[SXTony]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

It'd be easy to pick up on specific plot holes and lord knows there are many (humans bring sick guy back to spaceship, crew refuse to let him aboard, torch him with a flame-thrower then run him over with a truck after he goes nuts and then, barely a couple of minutes later, a dead guy shows up again all by himself and they let him aboard without hesitation for example) but I don't think that's the biggest problem.

You seem to be muddling two different character and two different scenes up there.

Spoiler

Holloway was was the sick guy they wanted to take onto the ship, but was flamed by Vickers - End of him.

Then later a missing Fairfield (I'm not sure of his name) is outside the ship and the crew investigate only for him to go on a rampage and he is burnt and run over - End of him.

I'm not sure what dead guy you refer to that is let back on.

I liked the film, I was impressed by the effects, I thought the 3D was very well done. I don't mind that the film makers expect us to have to think about elements of the film or that we are left with questions. What I do mind though, is characters being completely illogical in their actions and thinking. I expect someone of Ridley Scott's class to be above all that. So that put a bit of a downer on an, otherwise, enjoyable movie.

PS, I'd abandon all my crew to grizzely deaths if it meant I'd get a shag off Charlize Theron.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by PJ68

was really disappointed with this film when i first saw it but now, semingly like many other people, i'm starting to think i want to see it again

all these theories people have... do they have a point do you think (ie is it deliberate that we are having to fill in the gaps) or is it people grasping at straws and the film is actually just sloppily written and thought out?

blade runner was slaughtered when it first came out, no one 'got' it. now look at it though.

But at least Blade Runner didn't have a shonky script and awful dialogue. Prometheus, on the other hand ......... does.

[barracuda91]

Saw it for the second time last night and, again, loved it. Was good to watch it again after reading multiple theories and possible answers to the questions. Still a few questions that remain unanswered but I knew there was talk before the film was released that it was planned to be a trilogy so I definitely expect those questions to be answered in the possible sequels. One thing I'm really intrigued by

Spoiler

is the glowing green egg-type object that Holloway looks at the first time they enter the room with the vases and the head. Also, what the head itself is meant to be.

Oh yeah, it may have already been mentioned and I never noticed it myself, but it's interesting that the names of the four androids throughout the Alien franchise are in alphabetical order: Ash, Bishop, Call, and David. Not sure if it's coincidence or if there was always a reason for doing that.

[brangdon]

Originally Posted by PJ68

blade runner was slaughtered when it first came out, no one 'got' it. now look at it though.

I loved it from the first viewing. And I really want to like Prometheus.

Originally Posted by doom&gloom

But I wouldn't go and see it again, it's not like the plot holes will fill themselves in or you'll start caring about any of the characters.

I think there is potential for a Director's Cut to improve it immensely. One of the problems for me was not understanding why characters did half the things they did, and it wouldn't take much to make that clearer.

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Now, what if Shaw is wrong and we're the "before" rather than the "after"?
What if life already existed on Earth but the Engineers had showed-up and decided to wipe us out and "redevelop" the place with their own brand of xenomorphic life?

It's hard to square that with them having the same DNA as us.

I don't know (or much care) whether they created all life on Earth, but it does seem they played a big part in making us what we are. Or rather, what we were 35,000 years ago. In that sense, we are their children, created by them, just as David was created by us. (And we don't necessarily like all the things David is doing, either.)

[mwardy]

In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's an inspired precis of the film:

http://m15m.livejournal.com/23209.html

Short extract:

Spoiler

Outside the Good Ship Prometheus

[Zombie Mutant Fifield has spidered his way back to the ship ankles over ass. Seriously, I may have to draw you a diagram.]

JACKSON, HEAD OF SECURITY: Well, this seems legit. Open the door and let him on in.


[FIRE AND HEAD-SMASHING AND AXES, THE FLAMES, OH GOD, THE FLAMES]

JACKSON, HEAD OF SECURITY: OH GOD! WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING?

[LykkieLi]

It was watchable but I really wasn't impressed by it. What was the point of Charlize's character? The caesarian was not believable and the characters weren't built up in any way, so I couldn't have cared less about whether they lived or died.

[doom&gloom]

One thing I noticed was Benedict Wong from Sunshine, the only Chinese person in space, is he getting typecast?

[peon]

what I didn't understand was, the Engineers in Prometheus were big, around 7 - 8 foot tall, but the Space Jockey in Alien was absolutely massive, around twice that at an estimate from the size of his torso and arms in comparison with Dallas and Lambert etc??

[Rincewind78]

Originally Posted by peon

what I didn't understand was, the Engineers in Prometheus were big, around 7 - 8 foot tall, but the Space Jockey in Alien was absolutely massive, around twice that at an estimate from the size of his torso and arms in comparison with Dallas and Lambert etc??

maybe different clans of Space jockeys?!

[Inspiration]

Could just be because in Alien it wasn't important as they were never seen moving around but in Prometheus they were.. and they couldn't have been as big as they were in Alien, otherwise it would have looked silly. So they were downscaled a bit?

[blueisthecolour]

I watch the film in 3D last week and I was a bit disappointed. I found it reasonably enjoyable but imho a lot of it was just stupid. I wasn't particularly impressed with the characterization or dialogue and lots of it just didn't make sense to me.

I have read that there was supposed to be a lot of subtext and that you need to 'think' about the film as you watch it to get the most out of it. Which is fair enough for those that can be bothered but that wasn't me!

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

I watch the film in 3D last week and I was a bit disappointed. I found it reasonably enjoyable but imho a lot of it was just stupid. I wasn't particularly impressed with the characterization or dialogue and lots of it just didn't make sense to me.

I have read that there was supposed to be a lot of subtext and that you need to 'think' about the film as you watch it to get the most out of it. Which is fair enough for those that can be bothered but that wasn't me!

There's no subtext - that's just something that some people have come up with to justify their supposed enjoyment of this very poorly written film, a film that has the intellectual depth of a puddle.

There's nothing that you need to work out or understand - it's all clumsily spelled out with some very obvious exposition and dreadful dialogue.

[Noiseboy]

Originally Posted by mwardy

Having had time to digest it a bit more, as you have, my attitude has changed a bit. Yes, it was trying to be really good. There is clearly a mature, thoughtful and subtle script hiding in there but it's been ruined by needless, boneheaded characterisation, behaviour and plot development/editing. It's like a talented artist who has been working on a fine charcoal drawing returning to it to find their kid has scrawled a picture of their house on it with primary coloured crayons.

I mostly agree - I'm not sure that the script was fine art, but so far the evidence points to it being a lot better than the final film.

Recent form:
Lindelof - 6 seasons of strong characters on LOST, produced Star Trek which is notable for the strength of characterisation. Scott - little interest in character post-Thelma and Louise.

BTW, this short interview is interesting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuJkJ...ature=youtu.be . I buy all Lindelof's choices here, as described the original script doesn't sound interesting. However, it doesn't take anything away from the fact that in the final film, all the characters are MORONS. The premise is fine, it's the characters.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by Noiseboy

I mostly agree - I'm not sure that the script was fine art, but so far the evidence points to it being a lot better than the final film.

Recent form:
Lindelof - 6 seasons of strong characters on LOST, produced Star Trek which is notable for the strength of characterisation. Scott - little interest in character post-Thelma and Louise.

So you haven't seen Kingdon of Heaven: Director's Cut ???

[Noiseboy]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

So you haven't seen Kingdon of Heaven: Director's Cut ???

No I haven't, but it's significant that it's a director's cut. He seems almost proud of getting stuff cut down and being "studio-friendly", though I see he called the original cut of Kingdom of Heaven a "mistake". So ok, when was strength of characterisation a feature of a Ridley Scott theatrical release post-Thelma and Louise? I know plenty like Gladiator, but it didn't impress me at all, it had little of substance or interest for me.

[kendoguk]

I liked it but that's it.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by Noiseboy

No I haven't, but it's significant that it's a director's cut. He seems almost proud of getting stuff cut down and being "studio-friendly", though I see he called the original cut of Kingdom of Heaven a "mistake".

True on both counts.

So ok, when was strength of characterisation a feature of a Ridley Scott theatrical release post-Thelma and Louise?

You've got me there.

I know plenty like Gladiator, but it didn't impress me at all, it had little of substance or interest for me.

I agree with you there - for me Gladiator is terribly over-rated and badly written.

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

There's no subtext - that's just something that some people have come up with to justify their supposed enjoyment of this very poorly written film, a film that has the intellectual depth of a puddle.

There's nothing that you need to work out or understand - it's all clumsily spelled out with some very obvious exposition and dreadful dialogue.

That's my opinion as well. I have a feeling that there's a lot of 'emperor's new clothes' talk going on - but i'm willing to accept the possibility that it just went over my head.

[LykkieLi]

Action and special effects was all there was to it. Not my C.O.T.

[Rata1]

I enjoyed it, probably mainly because it was the first film I have seen in 3D. Other than that, I spent most of the film trying to work out how far from earth 3.27 x 10^14 is, as I didn't have a calculator handy

I've since found the answer:

They travelled 34.5 light years in 28.5 months, so that's 14.5 times the speed of light.

[performingmonk]

Did anyone care how far they were from Earth or how fast they had travelled in Alien?? And did anyone care that the alien itself was so mysterious, not to mention the distress signal, crashed ship, space jockey pilot etc. ?? People only seem interested in the anal details now.

[Matt D]

Alien actually had suspense, non-stupid characters, a decent script, and didn't pose stupid questions or have characters make ridiculous assumptions.

[Scooterwolf]

I saw a comment on another site last night saying if the atmosphere/suspense in this movie was similar to "Sunshine" then it would of been a great movie rather than a good movie.

I'd probably have to agree, even at 2hrs long it just seemed rushed and I couldn't care for any of the characters.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by Scooterwolf

I saw a comment on another site last night saying if the atmosphere/suspense in this movie was similar to "Sunshine" then it would of been a great movie rather than a bad movie.

I'd probably have to agree, even at 2hrs long it just seemed rushed and I couldn't care for any of the characters.

Fixed that for you.

Far better writing would have also helped immensely.

[planetnokia]

Haven't read any of the other posts yet....will do so after I've got this off my chest.

We walked out of the cinema halfway through the film. That was the biggest load of tosh I've ever seen. I was so bored I'd reached that stage where I didn't actually care what happened next in the movie. I didn't identify with any of the characters and so didn't care if they survived or died.

It wasn't a patch on the original Alien, it was riddled with mistakes that a real scientific team would not have made and the fact that it totally lacked a decent plot or storyline meant it was forced to rely on cliche computer graphics.

Phew...what a stinker

Now to read all those earlier posts that claim that this was Ridley Scott's best effort ever