# Prometheus SPOILER thread



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

So, lots of questions.
Just exactly how did the Engineer in the beginning kickstart life on earth? He drinks the black potion and his body breaks up into nothing but DNA. Eh? I don't know much about science, but I know that's BAD SCIENCE. DNA doesn't exist on its own. 
Just what did the black goo do? I thought at first that it sped up evolution but that would contradict the beginning of the film. 
Do the worms evolve superquickly into the graboid snakes on contact with the goo? That would account for the otherwise unexplainable growth of the stomach monster earlier.
But the goo did different things - it just made Holloway sick with an ebola type disease, but it turned Fifield into a superhuman monster.
And why do basically all of the characters behave as they do?
Why does biologist Millburn instanly freak out at the biological discovery that he's spent two years asleep to make, only to instantly chill out and start trying to pet the graboid snakes as if they were Jones the ship cat, not totally unknown space monsters.
And why did they take their helmets off and have such an inconsistent approach to both quarantine and basic health & safety?
And why do they send so few people for such an enormously expensive mission?
What was the bet the two co-pilots made?
Why did the Captain change personalities so abruptly?
What was the point of the Vickers/Weyland subplot? Why is it important that he is her dad? Why is he even there? Why did he keep out of sight at first? 
I have a lot more questions but that'll do for now


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> But the goo did different things - it just made Holloway sick with an ebola type disease, but it turned Fifield into a superhuman monster.


Sounds a bit like bath salts, tbf.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Good idea. The other thread was littered with spoiler code.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> So, lots of questions.
> Just exactly how did the Engineer in the beginning kickstart life on earth? He drinks the black potion and his body breaks up into nothing but DNA. Eh? I don't know much about science, but I know that's BAD SCIENCE. DNA doesn't exist on its own.
> Just what did the black goo do? I thought at first that it sped up evolution but that would contradict the beginning of the film.
> Do the worms evolve superquickly into the graboid snakes on contact with the goo? That would account for the otherwise unexplainable growth of the stomach monster earlier.
> But the goo did different things - it just made Holloway sick with an ebola type disease, but it turned Fifield into a superhuman monster.


 

As to the goo: it's the same sci-fi deus ex machina magic goo from District 9, which just does anything that is convenient for the plot.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

I thought the attempts to deepen Shaw's character were especially cack-handed. She's infertile, both parents are dead, dad died of ebola, she's a Christian. Bang, that'll do.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> And why did they take their helmets off and have such an inconsistent approach to both quarantine and basic health & safety?


 
As not to mess up their hair ? How many times have I seen sci-fi films where the dumb asses rip off their helmets asap on an alien planet just so the actors don't have to wear them. There could be alien plant spores and all types of shit flying around.

I've read several times on forums that people seem to think Ripley is a bitch for following right Hazmat procedure in Alien, trying to get her shipmates quarantined after alien infection. At least that film made an attempt at having its character act like professionals and not like a bunch of complete idiots.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> As to the goo: it's the same sci-fi deus ex machina magic goo from District 9, which just does anything that is convenient for the plot.


I remember a load of guff about black goo in the X-Files too


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

And why did they not land on an alien planet with no guns just cos some daft archeologist said so?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

>Just exactly how did the Engineer in the beginning kickstart life on earth? He drinks the black potion and his body breaks up into nothing but DNA. Eh? I don't know much about science, but I know that's BAD SCIENCE. DNA doesn't exist on its own.
Was that meant to be the start of life on earth? Didn't get that at all. In the end I thought he topped himself because he'd been infected by the squid things and didn't want one to burst out of his stomach.

>Just what did the black goo do? I thought at first that it sped up evolution but that would contradict the beginning of the film.
Containment fluid for the squids I thought.

>Do the worms evolve superquickly into the graboid snakes on contact with the goo? That would account for the otherwise unexplainable growth of the stomach monster earlier. But the goo did different things - it just made Holloway sick with an ebola type disease, but it turned Fifield into a superhuman monster.
Now you point it out that seems a bit odd. Fifield was offscreen for so long that it's a bit unclear what the hell happens to him. That the goo does one thing to aliens and basically kills humans isn't particularly surprising.

>And why did they take their helmets off and have such an inconsistent approach to both quarantine and basic health & safety?
Yes, helmets off was strange. Once that had been bridged I guess there seemed little point in having the severed head in quarantine. That felt wrong, but you just have to kinda suspend disbelief a bit.

>What was the point of the Vickers/Weyland subplot? Why is it important that he is her dad? Why is he even there? Why did he keep out of sight at first?
It's why she's so pissed off. She is his heir and he wants to live longer. He is the point of the whole mission - the scientists wouldn't go if they were to keep a rich man in jollies for a bit longer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> As not to mess up their hair ? How many times have I seen sci-fi films where the dumb asses rip off their helmets asap.


yeah, I noticed how perfect Fassbender's hair was at one point when he takes his helmet off. It never seems to move either. When I comb my hair that carefully it only lasts like that for a few minutes!


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> As not to mess up their hair ? How many times have I seen sci-fi films where the dumb asses rip off their helmets asap on an alien planet just so the actors don't have to wear them. There could be alien plant spores and all types of shit flying around.
> 
> I've read several many on forums that people seem to think Ripley is a bitch for following right Hazmat procedure in Alien, trying to get her shipmates quarantined after alien infection. At least that film made an attempt at having its character act like professionals and not a bunch of complete idiots.


Whereas Vickers does actually do this by killing Holloway. She does let a severed alien head on board though which is "contained" in a rucksack. Hmm ... maybe they thought it was fossilized? But, no they said it was preserved in the cave. Oops


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

And I have a whole load of questions about David's motivations and his status as android/honorary human. Is the film telling us that he is essentially human? That would contradict the film's essentially Christian premise.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

David is just following orders. All the way through. His motivation is to the company. Actually very similar to the robot in Alien. If he gets the chance, can he get a creature back to Earth for the company to exploit?

In the end the old man made me think of Richard Branson. Just what's HIS space programme about eh?


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> And I have a whole load of questions about David's motivations and his status as android/honorary human. Is the film telling us that he is essentially human? That would contradict the film's essentially Christian premise.


 
I don't think he is supposed to be human. He is just another sci-fi cliche, the robot that wants to be human. A.I., Star Trek TNG, Battlestar Galactica and Blade Runner properly deal with this and make it central to the plot. Here we just have to take it for granted because the film doesn't get into any of the characters properly.

David acts to the command of Weyland (getting Charlie infected) till Weyland dies and then he can make his own decisions.

I don't think the film has a Christian premise, it just has a representative of the Christian faith considering the film is about meeting your maker/god.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

It's just been pointed out to me that the Engineer at the beginning of the film ingests the black goo. Hadn't noticed this.

Need to watch it again really.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Hmm, more to ponder. Maybe I'm just adding my own ideas. He's human to me. He works for the company, does what he's told like a good employee. At one point, he gets told he isn't human cos he doesn't have a soul. To me, if that's the only difference then he is a human cos neither do we. He behaves like a human and questions his existence in the same way we do.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> It's just been pointed out to me that the Engineer at the beginning of the film ingests the black goo. Hadn't noticed this.
> 
> Need to watch it again really.


What did you think he was drinking?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> What did you think he was drinking?


Didn't matter - something that killed him, which he expected. As I said before I saw it more as suicide than an act of creation.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> As I said before I saw it more as suicide than an act of creation.


 
That's ignoring the whole premise of the film. Alien travels gazillions of miles to top himself. End of story.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

What was with the flute controlled spaceship and the squidgy buttons? And what was the guff with Stephen Stills' squeezebox?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> That's ignoring the whole premise of the film. Alien travels gazillions of miles to top himself. End of story.


Well, the film still made sense to me without thinking that it was an act of creation. It also makes sense as a suicide if the alien knows that soon some horrible squid is going to burst out of it's stomach.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> And what was the guff with Stephen Stills' squeezebox?


 
The writers thought that qualifies as characterisation for Elba's character. It's a shame his role was so underwitten. As an effect his self-sacrifice comes out of nowhere and carries no emotional resonance.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

But the amazing DNA sequence after the suicide wouldn't make any sense then, would it? Not that making any sense seems to be a priority here.

One might charitably assume that many of the questions that film throws up are deliberate, to make us hungry for sequels (well it was co-written by a Lost scribe), but I think it's just lazy incompetent writing


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Well, the film still made sense to me without thinking that it was an act of creation. It also makes sense as a suicide if the alien knows that soon some horrible squid is going to burst out of it's stomach.


 
There wouldn't have been a squid bursting out of his stomach. The idea was that this event takes place in prehistoric times. The engineers/space jokeys don't start tampering with xenomorph DNA till many millennia later. What the crew witnesses and falls prey to in 2093 is rough early versions of the creatures we come to know and love in the later Alien films.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

There's another thing that makes no sense. Where does the xenomorph come from at the end? Has it evolved superquick from the worms in the chamber? Or has it been deliberately engineered? Does the evolution sequence go like this: worm-squid-massive squid-xenomorph? Or is that just an engineered life cycle?


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

I enjoyed the film as I said on the other thread but there's loads that could have improved it, if only minor adjustments.

I do think the Milburn/Fifield scene could've been done differently. Someone pointed out why they were going the opposite direction to the life form reading yet when come face to face with the snake Milburn thinks it's cute and wants to pet it (inevitably leading to it violently killing him). It would've been much better had they both absolutely shited themselves all over their suites and we could have had a proper horror scene akin to Alien while the snakes stalk and kill them both (obviously this would have had to be dealt with in the later scene when the rest of the crew go back to the room). This could then have allowed Holloway to be the one transformed into a super strength monster, rather than Fifield, which would have got rid of the question why the black goo affects humans differently.


----------



## poului (Jun 10, 2012)

"I've just had to pull a weird alien thing out of my tummy and left it in the medical chamber but I haven't thought to mention it to anyone...."


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> There's another thing that makes no sense. Where does the xenomorph come from at the end? Has it evolved superquick from the worms in the chamber? Or has it been deliberately engineered? Does the evolution sequence go like this: worm-squid-massive squid-xenomorph? Or is that just an engineered life cycle?


The sequence was the black goo went inside Holloway, Holloway went inside Shaw (creating the mutant facehugger fetus), the facehugger went inside the engineer (creating the mutant xeno fetus) and viola!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> What was the bet the two co-pilots made?


The bet was that they were on a terraforming survey mission


----------



## girasol (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> It's just been pointed out to me that the Engineer at the beginning of the film ingests the black goo. Hadn't noticed this.
> 
> Need to watch it again really.


 
erm, he takes it by the waterfalls, the sort of explodes and falls in the water?  (and his DNA spreads everywhere)


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> There wouldn't have been a squid bursting out of his stomach. The idea was that this event takes place in prehistoric times. The engineers/space jokeys don't start tampering with xenomorph DNA till many millennia later. What the crew witnesses and falls prey to is rough early versions of the creatures we come to know and love in the later Alien films.


Well, you just seem to have made that up to fit your idea of the story. Fair enough really, but it's not how I saw it.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:
			
		

> Well, you just seem to have made that up to fit your idea of the story. Fair enough really, but it's not how I saw it.



Are you suggesting or implying we should interpret things of this magnitude as individuals


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> The sequence was the black goo went inside Holloway, Holloway went inside Shaw (creating the mutant facehugger fetus), the facehugger went inside the engineer (creating the mutant xeno fetus) and viola!


So humans and xenomorphs are essentially mutant Engineers? 

And there's another thing - why do humans and Engineers have matching DNA?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> But the amazing DNA sequence after the suicide wouldn't make any sense then, would it? Not that making any sense seems to be a priority here.


It still could be an act of suicide that *just happened* to facilitate the creation of life on earth. To me that still makes more sense than "I'll kill myself so that another different species appears on this random planet". The act of creation is not deliberate at all to my mind.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Well, you just seem to have made that up to fit your idea of the story. Fair enough really, but it's not how I saw it.


 
You are kidding right ? 

We're you asleep for half of the film ?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Are you suggesting or implying we should interpret things of this magnitude as individuals


Not at all. This is an internet thread so there is clearly a set of absolute correct answers. I refer you to my posts for those.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> You are kidding right ?
> 
> We're you asleep for half of the film ?


"The engineers/space jokeys don't start tampering with xenomorph DNA till many millennia later."
Totally made up and not in the film.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:
			
		

> Not at all. This is an internet thread so there is clearly a set of absolute correct answers. I refer you to my posts for those.



My eyes are wide open


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Well, you just seem to have made that up to fit your idea of the story. Fair enough really, but it's not how I saw it.


I think you saw it wrong. This was I think what was intended but the film is such a mess, that nothing is clear. You're certainly wrong about the opening sequence


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> "The engineers/space jokeys don't start tampering with xenomorph DNA till many millennia later."
> Totally made up and not in the film.


 
That was what the film was about. 

I give up, trying to explain the film to you seems utterly pointless.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> "The engineers/space jokeys don't start tampering with xenomorph DNA till many millennia later."
> Totally made up and not in the film.


It is to be inferred, certainly. Tis not just out of Reno's head!


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I think you saw it wrong. This was I think what was intended but the film is such a mess, that nothing is clear. You're certainly wrong about the opening sequence


So, I "misunderstood" it and enjoyed the film, seeing it as generally making enough sense for a popcorn Sci-Fi flick. Whereas the people picking holes were disappointed.

Being wrong has never seemed so right.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> That was what the film was about.
> 
> I give up, trying to explain the film to you seems utterly pointless.


Patronizing much?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 10, 2012)

I have watched a lot of films. Little surprises me and the film in question is no exception. The attention to detail is good and production values were top class. It is maybe a labour of love for RS but if I was him I would be doing similar.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> So, I "misunderstood" it and enjoyed the film, seeing it as generally making enough sense for a popcorn Sci-Fi flick. Whereas the people picking holes were disappointed.
> 
> Being wrong has never seemed so right.


I really liked it but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

I quite liked the optimistic tone of how much the human race had technologically evolved in 80 odd years from now. Less so that corporations were in the driving seat more so than ever.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Magneze - did you not wonder at the film's title even a little bit?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

What's to be implied from the title? It's a film about discovering the origins of the human race? Or is there a hidden message from the Greeks about Xenomorph DNA? Wikipedia doesn't say anything about that.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> What's to be implied from the title? It's a film about discovering the origins of the human race? Or is there a hidden message from the Greeks about Xenomorph DNA? Wikipedia doesn't say anything about that.


 
It's really not that difficult to look up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

*Prometheus* (Greek: Προμηθεύς) is a Titan, culture hero, and trickster figure who in Greek mythology is *credited with the **creation of man* from clay and the theft of fire for human use, an act that enabled progress and civilization. He is known for his intelligence, and as a champion of mankind.[1]


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

And? Sorry, I'm missing the point there. The name is a link to the story which is about the creation of the human race. That's pretty clear.


----------



## girasol (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I think you saw it wrong. This was I think what was intended but the film is such a mess, that nothing is clear. You're certainly wrong about the opening sequence


 
That's how I felt when I left the cinema, things were not clear - I mean, you could explain it in many ways and put your own interpretation on it, but really really a lot of made didn't make sense.  Maybe it needs to be a book


----------



## girasol (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> And? Sorry, I'm missing the point there. The name is a link to the story which is about the creation of the human race. That's pretty clear.


 
It's about beings creating other beings, because they can    and being god and stuff.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Did the Engineer's _deliberately_ create life on Earth? Maybe I need to watch it again, but it's entirely possible that this was not a deliberate act IMHO.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

girasol said:


> It's about beings creating other beings, because they can


Ah, yes. Good link back to the conversation with David.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> And? Sorry, I'm missing the point there. The name is a link to the story which is about the creation of the human race. That's pretty clear.


Prometheus stole fire (ie technology) from the Gods and is punished horribly by them, who chain him to a rock to have his liver plucked out by an eagle. The myth is generally use to refer to man's technological hubris. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has a subtitle of The Modern Prometheus and the film's premise reflects the plot of the novel


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Ok, that's pretty interesting - thanks. I see how that links all the way through the film. Although I don't see how this revelation is helping my "misunderstanding" of the film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm not sure what your misunderstanding is any more!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

A friend wrote this:
http://jaredkelly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/thoughts-on-prometheus.html?m=1
Actually, that should be on the other thread....


----------



## girasol (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm starting to think the whole thing was just a moralistic critique/warning re: human's genetic engineering ventures


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure what your misunderstanding is any more!


Well, I just have my interpretation of what happened. Others have theirs. The title seemed to be an answer to my "incorrect" interpretation for some reason. Whereas it really isn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Did the Engineer's _deliberately_ create life on Earth? Maybe I need to watch it again, but it's entirely possible that this was not a deliberate act IMHO.


I don't think so. I think it they were designed. The xenomorph certainly appears designed to be a maximum badass


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

In Greek mythology Prometheus was a titan (and if the marbled engineer doesn't literally look like a Greek statue of a titan, then I don't know what does) who was elemental in creating and sustaining of human life. That's what happens at the start of the film, the bit which magneze thinks is a mere suicide but which is meant to be a self sacrifice that kick starts evolution on earth. After he falls in the water, we see the DNA that is released which starts forming into life.

Then in the late 21st century our loved up archeologists discover ancient murals all round the world which refer to aliens creating humans, which gets them an amazing amount of funding by the Weyland corporation to fly though space to say 'hi' to the creators of the human race. 

On the planet we meet the engineers from the beginning of the film again, again creating life but of a different kind and as Elizabeth figures out, one that is supposed to now destroy humanity. And the deadly creatures are early version of the creatures from the Alien films: a giant face hugger which impregantes the engineer and (in the coda) an early version of the xenomorph. 

All these things aren't even that ambiguous to me, they just require a little linking of the dots.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Well, I just have my interpretation of what happened. Others have theirs. The title seemed to be an answer to my "incorrect" interpretation for some reason. Whereas it really isn't.


The film isn't the bible, to be interpreted. It's just that the plotting is such a mess that there is a lot of scope for misunderstanding. There IS a correct 'reading' to be had somewhere!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> So humans and xenomorphs are essentially mutant Engineers?


Well while the black goo isn't necessarily DNA itself (rather it alters DNA), then considering we have the same DNA as the engineers then that is the only DNA between Engineers, humans taht we have in the film and what came out of the humans/Engineers so yea I suppose they could all be mutant Engineers!



> And there's another thing - why do humans and Engineers have matching DNA?


The opening scene suggests humans were created by the Engineer combining the black goo with his own DNA and spreading it across the world. I don't know about DNA but if the black goo modified his DNA into various strands it could have created all life in Earth but then would it still be identical? Does identical DNA make identical species (so should we look like Engineers?). I don't know about the science but the film says it's identical because the Engineers made us out of their own DNA!


----------



## maldwyn (Jun 10, 2012)

You can't make sense out of nonsense and the whole film was a setup for a make it up as you go along sequel - Lost style.

Perhaps the Engineer in the opening sequence went mental and wasn't supposed to spread his DNA, hence his mates being determined to clean up his mess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

I forgot that Prometheus was a Titan. So he was made by the gods too, then?


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Perhaps the Engineer in the opening sequence went mental and wasn't supposed to spread his DNA, hence his mates being determined to clean up his mess.


 
Good call, but why did it take them gazillions of years ?


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I forgot that Prometheus was a Titan. So he was made by the gods too, then?


 
In Greek mythology the Titans were gods who were created by Zeus. If that aspect is supposed to be taken at face value may be revealed by a sequel but I think the important bit that relates to the film is that Prometheus was a creator of life. That's what the Titan-like engineers do.


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Went for a run and thought of an alternative explanation of the beginning. Possibly that first Engineer was trying to do what the old man was - attempting eternal life or simply extending his life. It goes horribly wrong, he dies and accidentally kickstarts humans.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Ooh lookie here - have only read a bit so far, but it has a lot of the things being discussed here on it:
http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/uswn1/prometheus_everything_explained_and_analysed/c4ydd9f


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Good guardian summing up of plot holes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jun/08/prometheus-ten-key-questions


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

The surgery one is the standout. That was ridiculous.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Good guardian summing up of plot holes:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jun/08/prometheus-ten-key-questions


Yes seen that before, found it a bit smug and pedantic to be honest, but then it is the Guardian so I suppose I should expect that!

1. They answered their own question
2. They answered their own question
3. Explained in the film - money
4. Fair question, tho they can't ask why it affects Engineers, humans or snakes in different ways because they are different to start with!
5. Cut scenes, viral videos, to play a role in a sequel
6. It's not that he doesn't want to reveal himself, but he only has "days" to live, so is kept in hypersleep until necessary to get up
7. Holloway gave David permission to put the goo in his drink, in a roundabout way!
8. She pumped herself with pain killers quite regularly after the op and was obviously in a lot of pain (altho this did seem to disappear when she was running away from the crashing ship). But hey, this is the future and an advanced-by-the-future's-standards surgical machine did the surgery!
9. That the very question is asked is probably praise for the film as this is the kind of question sci-fi films should leave us asking ourselves. Saying that, it's more likely to whet our appetite for a sequel (read trilogy)
10. Think plenty others came up with the story before the X-Files did!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> The surgery one is the standout. That was ridiculous.


i thought that was the least objectionable really. People are always tougher than reality in action movies. It's accepted.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> A friend wrote this:
> http://jaredkelly.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/thoughts-on-prometheus.html?m=1
> Actually, that should be on the other thread....


though there is a rather appropriate quote from Sir Ridley at the end:
_The most important, significant thing in all films - I don’t give a shit whether it’s science fiction or a western or whatever - is the goddamn screenplay. Get the screenplay right and all this technology enhances it. But when the screenplay is weak…"_   Ridley Scott


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

oh yeah, that blog post reminded me of Fifield smoking a tobacco bong inside his spacesuit. I mean, _really_?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Went for a run and thought of an alternative explanation of the beginning. Possibly that first Engineer was trying to do what the old man was - attempting eternal life or simply extending his life. It goes horribly wrong, he dies and accidentally kickstarts humans.



Had a lengthy discussion in the pub the other and this one came up too...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> The surgery one is the standout. That was ridiculous.



Yup my other half is a doctor, she was incredulous to put it politely!


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

Can anyone remember what killed the scottish doctor? I remember her getting knock out by female archaeologist (in a cunning plan she concocted whilst heavily sedated, dealing with the horrific death of her partner and the realisation she had space squid in her womb). I can't remember seeing her after this. Did she go with guy pierce and get killed by the angry space elephant? or did she just die when the ship blew up?


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 10, 2012)

Why didnt they run left or right near the end? the two chicks like.....


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> Can anyone remember what killed the scottish doctor? I remember her getting knock out by female archaeologist (in a cunning plan she concocted whilst heavily sedated, dealing with the horrific death of her partner and the realisation she had space squid in her womb). I can't remember seeing her after this. Did she go with guy pierce and get killed by the angry space elephant? or did she just die when the ship blew up?


 
the Engineer battered her and the rest of the crew


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 10, 2012)

The writers realised she was utterly pointless so just stopped writing about her.

The real question is how the other characters survived so long.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Why didnt they run left or right near the end? the two chicks like.....


that was daft, although one does not always behave rationally when running for one's life


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Good guardian summing up of plot holes:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jun/08/prometheus-ten-key-questions


Actually, they missed what is perhaps the most important question of all as far as the plot goes (not that I'd describe it as a plot hole but more of a talking point): What did David say to the Engineer?

Having seen the film twice and making a point to pay particular attention to that scene it's very interesting! The Engineer wakes up, coughs/pukes for having been in hypersleep for 2000 years (nice touch I thought!) and very calmly looks at the humans. Weyland asks David to ask the Engineer something like what's the secret to immortal life, Shaw screams to David to ask why the Engineers want to destroy us and what we did wrong. David speaks to the Engineer, at one point looking at Weyland apparently referring to him, after which the Engineer strokes David's face, rips his head of and whacks Weyland with it. Up until that point the Engineer showed no aggression.

So did David ask Weyland's question, Shaw's question or, and this is my favourite, did he ask his own question, to provoke that reaction from the Engineer?


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> The surgery one is the standout. That was ridiculous.


 
yeah i didn't get why why the machine was only set for males, yet was still able to abdominal surgery on her. I think someone should have told ridley that ladies bit are a little different from mens.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Why didnt they run left or right near the end? the two chicks like.....


Now THAT is the question! The only thing I can think of it was coming down too fast and was too wide to run to the side, but still, they should have been running diagonally!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> yeah i didn't get why why the machine was only set for males, yet was still able to abdominal surgery on her. I think someone should have told ridley that ladies bit are a little different from mens.


It was there for Weyland (hence designed for male surgery). She manually programmed it for herself


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Actually, they missed what is perhaps the most important question of all as far as the plot goes (not that I'd describe it as a plot hole but more of a talking point): What did David say to the Engineer?
> 
> Having seen the film twice and making a point to pay particular attention to that scene it's very interesting! The Engineer wakes up, coughs/pukes for having been in hypersleep for 2000 years (nice touch I thought!) and very calmly looks at the humans. Weyland asks David to ask the Engineer something like what's the secret to immortal life, Shaw screams to David to ask why the Engineers want to destroy us and what we did wrong. David speaks to the Engineer, at one point looking at Weyland apparently referring to him, after which the Engineer strokes David's face, rips his head of and whacks Weyland with it. Up until that point the Engineer showed no aggression.
> 
> So did David ask Weyland's question, Shaw's question or, and this is my favourite, did he ask his own question, to provoke that reaction from the Engineer?


I didn't think about what he actually said, but thought that the Engineer realised that David was an android, or not human and so decided to destroy him.
(as in he's thinking 'oh noes, the people we made made peoples too, best nip that one in the bud right away')


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> yeah i didn't get why why the machine was only set for males, yet was still able to abdominal surgery on her. I think someone should have told ridley that ladies bit are a little different from mens.


 
It was for the exclusive use for Weyland, Vickers lies about that when she says the escape pod is for her, as not to let on that he is on board.

Stomach surgery to remove something like a tumour is pretty much the same for a man or a woman and that's what she programs the machine for.

*edit*

Cyber Rose beat me to it.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 10, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:
			
		

> Why didnt they run left or right near the end? the two chicks like.....



I thought that too. At the time my leg was a bit sore and I was only sitting down. Made me tired just watching them running and running and stuff.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I didn't think about what he actually said, but thought that the Engineer realised that David was an android, or not human and so decided to destroy him.


Well we don't know what he said so it could be that. Maybe the Engineer realised that humans had go to the same stage as them in creating life (ie David) and thought we'd got too big for our boots?

From the scene it definitely does look like he reacted to what David said (which must have involved him telling him he was an android created by Weyland) so maybe a bit of both? Altho he did seem sympathetic towards David when he stroked his face...


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 10, 2012)

Badgers said:


> I thought that too. At the time my leg was a bit sore and I was only sitting down. Made me tired just watching them running and running and stuff.


 
I thought at first chicks are stupid, but then these where space chicks so they must have like done A levels and stuff?


----------



## Voley (Jun 10, 2012)

There's subtitles on the DVD I've got. David says 'It's cheese, then beans on toast'.


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> It was there for Weyland (hence designed for male surgery). She manually programmed it for herself


 
But why restrict it for only males? surely the machine is capable of both? Weyland brings his daughter along so you might think he'd want to keep his options open. 

And she progammes it for treatment of abdominal injuries. It recognises her as having a foreign body inside her, but does this include her womb? She doesn't appear to been given an impromtu hysterectomy. How done the machine know how to repair her womb? Does it assume shes a male with a womb? or just go 'fuck it, its all flesh, let just staple it up'?


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Yes, the restriction of the machine to only males is weird and unnecessary.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> But why restrict it for only males? surely the machine is capable of both? Weyland brings his daughter along so you might think he'd want to keep his options open.


Weyland is a capitalist who didn't get to where he is today by spending money on things he doesn't need to!



> And she progammes it for treatment of abdominal injuries. It recognises her as having a foreign body inside her, but does this include her womb? She doesn't appear to been given an impromtu hysterectomy. How done the machine know how to repair her womb? Does it assume shes a male with a womb? or just go 'fuck it, its all flesh, let just staple it up'?


I have no idea! I just have to go along with the medi pod being the film's "magic computer" that many films/TV series rely on when they can't quite explain how to get from A to B in a certain plot line!


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

and why does the space elephant chase down female archeaologist after his ship gets shot down? How does he even know where she is? He could just go to one of the other space ship and destroy earth. He could even blow her up on the way if the space ship had a gun. He doesn't even bother to pick up a gun or anything, he just attacks her like a angry rage monster.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> But why restrict it for only males? surely the machine is capable of both? Weyland brings his daughter along so you might think he'd want to keep his options open.


 
That you have to ask the screenwriter about that, it is among the many unexplained things in the film.



captainmission said:


> And she progammes it for treatment of abdominal injuries. It recognises her as having a foreign body inside her, but does this include her womb? She doesn't appear to been given an impromtu hysterectomy. How done the machine know how to repair her womb? Does it assume shes a male with a womb? or just go 'fuck it, its all flesh, let just staple it up'?


 
It's not clear if the alien is in her womb. It's also not clear if she has a womb. She can't have kids and she may not have a uterus, it's not uncommon. The chestbursters in the Alien films certainly didn't require a womb.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> and why does the space elephant chase down female archeaologist after his ship gets shot down? How does he even know where she is? He could just go to one of the other space ship and destroy earth. He could even blow her up on the way if the space ship had a gun. He doesn't even bother to pick up a gun or anything, he just attacks her like a angry rage monster.


Well there you go, he was fucking pissed off! He is 'human', after all...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 10, 2012)

Oh yeah, that reminds me, someone's been reading Gaiman...









> The Helmet of Dream is a mask of pure dream stuff and is one of his three symbols of office; the other two being his sand pouch and the Dreamstone. Dream crafted the helmet himself ages ago, sculpted from the bones of a dead god.


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> I have no idea! I just have to go along with the medi pod being the film's "magic computer" that many films/TV series rely on when they can't quite explain how to get from A to B in a certain plot line!


 
The problem is the whole film was like that.

I suppose i was just on the look out for some feminist subtext to the film after alien/aliens being crammed full of it.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oh yeah, that reminds me, someone's been reading Gaiman...


More like Gainman ripped off Giger's space jockey design (10 years before Sandman), if you wanna go down that route!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> The problem is the whole film was like that.


I know a lot of people think that, but I think that's a little harsh!


----------



## rekil (Jun 10, 2012)

The "half a billion miles..." line. 

Spacesuits are fireproof, but not in the future. They can withstand nasty silicon storms yes, but fire no. Health and safety nightmare again.




			
				imdb said:
			
		

> According to Ridley Scott, the film's plot was inspired by Erich von Däniken's writings about ancient astronauts: "Both NASA and the Vatican agree that it is almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are today, without there being a little help along the way. That's what we're looking at: we are talking about gods and engineers, engineers of space. Were the Aliens designed as a form of biological warfare, or biology that would go in and clean up a planet?"


No wonder the conspiraloons are all cock a hoop over it.


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> It's not clear if the alien is in her womb. It's also not clear if she has a womb. She can't have kids and she may not have a uterus, it's not uncommon. The chestbursters in the Alien films certainly didn't require a womb.


 
But david does tell her she is pregnant, she askes the machine for a c-sec, she's pregnant as a result of sex with male archaeologist. I guess she could have gone down on him, making his cock some sort of proto-face hugger. But even if its not in the womb the machine would still need to work with female physiology.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> More like Gainman ripped off Giger's space jockey design (10 years before Sandman), if you wanna go down that route!


Huh, did not know that.

Still, I knew about Sandman before I knew about that, so that's the narrative I'm sticking with


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> space elephant


_Now _I'm moderately tempted to see this film.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> _Now _I'm moderately tempted to see this film.


These are the only space elephants you need to be bothered about:


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> I suppose i was just on the look out for some feminist subtext to the film after alien/aliens being crammed full of it.


 
By now there are plenty of heroic, competent female characters who are the equal to men in genre films and Ripley was a trailblazer for that. In the late 70s when that was almost unheard off, so there is less need for making a point. Shaw and Vickers aren't damsels in distress and can take care of themselves, but its something that's taken for granted now


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> But david does tell her she is pregnant, she askes the machine for a c-sec, she's pregnant as a result of sex with male archaeologist. I guess she could have gone down on him, making his cock some sort of proto-face hugger. But even if its not in the womb the machine would still need to work with female physiology.


 
There are loads of inconsistencies in the film and I'm not saying I've got the answer for that. The reason why the machine can remove a foreign body from her stomach is however less of a problem for me than other things. There is enough there that you can infer a solution to that problem.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Nobody seems to be complaining about the lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation as to how they are able to achieve faster than light space travel...


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

But alien/aliens goes so much further than just having a powerful female lead. It deals with fear of rape (particularly of males getting raped), fear of childbirth, of motherhood, of women in workplace.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Nobody seems to be complaining about the lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation as to how they are able to achieve faster than light space travel...


 
That's something that most space operas now seem to take for granted. Just like artificial gravity.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Another interesting blog here: http://tomshone.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/review-prometheus-dir-scott.html?spref=fb&m=1
I've seen that Scott quote before and thought that he was a big fat conceited liar. The space jockey was a red herring


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> That's something that most space operas now seem to take for granted. Just like artificial gravity.


Yea, the point I was trying to make is that in sci fi, the technology doesn't necessarily need an explanation, it just is. Hence, science fiction!

How the medi pod actually worked doesn't need any explanations, just take it for granted that it can do what it did!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Nobody seems to be complaining about the lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation as to how they are able to achieve faster than light space travel...


I've never thought that mattered much. Again, it's just an accepted illogicality of movies.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> But alien/aliens goes so much further than just having a powerful female lead. It deals with fear of rape (particularly of males getting raped), fear of childbirth, of motherhood, of women in workplace.


 
It does and that's great. That doesn't mean every film in the series has to be preoccupied with a strong feminist subtext. How more is there to say after the first two films without getting heavy handed about it ? I thought Cameron already over egged the pudding a little in that regard.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Another interesting blog here: http://tomshone.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/review-prometheus-dir-scott.html?spref=fb&m=1
> I've seen that Scott quote before and thought that he was a big fat conceited liar. The space jockey was a red herring


The author of that blog probably needs to go and watch the film again considering they think the planet in Alien and the planet in Prometheus are the same!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I've never thought that mattered much. Again, it's just an accepted illogicality of movies.


It doesn't matter, that's the point! The same should apply to any technology in a sci fi. Some things have been done so much, like space travel or intelligent androids with human emotions, we just take them as is - we should really think that about any future technology in a work of fiction...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Nobody seems to be complaining about the lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation as to how they are able to achieve faster than light space travel...



Perhaps we should just say the film is shite and be done with it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> The author of that blog probably needs to go and watch the film again considering they think the planet in Alien and the planet in Prometheus are the same!


I hadn't thought that! I realised it couldn't be the same ship as the space jockey is still there in Alien. And the cargo is different!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Perhaps we should just say the film is shite and be done with it?


I really really enjoyed it though - it was loads of fun and I'm talking about it lots


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> The author of that blog probably needs to go and watch the film again considering they think the planet in Alien and the planet in Prometheus are the same!


 
The two people I went to see the film with also thought it's supposed to be the same planet and wondered why the space jokey wasn't sitting in his seat at the end. It's an easy mistake to make and I think in an earlier draft, when this supposed to be a more straighforward Alien prequel, it was supposed to be the same planet.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I hadn't thought that! I realised it couldn't be the same ship as the space jockey is still there in Alien. And the cargo is different!


And the fact Prometheus lands on LV-223 and the crew of the Nostromo land on LV-426, but hey!


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I really really enjoyed it though - it was loads of fun and I'm talking about it lots


 
Same here. For all it's flaws I enjoyed the film and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> The two people I went to see the film with also thought it's supposed to be the same planet and wondered why the space jokey wasn't sitting in his seat at the end. It's an easy mistake to make and I think in an earlier draft, when this supposed to be a more straighforward Alien prequel, it was supposed to be the same planet.


You mean an earlier draft before Lindleof realised he could squeeze a trilogy out of the concept?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> It doesn't matter, that's the point! The same should apply to any technology in a sci fi. Some things have been done so much, like space travel or intelligent androids with human emotions, we just take them as is - we should really think that about any future technology in a work of fiction...


That brings difficulties, though as so much sci-fi does try to explain its science


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> You mean an earlier draft before Lindleof realised he could squeeze a trilogy out of the concept?


 

Yup. And before Ridley Scott got pretentious and decided he had to tackle major themes.


----------



## Redeyes (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> So, lots of questions.
> But the goo did different things - it just made Holloway sick with an ebola type disease, but it turned Fifield into a superhuman monster.
> And why do basically all of the characters behave as they do?


 
Maybe it did different things because they got 'infected' differently. Holloway ingested it which could have caused the black goo to start creating new life forms out of any living thing inside him - bacteria etc? Which made the bacteria life forms start to mutate/attack his body. Whereas Fifield died facedown in the goo which could have caused his bacteria to transform into life forms that could control his lifeless corpse - a bit like the Numskulls in the Beano.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> And the fact Prometheus lands on LV-223 and the crew of the Nostromo land on LV-426, but hey!


Wow, you have an eye for detail. Or did you look it up?


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I really really enjoyed it though - it was loads of fun and I'm talking about it lots





Reno said:


> Same here. For all it's flaws I enjoyed the film and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.


I'm with you here. Really enjoyed it for all it's flaws (which let's face it, most of them are just nit picking)

I've seen it twice and wasn't sure I'd enjoy it again but after reading through all the forums and making a mental note of all the questions people raise it really makes you pay attention all the way through making it just as, if not more, enjoyable than first time round!


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jun 10, 2012)

pretty convincing.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Wow, you have an eye for detail. Or did you look it up?


I knew before the film, I don't think it was a 'secret'. Possibly the previews referred to it? It does say in the film they're going to LV-223 (so if you know the Alien film was LV-426 then you can spot it!)


----------



## captainmission (Jun 10, 2012)

Reno said:


> There are loads of inconsistencies in the film and I'm not saying I've got the answer for that. The reason why the machine can remove a foreign body from her stomach is however less of a problem for me than other things. There is enough there that you can infer a solution to that problem.


 
Yeah this is a minor quibble with the film, my really problem is with weak characterisation and motivations being all over the place. Although there is a whole series stupid little inconsistancey that just pile up. I could fully accept that in a sci-fi universe there's a magic surgery machine. Its just for some reason they added the stupid line about it'll only work for males.



CyberRose said:


> Nobody seems to be complaining about the lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation as to how they are able to achieve faster than light space travel...


 
They travel 1/2 billion miles in 2 years. That's not faster than light, or even outside our solar system. But that aside i can accept genre conventions, like faster than light travel or taking their helmets off (it's stupid but being stupid's a party of the horror genre). It just the build up of stupidity and incosistance broke my suspension of disbelief.



Reno said:


> It does and that's great. That doesn't mean every film in the series has to be preoccupied with a strong feminist subtext. How more is there to say after the first two films without getting heavy handed about it ? I thought Cameron already over egged the pudding a little in that regard.


 
That's fair enough, it doesn't have to be there. But due to its heritage i was maybe expecting it.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> That brings difficulties, though as so much sci-fi does try to explain its science


No sci fi can _really _explain any of the technology, otherwise they'd be describing modern technology, not future technology, and they'd be stinking rich with all the patents they'd registered!!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

captainmission said:


> They travel 1/2 billion miles in 2 years. That's not faster than light, or even outside our solar system. But that aside i can accept genre conventions, like faster than light travel or taking their helmets off (it's stupid but being stupid's a party of the horror genre). It just the build up of stupidity and incosistance broke my suspension of disbelief.


Taking their helmets off isn't really a genre convention, as space travel is. I don't recall them scanning for viruses etc before taking their helmets off, just checking the atmosphere. There are some places on Earth where you'd need to wear a mask or risk serious harm (like my bedroom after a night on the piss ending with a kebab), so that is perhaps bad writing


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Here's another perspective: http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1
I only got halfway through it though, before getting exasperated with its LondonCallingesque pomposity


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Ok, that's pretty interesting - thanks. I see how that links all the way through the film. Although I don't see how this revelation is helping my "misunderstanding" of the film.


Going back to this - do you still think it could all be a mistake? They are called Engineers, which implies deliberate action


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Here's another perspective: http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1
> I only got halfway through it though, before getting exasperated with its LondonCallingesque pomposity


I like it. There was already the theory that what happened 2,000 years ago that pissed the Engineers off was the birth of Christianity (organised religion) but I think I prefer the one on that blog to be honest. Also it fits in with us all living in sin until Jesus _returns_...! And that would be the rapture (which taking this theory into account would unleash a shit load of xenomorphs on us to kill us all off, probably taking seven years )


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

he overeggs the pudding somewhat though. He is wrong about some things too, like the mural on the wall. Scott et al aren't that deep.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 10, 2012)

Another nitpick: why did Scott steal the Chauvet cave paintings and stick em in a cave in Skye? It was a bit cheeky I thought, considering how meticulous he always is. He could have got some new ones done.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> he overeggs the pudding somewhat though. He is wrong about some things too, like the mural on the wall. Scott et al aren't that deep.


The mural on the ceiling is something that has bugged me and will do until the DVD comes out and we get some proper screen shots (altho the one he linked to is nice and _possibly _shows the Engineer with his abdomen ripped putting his hand on the head of a creature that is sat down with its arms holding its legs). There will _definitely _be something significant about it and it changes when they enter the room. I tried to look out for what it is but you just can't see it in the cinema so gonna have to wait for DVD screen shots for that one!


----------



## magneze (Jun 10, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Going back to this - do you still think it could all be a mistake? They are called Engineers, which implies deliberate action


Of course! They didn't call themselves Engineers - that's a human construct. An assumption on the part of the human scientists - we must have a purpose when in fact we could be a mistake or a by-product of some other scheme.


----------



## Reno (Jun 10, 2012)

magneze said:


> Of course! They didn't call themselves Engineers - that's a human construct. An assumption on the part of the human scientists - we must have a purpose when in fact we could be a mistake or a by-product of some other scheme.


 
The way you continue to reject all the themes and actions which drive the plot of the film and give you clues as to how it all links up, as close to random events, is on the a little on the wacky side.


----------



## Tankus (Jun 11, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> And the fact Prometheus lands on LV-223 and the crew of the Nostromo land on LV-426, but hey!


windscale ...sellafield ...something bad happens .....it just gets re-branded


----------



## boohoo (Jun 11, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> I enjoyed the film as I said on the other thread but there's loads that could have improved it, if only minor adjustments.
> 
> I do think the Milburn/Fifield scene could've been done differently. Someone pointed out why they were going the opposite direction to the life form reading yet when come face to face with the snake Milburn thinks it's cute and wants to pet it (inevitably leading to it violently killing him). It would've been much better had they both absolutely shited themselves all over their suites and we could have had a proper horror scene akin to Alien while the snakes stalk and kill them both (obviously this would have had to be dealt with in the later scene when the rest of the crew go back to the room). This could then have allowed Holloway to be the one transformed into a super strength monster, rather than Fifield, which would have got rid of the question why the black goo affects humans differently.


 
They were liked the characters in Star Trek who you know are going to get bumped off. Plus their deaths by tentacles was really cheesy. Would have been better if they hadn't been killed off but came to the rescue later on in the movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_(character)


----------



## magneze (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> The way you continue to reject all the themes and actions which drive the plot of the film and give you clues as to how it all links up, as close to random events, is on the a little on the wacky side.


Your way of reading it is not the only way. Maybe you can point out where it is clear that humans were deliberately created by the Engineers? The human characters make that assumption, in a similar way that David makes the assumption that he was created for a purpose - not "just because we could".


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

magneze said:


> Your way of reading it is not the only way. Maybe you can point out where it is clear that humans were deliberately created by the Engineers? The human characters make that assumption, in a similar way that David makes the assumption that he was created for a purpose - not "just because we could".


 
Yes, it is the only way the beginning is supposed to be interpreted. As others have also pointed out, the film isn't supposed to be a free for all ambiguity fest.

But I'm bored with you and with repeating myself. Please feel free to look at the film as a series of random events which don't amount to any sort of plot, meaning or themes.


----------



## magneze (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yes, it is the only way the beginning is supposed to be interpreted. As others have also pointed out, the film isn't supposed to be a free for all ambiguity fest.
> 
> But I'm bored with you and with repeating myself. Please feel free to look at the film as a series of random events which don't amount to any sort of plot, meaning or themes.


So you can't point out where it unambiguously shows this. Glad that's sorted then.


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

magneze said:


> So you can't point out where it unambiguously shows this. Glad that's sorted then.


 
I can point you to interviews with the screenwriter and he seems to be quite unambiguous about it:

_Damon Lindelof:_

_So the idea behind Prometheus was: If we as human beings in the future got a clue or an indication of our origins ... and then we had coordinates, we actually had directions to go and basically meet our makers, what kind of people would go there?_
_This movie was going to say, What if creation wasn’t the result of some kind of all-knowing deity? What if it’s the result of something we can actually go and visit? Are we the result of an experiment, and what’s the purpose of that experiment? Are we deemed a success or a failure?_


http://www.npr.org/2012/06/07/154163335/damon-lindelof-risks-the-wrath-of-loyal-fans-again
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/06/interview-prometheus-screenwriter-damon-lindelof


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2012)

I have to say actually, while I think that was clearly the inention of the writers, I did think we were given very little proof that that was actually the case. The humans just said "oh, there are the same pictures everywhere, these must be our makers" - why could they not just have been visitors?

Bad storytelling, but that doesn't mean it's an interpretational free-for-all, as the writers clearly had a specific interpretation in mind.


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I have to say actually, while I think that was clearly the inention of the writers, I did think we were given very little proof that that was actually the case. The humans just said "oh, there are the same pictures everywhere, these must be our makers" - why could they not just have been visitors?
> 
> Bad storytelling, but that doesn't mean it's an interpretational free-for-all, as the writers clearly had a specific interpretation in mind.


 
I didn't think that part was bad story telling. At least the prologue doesn't treat the audience like idiots (onlike other parts of the film) by giving them the entire cliched evolution sequence where it goes from single cell organisms to dinosaurs and on, as in The Tree Of Life. Prometheus just trusts the audience that they will be able to infer that from showing the beginnings of such a sequence, with the strands of DNA forming. And while it can still be interpreted as ambiguous in the beginning what is being created, there is nothing in the film which contradicts the belief of the characters that they are meeting their makers. if you don't believe that's what is going on, then the film makes absolutely no sense.

On top of that it has been confirmed by the film makers in interviews that this was the aspect which interested them the most about it the story.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> And while this can still be itnerpreted as ambiguous in the beginning, there is nothing in the film which contradicts the belief of the charcters that they are meeting their makers.


No, but what I'm questioning is _why _they believe that. Unless it's a comment on the blind faith of believers and people being willing to make connections just to suit what they want to believe.

I'm not saying they weren't 'Engineers', or that the characters didn't believe that, I just don't remember any decent reason being given for why they reached that conclusion. It's just about being able to understand (and possibly realte to) the characters and their motivations.

I came out of the film having not understood a lot of it, but couldn't decide if that was me being stupid or bad storytelling. I'm getting the feeling it's a bit of column A, bit of column B


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> No, but what I'm questioning is _why _they believe that. Unless it's a comment on the blind faith of believers and people being willing to make connections just to suit what they want to believe.


 
Because of the murals and hieroglyphs the archeologist heroine (who is a believer) finds in all sorts of different ancient cultures around the world. Sure, it takes an insane leap of faith the finance a space expedition on behalf of that evidence, but that's the flimsy sense of logic Prometheus operates under. The film uses the hokey Chariots of the Gods theory as its jumping off point and takes it at face value.


----------



## magneze (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> I can point you to interviews with the screenwriter and he seems to be quite unambiguous about it:
> 
> _Damon Lindelof:_
> 
> ...


So, not in the film. Again. Thank you.


----------



## Chz (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm reposting this from another forum, just because it sounds like an interesting idea.



> First thing you have to remember, is they never subtitled anything David read on the inscriptions or said to the engineer, etc. The Engineer never told us it was a bioweapon, that was the Captain's assumption. The Engineer never told us it was out to destroy Earth. In fact, we didn't see Earth as the "target" until _David picked it out of the star map_. The Engineer did not act at all hostile _or even threatened_ until after David spoke to it. He could have told the engineer, "I'm an artificial killing machine and all of these organics are infected." He didn't wake up with a weapon. He didn't come after Shaw with a weapon. None of the dead Engineers had weapons. Which means that there was probably no weapon on his ship.
> 
> The opening scene, to me, was quite clear. The Engineers seeded Earth with their DNA. But why the big long sequence of the double-helix deconstructing and reconstructing? Because the black goo is an evolution agent. It's not a coincidence that Shaw and her boyfriend had the conversation about God vs. millions of years of evolution. The millions of years of evolution still happened. The Engineers planted the seeds for humanity to grow... from the primordial phase onwards. And they returned repeatedly to tend their garden.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

magneze said:


> So, not in the film. Again. Thank you.


 
Yes, its in the film. You're just not getting it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

magneze said:


> So, not in the film. Again. Thank you.


I think you're being rather obstinately obtuse about this, magneze!


----------



## magneze (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yes, its in the film. You're just not getting it.


No it isn't and you can't point to a bit that says it is. Really leave it and stop being so damn patronizing.


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

Yes, I have pointed to it several times.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> Because of the murals and hieroglyphs the archeologist heroine (who is a believer) finds in all sorts of different ancient cultures around the world.


But again, why do they automatically think "engineers" rather than "visitors"? That's the bit I don't get/missed


----------



## magneze (Jun 11, 2012)

You've pointed me to an interview with the screenwriter. That's not in the film is it. The film could be interpreted in different ways. Clearly. All I'm saying is that there is room for interpretation on what was shown on screen. You seem to be adamant that there is not.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

Chz said:


> I'm reposting this from another forum, just because it sounds like an interesting idea.


"The Engineer did not act at all hostile or even threatened until after David spoke to it. He could have told the engineer, "I'm an artificial killing machine and all of these organics are infected." He didn't wake up with a weapon. He didn't come after Shaw with a weapon. None of the dead Engineers had weapons. Which means that there was probably no weapon on his ship."

Apart from the big fuck off weapon the Engineer was sat on when he was woken up


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

magneze said:


> You've pointed me to an interview with the screenwriter. That's not in the film is it. The film could be interpreted in different ways. Clearly. All I'm saying is that there is room for interpretation on what was shown on screen. You seem to be adamant that there is not.


Not quite. There is room for misunderstanding cos of shite storytelling


----------



## trabuquera (Jun 11, 2012)

OK, another thing - partly discussed: clearly medicine has advanced hugely by the end of our current century (enough to invent a slightly sexist 'universal' surgical pod not configured for both genders, anyway). They might even have invented such kickass anaesthetics that a person could stay conscious, logical and able to stand up again after an involuntary alien caesarean. 

But what I don't get is, given all that medical sophistication, why they'd still have to zip you up with an impressive zipper of shiny metal staples, which, MOREOVER, don't seem to rip your lower abs apart while you then go running, rolling, romping, leaping and abseiling about the remains of your spacecraft. I could believe Noomi Rapace capable of anything (especially if on good enough drugs) but unless human muscle tissue could be regenerated or transplanted within minutes in the future, there's still no way she could do all this Action Woman stuff without her liver falling out round her ankles.


----------



## magneze (Jun 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Not quite. There is room for misunderstanding cos of shite storytelling


Whatever the reason, there is room. Thank you. That was all I was arguing.

It's interesting that the screenwriter says how it should be interpreted - because it doesn't come across in the film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

Here is another review pointing out plot holes. It's very funny but littered with inaccuracies. Again, in the absence of clear storytelling, people are getting things wrong. 
http://digitaldigging.net/prometheus-an-archaeological-perspective/


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

magneze said:


> Whatever the reason, there is room. Thank you. That was all I was arguing.
> 
> It's interesting that the screenwriter says how it should be interpreted - because it doesn't come across in the film.


 

This is like the people who insist that the tall skinny guys at the end of A.I. are aliens. There may not be intertitles which explain to the audience that they are highly evolved robots, but the entire film was about robots, so it figures that the film stays with that subject matter, rather than shooting off on an entirely different tangent. An audience sometimes is trusted to grasp plot points which aren't explicitly spelled out from the overall context and themes of a film and that's what it's like with Prometheus. So even if in the beginning you didn't understand why the big white dude falls into the water and dissolves into particles that release DNA, by the end it should be clear what that was supposed to mean.

I went to see Prometheus with two friends and while there was understandable confusion over some aspects (like this isn't the planet from Alien), neither had a problem understanding the main premise of the film, so I'd say it does come across to most.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

Magneze - what do you think the title refers to if the film isn't about demigods crafting humans and giving them technology to fuck everything up?


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> I can point you to interviews with the screenwriter and he seems to be quite unambiguous about it:


Artichoke'd think you're grade-A bonkers for thinking that a screenwriter / author knows what his book / text / script is "about."

Then again, she's a literature phd, so acknowledging that they DID know what they're on about would be doing herself out of a job, ay.

E2a: oh, hello, what page was I on?!


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)




----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


>


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barthes


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

I can't always follow mrs quoad's mental leaps and grammar. I think I'll stick to his cat posts.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


>


I quoted something from several pages back, then realised I was several pages back. Hence the e2a!


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barthes


Oh, man, _fuck _Roland Fucking Barthes.

I failed him the year I failed my first failed degree. Wanker. Death of the author, my arse.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

Have you told this to Artichoke?


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you told this to Artichoke?


Routinely, often on the way back from the gym


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 11, 2012)

Reno said:


> Yes, it is the only way the beginning is supposed to be interpreted. As others have also pointed out, the film isn't supposed to be a free for all ambiguity fest.
> 
> But I'm bored with you and with repeating myself. Please feel free to look at the film as a series of random events which don't amount to any sort of plot, meaning or themes.



Well done for being so honest at how badly made it was!


----------



## Reno (Jun 11, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Well done for being so honest at how badly made it was!


 
It was poorly written, but it was very well made. I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference though. Your basic knowledge of film-making is nada. You can't even tell when a "funny" youtube video is a blatant fake.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

More explained from the makers:
http://m.io9.com/5917448/all-of-your-lingering-prometheus-questions-answered
That Logan chap talks a lot of shit about anti-android bigotry


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 12, 2012)

Reno said:


> It was poorly written, but it was very well made. I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference though. Your basic knowledge of film-making is nada. You can't even tell when a "funny" youtube video is a blatant fake.



Lol this from the guy that loves Avatar?


----------



## Reno (Jun 12, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol this from the guy that loves Avatar?


 

So you are back to resorting to that troll again ? That's really pathetic, especially considering what a twat you made of yourself today.


...and BTW, when and where did I ever say I "love" Avatar ?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 12, 2012)

Reno said:


> So you are back to resorting to that troll again ? That's really pathetic, especially considering what a twat you made of yourself today.
> 
> 
> ...and BTW, when and where did I ever say I "love" Avatar ?



Hey I ain't the one that ponces about like a 6th form film critic loving crap like Avatar then talking down my oh so sight & sound nose at anyone who likes different films to you. 

That's a good working definition of pathetic.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 12, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> More explained from the makers:
> http://m.io9.com/5917448/all-of-your-lingering-prometheus-questions-answered
> That Logan chap talks a lot of shit about anti-android bigotry





> It's something I haven't seen in science fiction, which is a sense of racism or bigotry towards androids and synthetic life.



I find it hard to believe that he hasn't seen or at least heard of 'Blade Runner' or 'I Robot'.


----------



## Kippa (Jun 12, 2012)

The interesting thing I find about Prometheus reviews is that a lot of people either love it or hate it.  Either way it has made a lot of people talk about it, which means that it has engaged people in one form or another which is an achievment in itself.


----------



## TitanSound (Jun 12, 2012)

Gromit said:


> I find it hard to believe that he hasn't seen or at least heard of 'Blade Runner' or 'I Robot'.


 
Especially seeing as Scott directed BR. If I was an actor, I'd probably look into the history of the director I was working with.


----------



## Reno (Jun 12, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Hey I ain't the one that ponces about like a 6th form film critic loving crap like Avatar then talking down my oh so sight & sound nose at anyone who likes different films to you.
> 
> That's a good working definition of pathetic.


 
Your argument is invalid:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...r-girlfriend-freaks-out.294662/#post-11249010


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

Gromit said:


> I find it hard to believe that he hasn't seen or at least heard of 'Blade Runner' or 'I Robot'.


And pretty much every film with androids in. He's talking out of his arse. Actors/directors always seem to spout so much bullshit in interviews


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> That's a good working definition of pathetic.


You should probably look that word up in the dictionary


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

Lots of idiots out there chipping in their two cents:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=prometheus_nutshell


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

Funny:


----------



## Gromit (Jun 12, 2012)

He was a geologist not a biologist but otherwise yeah funny.

I would have added why would someone capable of interstellar travel draw Cave Paintings as a message? Surely they'd be capable of something more elaborate like a big black talking obelisk on the moon!

In fact all the messages were in human works of art not made by aliens, unless they'd been returning every now and then sneak a reference to them in. 

Someone will justify this by saying it was implanted in our genetic memory or some shit and thats how the message manifests. If so why did it stop manifesting after ancient times and not keep appearing in human creative processes?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

Fifield was the geologist, Milburn the biologist - they both got scared and wanted to run away


----------



## Redeyes (Jun 12, 2012)

Twenty minutes longer cut coming to Blu-ray...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56336


----------



## Idaho (Jun 12, 2012)

Spoilers? How about:

WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT       ?

Honestly. Why spend all that money and make such a pretty looking film, only to render it so utterly unbelieveable and incomprehensible?


----------



## Idaho (Jun 12, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Fifield was the geologist, Milburn the biologist - they both got scared and wanted to run away


 
They got scared. Then inexplicably went back to hang out in the scariest part with all the containers and then started chatting and trying to pet random aliens?


----------



## D'wards (Jun 12, 2012)

Why did the engineers invite us to their military planet, especially if they intended to wipe us out anyway?

Owes a lot to dear dead Arthur C, the idea of aliens experimenting with lifeforms on other planets and monitoring the progress. Whole thing owes a huge debt to 2001


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 12, 2012)

Idaho said:


> They got scared. Then inexplicably went back to hang out in the scariest part with all the containers and then started chatting and trying to pet random aliens?


Leaving aside the chatting with aliens, didn't they get told the wrong thing by someone on the ship? Memory of it's not great, but I have the feeling they were lied to to get them in that room. They said "where's the big bad?", were told it was west and so went east, when in actual fact they were heading straight for it.

Could well be wrong though


----------



## Reno (Jun 12, 2012)

D'wards said:


> Why did the engineers invite us to their military planet, especially if they intended to wipe us out anyway?
> 
> Owes a lot to dear dead Arthur C, the idea of aliens experimenting with lifeforms on other planets and monitoring the progress. Whole thing owes a huge debt to 2001


 
The screenwriter went on about how they were aiming for a 2001 style film while this was still being writing, so it's not like that wasn't acknowledged. Shame they fell a little short.

Apparently the version released on DVD/Blu-ray will be 20 minutes longer. Maybe then we will find out why they cast Guy Pearce.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

20 minutes added to DVD to make us pay for it twice over.


----------



## D'wards (Jun 12, 2012)

I wish Dan o'Bannon was still involved/alive. Dunno why the boy did not have a more glittering career - wrote Alien and directed Return of the Living Dead - two amazing seminal works,


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

D'wards said:


> I wish Dan o'Bannon was still involved/alive. Dunno why the boy did not have a more glittering career - wrote Alien and directed Return of the Living Dead - two amazing seminal works,


Though from what i've read, his version was wack, until Walter Hill got his hands on the script. Many of the great things I the script were additions from Hill apparently


----------



## Idaho (Jun 13, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Lol this from the guy that loves Avatar?


 
Avatar was better than this. At least Avatar was meant to be vacuous, pretty nonsense.


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> 20 minutes added to DVD to make us pay for it twice over.


 
Donwload it


----------



## Reno (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> 20 minutes added to DVD to make us pay for it twice over.


 
Nobody is going to hold a gun to your head, forcing you to buy it. I liked the film enough and I am enough of an Alien fan that I was going to get the Blu-ray anyway, so that's a nice bonus. Not sure if it will make the characters behave less stupidly though.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jun 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> Nobody is going to hold a gun to your head, forcing you to buy it. I liked the film enough and I am enough of an Alien fan that I was going to get the Blu-ray anyway, so that's a nice bonus. Not sure if it will make the characters behave less stupidly though.


Maybe it'll be like Apocalypse Now Redux, where suddenly everything makes sense, and then you realise that it was quite a bit better when it didn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> Nobody is going to hold a gun to your head, forcing you to buy it. I liked the film enough and I am enough of an Alien fan that I was going to get the Blu-ray anyway, so that's a nice bonus. Not sure if it will make the characters behave less stupidly though.


Of course not, but I think it's shitty behaviour to do this sort of thing. They do it with computer games too. Can't remember how much extra I spent on DLC for the Fallout games, but it was enough.


----------



## Reno (Jun 13, 2012)

I quite enjoy the options of having different versions of films. Due to economics the requirements of theatrical and home video versions are quite different. For theatrical showings films have to often come in under a certain length (I think to get his R-rating Scott had to make compromises in terms of running time) and often they get edited for rating and censorship, things which aren't an issue on home video. Of course many directors cuts are redundant fiddling around, but that's fine if the original is also present, which it always almost is (and Star Wars fans are suckers anyway ). I'll never understand the complaints over having more options rather than less.


----------



## Balbi (Jun 13, 2012)




----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> I quite enjoy the options of having different versions of films. Due to economics the requirements of theatrical and home video versions are quite different. For theatrical showings films have to often come in under a certain length (I think to get his R-rating Scott had to make compromises in terms of running time) and often they get edited for rating and censorship, things which aren't an issue on home video. Of course many directors cuts are redundant fiddling around, but that's fine if the original is also present, which it always almost is (and Star Wars fans are suckers anyway ). I'll never understand the complaints over having more options rather than less.


I am a cheapskate and only want to pay once! I think it's fine for an uncut version with more violence/sex or whatever but it I think it sucks if you have to pay again to just see something made clear that should have been clear in the first place


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 13, 2012)




----------



## Reno (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I am a cheapskate and only want to pay once! I think it's fine for an uncut version with more violence/sex or whatever but it I think it sucks if you have to pay again to just see something made clear that should have been clear in the first place


 

Don't you torrent most stuff anyway ? 

Films have always been compromised by commercial requirements, the difference is that before DVD we hardly ever got to see a director's preferred version and now we do. Now the material that got cut out doesn't go in the trash bin anymore. What I would give for a director's cut of Orson Welles' The Magnificent Ambersons.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

For sure, but I think it is also used for purely cynical reasons too - to milk the consumers.
I've given up on torrenting btw


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 13, 2012)

D'wards said:


> Why did the engineers invite us to their military planet, especially if they intended to wipe us out anyway?
> 
> Owes a lot to dear dead Arthur C, the idea of aliens experimenting with lifeforms on other planets and monitoring the progress. Whole thing owes a huge debt to 2001



Because we killed Jesus apparently. Even the ever spinning justifications being offered are bad..!


----------



## Reno (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> For sure, but I think it is also used for purely cynical reasons too - to milk the consumers.
> I've given up on torrenting btw


 
I doubt that the longer cut of Prometheus will turn it into a massively better or more coherent film anyway.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

Reno said:


> I doubt that the longer cut of Prometheus will turn it into a massively better or more coherent film anyway.


Aye, that much is certain!


----------



## D'wards (Jun 13, 2012)




----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 14, 2012)




----------



## ska invita (Jun 14, 2012)

sorry if this has been asked - who set up the holograms? For what purpose now? 

This film reminded more of Alien v Predator than a proper Aliens film


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 14, 2012)

A mate said Prometheus is the Alien franchise's Phantom Menace. I wouldn't go that far myself!


----------



## gosub (Jun 14, 2012)

ska invita said:


> sorry if this has been asked - who set up the holograms? For what purpose now?
> 
> This film reminded more of Alien v Predator than a proper Aliens film


Like a futuristic aircraft black box


----------



## Gromit (Jun 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> A mate said Prometheus is the Alien franchise's Phantom Menace. I wouldn't go that far myself!



I'd compare it more to Twin Peaks.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

Once the Internet tide turns against a film, because it falls short of impossibly high expectations, the discussion decends into hyperbolic negativity. Fanboy fundamentalists then parrot how the film is the worst thing ever, even though in the real world it got decent reviews and was successful. Everybody who disagrees with that type of group think gets shouted down and declared an idiot, because apparently the internet is there to force one single consensus on a film. Moderate opinions don't cut it. In that respect Prometheus is on its way of becoming this years Avatar.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> I'd compare it more to Twin Peaks.


 
There were no dancing dwarves !


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> I'd compare it more to Twin Peaks.


In what way?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 14, 2012)

Reno said:


> Once the Internet tide turns against a film, because it falls short of impossibly high expectations, the discussion decends into hyperbolic negativity. Fanboy fundamentalists then parrot how the film is the worst thing ever, even though in the real world it got decent reviews and was successful. Everybody who disagrees with that type of group think gets shouted down and declared an idiot, because apparently the internet is there to force one single consensus on a film. Moderate opinions don't cut it. In that respect Prometheus is on its way of becoming this years Avatar.


This is very true. I really enjoyed the film but then got thinking about its manifold absurdities. Once this thread got going, even more appeared until it just became nit-picking.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> In what way?



In that it made no sense.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> In that it made no sense.


 
There is a difference between surrealism and a poorly worked out screenplay. That said, enough made sense in both.


----------



## Gromit (Jun 14, 2012)

Reno said:


> There is a difference between surrealism and a poorly worked out screenplay. That said, enough made sense in both.



I know, I was being facetious.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

Get out your facetious smiley then !


----------



## ska invita (Jun 14, 2012)

holograms please! Who and why! In fact an explanation of what the complex is full stop would be nice. Re holograms "Like a futuristic aircraft black box" makes no sense, because in the control room bit the holograms show how to fly the thing sort of. I think some sort of futuristic nonsense plot device is (yet again) the only explanation.

I liked the film and had an enjoyable cinema experience, but i cant think of another sci-fi film that left me wondering what id just seen, and not because it was deliberately attempting to stimulate the speculative mind (like a Lynch film). It really does belong in the second division of sci-films when it comes to plot, sense, believability (a number of guffaw-out-loud moments broke out in the cinema), characterisation and chemistry. It did look incredible and was slickly executed so stylish was it that I could excuse the substance. I hate CGI but this 'felt' great...everything had a gravity to it. I really reckon it was a lot like AVP - which I also really enjoyed. AVP had a tighter plot set up and execution though.

Talking of AVP the alien world of this universe is starting to get pretty full of fuckers - Engineers Aliens and Predators - 3 out of 3 contacts are gits. Why cant we just all get along?


ETA: When the first credit came up as the film ended in the cinema everyone laughed... release of tension? A little...but also because it was pretty ridiculous - the last 10 minutes laid it on particularly thick


----------



## Random (Jun 14, 2012)

Reno said:


> In Greek mythology the Titans were gods who were created by Zeus. If that aspect is supposed to be taken at face value may be revealed by a sequel but I think the important bit that relates to the film is that Prometheus was a creator of life. That's what the Titan-like engineers do.


No, Zeus and his parents were titans. The Greek pantheon are basically titans who've managed to beat all the others and imprison them in various ways. Like making Atlas carry the sky.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> In that it made no sense.


 
Still awesome


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 14, 2012)

Reno said:


> In that respect Prometheus is on its way of becoming this years Avatar.


In that it was pretty but under the surface glitter was a bit of a hodgepodge mess?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 14, 2012)

Jesus fuck, this article claims Ridley Scott said that Jesus was akshully an Engineer and the reason they want to destory the earth is because he was killed  - includes the quote
http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html


Movies.com: We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

Ridley Scott: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, "Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it." Guess what? They crucified him.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> In that it was pretty but under the surface glitter was a bit of a hodgepodge mess?


 
I was only talking about the Internet backlash against both films, which was not to imply that the films are the same or have the same problems.

I don't see why Avatar is a mess. Unlike with Prometheus the plotting is solid. Its perfectly coherent and there are few ambiguities left by the end. Its detractors accuse Avatar being derivatve, naive and preachy. Some of that I agree with, but that's something I have no interest in getting into on this thread (again).


----------



## Gromit (Jun 14, 2012)

ska invita said:


> holograms please! Who and why! In fact an explanation of what the complex is full stop would be nice. Re holograms "Like a futuristic aircraft black box" makes no sense, because in the control room bit the holograms show how to fly the thing sort of. I think some sort of futuristic nonsense plot device is (yet again) the only explanation.



Its a military installation. Their version of security surveillance?  

Why its playing back without clearance from a security officer is a bit wrong though.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 14, 2012)

Reno said:


> I was only talking about the Internet backlash against both films, which was not to imply that the films are the same or have the same problems.
> 
> I don't see why Avatar is a mess. Unlike with Prometheus the plotting is solid. It's perfectly coherent and there are few ambiguities left by the end. Its detractors accuse Avatar being derivatve, naive and preachy. Some of that I agree with, but that's something I have no interest in getting into on this thread (again).


Yeah, I was being a bit glib with that. They're different kinds of messes. Or something.

Basically, both were pretty but rather flawed.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

ska invita said:


> Jesus fuck, this article claims Ridley Scott said that Jesus was akshully an Engineer and the reason they want to destory the earth is because he was killed  - includes the quote
> http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html
> 
> 
> ...


 

That was in an earlier screenplay. Well, he rightly threw it out because it's a little OTT, so not sure why that now should be held against him or the film.


----------



## Redeyes (Jun 14, 2012)

ska invita said:


> holograms please! Who and why! In fact an explanation of what the complex is full stop would be nice. Re holograms "Like a futuristic aircraft black box" makes no sense, because in the control room bit the holograms show how to fly the thing sort of. I think some sort of futuristic nonsense plot device is (yet again) the only explanation.


 
They're part of some sort of futuristic security surveillance camera set up. David figured out how to turn on their playback when he looked closely at that goo between his fingers and then pressed the controls on the wall which switched on the playback.


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

Random said:


> No, Zeus and his parents were titans. The Greek pantheon are basically titans who've managed to beat all the others and imprison them in various ways. Like making Atlas carry the sky.


 
Oh OK, its a while ago that I did the Greek myths.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 14, 2012)

Reno said:


> That was in an earlier screenplay. Well, he rightly threw it out because it's a little OTT, so not sure why that now should be held against him or the film.


whatever happened to make the engineers want to destroy earth isnt included in the screenplay, earlier version or otherwise -the truth is held back for the possible sequel - its not about holding it against him - Ridley says it was "too on the nose" which means what they are getting at now is a slightly hazier version of this fact (not thrown out as you say), as he puts it an "our children are misbahvaing down there scenario" - but when you add in all the immaculate birth on chirstmas day stuff, you realise this is still there in the script in an absent form. Actually I am holding it against him because it shows what kind of conceptualisation is going on here.

Im done reading about this film - its a mess of myth and religion that no amount of reasoning is going to make sense of - even though it wasnt intended to be so im going to file it under accidentally Lynchian and leave it at that. In fact now I come to think about it its a lot like a modern bible story - a load of ill thought out bollocks!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2012)

ska invita said:


> whatever happened to make the engineers want to destroy earth isnt included in the screenplay, earlier version or otherwise -the truth is held back for the possible sequel - its not about holding it against him - Ridley says it was "too on the nose" which means what they are getting at now is a slightly hazier version of this fact (not thrown out as you say), as he puts it an "our children are misbahvaing down there scenario" - but when you add in all the immaculate birth on chirstmas day stuff, you realise this is still there in the script in an absent form. Actually I am holding it against him because it shows what kind of conceptualisation is going on here.
> 
> Im done reading about this film - its a mess of myth and religion that no amount of reasoning is going to make sense of - even though it wasnt intended to be so im going to file it under accidentally Lynchian and leave it at that. In fact now I come to think about it its a lot like a modern bible story - a load of ill thought out bollocks!








bet lynchian?


----------



## ska invita (Jun 14, 2012)

Redeyes said:


> David figured out how to turn on their playback when he looked closely at that goo between his fingers and then pressed the controls on the wall which switched on the playback.


i imagine a simliar action was performed by the script writers when they were wanking out the plot devices


----------



## Reno (Jun 14, 2012)

ska invita said:


> whatever happened to make the engineers want to destroy earth isnt included in the screenplay, earlier version or otherwise -the truth is held back for the possible sequel - its not about holding it against him - Ridley says it was "too on the nose" which means what they are getting at now is a slightly hazier version of this fact (not thrown out as you say), as he puts it an "our children are misbahvaing down there scenario" - but when you add in all the immaculate birth on chirstmas day stuff, you realise this is still there in the script in an absent form. Actually I am holding it against him because it shows what kind of conceptualisation is going on here.
> 
> Im done reading about this film - its a mess of myth and religion that no amount of reasoning is going to make sense of - even though it wasnt intended to be so im going to file it under accidentally Lynchian and leave it at that. In fact now I come to think about it its a lot like a modern bible story - a load of ill thought out bollocks!


 

The Holy Baby Xenomorph ! As a bible story, it would be considered a fairly sacreligious one by many.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 14, 2012)

Some cool pics I've come across of the murals in the canister room. The 'alien' mural looks like a photo of the set piece they used and the second picture, from the picture on the ceiling (which changes) is concept art.


Alien mural set piece (notice the two facehuggers at the bottom left and right of the mural?!):





Concept art of ceiling painting:


----------



## ska invita (Jun 14, 2012)




----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2012)

Going for the 4th watch today. I will let you know if that is too many times, or if it is improved with age.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 17, 2012)

4 times? I don't get it - don't you get bored when you know what's going to happen? I don't think I've ever watched anything more than once on the big screen


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 17, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> I knew before the film, I don't think it was a 'secret'. Possibly the previews referred to it? It does say in the film they're going to LV-223 (so if you know the Alien film was LV-426 then you can spot it!)


 
Scott has hinted strongly that he may well make trilogy of 'prequels' for Alien. Least thats what I got from his interview with Mayo on R5 a week or so back. Thats why the planet is different-he wanted people to know that Prometheus isnt in fact THE prequel to Alien.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 17, 2012)

trabuquera said:


> OK, another thing - partly discussed: clearly medicine has advanced hugely by the end of our current century (enough to invent a slightly sexist 'universal' surgical pod not configured for both genders, anyway). They might even have invented such kickass anaesthetics that a person could stay conscious, logical and able to stand up again after an involuntary alien caesarean.
> 
> But what I don't get is, given all that medical sophistication, why they'd still have to zip you up with an impressive zipper of shiny metal staples, which, MOREOVER, don't seem to rip your lower abs apart while you then go running, rolling, romping, leaping and abseiling about the remains of your spacecraft. I could believe Noomi Rapace capable of anything (especially if on good enough drugs) but unless human muscle tissue could be regenerated or transplanted within minutes in the future, there's still no way she could do all this Action Woman stuff without her liver falling out round her ankles.


 
Unless this 'surgery' had some form of advanced healing incorporated in the closing the wound process. You see something similar in Starship Troopers in the healing tank.

However without something like this you're absolutely right-no amount of painkillers wouldve prevented her innards from falling out.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2012)

Badgers said:
			
		

> Going for the 4th watch today. I will let you know if that is too many times, or if it is improved with age.



It was a tough 4th watch. I think I have hit the Prometheus wall now. Gotta see it one more time (maximum two) but don't want to ruin it for myself


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> 4 times? I don't get it - don't you get bored when you know what's going to happen? I don't think I've ever watched anything more than once on the big screen



How many times have you seen Alien/Aliens?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 17, 2012)

Badgers said:


> How many times have you seen Alien/Aliens?


Coupla times over the years


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 17, 2012)

Ive just got back from seeing it and I loved it. Occasional clunky dialogue and bad acting (who was the scottish lass? Awful) but I thought it was stylish, thought provoking and interesting. I'm gonna go back for a second viewing for sure.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Scott has hinted strongly that he may well make trilogy of 'prequels' for Alien. Least thats what I got from his interview with Mayo on R5 a week or so back. Thats why the planet is different-he wanted people to know that Prometheus isnt in fact THE prequel to Alien.


Yea there's definitely the intention to do a series of films (and Scott has been quite open about his desire to make Prometheus a financial success)

I also think that there might have been some issues with Alien canon if it had been set on the same planet


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Coupla times over the years



Must try harder


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2012)

Badgers said:


> It was a tough 4th watch. I think I have hit the Prometheus wall now. Gotta see it one more time (maximum two) but don't want to ruin it for myself


You've _got _to see it more times!?

I've seen it twice and enjoyed it just as much the second time (paying attention to the little details you missed first time round). Don't think I could go again unless it's to watch it in 3D (altho I've not heard anything to convince me that's be worth while)


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 17, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> You've _got _to see it more times!?
> 
> I've seen it twice and enjoyed it just as much the second time (paying attention to the little details you missed first time round). Don't think I could go again unless it's to watch it in 3D (altho I've not heard anything to convince me that's be worth while)


 
I watched it in 3D....Im still not sold on 3D-this light loss thing is annoying. In that interview I mentioned Scott left me in no doubt that he preferred the 2D version which leads me to suspect some studio pressure to release it in 3D.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 17, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> thought provoking


thats one way of describing it


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2012)

CyberRose said:
			
		

> You've got to see it more times!?
> 
> I've seen it twice and enjoyed it just as much the second time (paying attention to the little details you missed first time round). Don't think I could go again unless it's to watch it in 3D (altho I've not heard anything to convince me that's be worth while)



Yeah. All times in 3D for me so far and I like it in this film, much more than others I have seen in 3D. It is deteriorating with each view but I would tell people to go if they ask.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I watched it in 3D....Im still not sold on 3D-this light loss thing is annoying. In that interview I mentioned Scott left me in no doubt that he preferred the 2D version which leads me to suspect some studio pressure to release it in 3D.


In this day and age there is no chance a non-3D film will top the box office charts due to the higher cost of 3D tickets. So yea you're probably right...


----------



## Reno (Jun 17, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Yeah. All times in 3D for me so far and I like it in this film, much more than others I have seen in 3D. It is deteriorating with each view but I would tell people to go if they ask.


 
Have you seen Hugo ? I'm not that huge a fan of the film, but the way Scorsese used 3D was stunning. I would never want to see it any other way.

I liked the 3D in Prometheus, but I'm happy to see it at home in 2D on Blu-ray the next time.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 17, 2012)

Reno said:
			
		

> Have you seen Hugo ? I'm not that huge a fan of the film, but the way Scorsese used 3D was stunning. I would never want to see it any other way.
> 
> I liked the 3D in Prometheus, but I'm happy to see it at home in 2D on Blu-ray the next time.



Not seen Hugo. I was kind of anti-3D in the main so generally missed them. Prometheus dragged me out for the love of the franchise and was taken by it.


----------



## binka (Jun 17, 2012)

saw this in 3d at imax yesterday. first time ive seen a 3d film and have to say i was pretty underwhelmed by the experience. maybe ive got dodgy eyes but the 3d was good in normal scenes but when there was any action it looked all blurred.

as for the film itself i would say it was pretty average. i too was annoyed by little things that made no sense - taking off the helmets, those blokes being shit scared one minute then trying to stroke the alien snake for no apparent reason.

one thing i didnt get - the alien ship was apparently all ready for take off destination earth when for reasons that remain unexplained the launch was abandoned and the engineers decided to have a kip instead. obviously there must be some reason for not going ahead with the original launch yet within 5 minutes of being woken up the ship is taking off. so what had changed that x thousand years ago meant the launch couldn't go ahead but now it can?

i am tempted to go and watch it again in 2d but may just wait for the dvd instead


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 17, 2012)

binka said:


> one thing i didnt get - the alien ship was apparently all ready for take off destination earth when for reasons that remain unexplained the launch was abandoned and the engineers decided to have a kip instead. obviously there must be some reason for not going ahead with the original launch yet within 5 minutes of being woken up the ship is taking off. so what had changed that x thousand years ago meant the launch couldn't go ahead but now it can?


Black goo killed em all (presumably the remaining Engineer had already gone into hyper sleep?)


----------



## binka (Jun 17, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Black goo killed em all (presumably the remaining Engineer had already gone into hyper sleep?)


well i can understand that i suppose - the holograms of the engineers running scared, the decapitated one and the pile of dead bodies were obviously meant to show some kind of panic/fight but i still dont get why the remaining engineer went into hypersleep rather than just launch the ship anyway unless i suppose he was already alseep when it all kicked off which by the sounds of it is what happened


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 18, 2012)

Films can and often defy logic.  Characters can and often do things that we wouldn't do or indeed they themselves weren't doing earlier on in the film.  These types of innacuracies/flaws are as old as filmmaking and in that sense Prometheus doesn't break with that convention.


----------



## Reno (Jun 18, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Films can and often defy logic. Characters can and often do things that we wouldn't do or indeed they themselves weren't doing earlier on in the film. These types of innacuracies/flaws are as old as filmmaking and in that sense Prometheus doesn't break with that convention.


 
That's just reverse engineering to excuse poor characterwriting and motivation which is entirely there to move the plot along, rather than thought through in terms of what would be plausible behaviour for professional scientists. On a scientific mission to another planet there would be some sort of protocol in place the crew has to follow, as there is in Alien. Hopefully the characters wouldn't behave like the imbeciles in a Friday the 13th sequel unless the implication is that over the next century IQs will have dropped sharply and that this takes place in the same universe as the sci-fi satire Idiocracy.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> Hopefully the characters wouldn't behave like the imbeciles in a Friday the 13th sequel unless the implication is that over the next century IQs will have dropped sharply and that this takes place in the same universe as the sci-fi satire Idiocracy.


 
Now that would make for an interesting new franchise branch!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 18, 2012)

I loved Idiocracy!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 18, 2012)




----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 18, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> I loved Idiocracy!



Terrible movie.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 18, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Terrible movie.


Yea but you thought Prometheus was a bad film so what would you know?!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 18, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Terrible movie.


It was ace! (excepting the dodgy politics)


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It was ace! (excepting the dodgy politics)


Dodgy politics!? That's where the future is heading man! (people on this forum would know that if they read the prophetical Sun and Mail!)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 18, 2012)

It seems to be inadvertently supporting eugenics though. That may not be the intention, but if you take the premise of the film to its logical conclusion....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> More explained from the makers:
> http://m.io9.com/5917448/all-of-your-lingering-prometheus-questions-answered
> That Logan chap talks a lot of shit about anti-android bigotry


 
Stuff like this just annoys me, I can see why people would go and see it more than once. (my bolding)




> What was David's motivation for "infecting" Holloway with black goop?
> Damon Lindelof: I'd say that the short answer is: That's his programming. In the scene preceding him doing that, he is talking to Weyland *(although we don't know it at the time)* and he's telling Weyland that this is a bust. That they haven't found anything on this mission other than the stuff in the vials. And Weyland presumably says to him, "Well, what's in the vials?" And David would say, "I'm not entirely sure, we'll have to run some experiments." And Weyland would say, "What would happen if you put it in inside a person?" And David would say, "I don't know, I'll go find out." He doesn't know that he's poisoning Holloway, he asks Holloway, "What would you be willing to do to get the answers to your questions?" Holloway says, "Anything and everything." And that basically overrides whatever ethical programming David is mandated by, [allowing him] to spike his drink.


 

If we don't know that - how are we supposed to figure it out?


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 18, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It seems to be inadvertently supporting eugenics though. That may not be the intention, but if you take the premise of the film to its logical conclusion....


I didn't really think I had to think too hard about the film's story to be fair!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 18, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Stuff like this just annoys me, I can see why people would go and see it more than once. (my bolding)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Take your point there. There's no reason for Lindelof to have to explain that, it's one of the things that's good to let the audience speculate about. If we know the answer, it takes some of the mystery away


----------



## trabuquera (Jun 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I watched it in 3D....Im still not sold on 3D-this light loss thing is annoying. In that interview I mentioned Scott left me in no doubt that he preferred the 2D version which leads me to suspect some studio pressure to release it in 3D.


 
I normally despise 3D - and disliked it especially in Avatar - among the many things to hate about that movie the recurrent 'look! we're poking at you with something!' moments drove me mad. But I really, REALLY enjoyed the use of 3D in Prometheus. Gave especial grandeur to the wide landscapes, and made the massive interactive starmap sequences genuinely breathtaking. Also liked what might have been a deliberate and pretty witty in-joke with the '3D within 3D' scene with the crew watching Weyland's holographic intro spiel. So it's surprising to me to read that Scott didn't want to do, or like, the 3D, I felt they did a really good job of using its possibilities in a way which made a lot of sense artistically.

(excuse my naivety, though: this was the first movie I've ever watched with an all-non-CGI-human sex scene in it and it made me feel a shudder of real voyeurism ... weird - I'm not condemning it or being prudish and the scene is not at all explicit or objectionable in any way ... it was just an uncomfortable technological first for me. 3D porn virgin )


----------



## Reno (Jun 19, 2012)

What are you on ?





trabuquera said:


> (excuse my naivety, though: this was the first movie I've ever watched with an all-non-CGI-human sex scene in it and it made me feel a shudder of real voyeurism ... weird - I'm not condemning it or being prudish and the scene is not at all explicit or objectionable in any way ... it was just an uncomfortable technological first for me. 3D porn virgin )


 
What are you on ?

How many CGI-human sex scenes have you seen then ? And how does anything in this film qualify as "porn" ?


----------



## trabuquera (Jun 19, 2012)

Reno said:


> What are you on ?
> 
> How many CGI-human sex scenes have you seen then ? And how does anything in this film qualify as "porn" ?


However many there were in Avatar ... <shudders at the memory> /trauma
I'm not saying Prometheus WAS "porn"- just that I MYSELF hadn't (still haven't) seen any 3D porn or indeed any other non-CGI material depicting sexual activity in 3D.. damned syntax.


----------



## Reno (Jun 19, 2012)

trabuquera said:


> However many there were in Avatar ... <shudders at the memory> /trauma
> I'm not saying Prometheus WAS "porn"- just that I MYSELF hadn't (still haven't) seen any 3D porn or indeed any other non-CGI material depicting sexual activity in 3D.. damned syntax.


 
There were no sex scenes in Avatar. And there were no "poking at you with something" 3D moments in Avatar either. It was the first 3D film which abandoned that gimmicky approach to concentrate on immersive environments instead.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 19, 2012)

Reno said:


> That's just reverse engineering to excuse poor characterwriting and motivation which is entirely there to move the plot along,


 
Im not trying to excuse what is essentially a subjective interpretation of the movies script. I'm just stating the obvious.




> rather than thought through in terms of what would be plausible behaviour for professional scientists. On a scientific mission to another planet there would be some sort of protocol in place the crew has to follow, as there is in Alien.


 
You know when I watch a movie where a character does something that may be deemed implausible frankly I dont give a shit as long as I'm enjoying the movie...and I thoroughly enjoyed Prometheus.


----------



## Reno (Jun 19, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Im not trying to excuse what is essentially a subjective interpretation of the movies script. I'm just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I enjoyed it too. I do however give a shit about characerisation in a film. If I can't believe in the characters as being reasonably believable and fleshed out, then there is nothing at stake and not much to care about. The most basic lapses in logic is what kept the film from being more than eye candy for me.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 20, 2012)

Reno said:


> I enjoyed it too. I do however give a shit about characerisation in a film. If I can't believe in the characters as being reasonably believable and fleshed out, then there is nothing at stake and not much to care about. The most basic lapses in logic is what kept the film from being more than eye candy for me.


 
At a guess Im thinking you probably dislike horror as a genre-because that genre is full to the brim of characters doing implausible stuff.

Seriously I hear what you're saying but if the film is made well enough and I enjoy it I'm fairly easy going on how credible the characters and their actions are.


----------



## Idaho (Jun 20, 2012)

I think it depends on how empathic you are. The more empathic, the more you need to connect to characters and the less you tolerate them being random puppets devised merely to push the story along and provide justification for the big explosion scenes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 20, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> At a guess Im thinking you probably dislike horror as a genre-because that genre is full to the brim of characters doing implausible stuff .


LOL


----------



## Reno (Jun 20, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> At a guess Im thinking you probably dislike horror as a genre-because that genre is full to the brim of characters doing implausible stuff.


 
I guess you haven't come across many of my posts on here then.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 21, 2012)

My only question is why do our alien ancestors all look like Woody Harleson?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 21, 2012)

Eh? 
I thought they looked more like Michael Rapaport after a year in a cave


----------



## belboid (Jun 22, 2012)

Saw this last night.  What a fucking mess. Seemed like if anyone mentioned any idea whtsoever it got chucked into the mix without any thought about how to make sense of it. Or perhaps he wrote a five hour film and then realised it was just a teenyweeny bit too long.

Still, it looked magnificent (worthless 3D excepted) and had enough twists and turns to maintain interest.  Diabolically bad ending tho


----------



## campanula (Jun 22, 2012)

urk - I am speechless and annoyed because I divvied up tons of cash (pleasing the offspring) to see an unbelievably vacuous film. I guess if I had remembered it was a prequel to Aliens, I might have enjoyed it more but even so, it was terribly disappointing  - flawed on too many levels to elucidate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 25, 2012)




----------



## Moronik (Jun 25, 2012)

Badgers said:


> How many times have you seen Alien/Aliens?


 
Aliens: probably close to 20 times

Alien: 6-8 i reckon


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 25, 2012)

That's insane!


----------



## Reno (Jun 25, 2012)

I think I've seen Alien close to once a year since it came out, which must be around thirty times. Aliens I've probably seen ten to fifteen times, Alien 3 around five times and Resurrection and AvP two or three times, AvP2 once and Prometheus once (that one will be watched again)


----------



## Badgers (Jun 25, 2012)

Alien easily 60, possibly 80 times. 
Aliens around 15-20 times. 
Alien 3 about 5 times. 
Alien Resurrection 3 times. 
Alien vs Predator 0 times. 
Prometheus 5 times.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 25, 2012)

Did you have them on in the background while you did something else?


----------



## Reno (Jun 25, 2012)

Not me.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 25, 2012)

Nope


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 25, 2012)

I'd find it very difficult to watch a film that many times no matter how much I liked it


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2012)

60+ strikes me as a little weird, but only a little.  There are plenty of films I've seen ten-twenty times or more, and which I'll still happilly rewatch.  Alien has probably had a dozen viewings, Casablanca well over twenty, ditto A Matter of Life and Death, Peeping Tom, Red Shoes, Reservoir Dogs must be up there.  If you watch them a few times when they come out, and ocne a year since, it soon builds up.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 25, 2012)

I only tend to watch a film more than once if I stumble upon one on the telly.
I'm always more eager to watch a film I haven't seen before.
There are some that demand reviewing but only a few times.


----------



## Reno (Jun 25, 2012)

There are some film which are more like re-entering a particular world than just re-watching a film for me. The plot isn't really that important anymore, its visual details, the sound, a particular atmosphere and a strong sense of place, even if its an imaginary one, that make me come back. Often they are also films that take me to a particular time of my life and I re-live that period of my life a little when I first discovered the film. There are many films I really love, which I can't watch that often. It's only the ones which have the qualities I described.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 26, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


>



That's quite good (altho surely the Prometheus legend and the fact the film is called Prometheus is just a coincidence?!)

I never really gave any thought to the possibility of Vickers being a robot (in fact might have given it some thought had it not been for the line "are you a robot" ironically!) but this wouldn't be the first time Scott has written a robot that doesn't know it's a robot in one of his films!

Only thing is I got a different interpretation of the whole "why did you think my creators created me?" thing. When David first said that my initial reaction was "to serve" (or fulfill some kind of function). And going along with all the religious themes I often think of why "God" demands we worship/serve him(/her/it), which tied nicely into that. I'm sure there are plenty of things we create just because we can (like _Alien vs Predator_), but the vast majority is to serve some kind of purpose and it made me wonder what our purpose was, not necessarily why they created us (I know it's kinda similar like!). And then, once something has served it's purpose...what do you do with it?...!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 26, 2012)

Also, according to the linguistic expert from the film, David said:

"This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life"

However, this was edited from an extended scene and apparently there was a longer conversation (which may or may not make it into the DVD)

http://thebioscopist.com/2012/06/20/the-linguistics-of-prometheus-what-david-says-to-the-engineer/


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 26, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> That's quite good (altho surely the Prometheus legend and the fact the film is called Prometheus is just a coincidence?


Are you serious?


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 26, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Are you serious?


Thought we all agreed that several pages back?!?!?!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 26, 2012)

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the film's title is random?


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 26, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the film's title is random?


I think she must be making fun of who ever that poster was who missed the entire point of the opening of the film..


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 26, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the film's title is random?


Can you think of any other reason?!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 26, 2012)

Is CR a she? 

Anyway, that link CR posted led me to this:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/what-i...a-universe-of-questions-answers-and-theories/
where I found out that an old friend played one of the Engineers!


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 26, 2012)

joustmaster said:


> I think she must be making fun of who ever that poster was who missed the entire point of the opening of the film..


Now then, do I look female in my avatar?!


----------



## Reno (Jun 26, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Now then, do I look female in my avatar?!


 
Who can tell what's under helmet ? For all I know all the storm troopers could have been ladies.


----------



## CyberRose (Jun 26, 2012)

Reno said:


> Who can tell what's under helmet ? For all I know all the storm troopers could have been ladies.


Might explain the Ewok victory?


----------



## Reno (Jun 26, 2012)

CyberRose said:


> Might explain the Ewok victory?


 
Sexist !


----------



## Badgers (Jul 2, 2012)

Ended up on five and a half watches at the cinema the end. 

First one was a bit eh? 
Second was better than first. 
Last three and a half were less good.

The reason for the many watches was I worked with the Secret Cinema bunch all June who were showing it. 

http://www.secretcinema.org/newsletter/nl6.html

Really enjoyed it. Working in the AI Laboratory entertaining the punters every night. Some great actors hamming it up and lots of good sets. 

Was a very big installation for Secret Cinema running for a whole month. My favourite thing was that the studio had shipped lots of actual props from the film. This included the vehicles they drove from Prometheus to the alien ships. Two of the big tanks (one for actual driving and one for close up filming. Had a good climb around on those when the place was empty. Told they cost over £1m to produce and were driven in.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Ended up on five and a half watches at the cinema the end.
> 
> First one was a bit eh?
> Second was better than first.
> ...


i've talked to two lots of people who went to that. they were all really annoyed it was Prometheus, as they all had already seen it


----------



## Badgers (Jul 2, 2012)

joustmaster said:
			
		

> i've talked to two lots of people who went to that. they were all really annoyed it was Prometheus, as they all had already seen it



I thought that from the off. It should have been alien or aliens really. Met a couple of people who had been to see it at IMax for £16 and then paid £35 for Secret Cinema which is a shame. 

Almost all the feedback on the installation was fantastic. We were stopping people and giving them 'android education' with some really fun features for them to play with too. Rather than a load of pretty stuff to look at it was very interactive and mainly a laugh. 

Crash course in androids/AI for me (gotta take these things seriously eh?) and got a bit of the acting bug. Not any good but had an audition Thursday and a call back for this week


----------



## Firky (Sep 11, 2012)

Orang Utan sent me here so sorry for the bump.

I watched it last night, enjoyed it but the allegory doesn't fit in with the logic on screen. It's full of plot holes.

Killed a couple of hours anyway.

My mate designed that secret cinema thing!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 11, 2012)

firky said:


> My mate designed that secret cinema thing!





Tell him/her congrats, everyone I know that went to it loved it!


----------



## Firky (Sep 11, 2012)

He did the set, drapes and all that kind of thing. It sounded cool.


----------



## Firky (Sep 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> There's another thing that makes no sense. Where does the xenomorph come from at the end? Has it evolved superquick from the worms in the chamber? Or has it been deliberately engineered? Does the evolution sequence go like this: worm-squid-massive squid-xenomorph? Or is that just an engineered life cycle?


 
 

this thread is class


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> The reason for the many watches was I worked with the Secret Cinema bunch all June who were showing it.
> 
> http://www.secretcinema.org/newsletter/nl6.html


 
I don't get secret cinema, they have the ambition to create new film contexts but then show very mainstream films that everyone's seen already? 

'Prometheus' certainly isn't worthy of all that effort to transform a space.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 12, 2012)

I hear rumours that Ridley is going to make a sequel to Blade Runner.
If he hires that hack Lindelof for that then I'm not watching.


----------



## Reno (Sep 12, 2012)

Structaural said:


> I hear rumours that Ridley is going to make a sequel to Blade Runner.
> If he hires that hack Lindelof for that then I'm not watching.


 
Last I've read was that Hampton Fancher, screenwriter of the first Blade Runner, is having a crack at the script and that so far Lindelof has not been asked back for the Prometheus sequel. I would not be surprised if that has something to do with the fact that all the criticism of Prometheus focused on the screenplay.

Both films are in the very early planning stages and may not even happen. Ridely Scott is currently working on a thriller with Brad Pitt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2012)

Structaural said:


> I hear rumours that Ridley is going to make a sequel to Blade Runner.
> If he hires that hack Lindelof for that then I'm not watching.


Can't imagine how they'll do that. Blade Runner 2: Deckard and The Real Girl. Deckard and Rachel go on the run, whilst the clock ticks on their mortality. I hope it involves escaping on a unicorn and lots of lasers.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 12, 2012)

watched it last night and really enjoyed it, mind you as opposed to a few peeps at work who went and saw it at the cinema and came out dissapointed , I wanst going in thinking it was an ' Alien ' film, in fact i was surpirsed how much ' alien ' stuff was in it


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 29, 2012)

The extras are good, some great deleted stuff alternative ending and other stuff


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 29, 2012)

just burning the blu ray.... shhhh


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:
			
		

> The extras are good, some great deleted stuff alternative ending and other stuff



Wicked 

Looking forward to the directors cut


----------



## Reno (Sep 29, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Wicked
> 
> Looking forward to the directors cut


A directors cut doesn't seem to be happening with this release. Only separate extra scenes. They my well release a directors cut later on, as Ridley Scott has been mentioning it.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 29, 2012)

Reno said:
			
		

> A directors cut doesn't seem to be happening with this release. Only separate extra scenes. They my well release a directors cut later on, as Ridley Scott has been mentioning it.



About 4 hours would do it


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 29, 2012)

Badgers said:


> About 4 hours would do it


And a PowerPoint demonstration filling in the many holes


----------



## snadge (Sep 29, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Stuff like this just annoys me, I can see why people would go and see it more than once. (my bolding)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

It was pretty obvious to me, David has intellect but a childs fascination, tempered by the ethos of serving, as he demonstrated by almost licking Weylands feet, as shown at the end of the film where , with Weyland dead and the only option left to serve was to Shaw, he did and he will be a good Puppy dog to the end.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

Reno said:


> A directors cut doesn't seem to be happening with this release. Only separate extra scenes. They my well release a directors cut later on, as Ridley Scott has been mentioning it.


 
Only a completely different script could save that film IMO. They somehow managed to cram in loads of blatant exposition and still leve gaping holes in the plot, and on top of that almost every line of dialogue was painfully contrived and shit. The few good lines were mostly ruined by Idris Elba and Noomi Rapace's woeful accents. Michael Fassbender had a pretty stupid accent as well, but got away with it because he was playing a robot.


----------



## Reno (Sep 29, 2012)

Yeah, right, whatever...


----------



## Badgers (Oct 12, 2012)

PCC doing the 5 films soon


----------



## Reno (Oct 12, 2012)

The Press Complaints Commission ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2012)

prince charles cinema, i presume


----------



## Badgers (Oct 12, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> prince charles cinema, i presume


 
Sorry ^ this


----------



## Reno (Oct 12, 2012)

I did them all recently IML (in my lounge)


----------



## Badgers (Oct 12, 2012)

Reno said:


> I did them all recently IML (in my lounge)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> PCC doing the 5 films soon


What's the betting the cinema is noticeably less populated after the third film of the evening...?


----------



## Reno (Oct 12, 2012)

..and then another drop off after the fourth. Alien 3 has its fair share of fans by now. One advantage of watching the Blu-rays at home was that I watched the alternative cut of Alien 3, which is a better film than what came out originally. Stuff that didn't really make much sense then, makes sense now.

I still don't think that there is a substantial fanbase for Resurrection, though there are always a few weirdos.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 13, 2012)

Weirdos like me. Well I am not a fan, but I maintain it is a perfectly enjoyable film if you view it for what it is. A fun sci fi romp about space pirates.


----------



## Reno (Oct 13, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Weirdos like me. Well I am not a fan, but I maintain it is a perfectly enjoyable film if you view it for what it is. A fun sci fi romp about space pirates.


 
Compared to some of the crap that makes it into cinemas now, it's still reasonable watchable. I just hope it's not your favourite of the lot.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 13, 2012)

Of course not, the first one is the best one. Everyone knows that.


----------



## tendril (Oct 13, 2012)

Why does the liquid the the engineer drinks in the initial scene have to be the same liquid that oozes from the canisters? I've just watched it again and it made more sense the second time. The initial liquid could have been what the engineers used to insert their genetic code into the earth's ecosystem and the black goo could have been some sort of weapon based on similar gene manipulation technology.

In the first instance it breaks up the engineer's dna, in the second it alters it in situ. I'm thinking that the weapon is multi generation, so that the first direct infection gives one result and subsequent infections from this first generation give a different result. That would explain why the big worms in the ship then attack the two left behind scientists looks different (more wormy as it came from worm dna, but I am just making a leap of faith of what I think the film implied, but I think that maybe the worms reproduced in a style that was of their nature, but producing a hybrid offspring) to the resultant offspring of the human mating process when Charlie gets directly infected by David. The first generation then tries to infect another host which turns into the adult alien. In the first movie (director's cut and in the book from the screenplay) I inferred that the adult alien can also infect a host to produce a first gen and that this first gen could, if needed, turn it's host into an egg sack to keep it alive but in a dormant state until a new host for the second gen comes along (hence all the eggs with facehuggers in the hold of the ship in the original film). In Prometheus, Shaw surgically removes the embryo from her, but I see no reason why the lifecycle of the organism couldn't have transformed her into an egg given time.

All speculation, I know, but I could imagine a way that it would work that fits with what was shown and may make some sort of biological sense.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 18, 2012)

Just seen the blue ray with the alternate and cut scenes which makes the film flow better.... the theatrical release version was just plain wrong......! and it detracted from the story.....!


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2012)

Tankus said:


> Just seen the blue ray with the alternate and cut scenes which makes the film flow better.... the theatrical release version was just plain wrong......! and it detracted from the story.....!


 
There is no alternate cut on the Blu-ray, it's the same version that was shown in theatres.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 18, 2012)

The TV advert says different start and ending on the blu-ray


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> The TV advert says different start and ending on the blu-ray


 
I think they refer to the deleted and alternate scenes included in the extras. Ridley Scott was offered to produce a directors cut for the DVD/Blu-ray, considered it and then decided against it as he considered the theatrical cut his directors cut. That doesn't mean that at some point in the future there won't be an alternative cut as all the Alien films received one, but it's not on this release.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/...ott-turned-down-prometheus-directors-cut.html


----------



## Kanda (Oct 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> There is no alternate cut on the Blu-ray, it's the same version that was shown in theatres.


 

He didn't say that. He meant alternate scenes and cut scenes I think...  Not alternative cut..


----------



## Tankus (Oct 18, 2012)

Look in the extras...... the cut and deleted scenes make the characters more understandable and goes some way in evening out some of the more disjointed parts ( Wayland\daughter.....engineer \Micheal.....engineer \Shaw )...... the film is the same however....


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2012)

Kanda said:


> He didn't say that. He meant alternate scenes and cut scenes I think...  Not alternative cut..


 
OK, I just don't understand how the film can "flow better" when you have to piece it together from deleted scenes in your head. ?


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Oct 18, 2012)

Ridley seems to be going the way of Lucas


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2012)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> Ridley seems to be going the way of Lucas


 

How is he going the way of Lucas when he decided AGAINST doing a directors cut ? 

BTW. this is such a clicheed "forum knee-jerk reaction" thing to say when it comes to director's cuts. Any director's cut Scott has done so far has been an improvement (Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven) or at least an interresting alternate (Alien) and he has always offered the original versions as well rather than erasing them, like Lucas does and which appears to be the main bone of contention when it comes to his meddling with his films.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Oct 18, 2012)

He's going Lucas by making a shite prequel (Prometheus) and fucking with the backstory (Bladerunner). He'll do a re-edit in 6months to screw another round of DVD/Blu Ray sales out of the fans.


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2012)

Prometheus was flawed but far from shite. In great forum tradition you are already grabbing you pitchfork to whip yourself up into a fanboy frenzy long before any details are known about the Blade Runner sequel and whether there will be another cut of this, to let us know what a purist you are about this. Well done for being predictable.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 18, 2012)

Reno said:


> OK, I just don't understand how the film can "flow better" when you have to piece it together from deleted scenes in your head. ?


the "story " then ........


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Oct 19, 2012)

Reno, I admit I am simply stating the obvious. But I feel I must make the point.

Sir Riddles said that Dekkard might not be in the new Bladerunner as he's a Nexus 6. THANKS FOR RUINING IT RIDDLES. And he's linking it to the 'Alien' universe.

Prometheus was not absolutely perfect in every way. Therefore it is shite. And it didn't have the_ right_ kind of aliens in it.

Now I am going back to drawing pictures of Pris with no clothes on for my fan-fiction comic.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 19, 2012)

the original bladerunner really was a beautiful film - one of the few films i think i would actually say this about. hope it doenst get fucked up by the sequel.


----------



## Reno (Oct 19, 2012)

Pingu said:


> the original bladerunner really was a beautiful film - one of the few films i think i would actually say this about. hope it doenst get fucked up by the sequel.


 
Why would it get fucked up ? The original Blade Runner will still be the same film. Just like Alien is still the same film whether you hated Prometheus (or the sequels) or not.

When I watch Alien (something I do once a year) I don't think "Ripley will die two films later". For me its still as self contained a film as it always was and her rescue ship will forever float off into an uncertain future when the credits run

When I watch Blade Runner the question whether Deckard is a replicant will always remain ambiguous for me, not matter what the sequel will come up with.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 19, 2012)

once something is seen it cannont be unseen.. like the original lord of the rings film... i was in therapy for years.. years i tells you


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 21, 2012)




----------



## miniGMgoit (Oct 26, 2012)

Well ive watched Prometheus several times now and I really like it. It's one of those films that you get something new every time.
I could almost go as far as stating I understand the gist of the story and why and so forth.


----------



## Reno (Oct 30, 2012)

Tankus said:


> Look in the extras...... the cut and deleted scenes make the characters more understandable and goes some way in evening out some of the more disjointed parts ( Wayland\daughter.....engineer \Micheal.....engineer \Shaw )...... the film is the same however....


 
I just did. I don't think the film would be vastly improved by putting these scenes back in and when you listen to the commentary, it makes sense why they cut them.


----------



## Structaural (Oct 30, 2012)

miniGMgoit said:


> Well ive watched Prometheus several times now and I really like it. It's one of those films that you get something new every time.
> I could almost go as far as stating I understand the gist of the story and why and so forth.



The deleted scene with the scientists, would have helped give sense to why that scientist was petting an alien that looked like a striking cobra. I also prefer the alt ending, bit more in the spirit of Alien.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2012)

miniGMgoit said:


> Well ive watched Prometheus several times now and I really like it. It's one of those films that you get something new every time.
> I could almost go as far as stating I understand the gist of the story and why and so forth.


 
I watched it once, stoned, and thought it was OK.

I watched it again, not stoned, and thought it was a load of old cobblers.


----------



## Structaural (Oct 31, 2012)

Muppet Scientist


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 21, 2012)




----------



## Disjecta Membra (Nov 21, 2012)

They should have kept the ted lecture bit in at the start, and the alternate ending i think is better also. there is a fan edit out where you can watch the cut scenes edited into the film, the copies not great though, but i think it def makes it clearer.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


>


But wasn't there already a picture of a alien on one of the doors?


----------



## Tankus (Dec 28, 2012)

The alien was on a ceiling freeze nailed to a crucifix


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 28, 2012)

Tankus said:


> The alien was on a ceiling freeze nailed to a crucifix


Right, well wherever it was it was already there.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 28, 2012)




----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 29, 2012)

That was a waste of one of half minutes. Thanks tecniq


----------



## teqniq (Dec 29, 2012)

Apologies it made me laugh - and I enjoyed the actual fim but found it somewhat opaque.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2013)

What a fucking dreadful film that was. I was really looking forward to it too.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 4, 2013)

That was my reaction too.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2013)




----------



## Ranbay (Oct 28, 2013)

PROMETHEUS PARADISE YEAH?

Ridley Scott has confirmed the sequel writing is underway.


----------



## Kizmet (Oct 28, 2013)

Prometheus did a great job of spoiling itself.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 28, 2013)

Good price this for the 8 disc box set - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00AHCKLIM/ref=nosim 

Seeing as I have wasted money getting the 3/4/5 disc ones already


----------

