Blade Runner Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 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. Well said. It appears that the only general/constant negative critique of the film is of a religion/myth base of argument.Nobody would ever want to hear that we (as a race) are nothing but a biological experiment! The immediate reaction is fear and anger, much like some of the audiences!Personally, I find it fascinating (much like David the Android), and it opens up loads of possibilities for a sequel (nothing to do with the Alien franchise)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 On a side note: I am actually beginning to wonder if Ridley Scott, himself, is indeed an android?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Also, has anyone else given any thought to what David may or may not have actually said to the last Engineer?!? Is it not possible, recognizing that Shaw, The Captain, and maybe even Vickers (whom, as far as David was concerned, always had a fatalist/protect your own, point of view), likely would try to prevent the Engineer from HIS objective?!?!? Maybe David told the Engineer that these people are here to stop you!?! Hence, the slight fondness and patting of the head, before the Engineer went all hell bent, killing everone in his path (even David, whom was [ultimately] nothing but a 'toaster' to him, which he recognized immediately)! A theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 An interesting theory, to be sure. It appears that the only general/constant negative critique of the film is of a religion/myth base of argument.Nobody would ever want to hear that we (as a race) are nothing but a biological experiment! The immediate reaction is fear and anger, much like some of the audiences!Personally, I find it fascinating (much like David the Android), and it opens up loads of possibilities for a sequel (nothing to do with the Alien franchise)! I don't have a problem with it myself. Yeah, okay, they started the ****, but we still had to evolve for ourselves for thousands of years. That was all us. This would be like Newton coming back and taking credit for everything Stephen Hawking has put out there. Yeah, you had some impact, mofo, but sit your ass down! He still did the lion's share of his ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I've yet to see this, and despite the lukewarm reviews I still want to. Having said that I didn't like the whole concept of aliens creating our species as a plot point. It's the same reason why I can't watch the History Channel anymore. Aliens didn't create the pyramids, stonehenge, or give us any technology. It was all us, and to believe that it wasn't is just silly. The fact that this movie takes it a step further and says that they created us is really stupid, but I still think the movie might still be watchable depending on how that do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Just because something is a stupid idea in real life doesn't mean it'd be terrible fiction fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 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. Well, I can see how that would bother some people, but I also though it was made clear by RS that he intends to make a sequel, maybe even a trilogy, so in my case, I see it more as an episode in a larger story arc, than simply a movie. 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. well that is more a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Just because something is a stupid idea in real life doesn't mean it'd be terrible fiction fodder. Which is precisely why I said I would see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodus Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 The plot isn't about them creating us, its about humans seeking out what lies beyond the stars found on cave paintings and how they regret their decision to do so. The engineers creating us and wanting to destroy us is just subplot to give them a backstory and flesh out the main plot (ie why we shouldn't have gone poking around). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Does that mean it doesn't deserve scrutiny? I don't want to bash on this film cause it isn't terrible by any means, but I can't help but have the same problems as I did with LOST. Why give the audience questions you aren't going to answer? It's just a method of storytelling I dislike. I don't need answers handed to me, I don't mind having to figure things out on my own-- but gaps? It just ruins things for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I agree, its so very Stephen King, which is why he's such a fan of the series and they were such fans of his writing. Its also very X Files. So all three can kiss my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodus Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 If you stick around long enough, X-Files does answser most of its questions...however, it goes in the way of Star Wars by leaving them unanswered long enough for fanboys to come up with their own proposed answers and then get butthurt when the actual answer given to them doesn't compare in their own opinion to how they would have done it had it been their decision to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Krawlie Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Or the answer is just ****ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I'm actually a fan of leaving things a mystery in most cases. More often than not the explanation doesn't live up to they hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodus Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 That's exactly my point. And with hype being so much more drummed up with the internet, it's worse than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baalzamon Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I did come out disappointed, but at the same time did enjoy some of the newer bits as well yet not really as any sort of inclusion into the old Alien universe. Thinking about it, the original Alien didn't have any heady ideas or concepts, apart from the whole non consensual male rape, sexual imagery, etc. and this felt like an Alien laid an egg inside of an Replicant and this movie is what we got as a result because a lot of what we saw were the big picture ideas that Ridley explored with Blade Runner. Obviously you've covered the religious aspect here a bit, but I think the robot is actually the most important part of the movie for plot and symbolism. How does the face/body hugger get created if it's not the robot? Religion didn't do it. He's the one that can connect us to our god, even though he is completely soul-less, and is absolutely just a tool for humanity/Weyland. Religion couldn't do it. Actually now that I think about it, what did religion do for the plot of this movie other than give them another layer of crap to put on the onion so some lit professors can expound upon this for a class in a few years? I'm not a fan of LOST, yet after getting a lot of the same in Super 8, Fringe, Cloverfield, etc. from JJ and his boys I was hoping NOT to get the kind of thing we got but even though we did, I think with some time to reflect on it I'll be able to live with it, religion and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I'm actually a fan of leaving things a mystery in most cases. More often than not the explanation doesn't live up to they hype. Here's the difference-- Blade Runner had a pretty big unanswered question-- was Deckard a replicant. 30 years later people are still arguing that. Ridley laid out the man's story and gave you clues in both directions, and while he thinks Deckard was a replicant, there's ambiguity to go either way. I am perfectly fine with this question not being directly answered. Why? Because the entire narrative was designed to pose that question, and lead you to your own conclusion. That kind of mystery works fine. Prometheus didn't do that. Instead, it has characters IN the story asking questions aloud that the audience will have, and simply doesn't answer them. It's just weak writing. It's the problem I had with LOST. If you don't want the audioence to be asking a question you don't plan on answering, don't feed it to them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mara Jade Skywalker Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Tank - where do you think the end of Inception falls? Good mystery or bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Tank- For whatever reason I had no problem with the way they ended Lost. As the seasons went on it became apparent to me that they had created more mysteries than they could possibly answer without ruining the show with lame answers (I thought Jacob's origin in particular was pretty lame). I was glad that they left many of them alone and just focused on the characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The way they ended it wouldn't have been so bad if ... in fact, its been two years, let's take this to the TV forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Tex-- that sounds to me more like you made peace with the fact you weren't going to get answers, not that you thought it was expertly ended. Mara-- Inception gave me enough info to allow me to figure it out. Well, assume I did, I could be wrong-- but at least I felt I got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Agreed, the ending to Inception is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitster aka Boba Fett Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You know what the most baffling thing about this movie is? Why they decided to cast Guy Pearce and spend the money to cover him in old man makeup instead of just casting an old man. I kept expecting some old footage of him as a young man. Why needlessly distract the viewer like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 That's part of the muddle of this movie. Several scenes with him as a young man were shot, or at least planned out, but they didn't make it to the final product. Disappointing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I agree, its so very Stephen King, which is why he's such a fan of the series and they were such fans of his writing. Its also very X Files. So all three can kiss my ass.If you stick around long enough, X-Files does answser most of its questions...however, it goes in the way of Star Wars by leaving them unanswered long enough for fanboys to come up with their own proposed answers and then get butthurt when the actual answer given to them doesn't compare in their own opinion to how they would have done it had it been their decision to make.x files explained everything with a nice bow. idk what dex is talking about. btw, i just finished watching every single episode last night. they also didn't leave things unanswered, more like...they left you unsure as to whether there actually were aliens or that is was the government creating an alien cover story to hide the shadow governments experiments. but all that was seasons 4 twists and turns. after the movie, which came in between seasons 4 and 5, it is confirmed that there are indeed aliens. from that point on, everything else is minor details/non big picture alien ****...and scully's baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts