Prometheus (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

You're forgetting the comparison made between human and Engineer DNA. The DNA was too close a match to be a coincidence.

That would not be evidence that they "created" us in any way, shape or form. That would be evidence we could be related to them in some way. This also would not in any way make them a god or a creator of any kind to a scientist. So again, yet another example of the supposed "scientists" acting as if they are not scientists at all. Nobody else thinks there might be a reason for this?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I keep saying that I want to respect that you don't like this film but to be honest it gets tiring to answer some of these questions when it seems that you don't respect that I enjoy the movie, or that it works for me. Whatever I say, whatever Tino says, whatever anyone says gets deflected, or the argument changes. It's starting to feel like it's not enough that you didn't like the movie and I did; you seem like you won't be happy until I dislike it too. And that's not going to happen. I love Prometheus, and there is nothing you can say or do which will make me suddenly go, "Oh shit, I never thought of that, but now that you mention it, it's a terrible movie and I hate it." I'm sorry, I'm trying to stay polite and I do enjoying discussing films I like, but it just seems like the goalposts keep getting moved in whatever discussion we're trying to have.

why do the supposed "scientists" in the crew act as if they are not scientists at all?

You keep saying that the scientists don't act like scientists. You have said this again and again. I just watched the movie earlier this week and to me, the scientists act like scientists. What does a scientist act like anyway? These aren't government scientists. There aren't research lab scientists. These are corporate scientists. They might like science, but they are in it for the money. As many of them repeat in the film. They also do not even have one full day on the planet before everything turns to shit. If they had actually been able to continue on their mission as planned, we would have seen more science. But it turned into a survival game long before that. I also don't assume that just because they're scientists doesn't mean they won't have human emotional responses to the events as they unfold. And imagine the extra pressure that the scientists other than Shaw and Charlie are under, because none of them knew the mission in advance. Wouldn't you be freaked out if you thought you were going on a trip to terraform a lifeless planet, and instead start finding dead alien bodies there?

As for acting like scientists:
-Shaw is an archeologist by training and is examining ruins when we first meet her on Earth; she's very concerned about their findings on the planet when they arrive, even risking her life to recover the Engineer's head.
-Charlie is said to be a scientist but his specific field isn't covered; how do we know he's not acting like a scientist when we don't know what his normal field of study was or how he normally acted?
-Fifield is a geologist. He freaks out at the sight of dead aliens and says that he loves rocks, and wants to leave because they're not interested in rocks. That doesn't strike me as being crazy.
-Millburn is a biologist. He's interested in life. He sees an alien worm, the first living animal lifeform away from Earth, and wants to see more, and gets lost in the moment. That strikes me as understandable behavior.

That would not be evidence that they "created" us in any way, shape or form. That would be evidence we could be related to them in some way. This also would not in any way make them a god or a creator of any kind to a scientist.

You continually disregard that Shaw is both a scientist and a person of faith. She is someone who is using science to pursue answers to questions that her faith has brought up in her. Her theory that the Engineers created us is one borne from faith; her mission on the Prometheus is to search for scientific evidence of that theory. You may not accept this as an answer, but that doesn't mean that the movie doesn't make sense.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Yeah, what Josh just said.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Josh, both you and Tino invited me to discuss Prometheus. You specifically encouraged me to list problems I had with the film. I specifically said I thought that would be a bad idea because it would upset people and now you act as if I am attempting to get you not to like the film when I specifically said I don't want to encourage that and that I was happy people like the film.

I am discussing a film I don't understand the issue. Yes, I dislike it. I openly said it was probably better if I did not discuss the reasons I did not like it.

 

[Bryan^H]

Josh, both you and Tino invited me to discuss Prometheus. You specifically encouraged me to list problems I had with the film. I specifically said I thought that would be a bad idea because it would upset people and now you act as if I am attempting to get you not to like the film when I specifically said I don't want to encourage that and that I was happy people like the film.

I am discussing a film I don't understand the issue. Yes, I dislike it. I openly said it was probably better if I did not discuss the reasons I did not like it.

Reggie, it is OK to hate a movie. My question to you is why take the time to discuss it at all? I choose just to let it go, and focus on the movies I really like. Life is too short.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You keep saying that the scientists don't act like scientists. You have said this again and again.

I have not said it again and again. I have been discussing that in the last few posts. I brought it up because this is actually in the film...over and over and over again. In fact at every turn and every decision they make.

However, I said "a lot of people get caught up with this but" and then brought up a very specific point which I felt I have not seen discussed at all really. It is an example of poor writing because the film shows the audience something the characters in the film never see...and then never shows the characters anything that would allow them to draw the same conclusion some people in the audience draw.

That is a rather large mistake in the film. I am not inventing it, it is there, right out in the open. Or it is not a mistake and they, the filmmakers are intentionally attempting to say something. It does seem to combine with the idea that the "scientists" in the film are not really scientists. So, I am seeing if anybody else has noticed this or wants to discuss it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Reggie, it is OK to hate a movie. My question to you is why take the time to discuss it at all? I choose just to let it go, and focus on the movies I really like. Life is too short.

I enjoy discussing pictures, even films I don't particularly care for. At least having a discussion about it with people I feel like it makes having watched it worthwhile.

I don't "hate" the film but I did dislike it. Some of my comments here were meant to be funny...I guess I should use more emoticons.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Reggie, all I can say in response to that is that there is something in how you're saying what you're saying that's making me feel that way. It does not feel like you are merely listing the reasons you don't like the film; it feels almost like you want to litigate each and every point and slap down any counter argument for why other people don't have issues with that point.

I don't know how else to say it. None of us have an issue with you not liking the film. It's comments like "Damon the destroyer" or "that interview where Ridley was drunk." I mean, just think about that for a second. I pointed out how I thought the film inferred, not specifically stated but inferred, that there was a connection between Jesus, the crucifixion and the Engineers. I laid out what in the film led me to believe that. Your response was that none of what I described was in the film (it was), that I must've read an interview with Ridley (I didn't), that Ridley was probably drunk when he said it (what?) and that Ridley doesn't know how to talk about his own films (again, what?). Instead of reading my post and saying "I think that's a reach" or "I didn't interpret it that way myself", you came out with something that felt like an attack, where all at once you tried to state that:
A) the scene you just described isn't in the movie
B) you must've gotten that idea somewhere different from where you said you did
C) the director's idea is so not to my liking that he must've been drunk to say it and
D) this director doesn't know a thing about his own movies anyway.

Whether or not that was your intention, that's how your comments are reading.

I understand wanting to discuss a piece of art that isn't working for you. Over at the TV section, I'm in the Agents Of SHIELD thread and I am not a fan of this current season in the show and have been very vocal about why it doesn't work for me. But I feel that I am able to make my points there in a different way. That discussion feels, from my perspective, more like "I don't like this show and I'd like to understand why and I'd like to see how and why other people feel the way they do." I'm not trying to change anyone's mind and no one's trying to change mind, but I'm also open to the idea that my feelings could change. This here doesn't feel like a two way conversation in the same way.

I hope that I was able to express these thoughts in a respectful and productive manner. If anything came across as anything less than sincere or friendly, the fault is with my difficulty translating my feelings into words on a smartphone and I do apologize for that.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It's comments like "Damon the destroyer" or "that interview where Ridley was drunk."

I will emoticon going forward those comments were meant to be funny. The Ridley being up drinking scotch watching Ancient Aliens thing came from a comment he made. I thought it was funny. I should not assume people will think the stuff I was saying was funny.

I said earlier I felt like I was upsetting people. Tino then informed me I was not. I think I was. I will take a break for a while from posting here.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Reggie, I would ask that read carefully my post about why some of your comments are coming off in a way that's bothering people. I think upset is a strong word. It is sometimes difficult to grasp tone on a discussion board. It's not necessarily what you're saying but the tone that is getting picked up - a tone which, I fully believe from your latest post, is not what you're intending.

As someone who cares about grammar, I think emoticons are dumb and as an abstract concept I hate them. But as a practical way of bridging this digital divide, they're more helpful than I might care to admit.

 

[Tino]

I will emoticon going forward those comments were meant to be funny. The Ridley being up drinking scotch watching Ancient Aliens thing came from a comment he made. I thought it was funny. I should not assume people will think the stuff I was saying was funny.

I said earlier I felt like I was upsetting people. Tino then informed me I was not. I think I was. I will take a break for a while from posting here.

Again for the people in the cheap seats.

No offense but no one gives a shit if you hate Prometheus Reggie. No one. It's your OPINION.

But like some have said it's the way you pass off that opinion as FACT that upsets some of us.

Do we really need to keep on explaining this to you???

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let me intercede here as emotions are starting to come out in some responses. Also, let's stop with the Jesus references as it starts to cross over to a discussion we don't want to have here. Maybe it's time for some of us to step back from this discussion.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Reggie, I would ask that read carefully my post about why some of your comments are coming off in a way that's bothering people.

Yes, I read it and it was not my intent to bother anybody. I believe I am guilty of making fun of the people that made the film but I think that they deserve some ribbing for what they created. I said before that I hoped people understood that while I think it is fair game to comment on the people that made the film IN NO WAY are my comments directed at nor should in any way reflect upon the people that enjoy the picture. I liked the Johnny Depp Lone Ranger (or maybe most people would call it Tonto) film. I think a lot of people really disliked it and raked it over the coals. So, I like some films that some people really think are terrible. I also dislike some films some people really love (gave the example already of Gone with the Wind)...this happens.

In the end I just chalk this up to not every film is for everybody. With the Alien films I think there is such a range of reaction to them specifically because the films are made by different directors and not really with the intent that any specific film is like any of the other films. This seems not to be a priority in the Alien "franchise" of pictures. I also think people go into the films with different expectations. Some people just want a fun monster romp with nasty creatures and humans suffering terrible deaths. If that is what you are looking for then pretty much all the films deliver in that regard.

I also think the "tone" of the pictures in the Alien franchise varies from film to film. So, really it is a series of films that lacks uniformity in the way the Star Trek or Star Wars films attempt to all be very much like the other films in the franchise. In the Alien films they never seem to have gone for this. So really each film is a lot like a stand alone film. This seems intentional. I think this leads to people having some very different feelings about what an "Alien" film should be and this leads to some disagreements between people about which of the films are good or bad.

Honestly, I hope you don't feel like I was picking on you in my responses. I will admit, and told you before, that I enjoyed talking to you because you tend to respond with long thoughtful responses, which to me are what having a discussion is all about. Not everybody wants to do this.

A) the scene you just described isn't in the movie
B) you must've gotten that idea somewhere different from where you said you did
C) the director's idea is so not to my liking that he must've been drunk to say it and
D) this director doesn't know a thing about his own movies anyway.

I actually did not do any of the above. This is why I think it is best for me to withdraw from the conversation. When things reach the point...and they have...where people (not just you) are telling me I said things I did not at all say...then I am left in a position where I then feel like I need to detour from the conversation to explain that I did not say these things. And the only thing I can do really is ask people to go back and read what I actually wrote a bit more carefully.

At no point did you describe a scene from the film that I then told you was not in the picture. You did describe some "ideas" related to the film and I commented on those saying some of those were not supported by what is in the film.

When I mentioned Ridley Scott made comments about what happened 2000 years ago in an interview I never made any comment about you or that you must have got that idea from him. I just stated he had said that...because he had.

I never stated anything about any director's idea not being to my liking and so he must have been drunk. This did not happen. I made a joke about Ridley, he does like his scotch, which I thought was amusing. I think some things I say when I am kidding are taken as nasty. When I said "Damon the destroyer" I thought it was funny and you know...sounded like "Conan the destroyer"...oops. I did not think that was going to cause a stir. Again, I blew it with the humor. I apologize to anybody that I upset with these remarks. That was not at all how they were intended.

I NEVER stated that Ridley Scott knows nothing about his own films. I did however state he is a master filmmaker, that I am a huge fan of his, and that he always delivers on his end. I said I don't trust him when he talks about story, plot, and characters but this is a reflection of some very bizarre comments he has made about films like Blade Runner or Prometheus. When people twist my words to this degree I think it is time for me to leave the playing field. When things devolve to the point where Tino is telling me nobody gives a shit, well, he's correct time for me to pack it in.

No hard feelings toward anybody all I meant to do was to discuss the picture. I thank you for the conversation we had. I never intended it to upset anybody and I did not make personal comments about anybody here. Where I was trying to go was to discuss the writing because I think there are many good examples of things a writer should avoid in Prometheus...I probably never really got to get deeply into that but I did fear if I had people would think I was attempting to convince them not to like the film...which was not my intention in any way, shape, or form. If I got a bit jokey or snarky it was because I found it comical to think about people sitting in a room discussing writing this film. It seems very amusing to me that if these things were being batted around they never caught that it does not work. I kind of wonder what those conversations were like.

I think Ridley Scott is a fantastic filmmaker. In a recent interview he stated that The Counselor is one of his favorite films from his own work. He talked about how he got raked over the coals for it. I really liked The Counselor and was a bit baffled that audiences and critics mostly did not. I know it is a dark film and people tend not to like that but it was also a film where he began with a good script from a really great writer. I do think it became sort of popular among some critics and some of the audience to bash Ridley and just call everything he made terrible. As I said before to me, on his end he always delivers...but he is at the mercy of what they give him for a script in terms of how well things will turn out.

 

[Tino]

Reggie

I want to make it clear that you haven't upset anyone with your hate of Prometheus I find it amusing actually. As I've said numerous times it's perhaps your tone and the way you pass off your opinion as though they are FACTS that "upset" some.

No hard feeling on my end Reggie. There are plenty of films that I feel the same way that you do about Prometheus, Jupiter Ascending for one.

I hope finally now you understand what we are saying and don't take offense. Cheers.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I find that Prometheus is a comedy, Tino. I don't hate it, I just understand it is a bad film and I did not really want to see a comedy when I watched it. If you enjoy the comedy then great. I think it is fantastic you enjoy it. No need to invent that I hate the film.

Here's Weyland letting the engineer know how friendly he can be...

 

[Johnny Angell]

I find that Prometheus is a comedy, Tino. I don't hate it, I just understand it is a bad film and I did not really want to see a comedy when I watched it. If you enjoy the comedy then great. I think it is fantastic you enjoy it. No need to invent that I hate the film.

Here's Weyland letting the engineer know how friendly he can be...

View attachment 38244

Apparently you have no awareness of what you write or how it is interpreted by others. "I just understand it is a bad film." This is dripping with "I know it is a bad film and can't understand why you guys don't."

 

[Tino]

Reggie

Try using this phrase more often. I believe it will help tremendously. Use it freely when discussing how you feel about a film. I guarantee you no one will be upset if you use it.

"In my opinion"

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Apparently you have no awareness of what you write or how it is interpreted by others. "I just understand it is a bad film." This is dripping with "I know it is a bad film and can't understand why you guys don't."

No, I am aware. That one was intentional...and at least in my opinion, very funny.

 

[WillG]

To answer your spoiler:

Spoiler

.To me, the way that they cut away from the fight scene made it immediately obvious that a switch was about to be pulled.

Yep, but that became apparent to me

Spoiler

as soon as David cut his hair after meeting Walter (BTW, any explanation for how David grows hair?)

 

[Johnny Angell]

Yep, but that became apparent to me

Spoiler

as soon as David cut his hair after meeting Walter (BTW, any explanation for how David grows hair?)

I've always understood David to have organic components, i.e. skin mainly. It doesn't surprise me he has hair that grows.