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.
The end where the space ship shaped like a doughnut lands and starts rolling towards her instead of just running sideways so she gets out of it's path she runs along it's course where it's headed. summed it up for me, who on earth would do that?
Saw Prometheus ages ago but i've been reading this thread with enjoyment and i'm surprised at all the hate, it's just a film!!! It's not life or death.
I enjoyed it for what it was - science fiction horror. Let's face it, we're not going to get anything this massive again on a scale like this ever again! I enjoyed it and wish some folk wouldn't take it so seriously. It's bordering on uber anal!
I agree with the plot - far too many holes and not written terribly well and there are far too many characters and things don't make a lot of sense, but it is what it is. Noomi and Fassbender were the highlights.
I don't really care that it's a prequel to Alien i just enjoyed it and thought it was great entertainment. I'm planning on watching it again to take it all in again and see if it improves with a second viewing. If it wasn't hyped up as much as it was and was a standalone movie which had no connection to Alien i don't think people would be hating as much as they are.
I look forward to seeing the Director's Cut on DVD!
I actually really enjoyed the film. I have seen all the Alien films and i think this film fits quite nicely in with them all. It's not a direct prequel and it's not quite a stand alone film. I liked the idea behind the film and like that there are plot holes for a sequel to possibly answer
What amuses me is how so many people compare the film directly to Alien and expect the same execution of the film as the original but then that would be revisiting familiar territory which this film isn't exactly meant to be doing... Just hinting at the familiar. I do enjoy how everyone is analysing this film down to the slightest detail like is a question on a Science exam. It's just a film. It was entertaining and visually attractive. I liked the plot, I liked the characters. I will happily buy it on DVD when it's released but personally I wouldn't stress over it like some are. It's not real, it's not possible. It's just a Science-fiction movie. lol
Everyone chill :-)
The problem I have is it's full of plot holes on a scale I can't compare to ever in a film.
You're right it's not fair to compare it to Aliens as it's basically the remake of the Thing. Aliens land on earth, we discover clues they visited earth we find aliens they asleep in underground spaceship, we wake them up. Aliens have ability to metamorphosis from humans into various alien guises, after we have fought them of course then we kill them as they try to fly away in their spaceships. Usually a sole human survivor in a manner which leaves the story open for a sequel.... I don't think there was a single original idea in the entire film
Saw Prometheus ages ago but i've been reading this thread with enjoyment and i'm surprised at all the hate, it's just a film!!! It's not life or death.
I enjoyed it for what it was - science fiction horror. Let's face it, we're not going to get anything this massive again on a scale like this ever again! I enjoyed it and wish some folk wouldn't take it so seriously. It's bordering on uber anal!
I agree with the plot - far too many holes and not written terribly well and there are far too many characters and things don't make a lot of sense, but it is what it is. Noomi and Fassbender were the highlights.
I don't really care that it's a prequel to Alien i just enjoyed it and thought it was great entertainment. I'm planning on watching it again to take it all in again and see if it improves with a second viewing. If it wasn't hyped up as much as it was and was a standalone movie which had no connection to Alien i don't think people would be hating as much as they are.
I look forward to seeing the Director's Cut on DVD!
It's not all hate...it's justified criticism.
Director's Cut is likely to turn the official DVD into a blank DVD-RW which you can use to record Alien off Sky Movies :rolleyes:
Actually, three people walked out during the showing I was at
There were four in the cinema when we went. The two of us got up and exited halfway through to be followed seconds later by one of the remaining two. This guy must have been trying to pluck up the courage to leave
There were four in the cinema when we went. The two of us got up and exited halfway through to be followed seconds later by one of the remaining two. This guy must have been trying to pluck up the courage to leave
I can't believe I paid a tenner to watch this garbage
Saw it yesterday. Oh dear....best keep it short, and no spoilers.
Now then, all this talk of nonsense plotting, illogical motivation and whatnot is all well and good (and a lot of it deserved), but I would've forgiven these things if the film had delivered in other areas. Alas, it doesn't.
If taken to another planet from where man may have been created, I want to feel something more than anything else. We get some impressive spectacle: the scale of things, the alien vistas etc. But there's no real atmosphere to it. Scott has shot the whole film with the same sterile efficiency he shoots everything else with these days (at least since Thelma and Louise). In place of any genuine mystique or allure, we get a muddy narrative apeing mystery. Some of the gorey deaths and weird imagery pique the interest at times, but ultimately it did remind me of the later series of Lost, wherein the earlier mystique had long since flaked away to leave just unanswered questions and tentative connections, neither of which you still cared about much.
As for the characters true meaning, the Alien connection, the subtexts etc, it's a big, fat so what? They say it's all in the telling rather than what's being told, and that's where Scott and Lindelof have faltered badly. 5.5/10
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-_6bAg&feature=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.
A producer is just someone that puts money up for the production budget, they shouldn't get credit for anything other than essentially gambling on the possible success of the film they choose to back.
A producer is just someone that puts money up for the production budget, they shouldn't get credit for anything other than essentially gambling on the possible success of the film they choose to back.
It very much depends. Some producers are very hands-on with story, others raise the cash, others do deals, others are vanity credits. Don't know for sure about Star Trek, but it was a lot of the LOST crowd, and from what I've read he took a fairly active role in the overall direction the film took.
Just to add - if David was an andriod why was he bleaching his roots during the years the crew were asleep on the journey? do andriods grow hair now?
He was dying his hair because he was trying to emulate Peter O' Toole's character in Lawrence of Arabia, i doubt his hair actually grows, but there's nothing stopping him from dying it.
A producer is just someone that puts money up for the production budget, they shouldn't get credit for anything other than essentially gambling on the possible success of the film they choose to back.
Oooh, thats a bit harsh!
There are many people who call themselves producers and yes, some do very very little, but some run the whole show and themselves into the ground! Got to stick up for the hard working producers out there!
No idea about what kind of producer Ridley may have been, but I imagine he had many many many hands to help him.
He was dying his hair because he was trying to emulate Peter O' Toole's character in Lawrence of Arabia, i doubt his hair actually grows, but there's nothing stopping him from dying it.
yeah, i got that but he only seemed to be doing the roots so i thought he must have had blonde hair to start although i did quite like that they made him want to emulate a movie star. the whole andriod concept has always baffled me, because if they are robots and therefore have no soul how come they always have a personality and David did seem to take a dislike to whatever his name was that mocked hiim for being an andriod (and then turned him into...whatever that was) which means he must have emotion...? anyways, thats not just this film, its pretty much every sci-fi.
"There's a dust storm coming....better get back to the ship quickly. The two missing crewmen will have to stay underground till the morning"
Hang on you bunch of so called clever space exploring scientists....this isn't earth! That dust storm could last 100 years. Those guys underground aren't going to survive that long. Think that illustrates the ridiculous plot and a pathetic script.
Also, they spent years travelling to reach this planet so why the urgency to get off their spacecraft and start rushing round like a bunch of children on an easter egg hunt. In reality and with the technology of the future they would have sent out a series of unmanned drones to explore for them.
Come to think of it....why was this a manned probe at all
Also, they spent years travelling to reach this planet so why the urgency to get off their spacecraft and start rushing round like a bunch of children on an easter egg hunt. In reality and with the technology of the future they would have sent out a series of unmanned drones to explore for them.
I'm guessing they did this for pacing reasons and the screenwriter added the line "you don't wait to open your presents on christmas day" to cover it up.
It would have been much better to give them a legitimate reason to land, like a ship failure or something.
Personally I thought Prometheus was a mish-mash of the crap and the excellent but I have a question. Would have been more interesting as a direct prequel to Alien and not as Scott says that Alien is at least 2 more movies away? What I mean is instead of all the new aliens (the life cycle of which are absolutely baffling!) the ship was full of eggs with the good old xenomorphs and face-huggers we know and love.
I'm guessing they did this for pacing reasons and the screenwriter added the line "you don't wait to open your presents on christmas day" to cover it up.
It would have been much better to give them a legitimate reason to land, like a ship failure or something.
I really struggled to accept most of the logic of the film. The geeky part of me was just asking questions at every point - such as:
- Is it really likely that we would have that level of technology in 75 years time? Our space travel methods are largely the same as they were in 1969, but apparently in 2089 we have faster than light space travel (some that isn't even theoretically possible at the moment).
- If we were going to find our 'creators' wouldn't the world governments insist on being part of the expedition?
- Could one company really afford to spend 1 trillion dollars to go on what was essentially a very risky exploration trip (even considering the motivations of the Guy Pearce character).
- The trip is only 2 years yet they take the risk of putting everyone in stasis and having just one android in charge of the entire ship.
- 1 trillion dollar mission yet at least half of the crew are clearly morons
- Flying within visual range of the alien structure was something like 1000,000 -1
- Why didn't they send more androids to do the initial dangerous expeditionary work and then send out actual humans once they knew it was safe.
- Why did the old pictures point humans towards what was essentially a weapons research lab?
- How on earth does the UI of alien technology work? You press 4 oversized buttons and it does whatever you want?
- There's no way that android can know the alien language without some experience with it - regardless of how many old languages he's learnt.
I really struggled to accept most of the logic of the film. The geeky part of me was just asking questions at every point - such as:
- Is it really likely that we would have that level of technology in 75 years time? Our space travel methods are largely the same as they were in 1969, but apparently in 2089 we have faster than light space travel (some that isn't even theoretically possible at the moment).
- If we were going to find our 'creators' wouldn't the world governments insist on being part of the expedition?
- Could one company really afford to spend 1 trillion dollars to go on what was essentially a very risky exploration trip (even considering the motivations of the Guy Pearce character).
- The trip is only 2 years yet they take the risk of putting everyone in stasis and having just one android in charge of the entire ship.
- 1 trillion dollar mission yet at least half of the crew are clearly morons
- Flying within visual range of the alien structure was something like 1000,000 -1
- Why didn't they send more androids to do the initial dangerous expeditionary work and then send out actual humans once they knew it was safe.
- Why did the old pictures point humans towards what was essentially a weapons research lab?
- How on earth does the UI of alien technology work? You press 4 oversized buttons and it does whatever you want?
- There's no way that android can know the alien language without some experience with it - regardless of how many old languages he's learnt.
Sorry - I am very sad sometimes . . . .
One more question....will we still be drinking alcohol in 2089?
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??
What we thought was the Space Jockey in Alien was actually just his space suit and helmet.
- Is it really likely that we would have that level of technology in 75 years time?
Sure, why not? People tend to over-estimate what can be done in a year, and under-estimate what can be done in 10 years. In 1900 we didn't even have aeroplanes. By 1975 we'd landed on the moon. Similarly with developments in computers, cars, television... 75 years can be a long time.
- If we were going to find our 'creators' wouldn't the world governments insist on being part of the expedition?
We don't know much about the politics, but I expect Weyland was too powerful to stop. I doubt the governments even knew he was going. They certainly wouldn't fund it.
- Could one company really afford to spend 1 trillion dollars to go on what was essentially a very risky exploration trip (even considering the motivations of the Guy Pearce character).
Sure, why not? Compare with, for example, James Cameron going on a jaunt to the Mariana Trench, or Richard Branson's plans to build a space hotel. Weyland had enormous power and resources, and strong motivation.
- The trip is only 2 years yet they take the risk of putting everyone in stasis and having just one android in charge of the entire ship.
Stasis was probably safer (and cheaper) than having them walking around all the time. Regardless, the use of stasis has been established in the first two films and is now part of the canon.
- 1 trillion dollar mission yet at least half of the crew are clearly morons
Agreed. Also, it seemed weird they'd signed up for a 4+ year mission without knowing where they were going or what they'd be doing when they got there. (I do wonder whether Wayland insisted they not be told to keep it secret, and only morons agreed to his conditions.)
- Why didn't they send more androids to do the initial dangerous expeditionary work and then send out actual humans once they knew it was safe.
I don't think there were many more androids. The technology is new at this point. Also, why? Androids are hardly dispensable - they are probably more expensive than humans. They also have feelings, apparently, so it's not like sending a remote probe.
- Why did the old pictures point humans towards what was essentially a weapons research lab?
It probably wasn't a weapons lab when the paintings were made. Also, they might have got the wrong location.
- How on earth does the UI of alien technology work? You press 4 oversized buttons and it does whatever you want?
No. David spent the years in flight researching possible languages, and then had to fiddle for a while to get things to work.
Comments
At the end some of the characters didn't seem to care whether they lived or died either.
The scene where human ingests a bit of alien slime in his vodka and coke and transformed into an alien was pretty pathetic.
Was good to see stringer in a film though, always liked his character in the Wire.
The end where the space ship shaped like a doughnut lands and starts rolling towards her instead of just running sideways so she gets out of it's path she runs along it's course where it's headed. summed it up for me, who on earth would do that?
I enjoyed it for what it was - science fiction horror. Let's face it, we're not going to get anything this massive again on a scale like this ever again! I enjoyed it and wish some folk wouldn't take it so seriously. It's bordering on uber anal!
I agree with the plot - far too many holes and not written terribly well and there are far too many characters and things don't make a lot of sense, but it is what it is. Noomi and Fassbender were the highlights.
I don't really care that it's a prequel to Alien i just enjoyed it and thought it was great entertainment. I'm planning on watching it again to take it all in again and see if it improves with a second viewing. If it wasn't hyped up as much as it was and was a standalone movie which had no connection to Alien i don't think people would be hating as much as they are.
I look forward to seeing the Director's Cut on DVD!
Actually, three people walked out during the showing I was at.
Surely no-one is saying that--except perhaps the 'official review' on the official website, which calls it a 'nearly perfect film'. :eek:
Unlike Alien--which is, IMHO. Hence the sense of disappointment.
What amuses me is how so many people compare the film directly to Alien and expect the same execution of the film as the original but then that would be revisiting familiar territory which this film isn't exactly meant to be doing... Just hinting at the familiar. I do enjoy how everyone is analysing this film down to the slightest detail like is a question on a Science exam. It's just a film. It was entertaining and visually attractive. I liked the plot, I liked the characters. I will happily buy it on DVD when it's released but personally I wouldn't stress over it like some are. It's not real, it's not possible. It's just a Science-fiction movie. lol
Everyone chill :-)
You're right it's not fair to compare it to Aliens as it's basically the remake of the Thing. Aliens land on earth, we discover clues they visited earth we find aliens they asleep in underground spaceship, we wake them up. Aliens have ability to metamorphosis from humans into various alien guises, after we have fought them of course then we kill them as they try to fly away in their spaceships. Usually a sole human survivor in a manner which leaves the story open for a sequel.... I don't think there was a single original idea in the entire film
It's not all hate...it's justified criticism.
Director's Cut is likely to turn the official DVD into a blank DVD-RW which you can use to record Alien off Sky Movies :rolleyes:
There were four in the cinema when we went. The two of us got up and exited halfway through to be followed seconds later by one of the remaining two. This guy must have been trying to pluck up the courage to leave
I can't believe I paid a tenner to watch this garbage
Now then, all this talk of nonsense plotting, illogical motivation and whatnot is all well and good (and a lot of it deserved), but I would've forgiven these things if the film had delivered in other areas. Alas, it doesn't.
If taken to another planet from where man may have been created, I want to feel something more than anything else. We get some impressive spectacle: the scale of things, the alien vistas etc. But there's no real atmosphere to it. Scott has shot the whole film with the same sterile efficiency he shoots everything else with these days (at least since Thelma and Louise). In place of any genuine mystique or allure, we get a muddy narrative apeing mystery. Some of the gorey deaths and weird imagery pique the interest at times, but ultimately it did remind me of the later series of Lost, wherein the earlier mystique had long since flaked away to leave just unanswered questions and tentative connections, neither of which you still cared about much.
As for the characters true meaning, the Alien connection, the subtexts etc, it's a big, fat so what? They say it's all in the telling rather than what's being told, and that's where Scott and Lindelof have faltered badly. 5.5/10
It very much depends. Some producers are very hands-on with story, others raise the cash, others do deals, others are vanity credits. Don't know for sure about Star Trek, but it was a lot of the LOST crowd, and from what I've read he took a fairly active role in the overall direction the film took.
If you didnt like it then dont buy the dvd.
For goodness sakes grow up and get a life!
Film fans on a film forum discussing a film they've seen :rolleyes:
He was dying his hair because he was trying to emulate Peter O' Toole's character in Lawrence of Arabia, i doubt his hair actually grows, but there's nothing stopping him from dying it.
Oooh, thats a bit harsh!
There are many people who call themselves producers and yes, some do very very little, but some run the whole show and themselves into the ground! Got to stick up for the hard working producers out there!
No idea about what kind of producer Ridley may have been, but I imagine he had many many many hands to help him.
yeah, i got that but he only seemed to be doing the roots so i thought he must have had blonde hair to start although i did quite like that they made him want to emulate a movie star. the whole andriod concept has always baffled me, because if they are robots and therefore have no soul how come they always have a personality and David did seem to take a dislike to whatever his name was that mocked hiim for being an andriod (and then turned him into...whatever that was) which means he must have emotion...? anyways, thats not just this film, its pretty much every sci-fi.
Hang on you bunch of so called clever space exploring scientists....this isn't earth! That dust storm could last 100 years. Those guys underground aren't going to survive that long. Think that illustrates the ridiculous plot and a pathetic script.
Also, they spent years travelling to reach this planet so why the urgency to get off their spacecraft and start rushing round like a bunch of children on an easter egg hunt. In reality and with the technology of the future they would have sent out a series of unmanned drones to explore for them.
Come to think of it....why was this a manned probe at all
I'm guessing they did this for pacing reasons and the screenwriter added the line "you don't wait to open your presents on christmas day" to cover it up.
It would have been much better to give them a legitimate reason to land, like a ship failure or something.
Just a thought
I really struggled to accept most of the logic of the film. The geeky part of me was just asking questions at every point - such as:
- Is it really likely that we would have that level of technology in 75 years time? Our space travel methods are largely the same as they were in 1969, but apparently in 2089 we have faster than light space travel (some that isn't even theoretically possible at the moment).
- If we were going to find our 'creators' wouldn't the world governments insist on being part of the expedition?
- Could one company really afford to spend 1 trillion dollars to go on what was essentially a very risky exploration trip (even considering the motivations of the Guy Pearce character).
- The trip is only 2 years yet they take the risk of putting everyone in stasis and having just one android in charge of the entire ship.
- 1 trillion dollar mission yet at least half of the crew are clearly morons
- Flying within visual range of the alien structure was something like 1000,000 -1
- Why didn't they send more androids to do the initial dangerous expeditionary work and then send out actual humans once they knew it was safe.
- Why did the old pictures point humans towards what was essentially a weapons research lab?
- How on earth does the UI of alien technology work? You press 4 oversized buttons and it does whatever you want?
- There's no way that android can know the alien language without some experience with it - regardless of how many old languages he's learnt.
Sorry - I am very sad sometimes . . . .
One more question....will we still be drinking alcohol in 2089?
Sure, why not? People tend to over-estimate what can be done in a year, and under-estimate what can be done in 10 years. In 1900 we didn't even have aeroplanes. By 1975 we'd landed on the moon. Similarly with developments in computers, cars, television... 75 years can be a long time.
We don't know much about the politics, but I expect Weyland was too powerful to stop. I doubt the governments even knew he was going. They certainly wouldn't fund it.
Sure, why not? Compare with, for example, James Cameron going on a jaunt to the Mariana Trench, or Richard Branson's plans to build a space hotel. Weyland had enormous power and resources, and strong motivation.
Stasis was probably safer (and cheaper) than having them walking around all the time. Regardless, the use of stasis has been established in the first two films and is now part of the canon.
Agreed. Also, it seemed weird they'd signed up for a 4+ year mission without knowing where they were going or what they'd be doing when they got there. (I do wonder whether Wayland insisted they not be told to keep it secret, and only morons agreed to his conditions.)
I don't think there were many more androids. The technology is new at this point. Also, why? Androids are hardly dispensable - they are probably more expensive than humans. They also have feelings, apparently, so it's not like sending a remote probe.
It probably wasn't a weapons lab when the paintings were made. Also, they might have got the wrong location.
No. David spent the years in flight researching possible languages, and then had to fiddle for a while to get things to work.