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.

**Tauzor**

So.

In summary - Some people like it , some don't

That is the way of the world and why people are different

See it for your self and draw your own mind up

enjoy !

**kronk**

I went in looking for a sci-fi movie with some cool aliens and lots of death.

That's what I got.

**Manchu**

Prometheus is an excellent movie. But it's not really a sci fi picture, which creates a lot of frustrated expectations. Sci fi is fundamentally about technology and a significant amount of the plot of sci fi stories revolves around exploring the interaction between human experience and that technology.

Spoiler:

The audience expects this to be the case with Prometheus. First, we have the black liquid. The opening scenes of the movie show it doing one thing; subsequent scenes show it doing other things. Thinking it's a sci fi story, the audience becomes fixating on "figuring out" the technology of the black liquid. But the liquid is not technology in the sense of sci fi; it's "technology" in the sense of myth. The black liquid is the symbol of Promethean fire. It is a force that transforms things in ways that cannot be foreseen. Who would look at a campfire made by cave men and envision a city of skyscrapers? "Big things have little beginnings."

Speaking of David, his presence makes us think the movie will be about android technology. Frustratingly, we learn nothing about that technology in the film. Even Weyland speaks of David in metaphysical rather than technological terms ("he's the closest thing I'll ever have to a son but he has no soul"). But again, this is myth rather than sci fi. David is to us what we are to the Engineers: primitive but powerful, inscrutable, and fatally dangerous. And yet also innocent, compared to us. David is the answer to Shaw's questions to the Engineer: "what did we do? why do you hate us?" This is more about Hebrew than Greek myth, however, (hence the name David): Satan told Eve "God knows well that the moment you eat of [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods." Upon deciding to expel Adam and Eve from Paradise, God says "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." And that is, of course, exactly what Weyland wants.

(As a side note, David has a further significance in Christian myth. The Jews expected the messiah to descend from David; David, therefore, prefigures the awaited savior but is not the savior himself. As Shaw says at the end of the movie, "I'm a human being and you're just a robot.")

But back to the Greek myths: It is significant that Shaw, who ultimately stands for humanity, is a woman beyond simply re-treading the feminist ground that Ripley already blazed. The myth of Prometheus does not end with the titan bringing fire to men and being punished by Zeus. Men are punished, too. Zeus sends Pandora, the first woman, whose name means "all gifts," with a jar containing misery -- which she opens. So it becomes significant that the Engineers are (to our eyes at least) all males. And they're all images of classical (in the sense of Greek statuary) male perfection, at that. Shaw opens the jar and unleashes misery. But as with Pandora, there is also hope in the jar: Shaw takes a ship, presumably also laden with black liquid jars, to find the Engineer homeworld -- thereby, becoming Pandora to the Engineers (presumably, this is what the Engineers sought to avoid by wiping out humanity) but simultaneously reaffirming the hopeful human search for meaning.

In Hesiod's telling of the Prometheus myth, Zeus has not only withheld fire itself but in so doing has "hidden from men the means of life." This is somewhat strange because we know that men are already alive, even seemingly in the absence of women. Hesiod is not talking about procreation but about knowledge (similar, again, to the Hebrew myth). With this fire of myth, "you would easily do work enough in a day to supply you for a full year even without working; soon would you put away your rudder over the smoke, and the fields worked by ox and sturdy mule would run to waste." In other words, men would obtain industry -- which is indeed exactly what the mastery of fire accomplished.

One of the most notable aesthetic aspects of the Aliens franchise is "biomechanical" design. This is explained in Prometheus by conflating Hesiod's phrase "the means of life." Shaw, who is barren, becomes impregnated thanks to the Promethean fire. She therefore becomes a Pandora to herself and her own body is the jar of misery. (It is significant that David removes her cross before she performs the C-section on herself: not only is Shaw going to experience a sore test of faith but later we will find that what remains in "Pandoran jar" of her body is hope -- symbolized by her putting the cross back on.) The black liquid, the Promethean fire, has given her "the means of life" (contrast this with Weyland, who has failed to understand that life is a matter of siring offspring), and she delivers the jurassic facehugger and, eventually, the unity of mechanical and biological, the proto-xenomorph.

So the movie is actually quite good if you get over trying to figure everything out as mere technology in the sense of a kind of coherent schematic. Even the most distressing thing, the numerous bad decisions of the crew (who, one would think, would be very well trained and skilled) makes more sense once it's situated as the work of "mortals" in the mythical sense rather than ultra-competent technicians in the sense of the imminently rational and imperialistic science.

**Scott**

Excellent post, Manchu.

The one question I took from the film was whether or not >this< planet was the planet from Alien and Aliens. Apparently it is not. Niggling doubts removed.

The film was not perfect, but was quite enjoyable. I do agree that there were some seriously silly plot-elements that should have been handled in a different manner: the biggest one for me was the situation where the geologist and biologist decide that they will wait out the storm in a room where "something" strange is happening.

I'm thinking to myself "Uh, dudes? Stuff is leaking from those casks - you might not want to step in it. You could wait in the hall, right?" The rest of that scene just compounds the stupidity.

Anyway, I'll be seeing this film again. It is gorgeous, and the metaphysics allow me to overlook most of the problems.

I am also awaiting the director's cut - the film was too short! YMMV

**Manchu**

I've been thinking about seeing this again, as well.

**Corpsesarefun**

n0t_u wrote:This is Biff, he stole a time travelling delorean from the 1980s just to see you?

Oh my god yes!

Aged Weyland looked a LOT like aged Biff.

**Ahtman**

Just out of curiosity, anyone else see it in 3D? I thought it was well done without being overbearing, and in a few scenes was quite awesome, like when the Astro-navigational chart popped up.

**Manchu**

I realized, with some chagrin, that I hadn't bought 3D tickets as I walked into the theatre. My father saw it in 3D and said it wasn't very worthwhile but I kind of wanted to see the astro-navigation chart scene you mentioned. I'm struggling to think of when else (other Engineer holographs aside) it would be pertinent, however.

**AegisGrimm**

I thought it was an ok generic Sci-Fi movie, but horrible as a movie in the Aliens franchise.

It was entertaining, but the plot was a mess, and my Fiancee and I left the theater thinking "Meh. It was ok, but could have been alot better. We should have just gotten the original on Netflix."

**Corpsesarefun**

Ahtman wrote:Just out of curiosity, anyone else see it in 3D? I thought it was well done without being overbearing, and in a few scenes was quite awesome, like when the Astro-navigational chart popped up.

Unfortunately I saw it in 3d, as I'm incapable of actually seeing the 3d effect without causing considerable eye strain this was a bit of an issue for me.

**kronk**

I saw it in 3D. The chart was bitchin', as you say.

**Ahtman**

kronk wrote:I saw it in 3D. The chart was bitchin', as you say.

I really liked the design aesthetic of spheres within spheres, and that almost everything was connected. Still pictures don't do it justice, and I almost decided not to post one just because of that, but here is one anyway.

Spoiler:

**kronk**

That was one of the more stunning visual displays I've seen in a long time.

**Delephont**

Was anyone else surprised at how....well, unsexy Charlize was? I mean, not saying she didn't come across as an attractive women....but she just didn't get my engine revving.....in fact non of the female cast did anything for me.

Now, I know this wasn't a porn flick, and it's more important you focus on the character than their looks. But considering how, well, flat the acting was in general (apart from the Android), I kinda figured they put Charlize on set to help take our minds off the (lack of) dialogue.

Added to that point, I thought the part in the end where the Captain and crew decide to commit suicide to be rather lacking, I mean, hell, you're about to kill yourself, now would be a great time to show some emotion.....I guess they make them different in that time period.

**Corpsesarefun**

Delephont wrote:Was anyone else surprised at how....well, unsexy Charlize was? I mean, not saying she didn't come across as an attractive women....but she just didn't get my engine revving.....in fact non of the female cast did anything for me.

Now, I know this wasn't a porn flick, and it's more important you focus on the character than their looks. But considering how, well, flat the acting was in general (apart from the Android), I kinda figured they put Charlize on set to help take our minds off the (lack of) dialogue.

Added to that point, I thought the part in the end where the Captain and crew decide to commit suicide to be rather lacking, I mean, hell, you're about to kill yourself, now would be a great time to show some emotion.....I guess they make them different in that time period.

In a weird way she reminded me greatly of my GCSE history teacher, it worked for me

**Delephont**

Corpsesarefun wrote:
Delephont wrote:Was anyone else surprised at how....well, unsexy Charlize was? I mean, not saying she didn't come across as an attractive women....but she just didn't get my engine revving.....in fact non of the female cast did anything for me.

Now, I know this wasn't a porn flick, and it's more important you focus on the character than their looks. But considering how, well, flat the acting was in general (apart from the Android), I kinda figured they put Charlize on set to help take our minds off the (lack of) dialogue.

Added to that point, I thought the part in the end where the Captain and crew decide to commit suicide to be rather lacking, I mean, hell, you're about to kill yourself, now would be a great time to show some emotion.....I guess they make them different in that time period.

In a weird way she reminded me greatly of my GCSE history teacher, it worked for me

What?!? Mr Bleechwood.......you're sick!

**Totalwar1402**

OP

I totally agree, massive let down and above all else incredibly boring.

The film centers on one very simple idea. What would it be like if we met our creator and found out he was just a dick who created you for the lols; that theres nothing unique about life. Unless you believe and have faith which is a distinctly human emotion. The only vaguely interesting character is David the machine who mocks and wants to make the humans realise that their desire to meet their maker will only leave them disappointed. This is an empty idea and far too much time is devouted towards trying to flesh out a barren idea. They're trying to sound smart but are talking about a dumb idea.

Non of the characters other than David are interesting and are actually dreadful.

More than anything else the film is boring. I'am normally terrified of scary films but no effort is made to create suspense or fear and those few elements of action or scary scenes all fall flat. Things like the snakes and the mutant guy. There is thus nothing to hold together the 'idea' scenes and you just end up bored.

The film doesn't explain anything aside from how the ship got there and that Space jockeys made humans (first ten seconds tell you that) and that they then tried to kill us. Nothing about the origin of the aliens or the engineers is explained as was promised. Infering anything at all is impossible since we see an alien on the wall and an egg which seems to be feeding the jars. This makes the hybrid at the end seem just like a tacked on thing; almost an apology. If you do an alien prequel you have to address the aliens, otherwise why bother setting it in this verse in the first place and not in its own thing. This could have been a bad episode of Star Trek as it stands.

They had every opportunity to introduce an alien as a monster hunting people down around the philisophical point but he seems to have been so determined not to put one in that he resisted doing so but instead filled time with a bunch of silly monsters and fights which don't do anything for anyone. An alien picking people off whislt they try to reach the engineer in cryo, not showing itself and finally fighting the jockey in the ship would have added a huge amount of tension and interest because of the threat it posed. Instead we got a shallow n empty sci-fi idea playing to pretty music and a film trying to pretend to be smart.

**Corpsesarefun**

Ms Lewis, they looked remarkably similar come to think of it.

I wouldn't be inherently opposed to Mr Bleechwood though... It depends what he is like.

**CT GAMER**

Manchu wrote:Prometheus is an excellent movie. But it's not really a sci fi picture, which creates a lot of frustrated expectations. Sci fi is fundamentally about technology and a significant amount of the plot of sci fi stories revolves around exploring the interaction between human experience and that technology.

Spoiler:

The audience expects this to be the case with Prometheus. First, we have the black liquid. The opening scenes of the movie show it doing one thing; subsequent scenes show it doing other things. Thinking it's a sci fi story, the audience becomes fixating on "figuring out" the technology of the black liquid. But the liquid is not technology in the sense of sci fi; it's "technology" in the sense of myth. The black liquid is the symbol of Promethean fire. It is a force that transforms things in ways that cannot be foreseen. Who would look at a campfire made by cave men and envision a city of skyscrapers? "Big things have little beginnings."

Speaking of David, his presence makes us think the movie will be about android technology. Frustratingly, we learn nothing about that technology in the film. Even Weyland speaks of David in metaphysical rather than technological terms ("he's the closest thing I'll ever have to a son but he has no soul"). But again, this is myth rather than sci fi. David is to us what we are to the Engineers: primitive but powerful, inscrutable, and fatally dangerous. And yet also innocent, compared to us. David is the answer to Shaw's questions to the Engineer: "what did we do? why do you hate us?" This is more about Hebrew than Greek myth, however, (hence the name David): Satan told Eve "God knows well that the moment you eat of [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods." Upon deciding to expel Adam and Eve from Paradise, God says "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." And that is, of course, exactly what Weyland wants.

(As a side note, David has a further significance in Christian myth. The Jews expected the messiah to descend from David; David, therefore, prefigures the awaited savior but is not the savior himself. As Shaw says at the end of the movie, "I'm a human being and you're just a robot.")

But back to the Greek myths: It is significant that Shaw, who ultimately stands for humanity, is a woman beyond simply re-treading the feminist ground that Ripley already blazed. The myth of Prometheus does not end with the titan bringing fire to men and being punished by Zeus. Men are punished, too. Zeus sends Pandora, the first woman, whose name means "all gifts," with a jar containing misery -- which she opens. So it becomes significant that the Engineers are (to our eyes at least) all males. And they're all images of classical (in the sense of Greek statuary) male perfection, at that. Shaw opens the jar and unleashes misery. But as with Pandora, there is also hope in the jar: Shaw takes a ship, presumably also laden with black liquid jars, to find the Engineer homeworld -- thereby, becoming Pandora to the Engineers (presumably, this is what the Engineers sought to avoid by wiping out humanity) but simultaneously reaffirming the hopeful human search for meaning.

In Hesiod's telling of the Prometheus myth, Zeus has not only withheld fire itself but in so doing has "hidden from men the means of life." This is somewhat strange because we know that men are already alive, even seemingly in the absence of women. Hesiod is not talking about procreation but about knowledge (similar, again, to the Hebrew myth). With this fire of myth, "you would easily do work enough in a day to supply you for a full year even without working; soon would you put away your rudder over the smoke, and the fields worked by ox and sturdy mule would run to waste." In other words, men would obtain industry -- which is indeed exactly what the mastery of fire accomplished.

One of the most notable aesthetic aspects of the Aliens franchise is "biomechanical" design. This is explained in Prometheus by conflating Hesiod's phrase "the means of life." Shaw, who is barren, becomes impregnated thanks to the Promethean fire. She therefore becomes a Pandora to herself and her own body is the jar of misery. (It is significant that David removes her cross before she performs the C-section on herself: not only is Shaw going to experience a sore test of faith but later we will find that what remains in "Pandoran jar" of her body is hope -- symbolized by her putting the cross back on.) The black liquid, the Promethean fire, has given her "the means of life" (contrast this with Weyland, who has failed to understand that life is a matter of siring offspring), and she delivers the jurassic facehugger and, eventually, the unity of mechanical and biological, the proto-xenomorph.

So the movie is actually quite good if you get over trying to figure everything out as mere technology in the sense of a kind of coherent schematic. Even the most distressing thing, the numerous bad decisions of the crew (who, one would think, would be very well trained and skilled) makes more sense once it's situated as the work of "mortals" in the mythical sense rather than ultra-competent technicians in the sense of the imminently rational and imperialistic science.

I think this movie indeed hoped to be all these things, but it even failed at this, becaue the messgae was lost in the bad acting/character development/plot holes and cliched tropes.

It could have been so much more...

**Pacific**

Delephont wrote:Was anyone else surprised at how....well, unsexy Charlize was? I mean, not saying she didn't come across as an attractive women....but she just didn't get my engine revving.....in fact non of the female cast did anything for me.

Not her, but the Swedish one from Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? (Shaw?)

**Manchu**

CT GAMER wrote:
Manchu wrote:Prometheus is an excellent movie. But it's not really a sci fi picture, which creates a lot of frustrated expectations. Sci fi is fundamentally about technology and a significant amount of the plot of sci fi stories revolves around exploring the interaction between human experience and that technology.

Spoiler:

The audience expects this to be the case with Prometheus. First, we have the black liquid. The opening scenes of the movie show it doing one thing; subsequent scenes show it doing other things. Thinking it's a sci fi story, the audience becomes fixating on "figuring out" the technology of the black liquid. But the liquid is not technology in the sense of sci fi; it's "technology" in the sense of myth. The black liquid is the symbol of Promethean fire. It is a force that transforms things in ways that cannot be foreseen. Who would look at a campfire made by cave men and envision a city of skyscrapers? "Big things have little beginnings."

Speaking of David, his presence makes us think the movie will be about android technology. Frustratingly, we learn nothing about that technology in the film. Even Weyland speaks of David in metaphysical rather than technological terms ("he's the closest thing I'll ever have to a son but he has no soul"). But again, this is myth rather than sci fi. David is to us what we are to the Engineers: primitive but powerful, inscrutable, and fatally dangerous. And yet also innocent, compared to us. David is the answer to Shaw's questions to the Engineer: "what did we do? why do you hate us?" This is more about Hebrew than Greek myth, however, (hence the name David): Satan told Eve "God knows well that the moment you eat of [the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge] your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods." Upon deciding to expel Adam and Eve from Paradise, God says "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." And that is, of course, exactly what Weyland wants.

(As a side note, David has a further significance in Christian myth. The Jews expected the messiah to descend from David; David, therefore, prefigures the awaited savior but is not the savior himself. As Shaw says at the end of the movie, "I'm a human being and you're just a robot.")

But back to the Greek myths: It is significant that Shaw, who ultimately stands for humanity, is a woman beyond simply re-treading the feminist ground that Ripley already blazed. The myth of Prometheus does not end with the titan bringing fire to men and being punished by Zeus. Men are punished, too. Zeus sends Pandora, the first woman, whose name means "all gifts," with a jar containing misery -- which she opens. So it becomes significant that the Engineers are (to our eyes at least) all males. And they're all images of classical (in the sense of Greek statuary) male perfection, at that. Shaw opens the jar and unleashes misery. But as with Pandora, there is also hope in the jar: Shaw takes a ship, presumably also laden with black liquid jars, to find the Engineer homeworld -- thereby, becoming Pandora to the Engineers (presumably, this is what the Engineers sought to avoid by wiping out humanity) but simultaneously reaffirming the hopeful human search for meaning.

In Hesiod's telling of the Prometheus myth, Zeus has not only withheld fire itself but in so doing has "hidden from men the means of life." This is somewhat strange because we know that men are already alive, even seemingly in the absence of women. Hesiod is not talking about procreation but about knowledge (similar, again, to the Hebrew myth). With this fire of myth, "you would easily do work enough in a day to supply you for a full year even without working; soon would you put away your rudder over the smoke, and the fields worked by ox and sturdy mule would run to waste." In other words, men would obtain industry -- which is indeed exactly what the mastery of fire accomplished.

One of the most notable aesthetic aspects of the Aliens franchise is "biomechanical" design. This is explained in Prometheus by conflating Hesiod's phrase "the means of life." Shaw, who is barren, becomes impregnated thanks to the Promethean fire. She therefore becomes a Pandora to herself and her own body is the jar of misery. (It is significant that David removes her cross before she performs the C-section on herself: not only is Shaw going to experience a sore test of faith but later we will find that what remains in "Pandoran jar" of her body is hope -- symbolized by her putting the cross back on.) The black liquid, the Promethean fire, has given her "the means of life" (contrast this with Weyland, who has failed to understand that life is a matter of siring offspring), and she delivers the jurassic facehugger and, eventually, the unity of mechanical and biological, the proto-xenomorph.

So the movie is actually quite good if you get over trying to figure everything out as mere technology in the sense of a kind of coherent schematic. Even the most distressing thing, the numerous bad decisions of the crew (who, one would think, would be very well trained and skilled) makes more sense once it's situated as the work of "mortals" in the mythical sense rather than ultra-competent technicians in the sense of the imminently rational and imperialistic science.
I think this movie indeed hoped to be all these things, but it even failed at this, becaue the messgae was lost in the bad acting/character development/plot holes and cliched tropes.

It could have been so much more...

The film wasn't 10/10 but it's a heck of a lot better than a lot of people here are saying (I'd give somewhere around a 7 or 8/10). The idea that the film was filled with bad or boring acting is just absurd. I agree that character development suffered (Shaw being barren came out of nowhere, for example) but, as has been pointed out already here, that's Sir Ridley's MO: he makes two films at a time -- a lesser one for theaters and a superior one for his director's cut home release. (I didn't like Kingdom of Heaven in theaters for it's poor character development and then really liked it on bluray.) Still, that didn't get in the way of me thoroughly enjoying Prometheus. As for the "plot holes," it seems to me that people are trying to look at this film like it's non-fiction rather than a myth. Anyone who doesn't get that this film is a mythological story (hint: it's called Prometheus) and is fooled by the Fox marketing hype directing you to expect Alien 0 (hint: Sir Ridley said about a billion times it would not be that) will find it hard if not impossible to enjoy the film. Taking it for what it is and trying to understand it, however, reveals that the movie is actually very fulfilling at the conceptual level and I think we'll only need a few changes to make (all of) its characters really shine, too.

**Jihadnik**

Hmm, I've read this whole thead and I started out ambivalent to the film, I didn't mind, it didn't hate it, and I am still ambivalent until I've seen the directors cut.

The first thing I thought at the end though was, what was the scientist (Elisabeth?) going to eat while she was flying off into the galaxy looking for space jesus?

**Manchu**

Jihadnik wrote:space jesus

Are you sure you saw Prometheus?

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:So the movie is actually quite good if you get over trying to figure everything out as mere technology in the sense of a kind of coherent schematic. Even the most distressing thing, the numerous bad decisions of the crew (who, one would think, would be very well trained and skilled) makes more sense once it's situated as the work of "mortals" in the mythical sense rather than ultra-competent technicians in the sense of the imminently rational and imperialistic science.

No, see from the first seconds I was aware this was a film dealing with the myth as much as anything else. The problem is that simply alluding to myth doesn't make something a good movie. It has to still work as a movie, and have any reference to myth work to enhance that basic movie functionality.

A classic example is trying to explain away the unprofessional, frequently stupid actions of the crew by saying that they're the mortals of myth, and so that's why they don't act like professional crew - that doesn't work. It is the responsbility of a scriptwriter to tie these things together, either create more convincing circumstances to explain the actions of the crew, or change the nature of the crew to something that would better fit . An example of this has been any modern interpretation of Shakespeare - there is an inherent problem in transplanting the strict social formalities of the age to any modern setting, and it would be a sign of a deeply lazy production team to just plonk the script into a modern setting and say 'oh that's just how they behaved then so we've got our modern characters doing the same'. Good productions will set their plays in environments where strict social heirarchies still exist, like highschools, or crime families, or they'll tweak the behaviour of characters just enough so they fit the modern setting, while still remaining true to the original concept.

Prometheus took the lazy option, and just transplanted. As a result there was nothing believable in the events as they took place. The result is a movie that's great for analysis for anyone wanting to talk about myths, but an actual failure as a movie.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:Just out of curiosity, anyone else see it in 3D? I thought it was well done without being overbearing, and in a few scenes was quite awesome, like when the Astro-navigational chart popped up.

Agreed, one of the better uses of the technology. Not Avatar good, but still damn good.

Jihadnik wrote:...space jesus?

Best Jesus is what you meant. I would also have accepted "Crystal Dragon."

sebster wrote:Good productions will set their plays in environments where strict social heirarchies still exist, like highschools, or crime families, or they'll tweak the behaviour of characters just enough so they fit the modern setting, while still remaining true to the original concept.

Someone was thinking of Baz.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:The film wasn't 10/10 but it's a heck of a lot better than a lot of people here are saying (I'd give somewhere around a 7 or 8/10).

This is the internet. Things are either absolutely brilliant or absolutely awful.

Looking past the hyperbole, I think Prometheus falls into the 'mediocre' camp. It kept my interest throughout, and should be admired for its ambition, but it needs to be recognised that it ultimately failed to live up to its own ambitions.

As for the "plot holes," it seems to me that people are trying to look at this film like it's non-fiction rather than a myth. Anyone who doesn't get that this film is a mythological story (hint: it's called Prometheus) and is fooled by the Fox marketing hype directing you to expect Alien 0 (hint: Sir Ridley said about a billion times it would not be that) will find it hard if not impossible to enjoy the film. Taking it for what it is and trying to understand it, however, reveals that the movie is actually very fulfilling at the conceptual level and I think we'll only need a few changes to make (all of) its characters really shine, too.

Basing a story in mythology doesn't exempt you from needing engaging, believable characters. It doesn't exempt you from needing to construct an interesting story.

And yes, of course it's an Alien prequel. Weyland Corporation. The design of the alien vessel. Aliens that insert themselves through your throat, and burst out through your chest. The hubris of an intelligent species interfering with a technology they cannot control.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:Now now Ahtman.

Spoiler:

Not only did someone get lost in a cave, they got lost in a cave while having access to advanced mapping technology. That's a royal screw up.

Ever seen someone get lost with GPS?

**CT GAMER**

Manchu wrote:The film wasn't 10/10 but it's a heck of a lot better than a lot of people here are saying (I'd give somewhere around a 7 or 8/10). The idea that the film was filled with bad or boring acting is just absurd.

I'd give it a 4.5/10.

The only acting job even remotely interesting was Fassbender, and I think his performance is being a little over-hyped. His best stuff was actually in the pre-release promos tbh, and the Bishop role's performance in Aliens was a superior version of same imho.

I think as sci-fi fans we are too quick to make excuses for movie's like this because we so desperately want it to be good. Sci-fi is a genre that doesnt get a lot of respect so that is understandable, but come on, this movie really wasnt anything special...

**LordofHats**

dogma wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Now now Ahtman.

Spoiler:

Not only did someone get lost in a cave, they got lost in a cave while having access to advanced mapping technology. That's a royal screw up.

Ever seen someone get lost with GPS?

Come now Dogma, is that really an excuse

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:It kept my interest throughout, and should be admired for its ambition, but it needs to be recognised that it ultimately failed to live up to its own ambitions.

I disagree based on the film being very clear about its own ambitions or rather intentions as something pretty different from the expectations of a certain audience segment. I also think the proper attitude of criticism is to ask "what is the point of X?" rather than a justification of the assumption that "X is pointless." So instead of insisting that the movie should have been about a crew of competent professionals, we should instead realize that the characters are primarily "mere mortals" who stand for the concerns, anxieties, desires, etc, of "mere mortals." Yes, the film could have been more tightly written. As I said, this isn't a 10/10. Alien was a much tighter story, even disregarding its "halo" as foundational to the genre establishment, but it's also a much less meaningful story. One of the necessary features of Prometheus is a series of ambiguities. Myths are different from parables in that parables are an appeal to a certain image to communicate a certain point. A myth on the other hand is an appeal to an image to communicate the ambiguity surrounding an important experience or phenomenon. The Greek myth of Prometheus, for example, does not answer for us the question of whether the titan was right or wrong to give humans fire. That is for us to ponder and its "ponderability" is what makes it relevant despite being ancient.

I'm not attempting to excuse its faults but just looking for plausible explanations of why aspects we might consider to be faults were left in the release version by thoughtful, intelligent folks like Scott and Lindelhof. Generally, I think that if you are going to have your characters make bad decisions then you need to give them good reasons to do so. At first, it seems that Scott and Lindelhof are not giving the Prometheus crew good reasons to make their interminable bad decisions. It's especially hard to get outside of that viewpoint if we insist that these people should be ideal versions of us (a lot of people have said they lack even "common sense"), doing "what we would do." A key example:

Spoiler:

In that scene you can see that the characters might not be discrete human beings so much as symbols for certain ideas. When individuals are made to stand in for ideas, the individuals act as irrational as the ideas themselves. We find this sort of thing going on in mythology all the time. We didn't find it in Alien or Bladerunner, however, and I don't think people are really used to dealing with mythology in the cinema (or really even in literature, apart from poetic metaphors -- and this film is not a metaphor but rather the thing itself).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:I think as sci-fi fans we are too quick to make excuses for movie's like this because we so desperately want it to be good.

The more I think about it, the less I think this can be meaningfully analyzed as a sci fi film. The traditional sci fi elements are there kind of incidentally, as plot devices. The Illiad, for example, isn't an example of "historical fiction" just because it takes place in the past.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Ever seen someone get lost with GPS?

That's a great point. "Technology makes us safe" is a pervasive social attitude that doesn't seem to occur in Prometheus.