Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I guess I just get tired of movies that hinge on the fact that none of the characters have ever seen a movie of that genre.

Manchu wrote:Can you give me an example of a character being underdeveloped?

Y'man that gets whatshername pregnant, he's an archaeologist who would be used to uncovering truths bit by bit and has come there after years of optimism and probably scepticism from his fellow professionals and yet after looking in one room which he doesn't even study to see if there are clues leading elsewhere (another star chart, or another structure on the same planet for example) or waiting to see the structure mapped out and scanned for life decides that all is lost and he's wasted his time. Unless there is some sort of character flaw people who have given their life to a work tend to be in the "no, keep looking, it will be there" mindset. The captain as well, played by the brilliant Elba, is just a one dimensional slightly scruffy, "this is my ship" cookie cutter of a caricature. The characters didn't feel like people, they felt like devices to move the plot along, in fact the only character that really had depth was David with his Machiavellian manipulation of the situation, and he was the most inhuman. As has been mentioned maybe the full cut will give some of the characters the depth they lack, but this cut feels forced.

Well, I'm going tomorrow.

If it's good, it's good.

If it's bad, it's good, cause I get to complain about something while boozing.

People who want to see the story of a plucky young scientist overcoming his history to 'find himself', people who want a character they can 'identify' with, are going to be bored and confused by the characters in this movie.

Thankfully, those people are stupid, so we shouldn't concern ourselves with what they think.

dæl wrote:

Manchu wrote:Can you give me an example of a character being underdeveloped?

Y'man that gets whatshername pregnant, he's an archaeologist who would be used to uncovering truths bit by bit and has come there after years of optimism and probably scepticism from his fellow professionals and yet after looking in one room which he doesn't even study to see if there are clues leading elsewhere (another star chart, or another structure on the same planet for example) or waiting to see the structure mapped out and scanned for life decides that all is lost and he's wasted his time.

Have you never heard of anyone having a dummy spit? Jesus, I mean, this guy has spent his entire life holding onto the belief that he'll get to meet these aliens and all he finds is a tomb? No wonder he has a bad day and hits the bottle. It happens to the best of us. If anything this indicates he is a multi-facted, fallible and human character.

in fact the only character that really had depth was David with his Machiavellian manipulation of the situation, and he was the most inhuman. As has been mentioned maybe the full cut will give some of the characters the depth they lack, but this cut feels forced.

Kaldor wrote:People who want to see the story of a plucky young scientist overcoming his history to 'find himself', people who want a character they can 'identify' with, are going to be bored and confused by the characters in this movie.

Thankfully, those people are stupid, so we shouldn't concern ourselves with what they think.

Once again, anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as me is stupid. I wanted a good film, a piece of art that stands on its own merit, this failed, it wasn't in the same league as Blade Runner or the original Alien, and it makes me very wary of the new blade runner being made.

Kaldor wrote:

dæl wrote:

Manchu wrote:Can you give me an example of a character being underdeveloped?

Y'man that gets whatshername pregnant, he's an archaeologist who would be used to uncovering truths bit by bit and has come there after years of optimism and probably scepticism from his fellow professionals and yet after looking in one room which he doesn't even study to see if there are clues leading elsewhere (another star chart, or another structure on the same planet for example) or waiting to see the structure mapped out and scanned for life decides that all is lost and he's wasted his time.

Have you never heard of anyone having a dummy spit? Jesus, I mean, this guy has spent his entire life holding onto the belief that he'll get to meet these aliens and all he finds is a tomb? No wonder he has a bad day and hits the bottle. It happens to the best of us. If anything this indicates he is a multi-facted, fallible and human character.

So he goes into the first room of the first structure they stumble across on a vast planet and thinks this is all that is left of an entire civilisation that was powerful enough to create the human race. Doesn't make sense, feels forced, not the natural behaviour of someone who will have dealt with massive scepticism trying to find funding for the mission.

in fact the only character that really had depth was David with his Machiavellian manipulation of the situation, and he was the most inhuman. As has been mentioned maybe the full cut will give some of the characters the depth they lack, but this cut feels forced.

dæl wrote:Once again, anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as me is stupid.

Yes.

I wanted a good film, a piece of art that stands on its own merit, this failed, it wasn't in the same league as Blade Runner or the original Alien, and it makes me very wary of the new blade runner being made.

I disagree.

So he goes into the first room of the first structure they stumble across on a vast planet and thinks this is all that is left of an entire civilisation that was powerful enough to create the human race. Doesn't make sense, feels forced, not the natural behaviour of someone who will have dealt with massive scepticism trying to find funding for the mission.

Nope. It's an accurate representation of someone being presented with a huge disappointment.

And the point of quoting this was...

Formatting error.

Kaldor wrote:

dæl wrote:Once again, anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as me is stupid.

Yes.

Well you're wrong as is anyone who thinks like that, just because someone has a differing opinion to you doesn't make them less intelligent, it makes you look less intelligent and somewhat narrow minded for thinking that.

I wanted a good film, a piece of art that stands on its own merit, this failed, it wasn't in the same league as Blade Runner or the original Alien, and it makes me very wary of the new blade runner being made.

I disagree.

You disagree on what? You think that Prometheus is as good as Blade Runner. lol

So he goes into the first room of the first structure they stumble across on a vast planet and thinks this is all that is left of an entire civilisation that was powerful enough to create the human race. Doesn't make sense, feels forced, not the natural behaviour of someone who will have dealt with massive scepticism trying to find funding for the mission.

Nope. It's an accurate representation of someone being presented with a huge disappointment.

You are missing the point, he wouldn't be disappointed until he'd looked properly there would still be a part of him that thinks there is something there.

And the point of quoting this was...

Formatting error.

No worries.

dæl wrote:The characters didn't feel like people, they felt like devices to move the plot along,

Wait, you're saying modern hollywood doesn't have any conception of how to write engaging characters who don't feel like walking plot devices. I dare say old chap you may be on to something!

Prometheus is typical of the modern Hollywood block buster (and most modern media in general actually). All flare no substance.

Good luck trying to convince anyone who doesn't care about that sort of thing though

LordofHats wrote:
Good luck trying to convince anyone who doesn't care about that sort of thing though

Goodluck trying to convince anyone who thinks everything is "symbolism" or that "the film-makers planned it to be like that all along".

That attitude is exactly why Hollywood is allowed to make gak.

Free market principles. Why should Hollywood bother making excellent movies when a decent one will do just fine

I'm not so sure people can even tell the difference, or care for that matter. The prevalent attitude seems to be that you pick your position and defend it. The a priori mode of opinion is sacrosanct; reconsideration is tantamount to suicide. Films like Prometheus need to be explored. With Alien, you could just react. That won't be satisfying regarding Prometheus, which doesn't make it a mediocre film.

Alien is a film that is still talked about 30's years after release, and that's honestly because it is a very good film.

Prometheus isn't mediocre, but it isn't great. No one will care about it 10 years from now.

I'm hoping a directors cut is released, as I really do prefer the directors cut versions of his films.

It's a shame that a director needs to cut down his art because most cinema goers have the attention span of a gnat.

Here's a lesson about artists. Most of them don't know anymore about art than the typical member of the audience.

I wrote a short story once for a fiction class. I mostly just threw the plot together cause I didn't care about it. I wanted feedback mostly on my writing style cause that's the part of writing I've always been unconfident with. The peer reviews however turned up mountains (not an exaggeration) of symbolism in the plot I didn't even intend to be there. I didn't even see it until it was pointed out to me.

Most symbolism is imaginary on the audiences part. Now, maybe that's part of art, maybe its not, but no one should ever pretend artists have great insight by nature. Many of them just don't and lots of it is not intentional.

LordofHats wrote:Here's a lesson about artists. Most of them don't know anymore about art than the typical member of the audience.

I wrote a short story once for a fiction class. I mostly just threw the plot together cause I didn't care about it. I wanted feedback mostly on my writing style cause that's the part of writing I've always been unconfident with. The peer reviews however turned up mountains (not an exaggeration) of symbolism in the plot I didn't even intend to be there. I didn't even see it until it was pointed out to me.

Most symbolism is imaginary on the audiences part. Now, maybe that's part of art, maybe its not, but no one should ever pretend artists have great insight by nature. Many of them just don't and lots of it is not intentional.

You wrote "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs" ? Fair play, I liked how it shone a light on the human condition and how we are so civilised and yet so barbaric.

Some of the best art is but a canvass for the imagination.

I was wondering if I should reference that episode

LordofHats wrote:Here's a lesson about artists. Most of them don't know anymore about art than the typical member of the audience.

I wrote a short story once for a fiction class. I mostly just threw the plot together cause I didn't care about it. I wanted feedback mostly on my writing style cause that's the part of writing I've always been unconfident with. The peer reviews however turned up mountains (not an exaggeration) of symbolism in the plot I didn't even intend to be there. I didn't even see it until it was pointed out to me.

Most symbolism is imaginary on the audiences part. Now, maybe that's part of art, maybe its not, but no one should ever pretend artists have great insight by nature. Many of them just don't and lots of it is not intentional.

In this passage we can see that LoH is obliquely referring to the trouble in Syria. Obliviously 'the mountains', of which he emphatically wants us to know that he is not exagerating about, represent the difficulties of the Syrian people in the context of the struggle both against their government, but also in trying to find balance in being muslims in a modern context.

The psycho-sexual diaspora of the 'artist' is seen prominently is his dissection of the nature of the individual pitted against the audience, or more accurately, his burgeoning need to extricate himself, the artist, from his desires as a human being i.e. selfishness, and that of the desire to see hot Syrian women naked, and not being shot at.

The audience, of course, represents a penis.

Now, the use of capitol letters at the beginning of each sentence really gives us great insight to his process as an artist, and let's the reader know that the author's inner child is wearing Chuck Taylors, and not Reebok or penny loafers.

You forgot the obvious nod toward the Pandora myth.

PS, you are now my favour person Ahtman

Well here's a thought, art IMHO is simply a mirror with which to explore your own perspective.....you look at a painting, film, whatever and draw from it whatever your mental condition is able to construct....regardless of what the artist intended.

In some ways it's like those computer games which are free roaming like GTA vs those games that basically usher you along a set path from point A to point B with no deviation allowed Max Payne 3.

I used to spend hours (literally) in GTA just driving around, shooting stuff, running people over, maybe playing pool in one of the pubs....and in a session do nothing to ever progress along the GTA story-line.....it was fun

The problem is, when you watch a Hollywood movie you expect a Max Payne experience, the Director has 2 - 3hrs to spoon feed you a number of ideas, and if the start of the movie is Point A you want to be at Point B come the end.....that's your journey.

I think Prometheus does exactly that, it does take you along a prescribed path, but, it does it a way that seems rushed in places and ill considered....which is why I think there is generally so much negativity surrounding the film (that and there's no real Alien )

But like everyone has been saying, maybe the directors cut will be a more complete journey.....one can hope!

dæl wrote:Unless there is some sort of character flaw people who have given their life to a work tend to be in the "no, keep looking, it will be there" mindset.

"Unless there is a character flaw" ... see that wasn't so hard, was it? Let's look further into it. Near the beginning of the movie, Shaw makes a startling archaeological discovery inside of a cave and instructs her assistant to get Holloway. Holloway, meanwhile, is out in the open, seemingly not doing a lot. The assistant shouting should mean one of two things to Halloway: (1) "Shaw's in trouble" or (2) "Shaw found something important." As an archaeologist and Shaw's boyfriend, either message should be urgent to Holloway. But Halloway just kind of lackadaisically turns around and asks what the guy wants. Later, during the briefing scene, one of the uninitiated asks Holloway and Shaw whether the pictures are a map. Holloway has been doing almost all of the talking up to this point. He and Shaw answer simultaneously, given contradictory responses. He says yes, she says no. He looks surprised. Then she says, and you can tell it's very important to her, that the pictures are an invitation. Now, surely being her colleague and boyfriend, Holloway should have known what her response to this question would be. In both of these scenes, we see that Holloway is contrasted to Shaw. This is character development. We are introduced to this character as slightly off, not the committed hero-scientist we might have hoped for -- and guess who is (hint: it's Shaw). This is reinforced again when Holloway rejects Janek's suggestion of exploring the structure the next day. Holloway explicitly compares himself to a little kid eager to open his Christmas packages. And he's the guy who insists on taking his helmet off. In the meantime, he's been condescending and even a bit taunting to David (and David alone). Later still, after returning to the ship, we see again that Shaw is with Ford in the lab studying the Engineer's head. Shaw is perched on a counter across the room, sullen and sarcastically swigging champagne, while the others do the real work -- just as the character was first introduced. And this of course leads to the "how far would you go" dialog, which is the principal moment for the character. I think you know that I could go on.

I think you will find that there is quite a lot of character development. Things are boring if you insist on being bored. Things make no sense when you insist that sense is just made up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The audience, of course, represents a penis.

In some cases, I would agree.

I think you will find that there is quite a lot of character development.

There really isn't.

David is the only character in the film who really develops. The others get introduced, and then just serve as canon fodder. Charlie oddly enough, doesn't develop at all. He comes off as snarky and a little reckless and he never really shows any other side to himself. Hell, his drunken spree seems to be plot convenience more than anything. It gave the plot the opportunity to advance, and honestly is a bizzare reaction to what he's encountering. Maybe if he developed more, it would make sense, but since we know practically nothing about him it doesn't. But then he is canon fodder so the main character (who is imo the most boring of the whole movie) can have an emotional tragedy.

EDIT: But then I'm just not a fan of characters as plot devices. David, Shaw, Vickers, and the captain are the only ones who seem to have characters that extend beyond the immediate needs of the plot.

LordofHats wrote:

I think you will find that there is quite a lot of character development.

There really isn't.

There really is. You even cited some of it in your bizzare argument for its non-existence. Maybe it's a confusion of terms? When we throw around the term "character development" we are actually talking about characterization, i.e., conveying information about characters. Calling a character "underdeveloped" simply means that we don't know enough about a character in order to understand their role in the story. Not all "developed" characters need to go through dramatic changes. But even if that were the case, Holloway would still qualify as we see him go through several crises. Indeed, by asking Vickers to take him out, we can tell that Holloway has "grown up" quite a bit (it was a painful but clearly necessary decision; his first and last good one in the movie, too).

Strangely enough, it is David who is underdeveloped and almost undeveloped. We know basically nothing about him. We aren't even sure if he likes Lawrence of Arabia or if he was programmed to (clearly, his programmer is a big fan of the movie). I say this is strange, because you and others who think the film has problems with character development often cite him as the exception.

Saw it yesterday in IMAX 3D. Spectacular, but obviously flawed. This review I found on Rotten Tomatoes sums it up nicely: "Often good and sometimes bad and occasionally horrendous as a narrative, but it is never, ever, less than a stone-cold masterpiece of design and world-building." http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/prometheus_2012/

And check out the comments about the lack of science in the film here from Science Friday: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150892084468403&set=a.78912008402.79126.10862798402&type=1

After seeing the movie me, my son and a friend spent quite a while asking many of the questions you'll hear in this hilarious 4-minute video about everything that is wrong with Prometheus.

I see that people are parroting Neil Degrasse Tyson's somewhat ill conceived remark so now I am going to just finally respond and let it go. Keep in mind I respect the man and his skill set.

Here is an article that gives him a pat on the back for his statement and calls it bad science and a gaffe.

The problem with his little psuedo-tantrum, and the reason he is an astronomer and not a storyteller, is that it completely ignores context. Vickers saying they flew half a billion miles from Earth is not in anyway related to a conversation about science, astro-navigation, or anything remotely related to those things. It isn't even said by a scientist or a navigator, but by a corporate rep there to monitor the investment. The words come from when the Captain makes a (crude) sexual advance to Vickers and she responds. It is two people flirting and rebutting, not a technical conversation. When the ship first arrived at the planet they showed the distance traveled and it wasn't half a billion, it was quite a bit more.

For a smart guy to pretend two non-scientists flirting with each other is a technical conversation that requires absolute scientific rigor is, frankly, pretty dense and silly.

Manchu wrote:

Strangely enough, it is David who is underdeveloped and almost undeveloped. We know basically nothing about him. We aren't even sure if he likes Lawrence of Arabia or if he was programmed to (clearly, his programmer is a big fan of the movie). I say this is strange, because you and others who think the film has problems with character development often cite him as the exception.

Isn't the hint there that David is an A.I. with the capacity to learn......it's almost a take on Pinocchio, but with David not wanting to be human, if anything, over the two years of solitude, he's come to "hate" or look down upon humans....

What's interesting is that all through the Aliens genre there has been a tendancy to make us suspicious of the Androids that appear in each film, and to suggest that they always have a hidden agenda....even in Aliens 4 the Android was persuing a hidden agenda.

I think that's what makes the character so interesting, he seems to "know" what's going on, almost to be completely aware of his situation and to be able to see beyond the petty motivations of the other characters.

Whether David is a person or a toaster is unresolved. This is a key example of how Prometheus invites you to interpret rather than commands you to react.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:For a smart guy to pretend two non-scientists flirting with each other is a technical conversation that requires absolute scientific rigor is, frankly, pretty dense and silly.

Another example of an audience member representing a penis, i.e., being a dick.

Manchu wrote:There really is. You even cited some of it in your bizzare argument for its non-existence. Maybe it's a confusion of terms? When we throw around the term "character development" we are actually talking about characterization, i.e., conveying information about characters. Calling a character "underdeveloped" simply means that we don't know enough about a character in order to understand their role in the story. Not all "developed" characters need to go through dramatic changes. But even if that were the case, Holloway would still qualify as we see him go through several crises. Indeed, by asking Vickers to take him out, we can tell that Holloway has "grown up" quite a bit (it was a painful but clearly necessary decision; his first and last good one in the movie, too).

Strangely enough, it is David who is underdeveloped and almost undeveloped. We know basically nothing about him. We aren't even sure if he likes Lawrence of Arabia or if he was programmed to (clearly, his programmer is a big fan of the movie). I say this is strange, because you and others who think the film has problems with character development often cite him as the exception.

Yeah I guess it is different usages. When I mean characterization, I say characterization. When I say character development I specifically refer to the changes in characterization over the course of a story.

To be specific, I accuse Prometheus of underdeveloped characters because they are introduced, given some initial characterization, and that's about it for all of them. We learn a little bit about Vickers and Shaw over the course of the film, but not enough to make them engaging (part of it is that Shaw's actor is horrible). These characters show off their personality quirks when needed, and that's it. But then again, they are canon fodder. They exist for the needs of the plot AND ONLY the needs of the plot. It's bad writing on par with Stephanie Meyer.

Charlie, behaves in a very inconsistent manner over the course of the film. That in itself isn't necessarily a bad case of character, but when no reason is given for his behavior, then he just becomes inconsistent. Charlie was a plot device, and nothing else. His actions in the film are solely dictated by the needs of the plot and not by the character himself. Hense why I find his behavior in the film bizarre.

David on the other hand we do learn a lot about. The problem is that his actor did an amazing job of being subtle, so exactly what David's motives are I think are confusing. Does he secretly hate his father/humanity? Does he love him/humanity and really want to help him/them? Is he completely uncaring and just in it for his own personal motivations? David engages the audience to try and figure out what's going on with him, but its almost entirely the actor, not the character itself. So, even from a pure writing stand point, David is also quite underdeveloped.

Manchu wrote:Prometheus invites you to interpret rather than commands you to react.

Well, that could be said about anything......