[planetnokia]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

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?

[brangdon]

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??

What we thought was the Space Jockey in Alien was actually just his space suit and helmet.

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

- 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.

[peon]

Originally Posted by brangdon

What we thought was the Space Jockey in Alien was actually just his space suit and helmet

i get that and agree, but the scale is still well out. look at the length of the arms on the Space Jockey in Alien, they're huge. if you were to stand the space jockey up straight, from what you can see of him in the gunner seat he must be at least 15 foot tall. i think I agree with the poster who suggested that in order to use the space jockey character at a practical size, some artistic license has been applied and the scale reduced.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by peon

i get that and agree, but the scale is still well out. look at the length of the arms on the Space Jockey in Alien, they're huge. if you were to stand the space jockey up straight, from what you can see of him in the gunner seat he must be at least 15 foot tall. i think I agree with the poster who suggested that in order to use the space jockey character at a practical size, some artistic license has been applied and the scale reduced.

It doesn't bear close examination - Scott made a huge mistake when he messed with the generally accepted identity of the Space Jockey - it's NOT 'some bald albino in a suit' - just look at Giger's original paintings to see that the Space Jockey is SUPPOSED to be skeletal (the original paintings even showed it with a transparent dome (helmet) over its skeletal head). No amount of unimaginative and clumsy ret-conning by Scott will change that.

[peon]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

It doesn't bear close examination - Scott made a huge mistake when he messed with the generally accepted identity of the Space Jockey - it's NOT 'some bald albino in a suit' - just look at Giger's original paintings to see that the Space Jockey is SUPPOSED to be skeletal (the original paintings even showed it with a transparent dome (helmet) over its skeletal head). No amount of unimaginative and clumsy ret-conning by Scott will change that.

i agree. the potential for exploring a very, very intriguing race from Alien has been squandered.

[Wulfster]

Apologies if this has cropped up earlier in the thread (I did check, but you never know if you've skipped a page), but I thought people might be interested in this article;

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/566...eer-prometheus

Basically it's what some linguist reckons David says to the engineer, which kind of clarifys his motives and relationship with his boss.

BTW, posted early in the thread when I first saw it and been watching the divisory exchanges.
Most interesting.
As I mentioned in an earlier post. some guy near me stood up in the cinema, swearing profusely and declaring that he was going to "..stab Ridley Scott in the ****ing heart!".
Obviously the strong feelings continue...
Personally, I liked and enjoyed it, but I can appreciate the reasons for other people not doing so..
Murder still seems like a slight over-reaction though ...

[Dan Fortesque]

I was disappointed with this film as well. No tension with characters difficult to identify with. Also, the Space Jockey in the first film seemed more sympathetic too, having met the same fate after sending what appeared to be a warning signal out.

Spoiler

I also thought the creature looked a bit ridiculous, and ended up looking like a giant octopus near the end.

[InTheLoop]

Can we have a DS poll for this film? Would be interested to see its average rating amongst users

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by InTheLoop

Can we have a DS poll for this film? Would be interested to see its average rating amongst users

I think a poll would be a good idea as well, but I think it would be interesting to see also if it made any difference whether people had seen it in 2D or 3D. I have a suspicion that people who saw it in 3D will be more inclined to like it, and it would be good to know whether it's at all true.

[Rama-Posh_Drama]

I saw it in 3D - I did enjoy it but unlike the Alien films I didnt actually like any of the characters so I didn't mind it they met a grizzly end or not. I did enjoy exploring the Alien world though. I could have done with some scares!

[revolver44]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

I was disappointed with this film as well. No tension with characters difficult to identify with. Also, the Space Jockey in the first film seemed more sympathetic too, having met the same fate after sending what appeared to be a warning signal out.

I thought the same, but Scott has decided for whatever reason to have the Engineers as the 'enemy' of man in this movie. The warning singal still works tho, the last thing the Engineers would have wanted was for anyone (be it them or a different species) to wander onto that rock, become infected and then head off to goodness knows where, possibly somewhere the Engineers were present.

[revolver44]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

1 trillion dollar mission yet at least half of the crew are clearly morons.

This was the major let down of the movie for me. As much as I enjoyed it (I rated it 8/10), as soon as I saw Sean Harris mouthing off in the briefing room my heart did sink a little
A trillion dollar expedition team would consist of characters who are driven largely by their professionalism & ability to function rationally in unusual & stressful situations (the same way NASA operate), not tattoo covered confrontational types with mohicans. Utterly ridiculous.

[lil lexie]

finally managed to see it last night.

First off, let me say that I think the person responsible for editing the trailer deserves an award. Everyone else involved in this mess deserves a good slap.

I got the impression it was written by a hyperactive ten year old. It was just gibberish...

Spoiler

...an alien drinks some poison and dies and some people find a map written on the wall and then they go and follow the map and then they find a building on another planet and they have to go back to the spaceship and then they have sex and then one of them gets infected by something and then two people get attacked by something else and then one gets killed by the angry woman with a flame-thrower and then another one attacks everyone and then something about an old bloke and then a women has an alien baby and then some more stuff happens and everyone is happy because they crash the spaceship into another spaceship and then the woman flies away on another alien spaceship and the alien comes out of another alien and then...
the end.

And as other have mentioned what was particularly disappointing was the unmasking of the Space Jokey. Did they have to unmask the alien, did they have to let us down by showing this weird and wonderful beast to be nothing more than a bald bloke in a costume? Lucas showed the same lack of imagination by unmasking Boba Fett and within the blink of an eye, all your childhood fantasies are destroyed. Why do they do that? It's really annoying.

On the positive side though, the 3D effects were rather good until about half way through the film where the attention to the 3D detail seems to get abandoned. And the technological designs were pretty amazing.

But overall, I thought it was disappointing, possibly one of the worst Alien films I've seen (not counting AVP films). At least a film like Resurrection had a cohesive plot (although admittedly a rather contrived and paper thin plot).

Such a missed opportunity.

[CD93]

possibly one of the worst Alien films I've seen

But it doesn't count because it's "not an Alien film"

[Voynich]

Yeah, it was a very unsatisfying movie. However it was entertaining and it looked and sounded stunning on the IMAX 3D screen.

[lil lexie]

Originally Posted by CD93

But it doesn't count because it's "not an Alien film"

tbh, I don't quite understand why all involved decided to announce after it was made that this isn't an Alien film, when quite clearly it is (unless I imagined the final scene of an Alien doing what Aliens generally do in Alien films (ie. a bit of chest bursting)).

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by lil lexie

tbh, I don't quite understand why all involved decided to announce after it was made that this isn't an Alien film, when quite clearly it is (unless I imagined the final scene of an Alien doing what Aliens generally do in Alien films (ie. a bit of chest bursting)).

Yes, that was a deformed Alien, but an Alien nonetheless. It's very clearly an Alien prequel, set on the same planet, with the same broken-down space ship and even the same dead "Engineer".

I'm hoping there is a sequel. Not because I thought this film was spectacular, but because I want answers. According to an interview, this film was intended to leave us asking questions, but I, personally, was left scratching my head.

I'd also like to know if the Alien at the end was in fact the queen seen in Aliens, but, as the sequel to Prometheus is supposed to "tangentalise further away from the Alien films" I guess we'll never know.

[barracuda91]

Originally Posted by maurice45

Yes, that was a deformed Alien, but an Alien nonetheless. It's very clearly an Alien prequel, set on the same planet, with the same broken-down space ship and even the same dead "Engineer".

I'm hoping there is a sequel. Not because I thought this film was spectacular, but because I want answers. According to an interview, this film was intended to leave us asking questions, but I, personally, was left scratching my head.

I'd also like to know if the Alien at the end was in fact the queen seen in Aliens, but, as the sequel to Prometheus is supposed to "tangentalise further away from the Alien films" I guess we'll never know.

Actually that's not true. It's not on the same planet as Alien so it's not the same ship or Engineer.

I hope there is a sequel too, for the answers to questions that weren't already answered in the film itself, but also because I did love the film, so would love to see Elizabeth's journey continue.

I wondered if the alien at the end was the queen aswell, but I had read somewhere that apparently the first Alien film is the only one in the franchise that Prometheus ties in with, so there may not be a queen. Who knows, there's a lot of speculation, but I would like it to be the queen myself.

[mwardy]

Originally Posted by maurice45

Yes, that was a deformed Alien, but an Alien nonetheless. It's very clearly an Alien prequel, set on the same planet, with the same broken-down space ship and even the same dead "Engineer".

It's not the same planet/spaceship/Engineer. It's quite clearly labelled "LV-223" near the start. But you'd be forgiven for thinking it was the same setup at the end that we get in Alien, where the planet is LV-426. I did, not because I'd not noticed the name earlier but because I'd decided by the end that whoever was in charge of this mess didn't know or care what they were doing so it didn't matter to them that nothing matched up. Now we know there are two more on the way that obviously wasn't a fair reaction, but it's their own fault!

While I'm here, I enjoyed Wulfster's report of another viewer's reaction earlier (post 856).

Edit: beaten to it--but what different verdicts!

BTW it's been a while since I mentioned it so it might be worth another plug. Here is a brilliant 'summary' of the script. It didn't make me like the film, but it made me glad I'd seen it to be able to appreciate its delights.

[lil lexie]

I was aware that it wasn't the same planet or the same space jokey as the one in Alien, maybe I was made more aware of this by the hammering home by the director that this WASN'T a prequel, since it wasn't made that obvious in the film (other than the planet having a slightly different name).

Just out of interest, I seem to remember in the trailer a shot of the Space Jockey rising out of the floor on his gun turret thingy but don't actually remember this scene in the film, though I may have nodded off for a second.

The more I think about this film the more it annoys me, everything about it just screamed 'hack job' - the search for eternal life . Wouldn't it have been far more interesting (and logical) if Weyland were searching for the answers to terraforming to which the 'engineers' had the answer?

I personally didn't find any 'questions' as such, other than that initial question posed in the opening shot. The rest of the conundrums seem to be to be the result of shoddy writing and editing - eg. space ladders ? (maybe the aliens had just had the decorators round?).

[Voynich]

Was anyone else thinking "Don't pet the alien snake thing FFS. It's NOT beautiful or cute. Run!!"

[lil lexie]

Originally Posted by Voynich

Was anyone else thinking "Don't pet the alien snake thing FFS. It's NOT beautiful or cute. Run!!"

I'm sure any scientist first reaction to discovering a form of extraterrestrial life would have been to try and pet it.

this film was so dumb it was insulting.

[Listentome]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

It doesn't bear close examination - Scott made a huge mistake when he messed with the generally accepted identity of the Space Jockey - it's NOT 'some bald albino in a suit' - just look at Giger's original paintings to see that the Space Jockey is SUPPOSED to be skeletal (the original paintings even showed it with a transparent dome (helmet) over its skeletal head). No amount of unimaginative and clumsy ret-conning by Scott will change that.

Part of me would like to be optimistic that there is still an opportunity to explore the giant Space Jockey on LV-426, and why it is so much bigger than the Space Jockey in Prometheus. But we all know that aint ever going to happen. Unless Elizabeth ends up on their home world and finds out they come in different sizes.

But you are right, the Space Jockeys have be radically redesigned to the point that I just consider the creature in Alien as inspiration for those in Prometheus, but in no way related.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by Listentome

Part of me would like to be optimistic that there is still an opportunity to explore the giant Space Jockey on LV-426, and why it is so much bigger than the Space Jockey in Prometheus. But we all know that aint ever going to happen. Unless Elizabeth ends up on their home world and finds out they come in different sizes.

But you are right, the Space Jockeys have be radically redesigned to the point that I just consider the creature in Alien as inspiration for those in Prometheus, but in no way related.

That's a good way of looking at it - an alternative is to view this naff little film as a reboot. It can then be 100% ignored.

[Conall Cearnach]

Originally Posted by Listentome

Part of me would like to be optimistic that there is still an opportunity to explore the giant Space Jockey on LV-426, and why it is so much bigger than the Space Jockey in Prometheus. But we all know that aint ever going to happen. Unless Elizabeth ends up on their home world and finds out they come in different sizes.

But you are right, the Space Jockeys have be radically redesigned to the point that I just consider the creature in Alien as inspiration for those in Prometheus, but in no way related.

Well the Space Jockeys have the ability to manipulate genes so maybe over the years they manipulated themselves into becoming bigger (or smaller). Sort of like if humans had the ability to make ourselves taller or have bigger penises etc. would we do it? Of course we would.