Prometheus (2012) (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

Spoiler

(BTW, any explanation for how David grows hair?)

Something in a sequel or the AVPs or Prometheus might contradict this but I thought that part of the android simulation would include normal human functions like hair, beard or finger nails that grow, skin that heals from small cuts, the ability to create spit, etc.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, I went back and read through the things I wrote here about Prometheus and the one thing I really failed to do in most cases was openly explain my thoughts on the film. I was accused by more than one person here of "ranting" or "railing" about the film but I honestly don't see that in anything I said and I certainly did not feel I was doing that when I wrote those things. I did pose several things as questions but that was because I was attempting not to just tell people things about the film I was trying to create a discussion where other people could provide their input.

I think the key to having a good discussion is asking people questions and not assuming you know what they are saying and never attempting to characterize what they are saying...like telling somebody they are ranting or railing. So, my questions were not meant to cause other people to dislike the film it was a way to try to get people to open up and discuss it.

I did also attempt to make some jokes (my post where I wrote a dialogue of back and forth about what the writers may have been thinking) and those obviously went over like a lead balloon. My guess is because the internet is generally a rude and insulting place people took my comments as intending to insult and be rude...plus I think because I openly said I dislike the film all of my comments were taken in some sort of hostile way. I was genuinely baffled when comments I made about rating the film were taken as a "rant" when all I did was discuss the rating process. And then there is always the issue of when you tell somebody you don't like something they like you have dove into dangerous waters where they make take extreme offense to that and I have seen that happen here and elsewhere.

So, while I may not be several peoples favorite person I never intended to upset, bother, or make people dislike the film. If you read my posts as if we were sitting in a bar having a beer and I am asking things or suggesting things with a genuine curiosity about what you think and what you think about what I am saying you will then be reading them with my intended tone. If you read them thinking I am attempting to insult you or sway you to dislike this picture then you are way off base.

I am saying all this because I don't want to have a "heated" discussion or an argument. I am not trying to litigate things to WIN something. So please do not think when I post it is with the intention to insult you or be rude to you or to generate dislike of this picture.

 

[Tino]

No offense Reggie my friend but you still don't get it.

Please listen carefully

The only thing you have done is state some of your opinions as FACT.

That's it. You haven't made anyone that liked the film dislike it or vice versa.

Again no one cares how you or I feel about the film.

It's the way you state your opinions.

Do
You
Get
It
Now
??

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, this is ported over from a different thread about a different film...it is of course more Prometheus discussion...

We ended up here because youre arguing over semantics. You said that calling it a c-section implies that she wanted to keep it, Raise it and be its mommy.

No, again this is a case of somebody telling me I said something I did not say. All you need to do is quote what I said and this board is designed so that you may easily do that. Here is what I said...

Really? So, you are saying she was not attempting to abort that pregnancy and kill the "squid" baby? Your take on it was she was attempting to birth through c-section and raise her squid? You did not find it comical that there was a scene where David, always the naughty boy, takes away her little crucifix before she goes to have her abortion?

Please, I am asking politely here for you to note that I do not state anything. I ask questions. This is out of respect for the person I am responding to. I do not make any assumptions about what they have said and I make no statement that calling it a c-section means anything. I asked a question. I did not call anybody names. I did not get nasty in any way.

My point and reason for my questions was it seems very clear to me, and the film makes specific implications about this, that she is attempting to abort her pregnancy and kill the baby. Now, I am not going to go into all the ways an abortion can be done but by c-section is one of them and in this film that is the way she ends up getting the machine to do it. In the scene I think the machine is actually not programmed to do a c-section so she instructs it to perform it another way.

My response about this had to do with the idea that the scene was not "an abortion" when clearly that is what is happening. There are no semantics involved. It was abortion by c-section...I never debated that...but it is quite clearly and meaningfully an abortion.

That logic is about on par with all of the other logic in the film youve been railing against.

Nowhere have I railed. I have attempted to have a conversation. I am not mad, upset, or disturbed in any way. I have nothing to rail against. It is a movie. It is fun to discuss it. It is not particularly good form in a conversation to attempt to characterize what another person says as "railing" when no such thing is happening. I only ask that you do not do this.

A c-section is a surgical procedure to remove a baby from a womans uterus. This is what the machine was programmed to do.

I know what a c-section is. It appears what the confusion here is, is what abortion means. Abortion is not one specific procedure. It can be done different ways so it does not refer to a single procedure where you would say an abortion would never be done by c-section. Abortion just means the goal of whatever procedure you use is to remove and kill the fetus. Normally, it would not be done by c-section unless there was some unusual complication and in this case the fact that the baby is a large alien squid...well...that means this particular abortion had to be done via c-section.

But whatever you call it, she wanted it out of her body and presumably dead.

Yes, hence it is an abortion performed by c-section. There is no argument over what it is or what to call it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

No offense Reggie my friend but you still don't get it.

Please listen carefully

The only thing you have done is state some of your opinions as FACT.

Tino, my friend, there is a difference between opinions and facts...on this we can agree I think. I am not stating opinions and calling them fact. I would have a funny comment here but:

A. My funny comments seem not to be funny to many people.

and

B. It would tilt into referring to a political figure that would get me into even more trouble and is not allowed.

I think maybe I am coming across to you as stating what I think too firmly or something but I am not stating opinion and calling it fact. This I am most certainly not doing. I have certainly stated opinions here and I think it is clear when I am doing so. I did the one time, to be funny, make the "I just understand it is a bad film." statement but that was again...one of my horrible jokes that landed with a giant thud.

 

[Tino]

Reggie

You have absolutely stated your opinions as though they were facts. If you don't see that I can't help you. Others here have stated the same. That's why some of these discussions became heated.

But I'm done. You are convinced you haven't and that's fine my friend. Carry on.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Reggie

You have absolutely stated your opinions as though they were facts. If you don't see that I can't help you. Others here have stated the same. That's why some of these discussions became heated.

But I'm done. You are convinced you haven't and that's fine my friend. Carry on.

I can only ask, Tino, that if you think I have done this to...in an effort to be fair...quote at least a single time that I have done this. Just use the quote feature and point it out. If this is really something I have done it would be nice, and also helpful, if you could just give me one example by quoting me. I can understand if you don't want to but if you are going to continue to accuse me of this at least provide an example...if just to be fair and show me exactly what you are talking about.

 

[Tino]

Honestly Reggie it's not the big of a deal. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that.

I'll say that to ME, it sounded as though you were stating some of your strong opinions as facts. I won't speak for anyone else. If that wasn't your intention then fine, I apologize.

Tone in posts are sometimes very difficult to interpret.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I agree and that is why I made the effort to explain my tone above. I feel bad that it seems I caused some sort of issue here and I also was more than mildly confused by the responses to things I said. It seemed like whatever comment I made I was being told I said something that at times was the complete opposite of what I actually stated. I was left kind of wondering how do I clarify this because it seems like everything I say now is being turned into a comment I never made.

I never intended for this to happen and I was so confused by the responses I was getting that I actually went back to reread what I wrote to try and figure out how we got to where things went.

That's why I asked that people quote me...not to be a pain in anybody's ass...because I was just baffled by what they were saying I said. Sorry that it got to this point.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Here I am going to clearly state some of my major issues with Prometheus. I am not doing this to convince anybody that likes the film not to like it. What I will be pointing out are the things that bothered me and they have to do with the writing, which I would define as sloppy and lazy. Basically, to me it is the job of the writer, and particularly in a film that is science fiction, horror or fantasy, to convince the viewer to "suspend disbelief" and go for the ride. I think it is also the responsibility of the filmmakers to make sure the entire film does not entirely unravel because you do something so ridiculous that it pulls the audience out of the film.

In this post I am not going to get into things that many people have cited as reasons they dislike the picture. I am not going to go through the entire film picking out science errors...I actually think this is a waste of time because I do not think the film is at all about science and I think the characters intentionally are not supposed to act like scientists. So, if I feel they are doing this intentionally then why bother listing science errors, right?

In fact I don't think this picture is really a science fiction film at all. I think it actually may have created a new genre which I would call "faith fiction" which personally, I did not think we needed nor was it a good idea. It may however be a sign of the times.

So, do not read on if you do not want to hear my thoughts. Skip this post. I have seen Prometheus 5 times. Three with an audience and twice on blu-ray (not 3D). I have not seen the film in a long time and the last time I watched it was on blu-ray with the director's commentary on. The thing that most interested me about the film was why it turned out the way it did. So, in my opinion, I find the film an interesting disaster. I don't have any desire to watch it again but I do not "hate" it. For me it was a disappointment because I had been tremendously looking forward to seeing it.

So, let's get to it...

The scientists don't act like scientists!

OK, if you are still with me, take a deep breath...because I am not going to start listing all the times they do this. Rather, I will just go to the reason why they don't act like scientists...because the film is about faith not science. The film actually gets this off it's chest early when we see the sad and sappy sequence when David looks in on Shaw's dream and sees the bit with her father. Now, subtle this film is not and so the film will thoroughly bludgeon us with this idea...I mean it is like taking a baseball bat to your forehead.

The really big bash to our face comes during the presentation by Shaw and her boyfriend about why they are all there. I guess we can set aside the fact that these people all appear to have agreed to spend years in space not knowing why and with no preparation for whatever the goal of the mission is. OK, weird and not too bright but let's not delve into that. Instead we are told the reason for the mission is that Shaw and Charlie (it would seem) CHOSE TO BELIEVE that they had a map and an invitation from our creators to come visit them. Key point here, they chose to believe this...meaning they are on a...wait for it...faith based mission. Yes, choosing to believe something where there are no facts to support this belief is...yes...a leap of FAITH.

Now in terms of character I guess we are supposed to buy into the idea that Shaw is somebody that may operate on "faith" because of the little dream sequence David looks in on. This is obviously an asinine reason to spend trillions of dollars on a mission into deep space to go somewhere on a hunch based on some paintings on some cave walls that show neither a map nor anything nor anybody creating anything.

So, why Shaw and her boyfriend believe this is pretty much a reason to severely doubt their sanity but why somebody paid to also take this same "leap of faith" and follow their "belief" is beyond all reason.

OK, so this would all be very weak and very obvious to the audience watching this film except for one thing...they already know (the characters don't and could have no way to know) Ms. Shaw and Charlie have sort of guessed correctly because prior to our insane mission briefing the filmmakers/screenwriter insert a scene where we see an alien "engineer" drink a cup of goo next to a waterfall on a very Earth like planet. This appears to be the lazy/sloppy way for the filmmakers to get the audience to gloss over the fact that the characters LITERALLY HAVE NO REASON TO BE ON THIS MISSION. Shaw and Charlie took a wild guess and apparently Weyland was wackier than them and paid to go on this mission...while for no reason pretending to be dead and not actually on the space ship. Again why? He is paying to fund a mission costing trillions of dollars and yet has to stow away and pretend to be dead...why? If he's buying he is flying, period. Who is going to be stupid enough to tell the guy spending trillions to fly into deep space to follow a ridiculous hunch he can't go?

Now the way the big "engineer dissolves into the waterfall" scene is done is so that it is one giant band aid attempting to cover a serious issue with the rest of the story. And this is that the crew of the Prometheus never discovers or sees anything that shows the "engineers" created anything. Once they reach the death planet and things unfold all they actually discover is that the "engineers" appear to have a lot of stuff designed to wreak havoc and destroy things. They do not appear to be any sort of benevolent creators they seem to be world destroyers that even destroyed themselves.

See, the waterfall scene shows our big bald body builder drink his cup of goo and then dissolve into the waterfall actually breaking down into strands of DNA, so the audience jumps to the conclusion this means he somehow is creating human life on this planet.

ONLY THE AUDIENCE SEES THIS...THE CHARACTERS NEVER DO.

So, while we are armed with this scene as a reason to think big white baldy made us...the characters only see a big mess of nasty goo that kills and destroys and turns everything it touches nasty.

So, based on what the characters see and experience what the hell makes them think that the engineers are creators?

Weyland is totally convinced of this and says it to the live engineer. Why does he think this? Why does Shaw continue to think they made us all the way through her horrible trip to the death planet and even sails off at the end still looking for her "creators."

There is no evidence on the death planet that indicates the engineers made anything except maybe some really nasty toxic goop. There is a line delivered by Shaw that states we have similar DNA but all this means is we could be related in some way to the big baldies...that does not mean they created us. We share DNA with a lot of stuff...this is really a giant "So what."

That's getting into science though and really the key point here is that the film tries to patch over this by showing us the waterfall and DNA strand sequence. This is only there to get the audience to buy into all this nonsense because the story does nothing with the characters to show that they discover anything that says they should come to the conclusion that the engineers are our creators.

They get there through a leap of faith...what a surprise right? No, it is not a surprise because the film bashes us over the head with leaps of faith.

When Charlie rips his helmet off, I know a lot of people love that, he does so through a leap of faith. Then he gives a "sermon" to the others to join him as "believers" by demonstrating their faith by also ripping their helmets off.

All of this indicates we have a story where the writers never came up with a good reason to be on the mission in the first place. Never put anything in the actual film that shows the characters something that would cause them to believe the "engineers" are creators. Yet has them all running around like lunatics spouting idiotic dialogue about how they BELIEVE things they have no evidence to believe.

Why? Because it is a story set in space about the mystery of human faith. And asks the ever popular question "Why do creators do bad things?"

 

[Johnny Angell]

Here I am going to clearly state some of my major issues with Prometheus. I am not doing this to convince anybody that likes the film not to like it. What I will be pointing out are the things that bothered me and they have to do with the writing, which I would define as sloppy and lazy. Basically, to me it is the job of the writer, and particularly in a film that is science fiction, horror or fantasy, to convince the viewer to "suspend disbelief" and go for the ride. I think it is also the responsibility of the filmmakers to make sure the entire film does not entirely unravel because you do something so ridiculous that it pulls the audience out of the film.

In this post I am not going to get into things that many people have cited as reasons they dislike the picture. I am not going to go through the entire film picking out science errors...I actually think this is a waste of time because I do not think the film is at all about science and I think the characters intentionally are not supposed to act like scientists. So, if I feel they are doing this intentionally then why bother listing science errors, right?

In fact I don't think this picture is really a science fiction film at all. I think it actually may have created a new genre which I would call "faith fiction" which personally, I did not think we needed nor was it a good idea. It may however be a sign of the times.

So, do not read on if you do not want to hear my thoughts. Skip this post. I have seen Prometheus 5 times. Three with an audience and twice on blu-ray (not 3D). I have not seen the film in a long time and the last time I watched it was on blu-ray with the director's commentary on. The thing that most interested me about the film was why it turned out the way it did. So, in my opinion, I find the film an interesting disaster. I don't have any desire to watch it again but I do not "hate" it. For me it was a disappointment because I had been tremendously looking forward to seeing it.

So, let's get to it...

The scientists don't act like scientists!

OK, if you are still with me, take a deep breath...because I am not going to start listing all the times they do this. Rather, I will just go to the reason why they don't act like scientists...because the film is about faith not science. The film actually gets this off it's chest early when we see the sad and sappy sequence when David looks in on Shaw's dream and sees the bit with her father. Now, subtle this film is not and so the film will thoroughly bludgeon us with this idea...I mean it is like taking a baseball bat to your forehead.

The really big bash to our face comes during the presentation by Shaw and her boyfriend about why they are all there. I guess we can set aside the fact that these people all appear to have agreed to spend years in space not knowing why and with no preparation for whatever the goal of the mission is. OK, weird and not too bright but let's not delve into that. Instead we are told the reason for the mission is that Shaw and Charlie (it would seem) CHOSE TO BELIEVE that they had a map and an invitation from our creators to come visit them. Key point here, they chose to believe this...meaning they are on a...wait for it...faith based mission. Yes, choosing to believe something where there are no facts to support this belief is...yes...a leap of FAITH.

Now in terms of character I guess we are supposed to buy into the idea that Shaw is somebody that may operate on "faith" because of the little dream sequence David looks in on. This is obviously an asinine reason to spend trillions of dollars on a mission into deep space to go somewhere on a hunch based on some paintings on some cave walls that show neither a map nor anything nor anybody creating anything.

So, why Shaw and her boyfriend believe this is pretty much a reason to severely doubt their sanity but why somebody paid to also take this same "leap of faith" and follow their "belief" is beyond all reason.

OK, so this would all be very weak and very obvious to the audience watching this film except for one thing...they already know (the characters don't and could have no way to know) Ms. Shaw and Charlie have sort of guessed correctly because prior to our insane mission briefing the filmmakers/screenwriter insert a scene where we see an alien "engineer" drink a cup of goo next to a waterfall on a very Earth like planet. This appears to be the lazy/sloppy way for the filmmakers to get the audience to gloss over the fact that the characters LITERALLY HAVE NO REASON TO BE ON THIS MISSION. Shaw and Charlie took a wild guess and apparently Weyland was wackier than them and paid to go on this mission...while for no reason pretending to be dead and not actually on the space ship. Again why? He is paying to fund a mission costing trillions of dollars and yet has to stow away and pretend to be dead...why? If he's buying he is flying, period. Who is going to be stupid enough to tell the guy spending trillions to fly into deep space to follow a ridiculous hunch he can't go?

Now the way the big "engineer dissolves into the waterfall" scene is done is so that it is one giant band aid attempting to cover a serious issue with the rest of the story. And this is that the crew of the Prometheus never discovers or sees anything that shows the "engineers" created anything. Once they reach the death planet and things unfold all they actually discover is that the "engineers" appear to have a lot of stuff designed to wreak havoc and destroy things. They do not appear to be any sort of benevolent creators they seem to be world destroyers that even destroyed themselves.

See, the waterfall scene shows our big bald body builder drink his cup of goo and then dissolve into the waterfall actually breaking down into strands of DNA, so the audience jumps to the conclusion this means he somehow is creating human life on this planet.

ONLY THE AUDIENCE SEES THIS...THE CHARACTERS NEVER DO.

So, while we are armed with this scene as a reason to think big white baldy made us...the characters only see a big mess of nasty goo that kills and destroys and turns everything it touches nasty.

So, based on what the characters see and experience what the hell makes them think that the engineers are creators?

Weyland is totally convinced of this and says it to the live engineer. Why does he think this? Why does Shaw continue to think they made us all the way through her horrible trip to the death planet and even sails off at the end still looking for her "creators."

There is no evidence on the death planet that indicates the engineers made anything except maybe some really nasty toxic goop. There is a line delivered by Shaw that states we have similar DNA but all this means is we could be related in some way to the big baldies...that does not mean they created us. We share DNA with a lot of stuff...this is really a giant "So what."

That's getting into science though and really the key point here is that the film tries to patch over this by showing us the waterfall and DNA strand sequence. This is only there to get the audience to buy into all this nonsense because the story does nothing with the characters to show that they discover anything that says they should come to the conclusion that the engineers are our creators.

They get there through a leap of faith...what a surprise right? No, it is not a surprise because the film bashes us over the head with leaps of faith.

When Charlie rips his helmet off, I know a lot of people love that, he does so through a leap of faith. Then he gives a "sermon" to the others to join him as "believers" by demonstrating their faith by also ripping their helmets off.

All of this indicates we have a story where the writers never came up with a good reason to be on the mission in the first place. Never put anything in the actual film that shows the characters something that would cause them to believe the "engineers" are creators. Yet has them all running around like lunatics spouting idiotic dialogue about how they BELIEVE things they have no evidence to believe.

Why? Because it is a story set in space about the mystery of human faith. And asks the ever popular question "Why do creators do bad things?"

Reggie, why? Is there something new here? I ask because I didn't take the time to read what I presume you've already posted. You've made your point. Give it a rest.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Reggie, why? Is there something new here? I ask because I didn't take the time to read what I presume you've already posted. You've made your point. Give it a rest.

Or just ignore his postings on this matter and move on from him. I understand your frustration here. However, it takes at least two people to have a discussion and if you're not interested in doing so with him on this subject matter then don't read nor reply to his posts in this thread.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Or just ignore his postings on this matter and move on from him. I understand your frustration here. However, it takes at least two people to have a discussion and if you're not interested in doing so with him on this subject matter then don't read nor reply to his posts in this thread.

I get what you're saying, but did you haver have a scab you just couldn't stop picking at?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Reggie, why? Is there something new here? I ask because I didn't take the time to read what I presume you've already posted. You've made your point. Give it a rest.

Well, the only new thing is I talk about a couple of key things that sort of ruined the film for me. That's why I posted that. I really felt like I never got to explaining myself. You certainly don't have to read it and if you do just keep in mind that it is not meant to torture you. Basically, as a San Diego Chargers fan you've been though more than your share of torture and misery...so you don't need me in your life.

Oh, and hey look at the bright side here...after this I will go over to the Gone with the Wind thread and detail all the reasons I can't stand that film which probably will entitle me to the trophy for least liked person posting here. Every place has one you know...

 

[Keith Cobby]

I watched Alien in the cinema on release but haven't felt the need to see it again. I watched Prometheus this morning at a friend's house for the first time. It was enjoyable, but like Alien, I won't see it again. Unlike say Nolan or Bay, I don't see rewatchability in Ridley Scott's films (except The Martian which I love).

 

[Tino]

I actually saw Alien last night at a TCM Fathom event.

Looked and sounded tremendous and every bit as scary and horrifying as it was in 1979.

And Jerry Goldsmiths score is still the best he’s ever written imo.

 

[Tino]

Waitaminnit. Did I just post in the Prometheus thread?? Oh no!

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I actually saw Alien last night at a TCM Fathom event.

Looked and sounded tremendous and every bit as scary and horrifying as it was in 1979.

And Jerry Goldsmiths score is still the best he’s ever written imo.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture would like a quick word with you on that

 

[benbess]

....I don't see rewatchability in Ridley Scott's films (except The Martian which I love).

I've seen Alien probably about forty times since it came out 40 years ago.

I've seen the various versions of Blade Runner about a dozen times.

Black Rain c. 4 times.

1492 twice

White Squall twice

Gladiator probably half a dozen times, and almost the same number with Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood, and The Martian.

I've only watched Exodus: Gods and Kings twice so far, but it's near my blu-ray player for waiting for another spin soon.

What keeps bringing me back to Ridley Scott's movies? Story and content of a tough and thought-provoking kind, production design, well-staged action scenes, poetic cinematography even in violent scenes, some excellent scores, etc.

 

[Tino]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture would like a quick word with you on that

My second favorite. And at any time they can switch. Love them both dearly.