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.

Greenland did look awesome. Though as someone pointed out, the plant life present in the shots screws up the chronology.

Mannahnin wrote:Really? You don't think it was reasonably clear that they were seeding life on Earth?

I thought so as well, but then Ridley is on TV doing interviews saying it is just some random planet, that it doesn't have to be Earth. He may not be the best shot in the world, but he finds a way to hit his foot every single time.

Maybe he's saying that now because of what people pointed out about the grasses.

The video isn't professional, but I share quite a lot of this guys sentiments.



.


.



I'm done with this film and trying to find any higher meaning or coherent connections in it.

Sad times.

Let us all pray that Ridley wont bother touching a Blade Runner sequel.

Someone has free time, enough to make me look like an amateur @_@

Why should anyone 'hate' anything for hells sake? Are there not other things in the world worth getting your knickers twisted about over?

I really can't understand it - what is it about some of these films (and I remember a similar situation with both the Matrix and Avatar) where people don't just dislike the film. It has to be a gloves off, snarling actual hatred of the films? Perhaps just something to do with sci-fi, and people's imaginings of the future or a particular situation not matching their own?

I think it has to do with high expectations being disappointed.

Mannahnin wrote:The constructive event is the opening scene, as used by the Engineers originally to seed Earth, and the destructive events are everything that happened when we messed around with it. I think the theme's there.

But that's some alien using it. I mean to capture the potential and danger of technology to humans, you have to show humans benefitting from, and suffering from that technology. And I mean both actual technology and the black goo, so there could have been a crewman or two killed by a malfunction in the ship before landing, and then both positives and eventually loads of negatives from the goo itself.

I agree with you that the goo as technology is the theme they were aiming for (otherwise why call it Prometheus?), but I don't think they did enough to show us that technology, or it's symbol in the black goo, is a two edged sword. With actual technology they gave us no hint of its danger, and with the goo they give us no hint of its possible benefit.

I think that's going a bit far. I agree it could be developed better, but we could evaluate statements made by the characters based on what we know of them. I do think there are problems with it, like the co-pilots betting their lives on that theory. The ending has a lot of issues, which may have had to do with re-writes to put in a more climactic ending.

I think that's probably a fair summary. I agree that I overstated my case in saying we had no reason to believe some statements and not others, which I think I made just because of the 'where the hell did that came from' feeling I got when Shaw declares the jockey is going to Earth to kill us all at the end - something she couldn't possibly know for certain but something we were apparently supposed to just accept.

You mean other than the opening scene? I do also think the "at least three different substances shown" theory's a reasonable one.

I meant 'purely destructive in our hands'. It does nothing but make weird organisms that try and kill us. One of the interviews with the scriptwriter I read talked about how it reflected our souls or something, so that because we are base creatures then the goo reflects that.

And yeah, I agree that the idea that there was different kinds of goo is reasonable (I didn't see any difference in goo types myself, but I'm happy to believe I missed some visual clue). I'm not sure that makes for a better movie, though.

More than anything, I'm just left wondering why they didn't have people experiment with the goo, find some good benefits, and ignore some obvious risks. Then it gets out of hand and some people die. It just seems so much cleaner, and to actually explore the theme so much more strongly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Really? You don't think it was reasonably clear that they were seeding life on Earth?

I thought they were seeding human life on Earth, not all life. That's why humans, and only humans, share our DNA with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pacific wrote:Why should anyone 'hate' anything for hells sake? Are there not other things in the world worth getting your knickers twisted about over?

I really can't understand it - what is it about some of these films (and I remember a similar situation with both the Matrix and Avatar) where people don't just dislike the film. It has to be a gloves off, snarling actual hatred of the films? Perhaps just something to do with sci-fi, and people's imaginings of the future or a particular situation not matching their own?

Because if you don't like something and someone else thinks it was pretty good, then it isn't enough to simply leave to their thing, you have to tell them there thing was the worst in the world.

There's also an internet attention whore thing going on - who's going to listen to the guy who says 'this movie was okay in places but had some downsides'? People are going to get drawn to the guy who says a movie is the worst thing ever, even if it's just to tell him it's wrong it's more attention than the other guy is getting.

And as I type that... yes I am fully aware I've held some pretty strong negative opinions about films, and I don't pretend the above didn't play some part in me forming those opinions


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I thought so as well, but then Ridley is on TV doing interviews saying it is just some random planet, that it doesn't have to be Earth. He may not be the best shot in the world, but he finds a way to hit his foot every single time.

It's stuff like that where I'm glad I can say 'the author is dead' and just ignore any silly stuff he claims about Earth. Because making that about the formation of some other species makes the whole thing pointless.

Pacific wrote:Why should anyone 'hate' anything for hells sake? Are there not other things in the world worth getting your knickers twisted about over?

I really can't understand it - what is it about some of these films (and I remember a similar situation with both the Matrix and Avatar) where people don't just dislike the film. It has to be a gloves off, snarling actual hatred of the films? Perhaps just something to do with sci-fi, and people's imaginings of the future or a particular situation not matching their own?

Because if in a few cases when you try to talk about a few of the downsides you get assaulted by zealots who loved the film and those zealots are bloody annoying...

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The constructive event is the opening scene, as used by the Engineers originally to seed Earth, and the destructive events are everything that happened when we messed around with it. I think the theme's there.

But that's some alien using it. I mean to capture the potential and danger of technology to humans, you have to show humans benefitting from, and suffering from that technology. And I mean both actual technology and the black goo, so there could have been a crewman or two killed by a malfunction in the ship before landing, and then both positives and eventually loads of negatives from the goo itself.

I agree with you that the goo as technology is the theme they were aiming for (otherwise why call it Prometheus?), but I don't think they did enough to show us that technology, or it's symbol in the black goo, is a two edged sword. With actual technology they gave us no hint of its danger, and with the goo they give us no hint of its possible benefit.

They did enough with just the opening scene, IMO. We (the audience) know that biotech has the potential for amazing benefits. We just need one piece of evidence that there can be a constructive use to the Engineers' tech, and the theme is established. As long as we know it's not ONLY weapons, it's there.

If you were to encounter fire for the first time with no clue about its properties or proper precautions for handling it, you're probably going to experience it as a purely destructive force. "Hey, what's this amazing thing?" "Oh gak, that's hot!" "Hey, I let it out of its container and now it's burning the gak out of everything!"

Sebster wrote:

You mean other than the opening scene? I do also think the "at least three different substances shown" theory's a reasonable one.

I meant 'purely destructive in our hands'. It does nothing but make weird organisms that try and kill us. One of the interviews with the scriptwriter I read talked about how it reflected our souls or something, so that because we are base creatures then the goo reflects that.

And yeah, I agree that the idea that there was different kinds of goo is reasonable (I didn't see any difference in goo types myself, but I'm happy to believe I missed some visual clue). I'm not sure that makes for a better movie, though.

More than anything, I'm just left wondering why they didn't have people experiment with the goo, find some good benefits, and ignore some obvious risks. Then it gets out of hand and some people die. It just seems so much cleaner, and to actually explore the theme so much more strongly.

Well, I think because it's an Alien movie, and horror and bad things are supposed to dominate, thematically. A taste or promise of a possible benefit is about as good as it gets. The movie starts out a lot more optimistic and exploratory than the others as it is. And I don't think we really needed a visual clue (beyond the differing effects of each) that the goos are different. We haven't clue 1 about how they work, so we can't really expect to understand anything about them.

Sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Really? You don't think it was reasonably clear that they were seeding life on Earth?

I thought they were seeding human life on Earth, not all life. That's why humans, and only humans, share our DNA with them.

That might make more sense. But then why are we genetically-similar to Chimps? Why do our eyes work just like other species' eyes? That theory doesn't work with evolution either. If they had thought to shoot those opening scenes without grasses they'd probably be okay. As it is, I guess I can see why Ridley's resorting to saying it's some other planet.

Mannahnin wrote:I think it has to do with high expectations being disappointed.

This.

I'm all for popcorn films, but this was hyped as something more and then failed to be either. Fans have been waiting at least 10 years (as the video I posted above mentions that Ridley makes a comment in the original DVD quadrilogy about another Alien film) for this film, 30 if you count ALIEN.

I wanted to love Prometheus, I've seen it twice, and I can't. I'm really not sure what the major problems were and I don't really care. Scott and the Writers get paid a fair bit of money to make a coherent film and can't even accomplish that. There is no good reason for this film to be terrible or difficult to follow.

To think that we might be getting a prequel triology for Alien fills me with dread, and if Prometheus is anything to go by we are on target for an exact repeat of the Star Wars abominations.

Help us James Cameron, you're our only hope...

Yea but Cameron has betrayed us too, denoting 3 avatar films in the works, and Michael Bay making another Transofrmers film (seriously, how could he have made Baysplosions boring???)

We need some new blood.

Frazzled wrote:Yea but Cameron has betrayed us too, denoting 3 avatar films in the works, and Michael Bay making another Transofrmers film (seriously, how could he have made Baysplosions boring???)

We need some new blood.

Maybe the next Avatars will be told from the point of view of the colonial marines kicking the hell out of those Schtroumphs? Or seeding the planet with Xenomorph Queens?

See, sometimes crossovers are necessary

Medium of Death wrote:Help us James Cameron, you're our only hope...

It's a long time since Aliens and Terminator, though.

I think maybe our best chance might be with an unknown director who's hungry enough to spend the time making sure his script is sound... or lacks the influence to dick around with a script everyone previously liked.

What was the last really smart, good, big-budget sci fi movie? Children of Men, maybe?

You know what might be awesome? If Aronofsky tried it. Pi is great, and that's shoestring budget. He's managed to keep making good movies even with bigger, too.

Mannahnin wrote:They did enough with just the opening scene, IMO. We (the audience) know that biotech has the potential for amazing benefits. We just need one piece of evidence that there can be a constructive use to the Engineers' tech, and the theme is established. As long as we know it's not ONLY weapons, it's there.

In order to literally do the bare minimum to qualify as a theme for an essay talkign about the film, sure. But in order to get the audience to actually feel that, and take it away as a message that changes how they think about things, I just don't think it works at all.

To make it really work, to really carry the film, we needed to see technology doing amazing things and horrible things, and then we needed to see the same with the black goo.

And yeah, if we were to come across fire for the first time we would probably burn ourselves, and see it only as a threat. But 'how it actually works' isn't how things work

Well, I think because it's an Alien movie, and horror and bad things are supposed to dominate, thematically. A taste or promise of a possible benefit is about as good as it gets. The movie starts out a lot more optimistic and exploratory than the others as it is. And I don't think we really needed a visual clue (beyond the differing effects of each) that the goos are different. We haven't clue 1 about how they work, so we can't really expect to understand anything about them.

Sure, but all four movies had some discussion about trying to use the alien for a human purpose. Even if it was obviously doomed to failure and an incredibly boneheaded idea, at least it was mentioned. But here, in the movie that's apparently about goo as a symbol for technology, they don't even mention the possibility that humans might use the goo for good.

That might make more sense. But then why are we genetically-similar to Chimps? Why do our eyes work just like other species' eyes? That theory doesn't work with evolution either.

Pretty much, yeah. But that's the point where I'm happy to say 'eh, it's just a movie'. I'm happier to have some kind of mythic relevance, even if it doesn't fit with our scientific understanding of the world, than to have the opening be a fairly pointless muddle of 'and lo, the forebearer did sacrifice himself and give life to a species that isn't mankind because it was another planet, and so answer the question of where did some other species on some other planet come from'.

I wouldn't consider Children of Men to be sci-fi.

LordofHats wrote:I wouldn't consider Children of Men to be sci-fi.

Really? What would you consider it then? I mean, it's post-apocalyptic sci-fi and not sci-fi like Alien or Prometheus or something, but it's still sci-fi.

Seb, the audience has it shown to us that the Engineers' technology can create life. The team goes out looking for our origins; we know from the start that the Engineers are a vastly older society with vastly more advanced technology. You don't need to show a bunch of examples of how that technology could possibly be helpful. That's implicit. We all know how technological advances can make things better. Heck, it just being a sci-fi movie shows that. Look- cool spaceship; interstellar travel; robot surgical pod which can save you if you're impregnated with an alien squid. The surface purpose of the mission is to discover our origins and hopefully benefit from a superior technology. Of course Weyland's real purpose is to extend his life, and that's made clear for most of the movie. The promise of extended (indefinitely? life is the biggest and most obvious prize of all.

For my money, the possible upside of advanced technology is known and understood and assumed in just about any sci-fi pic. The dangerous side of discovery is the part of the Prometheus myth that people don't focus on- IME when people refer to Prometheus it's mostly positive- stealing fire from the gods for the benefit of humanity- almost an endorsement of ambition, and of a "he who dares, achieves" attitude. But the flip side is of course that he was punished for his presumptuousness. And the Alien franchise is one which lends itself to themes of death and people getting punished for arrogance. Just like Weyland does, as he wants to steal the secret of life from those who gave it to us, but of course his selfishness, arrogance and disregard for the people of his crew lead to the natural comeuppance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I wouldn't consider Children of Men to be sci-fi.

Really? What would you consider it then? I mean, it's post-apocalyptic sci-fi and not sci-fi like Alien or Prometheus or something, but it's still sci-fi.

It's sci-fi/speculative fiction. It deals with the future, it explores the consequences of a future development (in this case infertility, rather than a technical advance) and how society reacts to that development. Both socially and technologically.

Hordini wrote:Really? What would you consider it then?

Post-Apocalyptic Dystopia. Is there some technology angle I'm unaware of? I haven't seen the movie since its release, but I don't remember it being about science or human advancement, or having any of the typical sci-fi set pieces.

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

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginary but more or less plausible (or at least non-supernatural) content such as future settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, aliens, and paranormal abilities. Exploring the consequences of scientific innovations is one purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[1]

Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

The settings for science fiction are often contrary to known reality, but most science fiction relies on a considerable degree of suspension of disbelief, which is facilitated in the reader's mind by potential scientific explanations or solutions to various fictional elements. Science fiction elements include:

A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record.
A spatial setting or scenes in outer space (e.g., spaceflight), on other worlds, or on subterranean earth.[3]
Characters that include aliens, mutants, androids, or humanoid robots.
Technology that is futuristic (e.g., ray guns, teleportation machines, humanoid computers).[4]
Scientific principles that are new or that contradict known laws of nature, for example time travel, wormholes, or faster-than-light travel.
New and different political or social systems (e.g. dystopia, post-scarcity, or a post-apocalyptic situation where organized society has collapsed).[5]
Paranormal abilities such as mind control, telepathy, telekinesis, and teleportation.
Other universes or dimensions and travel between them.

LordofHats wrote:

Hordini wrote:Really? What would you consider it then?

Post-Apocalyptic Dystopia. Is there some technology angle I'm unaware of? I haven't seen the movie since its release, but I don't remember it being about science or human advancement, or having any of the typical sci-fi set pieces.

It is post-apocalyptic dystopia, but that's a sci-fi subgenre. Sci-fi doesn't necessarily have to deal specifically with technology. The film isn't hard sci-fi, but like Mannahin said, it still falls under the relatively broad umbrella of sci-fi/speculative fiction.

Hordini wrote:It is post-apocalyptic dystopia, but that's a sci-fi subgenre.

No its not. Its a sub-genre if speculative fiction, which sci-fi is also a sub of (YMMV).

Sci-fi doesn't necessarily have to deal specifically with technology.

Yes it does. Science is there in the name for a reason. It's called that because science is used as a theme or a medium for the theme. Taking place in the future is not enough to qualify as science-fiction.

The film isn't hard sci-fi, but like Mannahin said, it still falls under the relatively broad umbrella of sci-fi/speculative fiction.

The inherent flaw in that statement being that speculative fiction and science fiction are nowhere near the same thing (also being that this is the area of nuance in which Wikipedia ceases to be useful, hell most people can't even get theme and genre straight, and Wikipedia reflects it). Hell the first clue is that Wikipedia lists Sci-fi as having " imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature" which is pretty damn wrong. Most sci-fi science isn't possible in the slightest.

LordofHats wrote:

Hordini wrote:It is post-apocalyptic dystopia, but that's a sci-fi subgenre.

No its not. Its a sub-genre if speculative fiction, which sci-fi is also a sub of (YMMV).

Sci-fi doesn't necessarily have to deal specifically with technology.

Yes it does. Science is there in the name for a reason. It's called that because science is used as a theme or a medium for the theme. Taking place in the future is not enough to qualify as science-fiction.

The film isn't hard sci-fi, but like Mannahin said, it still falls under the relatively broad umbrella of sci-fi/speculative fiction.

The inherent flaw in that statement being that speculative fiction and science fiction are nowhere near the same thing (also being that this is the area of nuance in which Wikipedia ceases to be useful, hell most people can't even get theme and genre straight, and Wikipedia reflects it). Hell the first clue is that Wikipedia lists Sci-fi as having " imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature" which is pretty damn wrong. Most sci-fi science isn't possible in the slightest.

I get what you're saying and understand the differences you're pointing out, but most sci-fi publishers would disagree with you. What you're describing is closer to hard sci-fi, but again there is a pretty large umbrella of sci-fi/speculative fiction that includes hard sci-fi, soft sci-fi, sci-fi fantasy, slipstream, and a bazillion other sci-fi subgenres.

I get what you're saying and understand the differences you're pointing out, but most sci-fi publishers would disagree with you.

That's because they sell books and could care less if their terminology is correct.

LordofHats wrote:

I get what you're saying and understand the differences you're pointing out, but most sci-fi publishers would disagree with you.

That's because they sell books and could care less if their terminology is correct.

That may be true, but they do have an influence on how the terminology is defined.

Do you consider Star Wars to be a sci-fi film?

Such things are defined two ways academically and popularly. Publishers (and most authors for that matter) only care about the popular definitions ignoring that they are inaccurate or inadequate.

And no actually. Star Wars is a fantasy story in theme, tone, and style. It just has a bunch of sci-fi set pieces. Of course the term Space Opera or Science Fantasy was coined to describe such a hodgepodge.

Mannahnin wrote:What was the last really smart, good, big-budget sci fi movie? Children of Men, maybe?

You know what might be awesome? If Aronofsky tried it. Pi is great, and that's shoestring budget. He's managed to keep making good movies even with bigger, too.

Yeah, Children of Men would be the last great, smart sci-fi movie. It received a great response among critics and fans, but didn't make its budget back at the box office.

I think District 9 might be the way forward for sci-fi. Not because it was that smart (a half hour of interesting commentary followed by sixty minutes of gun battles is not a smart movie), but because it looked great and only cost $30 million to make. Because of that I think you're right on the money with Aronofsky, even his bigger films featuring major names are still cut price movies. That means he gets freedom, and that'd mean he'd get to say something interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:I wouldn't consider Children of Men to be sci-fi.

"Consider a near future in which humanity can no longer breed, and society slowly comes apart as it just waits to die" is an absolutely brilliant sci-fi question.

sebster wrote:"Consider a near future in which humanity can no longer breed, and society slowly comes apart as it just waits to die" is an absolutely brilliant speculative question.

My preferred way of saying that. If being set in the future is enough to be sci-fi, then we might as well just stop using the term, cause a lot of random stuff suddenly becomes scifi and the term becomes useless.

Mannahnin wrote:Seb, the audience has it shown to us that the Engineers' technology can create life. The team goes out looking for our origins; we know from the start that the Engineers are a vastly older society with vastly more advanced technology. You don't need to show a bunch of examples of how that technology could possibly be helpful. That's implicit.

You don't just imply a thing and expect people to go off and puzzle it out and reach your conclusion about what symbolises what. You make people feel it. Actually have a character drawn to the danger because of the benefits, and then you start to actually show the myth in the movie.

For my money, the possible upside of advanced technology is known and understood and assumed in just about any sci-fi pic.

Yeah, I said that earlier, and the film has rocket ships and cool maps and space suits and all that stuff. We have all the upside of actual technology. And we have the downside of black goo. But nowhere does one come to mirror the other - something that would have been achieved by showing the actual downside of technology, and showing that by having the goo give humans both upside and downside.

The result is that the theme is lost as something that can impact the audience emotionally during the movie.

The dangerous side of discovery is the part of the Prometheus myth that people don't focus on- IME when people refer to Prometheus it's mostly positive- stealing fire from the gods for the benefit of humanity- almost an endorsement of ambition, and of a "he who dares, achieves" attitude. But the flip side is of course that he was punished for his presumptuousness.

I think most people focus on what was gained and what was lost equally. I don't think there's another way of looking at that myth that isn't missing the point entirely. It's has to be about the good and the bad, or else it's pointless. Showing the good and the bad equally brings in ideas of sacrifice, or over-reaching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:My preferred way of saying that. If being set in the future is enough to be sci-fi, then we might as well just stop using the term, cause a lot of random stuff suddenly becomes scifi and the term becomes useless.

So you'd argue that it has to be about a specific technology, then? I don't know, I guess I'm not much of a tech nut, but the actual specific piece of technology itself never seemed to be the important thing to me. Neuromancer is great because of the society it portrays and how that society interacts with technology, not because of the technologies themselves.

I mean, most all sci-fi gets the tech totally wrong anyway, so if it was just about that it'd be a pretty pointless genre.