? That was foolish if you ask me.

 

M-Wolverine

June 9th, 2012 at 3:09 PM ^

Haven't seen it yet, so the criticisms may be valid. But I don't get this one. They spent the whole press tour saying this is not an Aliens sequel. The only reason he came back to do the movie was because he was surprised ith all the sequels no one did anything with the Space Jockey, or explained it. He had no interest in doing "Aliens 5". So why would anyone go in expecting it to be about the xenomorphs? It may be in the same universe, but it's like saying there wasn't enough Petticoat Junction in Green Acres.

VictorsValiant09

June 9th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^

Huge fan of the Alien franchise, could not wait to see this.  As Stanley Kubrick is also my favorite director, I was hoping this would be Ridley Scott's 2001 film (meaning of life, religion, origin of species).

Like many have said,  I was disappointed, but not totally let down.  The set design and visuals were vintage Ridley Scott (extravagantly-built sets, sweeping cinematography, eerie shots), but the writing and character development just felt bland and without a purpose.  There were many moments where I'm asking myself, "What is the point of this scene?"  Usually, it should be to advance character or story, and very few did so organically, and only for the sake of moving ahead.  Other than a few scenes (fantastic acting by Rapace and Fassbender), nothing really gripped me.

I know the whole "plot-hole-within-a-plot-hole" is what Lindelof does, but he did not craft a script that was worthy of the expecations of this film, nor what Ridley Scott is deserving of.  Makes you wonder how Fox and Ridley ok'd his treatment.

Too many questions.  Not enough answers.  Not only in the sense that "There are questions, therefore, there should be answers," but in terms of causality in the narrative.  SO many things in the film don't follow logically as they should.

3 out of 5.

Also, food for thought: http://www.vulture.com/2012/06/10-open-questions-after-watching-prometheus.html

SoullessHack

June 9th, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^

But it's not very good either.

From a 10,000 ft perspective, it's hard to believe that this was the project that enticed Ridley Scott to make his triumphant return to science fiction. Unlike "Alien" and "Blade Runner" there's nothing particularly groundbreaking or original about "Prometheus." Unlike the two former titles, no one's going to be mentioning "Prometheus" in twenty years, or even twenty months.

The whole thing is just kind of lazy. The kind of thought and effort that produced the famous "Truckers in Space" production design of "Alien" and the cramped, sweaty, claustrophobic dystopia of "Blade Runner" are nowhere to be found in "Prometheus." "Sweeping cinematography" is not all that impressive in the age of computers. There's a difference between the shots of wide-open Middle Eastern deserts and 3,000 actual human extras on horses and camels in "Lawrence of Arabia" and the same old helicopter shots of mountains and waterfalls that "Prometheus" starts with.

That kind of laziness extends throughout the movie. Somehow the following counts as a "scene":

"Hello. My name is Bob."

"Listen, Bob! I'm here to make money! Not talk to people!"

As if making money and talking to people are mutually exclusive. They're not. But that exchange makes for quick dialogue that sounds argumentative, and drama is about conflict, so hey, look at that! We just made drama!

No. You didn't.

Also, Biff from "Back To The Future II" makes an appearance. So it's more like a sequel to "Back To The Future" than a prequel to "Alien." Apparently Biff used that sports almanac to found a huge terraforming corporation.

joeyb

June 9th, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^

It's hard to talk about this movie in specifics or even the most general terms without feeling like I am hinting or spoiling.

First of all, I went into this movie with no expectations. I didn't expect Alien, which might be why people are disappointed. The first thing that I thought of when I left the movie theater was that this felt like a 3rd franchise in the same universe, much how Predator was a different franchise in the same universe as Alien. I think if you watch the movie without hoping for Alien, you'll enjoy it much more. I even had a debate at work about what we hoped the movie would be. I specifically said I didn't want them to try to repeat Alien because that's how Alien 3 came about. Afterward, a co-worker sent me a link to an interview with Scott where he said this occurs in the same universe but really isn't a prequel to Alien.

Second, at first glance, there was literally no reason for Charlize Theron to be in the movie. Her character affected the plot in no way whatsoever that another character couldn't have taken up (like closing the doors when the storm comes or using the flame thrower). After discussing it in the carride back to work, we decided that her character is to add nuances to one or more of the over-arching themes. The idea of "A king has his reign and then he dies. That is the natural order of things." is touched on in many ways in the movie. Maybe it explains some of the aggression by the engineer in the end with him not wanting to give up power. I need to rewatch the movie and think on this some more, but I think the movie is deeper than it appears at first glance. It's probably hard to notice that at first with all of your attention being drawn to visuals.

Third, there were a lot of things that didn't make sense. Why did the black stuff kill the guy but impregnate the girl? Was it a first generation versus second generation thing? Was it a guy versus girl thing? Why did David give the guy the black stuff? He seemed to know it would kill him. Was experimenting? Was he smart enough to predict the series of events and he was just trying to get his way? Was he just trying to kill both of them? How many different aliens did we see? Worms, Snakes, Giant face rapist, Alien, Engineer, zombie. BTW, WTF does the zombie have to do with anything? I think that a lot of these are the same types of plotholes that happened in Alien, but they were better explained before. I think that is a function of the plotline. In Alien, they were trying to figure out how things worked. In Prometheus, they were trying to figure out WTF was going on.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. At the same time, I understand why others might not have liked it as much.

victors2000

June 9th, 2012 at 8:45 PM ^

were eye rollers. I'll try not to spoil anything but...

How does the main guy scientist suddenly become an alcoholic? This is a gynormous undertaking and him (and several of the 'team') become totally unprofessional.

How does one of the two guys left in the alien spacecraft think that gray periscope looking thing was beautiful? NO IT ISN'T, GET THE F AWAY FROM IT!

Why is everyone suddenly blase about taking their freaking headgear off??

How does a creator (or engineer) decide the first thing to do to the humans was to fake caring then pop someone's head off? Then a creator/engineer goes batshit about launching the ship without a care about anything else?

That's just some of the things...the movie is entertaining and while there are holes like swiss cheese in the plot, it does have people talking about it. All in all I would recommend it with the aforementioned caveat.

markusr2007

June 9th, 2012 at 11:03 PM ^

has already hinted at a sequel to Prometheus, so more movies ppear to be in the offing.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but everything I've heard from people who have seen it has been very positive.   

DenverBuckeye

June 10th, 2012 at 7:30 PM ^

Saw it yesterday and liked it very much. I didn't mind a lot of the lingering questions because they felt intentional. I like the intrigue and debate that comes with them. Also, most of the people I know that have pointed out holes in the plot were looking for them from the start. There were some instances of great story telling/acting and then some weak moments, but overall it was well done. Certainly better than most of the movies these days.