Jump to content

Ridley Scott's Prometheus


Wally Q
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just because 'we' share their DNA doesn't finitely mean that they (Engineers) created us either!

Maybe both races were created by another higher race of beings, and the 'Engineers' were simply jealous/envious/and/or slighted that the 'other' race (us) was created (and maybe more loved?!?)!

 

Hence, why they want to whipe us out?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full review from NRE...

 

Prometheus.

 

The Pros:

  • Visually appealing film in most areas, with a convincing otherworldy feel.
  • Nice link between the art direction of the original Alien and this film.
  • Shaw embracing her faith when others around her (her d*ck of a boyfriend/colleague, robo-David, et al) mocked or questioned it for no other reason than to break her (implied).
  • Shaw was a strong, interesting female without the need to turn her into a would-be badass more of a comment on real world social politics than being a character serving the story.

The Cons:

  • The pointless gimmick of suspicion about robot-David being the enemy (Ash, Alien '79), and works that angle until then end, when the heroine--after a final conflict--has a change of heart about the ripped apart robot (Bishop, Aliens '86). Someone loves the copy+paste function.
  • Distracting creature fight in the climax--distracing because the tentacled creature was such a CG element, that one would think they were playing a video game. There's no excuse for a production of this scale to allow such a fake creation to make the final cut.
  • Theron's Vickers used as the sinister company operative turns out to be a paper-thin scam, with the daddy issues being a tacked-on, unexplored motive for her presense in the film. Other than that, she marches around, issues orders for no other reason than to be a walking contrarian.
  • Who did not know Prometheus was going to be the "weapon" used to cause the alien ship's damage seen in the original film? Any hands? I did not think so.
  • Captain Janek had potential--easily the most likeable character in the film, but he was never developed well enough to make his sense of duty (to humanity) with his suicide run believable. Too hasty a decision. What was required was a character thinking man had no place "out there," and was human-centric to the point of realistic conflict with the scientists (or Vickers--when he was not getting in her pants).
  • So...they find repeating imagery across different human civilizations, yet they leap to the astounding conclusion that it means man was engineered by the aliens without any hard evidence to support the thesis (at least noted by robo-David).

The film copy+pastes too much from many sources--not just Alien (right down to the heroine survivor vs. the alien), but 2001, and more than anything else, Erik von Daniken's 1968 junk sci-theory novel Chariots of the Gods. Scott and Co. thought this "quest for meaning" exercise was compelling enough to be a film, but it was not. Without the memory and tie to Scott's original film--just to say "look, this is the Alien prequel, and there's that big 'ol ship, and that--that giant alien, and a creepy robot, too! So that fills the gaps in this story and gives it a reason to be!"

 

 

Unfortunately, the film has little reason to be, and if Scott would argue against those who say the very nature of prequels makes it pointless, well, what are we getting out of this film? Aside from the Shaw character's interesting journey of faith, the film just tosses out a fragment of an idea, and hopes the mystique of Alien '79 will carry interest along. Finally, with Shaw rocketing off to seek the engineer's race,

i'm guessing that was the bait for non-xenomorph sequels, since the original Alien concept has been beaten into the ground. Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a film of non-starters. David's experimenting with Halloway. Milburn's face-rape. Fifield's one-off mutation. Shaw's baby.

 

The trailers, for showing nearly every big piece of the film, told a more compelling story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a film of non-starters. David's experimenting with Halloway. Milburn's face-rape. Fifield's one-off mutation. Shaw's baby.

 

 

The trailers, for showing nearly every big piece of the film, told a more compelling story.

Good point, though I think you might be employing a bit of hyperbole.

 

It was a great experience, but yeah, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen from the trailer.

 

Also, was anybody else bugged that Fifield's helmet-cam just magically popped back on right when he showed up outside the ship? Is this an indication that he retained some of his memories/intelligence, or just sloppy filmmaking? Also, the storm was over while he was undergoing his monster mutation -- so it must have affected his mind first, so he'd know to shut the camera off during this time! OMG so annoyingly confusing!

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its safe to assume that Jesus was an Engineer, and the fact that he was killed was what set the Engineers off on a reset button path. The "we started worshipping another creator" doesn't make sense timewise. Jesus' death, not the preceding religion or the result of Christianity doesn't fit the timeline.

 

I must have missed the part of the bible describing Jesus as a ripped, 10 foot tall, bald, beardless, albino freak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does it not fit the timeline JT? They never gave an exact time estimation, only a rough 2000 year one. That's close enough.

 

Jesus being an Engineer is an interesting thought, though.

 

 

Now that I'm on a desktop and not typing on a small phone, I can expound somewhat.

 

One, the actual death of Jesus is the only thing that fits the timeline. The Old Testament would have been around during their previous visits.

 

Two, Christianity as an organized religion that the Engineers wanted to wipe out would have been far closer to "1500 years" instead of "2000 years." For it to grow to a point that the Engineers would want to wipe out all life on the planet and start over due to the amount of people believing in it, it would be closer to "1000 years."

 

I believe it's a given that Christianity, specifically, holds some significance. The cross, the faith references, the constant talking points about it, the dream with Patrick Wilson, the VERY LAST LINE of the film...

 

I think its safe to assume that Jesus was an Engineer, and the fact that he was killed was what set the Engineers off on a reset button path. The "we started worshipping another creator" doesn't make sense timewise. Jesus' death, not the preceding religion or the result of Christianity doesn't fit the timeline.

 

I must have missed the part of the bible describing Jesus as a ripped, 10 foot tall, bald, beardless, albino freak.

 

It's part of the Apocrypha, clearly. Lisbeth reviewed it as part of her investigation into Harriet's disappearance...

 

Seriously, though, any other hypothesis has a ton of holes. What's the hole in this one? That the Bible describes Jesus' physical appearance as a regular Middle Easterner? This also leaves open the possibility of "Oh, your people worship the one of us you killed now? Oh, that's cool. Holy crap, we've got to stop those acid-blood-based banana hammock heads. Come with me, Max Headroom of Arabia!"

 

Think of the possibilities: The giant stone getting rolled away. The Engineers taking the body in their spaceship... They get back to their home planet, and the beings they created "just because they could" have not only rejected them, but murdered the one sent to... do whatever it is that the Engineers did. So, they decided to wipe it out and start over. Meanwhile, back on Earth, people are all like, "Holy crap, that dude rose from the dead, obviously! He really was the Messiah from the Creator."

 

Don't misunderstand. This movie was very Meh. ProMEHtheus. If I haven't made it clear, it thinks that it's a lot heavier than it really is. It's not even that deep of a concept, and it's been done before. "Jesus as an Ancient Astronaut" theory has been been around for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't misunderstand. This movie was very Meh. ProMEHtheus. If I haven't made it clear, it thinks that it's a lot heavier than it really is. It's not even that deep of a concept, and it's been done before. "Jesus as an Ancient Astronaut" theory has been been around for a while.

 

...and its pathetic that Scott, et al, were so out of original ideas that they dug up that junk sci-**** that was last popular with late 1960s Baby Boomers with "alternative ideas" on life. It was nonsense then, and seems desperate to use it now in that "quest for meaning" angle the film played poorly. This is what happens when you have a situation where the director was looking for a way latch on to a series long out of his grasp/influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been floating around for a day or two:

You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

 

 

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

 

Space Jesus, folks. Space Jesus.

I've always enjoyed these sort of ideas, and think it could be brilliant, depending on how they handle it (assuming there's a sequel).

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been floating around for a day or two:

You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

 

 

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

 

Space Jesus, folks. Space Jesus.

I've always enjoyed these sort of ideas, and think it could be brilliant, depending on how they handle it (assuming there's a sequel).

 

:eek:

 

It is rare to have a "brilliant" sequel to a first film so weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I didn't think Prometheus was weak at all. It reminds me a lot of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, in that it is a grand failure, but nevertheless a failure I love to look at.

 

Essentially, a beautiful film with a reach exceeding its grasp, and a narrative weighed down by source material and fan expectations. Hopefully, it follows the Star Trek pattern and tightens its belt for a sequel.

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Wow. Makes me wonder if Alien were released in 2012 instead of 1979, if it would be as poorly received as Prometheus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? There are a lot of similarities, especially surface-level, but at the core, you have two very different movies.

 

Also, while I unabashedly loved Prometheus, it'd be silly to pretend it doesn't have a ton of flaws, some of them just plain silly. So while I found this prettier and more interesting than Alien, there's no denying that Alien was far more iconic, and simply a much better film. Its polish and cohesiveness alone make it superior to Prometheus.

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I didn't think Prometheus was weak at all. It reminds me a lot of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, in that it is a grand failure, but nevertheless a failure I love to look at.

 

Well damn, Pong. Admitting it was a failure on any level sort of kills any reason to continue the storyline. On that note...

 

Essentially, a beautiful film with a reach exceeding its grasp, and a narrative weighed down by source material and fan expectations. Hopefully, it follows the Star Trek pattern and tightens its belt for a sequel.

 

Funny you reference Star Trek--because the answer to moving that series forward was to run as far away from The Motion Picture as possible with Wrath of Khan. For Prometheus, a sequel would be better off taking Shaw in a new direction, with real science-fiction or at least stronger fantasy screenwriters behind the film (which hammers home the idea of the 1st being a mistake). Failing that, I can almost guarantee no one is itching to see more of this Chariots of the Gods/2001 mash-up, much like 1982 audiences did not want to see the Enterprise crew still seeking the meaning of V'Ger with 30 miniute beauty shots of a miniature.

 

If the plot of Prometheus goes the way of ST:TMP, you would be creating an all-new series--a sort of Shaw: Spacegirl from Earth Adventures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Why? There are a lot of similarities, especially surface-level, but at the core, you have two very different movies.

 

Also, while I unabashedly loved Prometheus, it'd be silly to pretend it doesn't have a ton of flaws, some of them just plain silly. So while I found this prettier and more interesting than Alien, there's no denying that Alien was far more iconic, and simply a much better film. Its polish and cohesiveness alone make it superior to Prometheus.

 

:eek:

I am just pondering if Alien is that much better than Prometheus, or if everyone is viewing Alien through rose-colored nostalgia glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well damn, Pong. Admitting it was a failure on any level sort of kills any reason to continue the storyline. On that note...
Totally disagree with this. Sticking with Star Trek, I can think of more than one failure or non-starter in the various series that were tweaked and improved. The Ferengi come to mind immediately, or the Prime Directive ignored, contradicted, and tweaked (imagine Justice had it been written for TOS) before it finally settled down.

 

A good premise suffering from a failure of execution is no reason to drop it altogether.

 

Funny you reference Star Trek--because the answer to moving that series forward was to run as far away from The Motion Picture as possible with Wrath of Khan.
Haha! Touché. No, I wouldn't want that drastic a shift, to be sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just pondering if Alien is that much better than Prometheus, or if everyone is viewing Alien through rose-colored nostalgia glasses.
Can't it be both?

 

Compared to Prometheus, It IS a far superior work... it is also clearly a product of the late '70s that I view through rose-colored glasses!

 

:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Makes me wonder if Alien were released in 2012 instead of 1979, if it would be as poorly received as Prometheus.

 

I think it would. I was a huge fan of Alien when it came out. HUGE FAN. I saw it dozens of times from 79 to about 85 or so. Then I got into other things and didn't have cable anymore (if it was even on cable anymore by that point) so before I knew it 20 plus years had gone by without me seeing the original Alien movie. So I popped it in a few years back ... and I was amazed at how slow paced it was. At how many long stretches went by with no dialogue at all. At how many unnecessary SPFX sequences there were. For instance, it takes so long for them to actually land on the ****ing planet once they set that in motion that even NASA controllers are all like "JUST ****ING LAND ALREADY!" It's ponderous, man, ponderous.

 

As a kid, without the 25 years of exciting fast paced SF/horror movies to compare it to, Alien was the bomb. But it's aged about as well as the original Halloween, which is equally slowly paced by today's standards.

 

Don't get me wrong, both are landmark movies who paved the way for what came after. Both were brilliant for their time. But neither has aged very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

Wow. Makes me wonder if Alien were released in 2012 instead of 1979, if it would be as poorly received as Prometheus.

 

I think it would. I was a huge fan of Alien when it came out. HUGE FAN. I saw it dozens of times from 79 to about 85 or so. Then I got into other things and didn't have cable anymore (if it was even on cable anymore by that point) so before I knew it 20 plus years had gone by without me seeing the original Alien movie. So I popped it in a few years back ... and I was amazed at how slow paced it was. At how many long stretches went by with no dialogue at all. At how many unnecessary SPFX sequences there were. For instance, it takes so long for them to actually land on the ****ing planet once they set that in motion that even NASA controllers are all like "JUST ****ING LAND ALREADY!" It's ponderous, man, ponderous.

 

As a kid, without the 25 years of exciting fast paced SF/horror movies to compare it to, Alien was the bomb. But it's aged about as well as the original Halloween, which is equally slowly paced by today's standards.

 

Don't get me wrong, both are landmark movies who paved the way for what came after. Both were brilliant for their time. But neither has aged very well.

 

 

 

I am just pondering if Alien is that much better than Prometheus, or if everyone is viewing Alien through rose-colored nostalgia glasses.
Can't it be both?

 

Compared to Prometheus, It IS a far superior work... it is also clearly a product of the late '70s that I view through rose-colored glasses!

 

:eek:

I am not saying it has to be one or the other.

 

SD kind of touches on this point, and maybe makes it better than I did, but I was just asking if the reason Prometheus doesn't seem fresh is that we HAVE seen a lot of those elements before*, not only from Alien, but other sci fi tv and movies over the past 30 years. Sort of the same syndrome as what killed Star Trek, to a much lesser degree: over exposure.

 

*

 

extra terrestrials/space astronauts posing as God\Gods, it being revealed life on Earth was "seeded" by another race, android existentialism, aliens wanting to destroy Earth or humanity, a human character questioning religious conviction in the far future when man has travelled to the stars and God seems more a myth than ever, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me over-exposure and lack of "freshness" didn't have much to do with it, and I've seen basically every sci-fi film worth seeing. Pretty much everything that happens in Prometheus is something I've see (in some form or another) in other films, but I'm ok with that. And I think most people are ok with that.

I think it's pretty clear that audiences aren't "receiving" this film as well as they might have because of the barrage of open ended questions and lack of payoffs. It's a hugely distracting factor. I think Scott and Co. were trying to give this tired sci-fi narrative a new sheen of freshness by inundating the audience with over-conceptualization instead of finding something more simple and elemental (storywise) to drag the us along the same journey for the ump-teenth time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.