• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Prometheus

**There are NO spoilers below, but if you want to watch this film cold, look away now***







I've just come back from seeing this. I didn't find it the super-sci-fi spectacular that we're being led to believe it is. It's a perfectly serviceable story, with some jaw-dropping special effects, but on the downside, I found it a bit muddled and didn't really make a lot of sense. A bit corny in places and an unconvincing set of characters (with one or two notable exceptions), I suppose it's worth watching, but it's a sixer for me (6/10) It's one of those that I'm going to be more disappointed with on reflection (like Inception). If they'd tightened up the narrative and cut out some of the hokum, it has potential to be a classic, but as it is, won't last long in my memory.
 
I watched this last night and came away with the impression I'd just seen the new Spiderman movie instead. A normal length trailer followed by another rambling epic trailer featuring a whole scene as a taster has given me enough that I don't actually need to see this Spidey when it's released.

Anyway. Prometheus. if you don't want to know the score, look away now.




I had little option but to watch it in 3D and thinking about it afterwards, it may have been that production decision that made it feel very similar to a more adult Avatar. The screen displays and the holographic projections swirled around as if designed only to justify the use of 3d glasses. Having said that, the design and effects are brilliant and when the ship lands or the storm comes, there's a great sense of scale. Unfortunately the script pretty much tells you in shorthand who you're supposed to like and whose fate you'll not shed a tear over. I thought this was the weakest element* of the film, especially when compared to the crew of the Nostromo.

Where Alien relied heavily on silent tension (slightly overdoing it sometimes IMO) this feels a bit rushed and the end muddled, not deliberately obscure. Almost as if there's a Director's Cut in the works for later release.

It's a good film but not a great film. The two lead characters give excellent performances and there's a great scene that stops the movie two-thirds through but after one viewing I don't get the feeling it'll change cinema the way Alien or Blade Runner did - but to be fair - that is asking a hell of a lot.

*actually, the tallest old guy in the world's make up is the weakest element in the film.
 
jimv1 said:
*actually, the tallest old guy in the world's make up is the weakest element in the film.

Who's the actor?
 
shelleybell said:
Guy Pearce, took me ages to work that one out!


Spoiler! .......



One day, we'll be looking back on a time when SFX could make other worlds, spaceships and aliens look remarkably believable but we'll still have to say they couldn't make up someone to look convincingly OLD.
It jarred in a bad way - and relatively speaking was little better than Roddy McDowall in the ape mask but not as bad as a 2000 year old head starting to gurn in a ridiculous way when injected. That looked awfully out of place - but not out of as place as the biologist who chickened off out of his sphere of interest...and indeed character and later ended up without a chance of appearing on something like Springwatch.

That was a bit of the lack of scripting characterisation I was talking about.


Just so you know where I'm coming from and think I'm too jaded or too picky, the original Alien is an excellent film with a strong cast. The only thing that lets it down is the elastic stretch of suspense which is taken far too far when Harry Dean Stanton is looking for the cat.
 
The only thing that lets it down is the elastic stretch of suspense which is taken far too far when Harry Dean Stanton is looking for the cat.

Noo I wouldn't say that at all. I think if there's any part of it that's slightly less than perfect it's a few places where Yaphet Koto over plays it in some of the minor scenes. That said he's so brilliant in the rest of the film he makes up for it with interest.

I've always thought the scene when he and Sigourney Weaver argue about whether to carry on with Dallas' plan is up there with anything I've ever seen.

By the way from the adverts for this it looks like they managed to totally destroy the mystery of the Space Jockey, is this right does it get out of the chair?
 
I saw Prometheus, and it is a very good SF film, the main problem is that Alien is a classic, a bit like 2010, being an excellent SF film, but suffers from being a follow-on from a 2001. Some of the characerisation was a bit shorthand - I wondered too, if they're intending to do an extended edition for the DVD, as

The scene that is the real horror moment, isn't as shocking as the chestburster in Alien, but that's because in Alien it was totally unexpected. We know that in an Alien movie, something seriously horrible will happen.

Liked the twist on the old ancient astronauts theory that's the driver of the story.

Michael Fassebender as David gives an excellent perfomance, charming and sinister at the same time. Noomi Rapace, is both enigamatic and tough, as Dr Elizabeth Shaw.


The spacecraft and the pyramid are brilliantly designed, with a real sense of scale.

Guy Pearce's old man make-up was a bit duff - I wondered why they didn't get a much older thesp for the part, then they wouldn't have to go so heavy on the prosthetics.

oldrover said:
...By the way from the adverts for this it looks like they managed to totally destroy the mystery of the Space Jockey, is this right does it get out of the chair?

No it doesn't get out of the chair, and it's not quite what you might think.
 
Timble2 said:
The scene that is the real horror moment, isn't as shocking as the chestburster in Alien, but that's because in Alien it was totally unexpected. We know that in an Alien movie, something seriously horrible will happen.

Spoiler............

IMO - If this is the moment I'm thinking of, it's just after this point that the whole film unravels from ludicrous scripting errors into unbelievable black plot holes.

It's a shame when you consider that a multi-million dollar budget and god-only-knows how many special effects were generated for a script that can only be measured by kilobytes. The script really lets it down and oddly it's the easiest and cheapest thing to hone and perfect.

There's a saying along the lines of 'You can't polish a turd...but you can sprinkle glitter on it' which just about sums this film up. A beautiful mess.
 
Saw it yesterday pm, its a good film but the script appears to fail it. Maybe some of the holes are deliberate and are left for a sequel. Just couldn't take Chalize as an evil corporate type, most of the time she was dressed like Aeon Flux.

I saw it in 3D and felt the colour was a bit off.

Well as Dr Shaw heads off at least she knows that two heads are better than one.
 
ramonmercado said:
SaI saw it in 3D and felt the colour was a bit off.

At the beginning on the Isle of Skye, there's some really bad ghosting that sees large chunks of sky between the peaks coming right at you.
 
A friend watched it last night and sent me a number of txts, they went "prometheus is crap!" "its a big pile of wank!" "load of shit" "would sooner watch grass grow" so i doubt i will watch it any time soon. :D
 
Anyone who texts during a movie has the attention span of gnat, so I don't think I'd really place much weight on their opinions....
 
Personally I tend to wait until the credits roll before coming to a conclusion about a film.

Prometheus is good, an enjoyable Sci-Fi flick that doesn't feel the need to talk down to its audience but isn't half as ponderous and issue laden as Dances with Smurfs. Characterisation was decidely lightweight, some of the characters sailing close to the fabled island of cliche.

Don't bother with 3d, there is nothing here worth the extra couple of quid, the one scene that actually makes use of it doesn't justify its use beyond looking briefly pretty.

The other thing it is is that it is an Alien prequel in the sense that it adds to the body of the mythology rather than just throwing predators into the mix, though having said that it is very much a standalone film.

One interesting thing about sci-fi prequels, why is the technology always so much better on 'older' ships?

All in all it's worth a watch, as mentioned above it won't set Sci-fi on fire in the way Alien or Blade Runner did, but it does prove Hollywood can still make movies that aren't remakes.
 
Heckler20 said:
One interesting thing about sci-fi prequels, why is the technology always so much better on 'older' ships?

Haha! Excellent observation. It's so true. :)
 
Mythopoeika said:
Heckler20 said:
One interesting thing about sci-fi prequels, why is the technology always so much better on 'older' ships?

Haha! Excellent observation. It's so true. :)

Well a lot of the stuff on Alien was 1970s computer technology. Its an upggrade, lets conveniently put that to the back of our minds. I'm not sure its meant to be stand alone (though it would work as that), theres room, even a need for a sequel.
 
Off to see it this afternoon.. will let you know what I think.
 
Do you really think Weyland-Yutani would waste money outfitting 'Nostromo'? It's the equivalent of a tramp steamer or maybe a bulk cargo hauler, it isn't top of the line.
 
I saw it last night and i quite enjoyed it, i thought the effects were very well done (i'd love to have a few of those mapping drones). Only thing that bugged me was that i didn't really give a crap about any of the characters, i only felt sorry for two of the poor buggers (those who have seen it will know what i mean).

As for the level of technology compared to the original Alien i would also have thought that the Nostromo was the equivalent of a barge or tug boat in space so it wouldn't have anywhere near the same level of tech as the Prometheus even if it was 40 years younger.
 
feen5 said:
(i'd love to have a few of those mapping drones).

Much good they'll do you.


Spolier....



The guy who launched them and was responsible for successfully mapping the place is the same guy who conveniently gets lost - Script error number 257.
 
Is Prometheus anti-science? Screenwriter Damon Lindelof responds

Prometheus follows a pack of scientists on an expedition to a remote planet to discover the meaning of life — and then horrible, terrible, unspeakable things befall the crew. In a sense, they are punished for their curiosity.

Does that make Prometheus anti-science? We had a spoiler-free discussion with Prometheus screenwriter Damon Lindelof to discuss — as he calls it — "Frankenstein 101" and the relationship the film has with science and religion...

http://io9.com/5916601/is-prometheus-anti+science-screenwriter-damon-lindelof-responds
 
Prometheus Poses Eternal Questions About Science, Creationism
By Angela WatercutterEmail Author June 8, 2012 | 2:50 pm | Categories: movies, sci-fi

In Prometheus, David (Michael Fassbender) is an android who lives amongst his makers and is unimpressed.
Photo courtesy 20th Century Fox

It’s understood that Prometheus is a prequel of sorts to Alien, but it’s also an origin story of another kind, a thought-provoking tale about the quest for truth — both scientific and spiritual — about where humans come from.



More on Prometheus
• Review: Majestic Visuals Power Prometheus Through Big, Murky Ideas

• With Prometheus, Ridley Scott Makes Sci-Fi Horrifyingly Believable Again

• Does Ridley Scott’s Prometheus Promise New Hope for Sci-Fi?

• Prometheus Crew Spills Its Guts About Movie’s Most Shocking Scene

It’s an eternal question, and Ridley Scott’s sweeping new sci-fi movie about a ship full of seekers in search of the origins of life on Earth fully embraces the tension between science and religion, the clash of ideas among adherents to Darwinism, creationism, and intelligent design.

If there is a quest for scientific facts about the origin of life, then can’t that also be considered a search for god, if “god” is understood to be “creator”? If the quest of science is to find out what we came from, or “how we got here,” then finding the answer isn’t that much different than finding religion. All theories — scientific as well as religious — involve at least some faith in their until they’re proven — it’s just that some people believe in the lab and use it to test their hypotheses, while others believe in the Word.

The twist Prometheus puts on the question is, “What if the answer is in the heavens, but instead of a bearded deity, what if our creators were extraterrestrials? And, if so, who or what created them?”

That bit of storytelling gymnastics — playing up the fiction as much as the science — was intentional. In a recent interview with a group of reporters, Damon Lindelof, the Lost co-creator who worked on the Prometheus script with director Scott and writer Jon Spaihts, said the concept for the movie was to move away from Alien’s chestbursters and xenomorphs and focus on the origin of the human species and whether we have makers who share our DNA.

“This idea of creating one in one’s own image becomes a sci-fi construct as opposed to a supernatural construct or a religious construct,” Lindelof told the reporters. “I think the movie sort of dabbled in marrying those two ideas.”

That’s not to say that the R-rated Prometheus, out Friday, is some kind of a pro-creationism, anti-science allegory. It’s not. (Scott himself has professed more belief in the possibilities of aliens than god, telling Esquire “the biggest source of evil is of course religion.”) The film simply plants seeds of thought — sort of like cinematic panspermia — that will naturally lead audience members to question the origin of man, whether they’re Darwinists, creationists or something else entirely.

The movie’s incessant sly references to faith shed light on the fact that, when it comes to how we answer life’s big questions, some use the scientific method, some use catechism, others use both, and everyone believes something. Scientific theories can be proven more readily than the existence of deities, but the path of the righteous in both cases starts with a leap of faith. And like with The Hunger Games — which is either an Occupy-channeling feminist passion play or an allegory about the dangers of Big Government, depending on who you ask — what audiences take away from Prometheus and its characters will likely be informed largely by the mental baggage they bring to the theater.

It wouldn’t be a Ridley Scott sci-fi film if there wasn’t a clash between artificial intelligence and emotional intelligence.

In the film, archaeologist Elizabeth Shaw (played by Noomi Rapace) plays the tough embodiment of this internal conflict between faith and science. An educated woman who still wears her father’s cross around her neck, she is what her Weyland Industries boss calls “a true believer.” Her scientific study has led her to believe that there are makers somewhere in the stars — she and her partner Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) call them “the Engineers” — who put life on Earth and want us to come find them.

Does that mean there’s a god? Um, dunno. But she’d like to ask.

(Spoiler alert: Minor plot points follow.)

And you may access the rest of the article, spoilers and all here:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/ ... nism/all/1
 
I saw in 2D, and really enjoyed it. Not much to add to what others have said, but (and potentially spoliery, so look away now):

Timble2 said:
..Guy Pearce's old man make-up was a bit duff - I wondered why they didn't get a much older thesp for the part, then they wouldn't have to go so heavy on the prosthetics.

That had me wondering, too - why take an actor that good, that well known and that young for the role, for what's in effect a cameo. My only thought is a potential prequel-prequel, so they can have Mr Pearce young again and more centre-stage, maybe explaining his obsession and trillion-dollar investment rather more than a desire to live a bit longer. Interested to see how they'll do that, mind..
 
stuneville said:
My only thought is a potential prequel-prequel, so they can have Mr Pearce young again and more centre-stage, maybe explaining his obsession and trillion-dollar investment rather more than a desire to live a bit longer. Interested to see how they'll do that, mind..

Don't we already have Richard Branson in space?
 
I thought that Prometheus was dreadful - a prime case of style over substance. It looked very nice, but the (very simple) story was an utter mess, told in such a way that it may have looked complicated to some. And to cap it all, it was populated by a load of wafer thin characters that I didn't give a rat's arse about.

It gets a mere one out of five brown stars from me.

Oh yes, and I saw it in 2D - I'm not wasting my money on the headache inducing gimmick that is 3D.
 
spoiler spoiler spoiler


*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I saw the movie today and have a headache trying to figure what it was about.
One nagging question: did Michael deliberately contaminate Charlie with the alien bug, when Michael said "everything must have a beginning?" Michael did seem to show a morbid curiousity about the alien goo.
 
Pretty sure it was deliberate. He only administered it after asking 'how far would you go to get your answers?' or something equivalent. I guess he took the answer to mean he'd be willing to die - horribly, so David could go ahead. I guess David was just doing a preliminary test to find out if it happened to be the elixir of life?
 
Back
Top