Prometheus, I am disappointed (Spoilers) from the start

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.

**sebster**

Ahtman wrote:I agree that it shouldn't be explicitly stated, but as they did it, it felt like they set up the framework to hint at it, but then abandoned the idea. Whether it was ADD or studios wanting them to avoid the subject I don't know, but the result was the same.

Yeah, I honestly don't know, and agree that in the end it doesn't really matter what caused it, what matters is the negative impact it had on the final film we saw.

That said, here's a story about what happened to the script for Nottingham, and how it turned into Ridley Scott's Robin Hood and the Adventure of the Magna Carta, that kind of suggests Scott might be the problem;
http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html

**LordofHats**

Interesting article. I do remember hearing before Robin Hood released that it was actually going to be about the Sheriff of Nottingham, not Robin Hood and I was a little surprised later when the trailers started hitting theaters and TV commercials.

R Scott is a lot like George Lucas (maybe). Some of his earliest work (Alien duh EDIT: Bladerunner probably should be at the top of the list

) is pretty good, but then it all went to his head. I can think of several films that he's directed since Gladiator that are kind of sloppy in certain ways. I suppose though we can at least be happy that Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator 2: Maximus Rides Again, and Prometheus, are all better films than the Star Wars Prequels!

**Frazzled**

Agree completely. It seems like he's trying for some very ambitious projects, and just despite his immense technical skills (Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood and Prometheus all look amazing), he just cannot get the story right. Too much stuff happening without enough of it hanging together in any of those movies.

I've said this before. I have the Director's cuts for Alien and Gladiator. I once watched them back to back with the commentary once (I love director/writer commentaries even for bad movies). The difference between Scott's commentary for each was striking. In the Alien commentary he was clear, concise, sharp. In Gladiator he rambled a lot and his literal manner of speaking was more blurred.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
Manchu wrote:Fire can heat a cave. Fire can power a nation.

The Black Liquid is Promethean Fire, a symbol of technology in a symbolist story.
What you suggest sounds great on the surface, and clearly was part of what the script intended, at least at one stage in its development. But when they start talking about goo as a weapons project intended to destroy Earth, they're no longer talking about it as symbol for technology. If it were they would have shown humans manipulating it for postive as well as negative. As it was, it really just ended up a blackbox technology used as a macguffin in a sci-fi slasher movie.

If fire can power a nation, then surely it can destroy it. The movie did not need to show the Black Liquid being used by humans to further their goals -- in fact, that would have been rather contrary to the themes of the picture, which seemed to insist (again and again and again) that technology is a mirror. It's not good or evil; it just reflects us. And so if we see it as good or evil, that reflects something about ourselves. (Remember the scene where David looks into the drop of Black Liquid on his synthetic finger tip? We see a reflection of the lights in the room but no reflection of David -- a mirror pointed at a mirror.) This is similar to Promethean Fire of Greek myth, which is the symbolic "light of truth" in which humans can evaluate the natural world. Anyone who insists on reading this film like a user's manual on fictional technology will end up disappointed. (I'm genuinely surprised by how many people totally believe LV223 is a weapons stockpile simply because Janek suggests that's the case, for example.) The Black Liquid really, really is not "a technology" but rather is a symbol for technology. Those are different things even if modern people have a lot of trouble remembering it.

**Frazzled**

Wow. Some people either:
1) Got a lot more out of this movie, or
2) think too much.

I didn't get any of this "deep stuff." The movie didn't really make me 'think," (other than spotting links to Alien). It started to, but once they ran into worm snakes it just fell apart with too many plot holes, confusion, and frankly did not appear better to me than your standard B movie sci fi film with a better budget.

The more I think about it, the more I did not like this film. Its definitely not one I'd buy or see again. I was hoping for so much more.

**LordofHats**

Manchu wrote: The Black Liquid really, really is not "a technology" but rather is a symbol for technology. Those are different things even if modern people have a lot of trouble remembering it.

It's always been suggested (by R Scott since Alien) that the Space Jockey's are masters of bioengineering who regularly employ genocidal bio-weapons. The goo can be technology itself and a symbol for technology in general at the same time.

**Griever**

This movie was dreadful

Spoiler:

1) Why was Charlize Theron's character even in this movie? She is completely pointless
2) Why did they pretend the old man was dead? Who cares if he had a slightly different reason for being there?
3) What the hell is up with David? One minute he's saving peoples lives, the next he poisons the one guy for no apparent reason, then insists Shaw keep "the baby". Afterwards he forgets she is even pregnant to begin with. Was David planning this elaborate ruse to get Shaw pregnant? If so, WHY? He was just there to help the old man and apparently out of his own quest for more knowledge, at one point he's obviously amazed at the alien technology and the next moment he questions why they are even there
4) So Shaw gets "pregnant" and then performs surgery on herself in 5 minutes to remove it.....why does nobody notice she has a giant hole in her stomach and is covered head to toe in alien goo? Why does David see this and now not care? Why doesn't she tell people there's an alien on the ship? Why does she then HELP DAVID?
5) The scene with the captain and Charlize Theron's character about getting laid, WHY? The interaction didn't make sense "You trying to get laid? "Hell no", "Are you a robot" "Okay lets feth"
6) The guy whose job it is to map stuff GETS LOST. They have a GPS and cameras on their head and NOBODY NOTICES?
7) One minute the two knuckleheads are are gaking their pants at every little sound, the next minute an alien snake penis hisses at them and he things its a good idea to try and pet the damn thing, mind you they're in a ship full of corpses piled to the ceiling, they even see holograms of them running from something
8) This "planet" was just a backwater moon used to develop weapons far away from their home, WHY is THIS the place that the human cave drawings symbolize? These drawings are supposed to be from the earliest man, far before our actual records show, WHY would that place have any significance?
9) David takes one of the vases back to the ship for no fething reason, and then just puts it somewhere and we never hear/see from it again
10) I've never seen three people so easily convinced that they should sacrifice themselves to kill something they haven't seen, to stop some event they don't even know is happening beyond what one woman yells at them for about 15 seconds
11) The scene where the really long narrow alien ship is falling, my god that happens in movies all the time and it's never ever even remotely plausible, not to mention Shaw FALLS, rolls about four feet in one direction, somehow avoiding the big narrow ship, stands up and is about 50 yards from it. Any remotely intelligent individual would obviously just run perpendicular to the ship that's about 10 times longer than it is wide.

Easily the worst written movie I've ever seen. Absolute garbage. Gorgeous cinema though, the special effects were fantastic.

**Corpsesarefun**

Griever wrote:This movie was dreadful

Spoiler:

1) Why was Charlize Theron's character even in this movie? She is completely pointless
2) Why did they pretend the old man was dead? Who cares if he had a slightly different reason for being there?
3) What the hell is up with David? One minute he's saving peoples lives, the next he poisons the one guy for no apparent reason, then insists Shaw keep "the baby". Afterwards he forgets she is even pregnant to begin with. Was David planning this elaborate ruse to get Shaw pregnant? If so, WHY? He was just there to help the old man and apparently out of his own quest for more knowledge, at one point he's obviously amazed at the alien technology and the next moment he questions why they are even there
4) So Shaw gets "pregnant" and then performs surgery on herself in 5 minutes to remove it.....why does nobody notice she has a giant hole in her stomach and is covered head to toe in alien goo? Why does David see this and now not care? Why doesn't she tell people there's an alien on the ship? Why does she then HELP DAVID?
5) The scene with the captain and Charlize Theron's character about getting laid, WHY? The interaction didn't make sense "You trying to get laid? "Hell no", "Are you a robot" "Okay lets feth"
6) The guy whose job it is to map stuff GETS LOST. They have a GPS and cameras on their head and NOBODY NOTICES?
7) One minute the two knuckleheads are are gaking their pants at every little sound, the next minute an alien snake penis hisses at them and he things its a good idea to try and pet the damn thing, mind you they're in a ship full of corpses piled to the ceiling, they even see holograms of them running from something
8) This "planet" was just a backwater moon used to develop weapons far away from their home, WHY is THIS the place that the human cave drawings symbolize? These drawings are supposed to be from the earliest man, far before our actual records show, WHY would that place have any significance?
9) David takes one of the vases back to the ship for no fething reason, and then just puts it somewhere and we never hear/see from it again
10) I've never seen three people so easily convinced that they should sacrifice themselves to kill something they haven't seen, to stop some event they don't even know is happening beyond what one woman yells at them for about 15 seconds
11) The scene where the really long narrow alien ship is falling, my god that happens in movies all the time and it's never ever even remotely plausible, not to mention Shaw FALLS, rolls about four feet in one direction, somehow avoiding the big narrow ship, stands up and is about 50 yards from it. Any remotely intelligent individual would obviously just run perpendicular to the ship that's about 10 times longer than it is wide.

Easily the worst written movie I've ever seen. Absolute garbage. Gorgeous cinema though, the special effects were fantastic.

It's clearly just the audiences fault for not appreciating the mythological relevance of the film.

**Ahtman**

Griever wrote:This movie was dreadful

It is problematic, but that seems a bit melodramatic. Some of the questions you ask certainly are troublesome, but some of them also make me think you weren't paying that much attention.

Griever wrote:Easily the worst written movie I've ever seen. Absolute garbage.

This makes me think you've only watched, three, maybe four, movies in your life.

**LordofHats**

He's obviously never seen the Toxic Avenger. Or the Star Wars Holiday Special.

**Frazzled**

Definitely not the worst film ever written. You youngins. So innocent. So sweet. Its like watching angels before the fall.
Go forth and see Howard the Duck, Fried Green Tomatoes, He Man, or Tales of the YaYa Sisterhood, then return and give us your opinion.

If you survive. Muahahah

**Griever**

Ahtman wrote:
Griever wrote:This movie was dreadful

It is problematic, but that seems a bit melodramatic. Some of the questions you ask certainly are troublesome, but some of them also make me think you weren't paying that much attention.

Griever wrote:Easily the worst written movie I've ever seen. Absolute garbage.

This makes me think you've only watched, three, maybe four, movies in your life.

1) I saw the movie a week ago, details may be fuzzy

2) This makes me think you make things up without knowing what you're talking about

I watch 2, maybe 3 movies in theaters a year. I won't go unless I actually think a movie can be good. Typically movie reviews are unreliable, lots of movies I like get bad movies (almost all movies do), lots of movies you couldn't pay me to watch get good reviews. So a lot of it is based on my gut feeling, and my expectations

Normally I can go into a movie and expect "yeah there's not going to be substance to this one but it'll still be fun". This movie was supposed to be so much more than that, it tried, and failed, utterly. I don't ever recall watching a movie where I spent the entire time trying to figure out how it was possible it could be that stupid. Before I could even wrap my head around one stupid scene, the movie would stumble into another.

**Corpsesarefun**

Prometheus was a badly written film, no doubt about that, but if it's the WORST film you've ever seen then you've been very lucky in film choices.

**LordofHats**

I wouldn't even say it was badly written. It was okay. Average. Mediocre, take your pick of terms.

**Griever**

Corpsesarefun wrote:Prometheus was a badly written film, no doubt about that, but if it's the WORST film you've ever seen then you've been very lucky in film choices.

Or very discerning and skeptical.

The next closest was the newest Terminator movie. But at least the interactions of the characters were somewhat logical with just a bad plot and a rushed, lazy ending.

Like I said, I don't watch bad movies. I know tons of people who will go once a week and watch everything they see a commercial about. I'm not one of those people.

**Manchu**

LordofHats wrote:The goo can be technology itself and a symbol for technology in general at the same time.

I agree. But it is alien technology. We are very comfortable in our own viewpoint. We tend to think that if anyone happened upon a hammer, they'd be able to figure out what it was for. Even if that was true (it's not), could anyone who happened upon a particle accelerator figure out what that does? Near the end of the nineteenth century, the Chinese thought that they could incorporate useful Western technology without incorporating disruptive Western culture. As it turns out, there is a whole culture and history behind the machine gun and the steam engine that can't be sloughed off. But it wasn't a lesson well-learned, obviously. The reaction to this movie shows that people still don't think technology had anything to do with culture. If the goo does something, we should be able to figure it out and use it ourselves for whatever purpose we have. That is not the Promethean sense of fire (a.k.a., technology), however. The Black Liquid does different things at different times because we don't understand it and, without knowing a whole lot more about the Engineers, we will never understand it much less be able to apply it to obtain predictable results.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I didn't get any of this "deep stuff." The movie didn't really make me 'think," (other than spotting links to Alien). It started to, but once they ran into worm snakes it just fell apart [...]

Yeah, that scene is really a breaking point. It's really important, too, because it's the scene where the ominous atmosphere turns into immediate threat. But as sebster and others have pointed out, we just have no reason to believe that Milburn and Fifield would act as they do in that scene. I think what comes after that is good (and notice the cobra worms never appear again, either) but that scene is definitely a major stumbling block. If it turned you off to the rest of the film, you did end up missing a lot that was good about Prometheus.

**Frazzled**

It turned me off, but it was just the start of when the movie went bad. before that most everything was coherent (if David getting weird and slipping the scientist the mickey occurred after that, I'm getting confused mayhaps).

As noted. We then have a merry go round of people just acting like they are on drugs.
*zombie boy appears. What er ok. At first I thought it was the other guy
*all the David nonsense (when David goes from cool to acting stupidly)
*Squid baby-surgery-ok lets go back to the ship what?
(oh and how did she actually know they were trying to kill humanity again? Didn't only David see the planet thing)
Up to that point didn't they really just have 'we're on an alien world and weird %&%& is happening like might occur on an alien world' were does the bomber link in really kick?
Its like a constant barrage of bloopers. First the charatcter is running, next scene the character is eating choco crunchberries, next scene monkeys fly out of crewman #4's butt, next scene Hillary Clinton gives a speech, next scene the Red Baron engages Snoopy.

The more I think about it, the more its like someone took the wrong reel and sent it out. The took the "raw shoots" real and not the "final edit send this one Bob" reel.

I'm actually getting angry about this.

**Griever**

Frazzled wrote:It turned me off, but it was just the start of when the movie went bad. before that most everything was coherent (if David getting weird and slipping the scientist the mickey occurred after that, I'm getting confused mayhaps).

As noted. We then have a merry go round of people just acting like they are on drugs.
*zombie boy appears. What er ok. At first I thought it was the other guy
*all the David nonsense (when David goes from cool to acting stupidly)
*Squid baby-surgery-ok lets go back to the ship what?
(oh and how did she actually know they were trying to kill humanity again? Didn't only David see the planet thing)
Up to that point didn't they really just have 'we're on an alien world and weird %&%& is happening like might occur on an alien world' were does the bomber link in really kick?
Its like a constant barrage of bloopers. First the charatcter is running, next scene the character is eating choco crunchberries, next scene monkeys fly out of crewman #4's butt, next scene Hillary Clinton gives a speech, next scene the Red Baron engages Snoopy.

The more I think about it, the more its like someone took the wrong reel and sent it out. The took the "raw shoots" real and not the "final edit send this one Bob" reel.

I'm actually getting angry about this.

Exactly, the more and more I try to piece it together, the most pissed off I get that the people who wrote this movie make way more money that I ever will, and they suck at their jobs.

**Manchu**

Anger seems like a bizarre reaction. I can understand critical disappointment but what was on the line in this film that was important enough to piss anyone off? I suspect the word "pretension" will figure into the answer.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:Anger seems like a bizarre reaction. I can understand critical disappointment but what was on the line in this film that was important enough to piss anyone off? I suspect the word "pretension" will figure into the answer.

Maybe because I waited two freaking years to see it, spent $40 on it, I can see where it could have been so much better.

**LordofHats**

Manchu wrote: The Black Liquid does different things at different times because we don't understand it and, without knowing a whole lot more about the Engineers, we will never understand it much less be able to apply it to obtain predictable results.

While I agree with most of what you said, I do disagree with this. The goo has some wonky effects that make it extremely confusing. I think that has nothing to do with symbol and more to do with the original script not being the final one. The goo originally had a specific purpose and some of that stayed in the movie even as the script changed, which makes the goo kind of discombobulated as a plot device. Something being mysterious can be good, but I feel the goo wasn't mysterious just confusing.

**Manchu**

The assumption that the Black Liquid had or should have had a specific on-screen "definition" is unfounded. Rather than speculate as to what plot devices should have been used for (in one's own armchair directing fantasy), I find it more meaningful to ask what the plot device actually accomplished in the film.

**LordofHats**

Captain BA Black Guy gave us a reason for the goo, and from the film we have no reason to doubt his claim. Everything in the film supports it being a bio-weapon. That's what the goo did in the film. It killed people except for the one guy it didn't kill but then he killed like, four or five guys, so maybe the Jockey's felt like going the indirect route XD

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:The assumption that the Black Liquid had or should have had a specific on-screen "definition" is unfounded. Rather than speculate as to what plot devices should have been used for (in one's own armchair directing fantasy), I find it more meaningful to ask what the plot device actually accomplished in the film.

Absolute confusion?
Some people dissolved.
Some people turned into zombies with anger management issues
Some people made squid babies
some people turned into big snakes who don't like being messed with.

Why were the aliens running again? Why were some running to the chamber with the statue? Why were they piled against the door? What was chasing them?
What about all the other ships? Why are they there? Why did the engineers give a map to humanity to their launching base?
Are the engineers supposedly 3 billion years old? Didn't they have something better to do?
Why did they bring the helmet noto the ship in a non quaratine condition?
Why did David get all weird and then suddenly not weird?
why does David go exploring on his own and then tell no one but daddy?
Why did Weyland try to get all secrety? Thats particularly stupid. I have this whole mission to see aliens. I've decided to tag along to see if they can cure me of this bum body but hey I'm going to tell the crew I'm dead even though my daughter is here and knows (why again is she there?) as do several other people. Er ok...

The more you think about it the more stupid it gets.

**LordofHats**

Why did the engineers give a map to humanity to their launching base?

I actually can agree I find that the most confusing thing. The Jockey's had to come back and tell us for us to know about it, which makes we wonder what else might have been on the plant. DId it have cities at one point or what? It is really weird for them to come by just to say "We're gonna destroy you and since you won't have space flight for a few thousand years, here where we're doing it from."

**Manchu**

LordofHats wrote:Captain BA Black Guy gave us a reason for the goo, and from the film we have no reason to doubt his claim. Everything in the film supports it being a bio-weapon. That's what the goo did in the film. It killed people except for the one guy it didn't kill but then he killed like, four or five guys, so maybe the Jockey's felt like going the indirect route XD

Wow. Lots of wrong here.

(1) Why would we believe that the ship's pilot is an expert of alien tech and culture? Hint: this is the script playing with a long-held fan explanation (ask Frazzled just how long), not a conclusive explanation of the Engineers.

(2) Other things in the film don't support the Black Liquid being a bio-weapon. Things like the opening scene.

(3) Only one being is killed by the Black Liquid -- the Engineer in the opening scene. Milburn is killed by the cobra. Holloway is killed by Vickers. Fifield is killed by the crew. Weyland, Ford, and the merc are killed by Engineer. Janek, Chance, and Ravel kill themselves by crashing into the Engineer's ship. Vickers is killed via being crushed by the ship. Shaw doesn't die.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Some people dissolved.
Some people turned into zombies with anger management issues
Some people made squid babies
some people turned into big snakes who don't like being messed with.

In other words, the Black Liquid changes things. Not surprisingly, the alien technology does things that we don't predict.

Frazzled wrote:Why ...? [a bunch of times]

You must have fething hated Alien. It didn't explain anything at all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Why did the engineers give a map to humanity to their launching base?
I actually can agree I find that the most confusing thing.

So does Shaw.

"What did we do? Why do you hate us?"
"Why did they change their minds?"

**LordofHats**

Manchu wrote:(1) Why would we believe that the ship's pilot is an expert of alien tech and culture? Hint: this is the script playing with a long-held fan explanation (ask Frazzled just how long), not a conclusive explanation of the Engineers.

Its a fan held explanation because its the one R Scott gave back in 1979. Space Jockey's like bioweapons. Not surprising that one would shows up in a movie about the Space Jockeys (though I agree that the ships captain probably had a really dubious thought process to jump to that conclusion).

(2) Other things in the film don't support the Black Liquid being a bio-weapon. Things like the opening scene.

Ahtman point out an article that talked about that, which really supports what I said about script alterations making the goo confusing.

(3) Only one being is killed by the Black Liquid -- the Engineer in the opening scene.

I suppose all those other engineers (who also had blown up heads) just had really bad heart attacks.

You must have fething hated Alien. It didn't explain anything at all.

I wouldn't say that. Alien managed to be mysterious without being confusing. Prometheus managed to do both, and the confusion soils the mystery cause now everyone's caught up trying to make sense of the events of the movie itself.

So does Shaw.

"What did we do? Why do you hate us?"
"Why did they change their minds?"

Now I just question your reading ability cause that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Shaw never sat down and thought "If they want to destroy us, why did they tell us where they were?" No one ever asked that question.

**Manchu**

If you want answers to the types of questions Frazzled posed, Alien would be a totally confusing and frustrating movie.

**LordofHats**

No its not. The only thing never answered in Alien was how the derelict got where it was and what the purpose of its cargo for the pilot would be. That's it. Alien has a very simple (almost slasher fiction simple EDIT: hell, not even almost) plot. Prometheus went for something more ambitious.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:If you want answers to the types of questions Frazzled posed, Alien would be a totally confusing and frustrating movie.

Really? Like NO. Alien was clean, direct, and tight. This is none of that.