Prometheus

[FullAuto]

Prometheus. Great performances almost all round, superb special effects, best 3D I've seen, and some superb scenes.

 

However.

 

There is also some absolute shit; some things that I honestly felt like laughing at. Some bad scenes, and the occasional gaping wound of a plot hole. The cast is far too big for the film.

[Azrael Strife]

Is it a worthy prequel to Alien?

[FullAuto]

It's not really a prequel. They are connected, but not so directly.

[Space Voyager]

I'm definitely seeing this one in 3D. No matter what. It is Ridley.

[Azrael Strife]

I am not going to see another 3D movie if I can help it.

It's not worth the extra price, the hassle of using those cumbersome shitty glasses and the eye strain. Plus, it does not add anything to the movie.

 

I love Ridley Scott, I think I have yet to see a bad film of his (of course I haven't watched every single one of them), I even really enjoyed Robin Hood, which apparently is not considered precisely a good movie.

[Space Voyager]

I am not going to see another 3D movie if I can help it.

It's not worth the extra price, the hassle of using those cumbersome shitty glasses and the eye strain. Plus, it does not add anything to the movie.

 

Well, it definitely adds depth to the movie. Not depth to the story, just third dimension. I agree that a movie is not better because of it (should receive no higher grade), but to me it is better looking. More or less like going from B&W to colour. Also I never had any of the problems people describe (sore eyes, headache...) so I guess I'm lucky. I went to see Avatar in 3D twice and you can rest assured it was not for the story, he he he!

[Azrael Strife]

Meh, I went to see Avatar and took off my glasses after the half, I couldn't stand them anymore, 3D effects were not even that good to begin with, the story was decent.

There is perceivable depth, of course, but it's nothing mind blowing, it's not even impressive.

The only place I could see good usage of 3D effects was in the Toy Story 3 trailer, where the dinosaur would turn and you could see its tail coming out of the screen, that was great.

 

After that, I don't see the point in 3D, and actually keeps me from going to the cinema (I don't go at all unless I get the possibility to watch the film in 2D).

[Hobbes]

Just saw Prometheus... I liked it a lot and the story gave me a creepy feeling that I can't explain.

 

*SPOILERS*

I'd call it more the prequel to the prequel to Alien. It just leaves a ton of questions unanswered at the end but you're not sure that you want to learn the answers, based on what you've seen on the movie.

A few of those are:

* What happened exactly at LV-233 before the Wuytani ship arrived? Something clearly went wrong and killed all the Engineers but what happened to it afterwards?

* Why didn't the surviving Engineer simply leave instead of going into stasis? Could it be that he was forcily put into stasis by his companions (who then died trying to stop the experiment that killed them)

* Why there aren't no female Engineers visible (or maybe there are, you just can't tell)? Could that be related with the experiment since the only female that got infected (Shaw) gestated an alien?

* Perhaps the bioweapon would have a double effect - driving males insane and aggressive, while it used females to grow monsters. In that case Shaw is the proverbial Pandora since she's the one who unleashes the Alien.

[FullAuto]

Unfortunately quite a lot of it doesn't make sense (Lindelof, the useless bloody writer involved, reckons it's hard scifi. He's obviously a funny chap. Here's why it isn't, BTW).

 

 

 

* What happened exactly at LV-233 before the Wuytani ship arrived? Something clearly went wrong and killed all the Engineers but what happened to it afterwards?

 

We know single aliens turn into queens and start laying eggs. This didn't happen. The planet being abandoned doesn't make sense. At all.

 

][/color]* Why didn't the surviving Engineer simply leave instead of going into stasis? Could it be that he was forcily put into stasis by his companions (who then died trying to stop the experiment that killed them)

 

Was he not trapped in there? I thought his options were go into stasis or be killed by the aliens running around at the time. If he was a renegade who wanted to destroy life on Earth, that's an interesting idea but there's nothing in the film to support it. Shame, because it's better than what they did.

 

* Why there aren't no female Engineers visible (or maybe there are, you just can't tell)? Could that be related with the experiment since the only female that got infected (Shaw) gestated an alien?

 

I'd guess the former. I suspect the Engineers were capable of running decent biohazard protocols, unlike those scientists. Infection would be their worry, not the creation of a super alien baby.

 

* Perhaps the bioweapon would have a double effect - driving males insane and aggressive, while it used females to grow monsters. In that case Shaw is the proverbial Pandora since she's the one who unleashes the Alien.

 

Difficult to tell, because the effects are so variable, but I think it's aimed at producing Aliens over however many generations it takes through all available methods. I think humanity is Pandora in the film, their reach exceeding their grasp and unleashing a lot of awful stuff. Shaw isn't responsible for most of what happens.

 

[Hobbes]

Unfortunately quite a lot of it doesn't make sense (Lindelof, the useless bloody writer involved, reckons it's hard scifi. He's obviously a funny chap. Here's why it isn't, BTW).

 

 

Well that guy is more interested in mocking/making fun of the movie than really arguing against the science on it. His initial critics to the Mission and Scientist is just trolling. Complaining about the length of the briefing? Too unscientific? Come on! For the story I actually rather preferred it was quite brief and got to the point of explaining briefly why they are there.

He makes a fair point of 'No Biohazard Control', considering how that same point was made by Ripley on Alien and it lead precisely to the demise of the Nostromo. But he seems to forget how the lead scientist simply decided to ignore the rules and break containment by opening his helmet - from that moment all scientists decided to expose themselves to the environment and the crew followed suit. After all, for Wayland/David they were all expendable, like Bishop on Alien (who opened the air lock) and since initial contact didn't brought any visible infection there were more important things to be done first.

Then "The alien DNA is a “100% match” to our own. I’m not sure what this means." It means that it is human DNA. And like all humans we possess slight differences. Apparentely he isn't smart enough to figure it out. As for the relation to chimps or any other lifeforms... that's another unanswered question that the movie leaves on propose because of the story.

"but inexplicably nothing green, so I guess they were wrong about it being able to support life." - All life/planets have to have green, otherwise there isn't life. I disagree.

"But if that’s the case, why are the Engineers all wearing breathing apparatus inside the base?" - Biohazard, as he mentioned before?

 

And more examples of self-defeating wisecracks because there's a logic/story behind what he sees as plot holes.

 

David for instance spends 2 years studing the origins of human proto-language and is capable of figuring out the symbols used on the installation, thus the alphabet, thus he sees holograms of the Engineers talking and knows something about their syllables and learns how to use their navigational systems. It didn't surprise me a bit that he was able to talk to the Engineers on their language... most likely he had already listened to records of their voices.

The different transformations to the alien also made sense - the black goo is designed to corrupt living matter and use it to its own proposes, thus local worms to snakes, male humans to zombies (to further spread infection) and on human females... using them to gestate more monsters. Basically a weapon to biologically sterilize a world.

But the key questions at the end of movie are: why was the process not conducted on Earth 2,000 years ago? The base was clearly some sort of Caretaker facility for nearby planets that went offline by accident, or by design? What if the frozen Engineer had been placed on propose to stop that from happening, since his first reaction was to kill all humans and prepare to return to Earth?

And the message the Engineers left to the humans to reach for the stars and that particular planet also makes a lot of sense if you think about it as a failsafe plan. In case something happens to the Caretakers you leave a clue for your unwanted orphans to find you, and send them to a military facility. A lot easier to deal with them that way.

 

 

[FullAuto]

 

 

Well that guy is more interested in mocking/making fun of the movie than really arguing against the science on it.

 

No, he just points out the gaping scientific holes in the film. Right from the beginning, it's obvious that the writers really have no idea how scientists go on, and it's just a layperson's view of how scientists do science.

 

He makes a fair point of 'No Biohazard Control', considering how that same point was made by Ripley on Alien and it lead precisely to the demise of the Nostromo. But he seems to forget how the lead scientist simply decided to ignore the rules and break containment by opening his helmet - from that moment all scientists decided to expose themselves to the environment and the crew followed suit.

 

Which is retarded, and wouldn't happen. It's that great horror film cliche again, People Doing Stupid Things For No Reason (see also Fifield, the geologist and chap in charge of the mapping probes, somehow not having a map. You're in charge of mapping, and you're exploring an alien planet, and you don't have the capability to access the map your probes are creating, but those on the ship (who don't need the map) do have access to it. This is when we have portable 3D mapping technology now. Why doesn't he have access to the map? Because the writers are stupid and they need some people to get stuck there and infected).

 

After all, for Wayland/David they were all expendable, like Bishop on Alien (who opened the air lock) and since initial contact didn't brought any visible infection there were more important things to be done first.

 

They were expendable as far as Wayland/David were concerned, absolutely. But they didn't regard themselves as expendable. I'm assuming they had the human urge for self-preservation we all have. So there's no reason for them to do such a stupid, retarded, moronic thing. It was Ash, in Alien, BTW, Bishop was Aliens.

 

Then "The alien DNA is a “100% match” to our own. I’m not sure what this means." It means that it is human DNA.

 

This bit is especially retarded. If our DNA is the same, why aren't we the same? The human body won't grow as large as the Engineers (IIRC, our body structure has increasing load bearing problems beyond 6.5 feet, this is why a lot of really tall people are very skinny. You cannot just double human height and have the body work, it will break). More to the point, how can human DNA be identical to Engineer DNA? It's impossible, unless the Engineers somehow stopped evolving, and unless the populations underwent the exact same environments. More to the point, this is impossible to determine from a single Engineer sample, as we could only compare individual Engineers to the complete human genome. It doesn't make any sense because it's a clumsy screenwriting shortcut to tell the audience (who are stupid, just not as stupid as the writers, that hey, yes, we are definitely descended from Engineers, just in they were too busy stuffing their faces with popcorn to notice the very first scene).

 

"But if that’s the case, why are the Engineers all wearing breathing apparatus inside the base?" - Biohazard, as he mentioned before?

 

This doesn't explain why the Engineer can run around outside without one. If they're genetically identical to us, what poisons us will poison them.

 

David for instance spends 2 years studing the origins of human proto-language and is capable of figuring out the symbols used on the installation, thus the alphabet, thus he sees holograms of the Engineers talking and knows something about their syllables and learns how to use their navigational systems. It didn't surprise me a bit that he was able to talk to the Engineers on their language... most likely he had already listened to records of their voices.

 

This doesn't make sense. He studied human proto-languages...how do you know it's anything like their language? You don't. You're assuming. There's nothing in the film to support that. Likewise the symbols, alphabet and so on. Do you really think humans way back before we invented writing (Mesopotamia, I think? Approx. 6,000 years ago?) are somehow going to use the language of a spacefaring race who, although genetically identical, live very different lives and have to discuss concepts regularly that humans have no way of understanding? And if such teaching had taken place across so many different cultures, humans would not be speaking the radically different languages we do now. It does not make sense.

 

The different transformations to the alien also made sense

 

No, they don't. Very little in this film does. I enjoyed it, but it's shot through with massive holes. There's no magic wand to wave that can make it all better. If you wanted maximum disease transmission, then it should leave the host healthy right until they keel over dead. That way they pass normally amongst everyday society, don't get shot or quarantined, and the disease spreads. However, there's no on-screen action from a well-engineered disease (the zombie Fifield scene was laughable and possibly the worst in the film, I was PMSL at how shit it is).

 

And the message the Engineers left to the humans to reach for the stars and that particular planet also makes a lot of sense if you think about it as a failsafe plan. In case something happens to the Caretakers you leave a clue for your unwanted orphans to find you, and send them to a military facility. A lot easier to deal with them that way.

 

What's easier; waiting billions of years for humans to evolve, build civilisations, develop technology necessary to the required level to travel out there and coincidentally find paintings/hieroglyphics/etc (no guarantee those would have survived, BTW) left by ancient civilisations and manage to decode them and travel out there and maybe get infected (they wouldn't have if they had followed biohazard protocols, remember) or doing it yourself (round-trip time of...four years, IIRC from the film, quite possibly less with advanced engineer technology? The former relies on a massive chain of coincidences and humans being utterly retarded. It's so convoluted and prone to failure that it's laughable.

 

 

There's a lot to talk about concerning Prometheus, but if Lindelof claims it's hard scifi when it so clearly is just made up on the spot (*cough*Lost*cough*) and he didn't even bother Googling and looking stuff up, he's painting a target on himself. You cannot just wave away so many huge errors in very basic scientific understanding. A scientist questioning Lindelof about this film could very easily reduce the fool to tears.

[FullAuto]

Interesting look at the themes of Prometheus here.

[Hobbes]

Interesting look at the themes of Prometheus here.

 

Very very good. Thanks for the link.

 

I read your answers and we just have different opinions about what is 'normal behaviour' and 'science'. Just one thing I'd like to point out though, is that I can't remember of any good movie/game where science mistakes really matter at the end. Plus what you consider plot holes I consider a very carefully woven story with a lot of layers to uncover. And your link is an example of that - I hadn't noticed the similarities until I read it.

[FullAuto]

 

 

I read your answers and we just have different opinions about what is 'normal behaviour' and 'science'.

 

I don't really see how that can be the case. Is it normal behaviour for scientists to voluntarily and intentionally take incredible risks with their lives over and above the great risks they are already taking? People die from peanut allergies, for God's sake. No-one would have any idea what kind of allergies we would have to alien worlds. Would a scientist on an expedition halfway up the face of a mountain suddenly go "Bugger these ropes, I don't need them, I couldn't possibly fall!"?

 

Shouldn't A, that is a 100% DNA match for B, look exactly like B (think identical twins)?

 

If an atmosphere is not breathable by humans, is it then breathable by creatures that are genetically identical to humans?

 

If you can explain things to me, Hobbes, I'd appreciate it, because I just don't understand. There is, as far as I can see, no explanation.

 

Just one thing I'd like to point out though, is that I can't remember of any good movie/game where science mistakes really matter at the end.

 

Just because you cannot think of them does not mean they do not exist. Just because the writers have all the scientific knowledge of a medieval peasant, does that mean we should give them a pass? Why is attention to detail and getting your facts right a bad thing? You've written a lot of stuff, so why are you defending poor writing? This kind of thing is really, really common (see the TVTropes articles here and here) but it's a kind of ignorance easily cured, starting with Google.

 

Here's the wiki article on hard science fiction. Here's a quote from it:

 

One requirement for hard SF is procedural or intentional: a story should try to be accurate, logical, credible and rigorous in its use of current scientific and technical knowledge about which technology, phenomena, scenarios and situations that are practically and/or theoretically possible,

 

I don't see, even with the kindest of hearts, how you could possibly call Prometheus hard scifi. But Lindelof, one of the writers, has the temerity to say it is. Given the errors in the film (and they are errors, but if you can prove me wrong, please do, I would really appreciate it, and I'm not being sarcastic), how can it be?

 

Plus what you consider plot holes I consider a very carefully woven story with a lot of layers to uncover.

 

Such as?

 

And your link is an example of that - I hadn't noticed the similarities until I read it.

 

But the link discusses the themes of the film. I haven't even mentioned those. I'm pointing out really basic schoolboy errors here, because the writers have been stupid. My issue is not with the themes of the film, they're quite separate from specific retarded actions of the characters. I can see how you can discuss different ideas about character motivations, themes, and so on. I don't really see how you can have a discussion about really simple scientific errors. Either the science is accurate or it is not. Going by this film, I knew more science than Lindelof when I was ten years old.

 

 

 

You could still have a film with 'deep' themes and murky motives without the shitty writing that curses Prometheus. Suspension of disbelief becomes more and more difficult the stupider the characters act, especially when they're not supposed to be stupid people. I think of great scifi films where people don't act like total idiots yet still provide a great story and Prometheus comes up severely lacking in comparison.

[Hobbes]

Scientists can be as stupid and vain like everyone else - he's saying that scientists are all God mighty and don't make stupid or serious mistakes. That is a flawed assumption - check below.

 

The best example is probably from the Manhattan Project - there was an experiment called 'ticking the dragon's tail' - they were trying to figure out the exact proportions of plutonium that would create a critical mass for an atomic bomb. Quoting from Wikipedia: "Louis Slotin (the chief armorer who build the A-Bomb), who was given to bravado, became the local expert, performing the test almost a dozen separate times, often in his trademark bluejeans and cowboy boots, in front of a roomful of observers. Enrico Fermi reportedly told Slotin and others they would be "dead within a year" if they continued performing it"

On 1946 they had two incidents where the plutonium reached critical mass but they luckly managed to stop the fission reaction on time, otherwise BOOOM - no more Manhattan Project. After the 2nd incident Stotin died 9 days later of radiation poisoning, 8 other scientists on the following years.

 

I guess real scientists do take stupid risks with their lives just like the scientists on the movie. Hmm...

 

Just because you cannot think of them does not mean they do not exist. Just because the writers have all the scientific knowledge of a medieval peasant, does that mean we should give them a pass? Why is attention to detail and getting your facts right a bad thing? You've written a lot of stuff, so why are you defending poor writing? This kind of thing is really, really common (see the TVTropes articles here and here) but it's a kind of ignorance easily cured, starting with Google

 

As far as I'm concerned the bad writing is on his part, not the screenwriters. If I was his boss I would be giving him a dress-down - that is a crap article to me. He didn't like the movie? Fine. Just don't attribute everything to the writer's incompetence rather than try to see things in a different perspective, which he clearly did not even try.

Or perhaps he was just lazy and preferred that the whole story was plain and simple and without having to think too much. Fine as well. He should stick to Transformers then - the acting and dialogues are more akin to his writing style than Prometheus anyway.

And TV tropes exist precisely because there's something called Theory of the Imaginary - certain themes are familiar in all stories. Like the guy on the 2nd article points out.

[FullAuto]

Another Prometheus piece.

[Hobbes]

Thanks. Something I was thinking about last night. According to Greek mythology the Greek gods gave to Pandora a box containing all the evils, which she opened although they warned her not to.

 

 

Skip to the movie, to the surgery scene where the lead scientist removes the 'alien thing' growing on her body. The operating machine cuts her belly and them clamps the edges of the incision in a square shape like a box.

 

That's a nice detail

 

[Space Voyager]

One of these days I'm going to join the spoiler fest. Just wait and see, you two!

[Azrael Strife]

Just watched Prometheus. It was very good! The ending was particularly orgasmic for an Alien fan like myself, but it was disappointing to see that, as Hobbes correctly puts it, the movie actually seems to be a prequel to a prequel to Alien; some questions are answered, but too many are left open.

 

It was very enjoyable movie, Ridley Scott has not yet disappointed me, looking forwards to a sequel, if there ever is.

 

BTW, regular Aliens (called Drones, usually) don't ever turn into Queens in any Alien universe (movies, comics, games or books). There was a cut scene in the original Alien in which the creature was cocooning the crewmen and turning them into eggs, or something like that, but as I said it was cut and thus is not part of the canon.

Queens are born Queens (in comics, special spikey facehuggers are carriers of Queen embryos), you can see this, at least, in Alien 3, where Ripley is impregnated with a Queen embryo.

[FullAuto]

BTW, regular Aliens (called Drones, usually) don't ever turn into Queens in any Alien universe (movies, comics, games or books).

 

Oh yes they do. Read any of Steve Perry's Alien novels. See here.

[Azrael Strife]

Oh yes they do. Read any of Steve Perry's Alien novels. See here.

Dang, I should have paid more attention to novels, I focused mostly in comics.

I find the idea of Drones turning into Queens stupid anyway, but I guess anything is valid in a sci-fi universe when it comes to aliens

[Sgt. Strike]

Because the aliens are related, at least in some ways, to bugs, especially like bees, that a drone can become a Queen if they ingest the royal jelly. But it's only in certain situations that happens.

[FullAuto]

I find the idea of Drones turning into Queens stupid anyway,

 

I think it makes more sense if you believe they're genetically engineered weapons. That way, they replenish their population constantly even if a single one survives. This makes them much more difficult to exterminate than if Queens are very rare.

[Azrael Strife]

As I said, it all comes down to taste, since anything is valid in a sci fi universe, I just prefer clear roles for each Alien kind. I like the Queens being born that way, makes more sense to me in a senseless kind of way.

In the comic book "Aliens Hive" two queens are born at the same time for some reason I don't recall, and two swarms of Aliens fight for dominance of the planet, when human soldiers kill the other queen, every single Alien is now under control of the remaining Queen and the humans are forced to leave immediately.

In Aliens vs Predator (again, comic), a Queen facehugger is mistakenly sent to a human inhabited planet by a Predator tribe, which of course ends up in infestation and a massacre.

 

Anyhow, it's just a matter of taste, I just like it that way.

[FullAuto]

On 1946 they had two incidents where the plutonium reached critical mass but they luckly managed to stop the fission reaction on time, otherwise BOOOM - no more Manhattan Project. After the 2nd incident Stotin died 9 days later of radiation poisoning, 8 other scientists on the following years.

 

I guess real scientists do take stupid risks with their lives just like the scientists on the movie. Hmm...

 

 

Put quite simply, no. There is a difference, as I pointed out in my earlier post, between taking part in a risky venture (space expedition, nuclear project) and intentionally exposing yourself to vastly increased risk (taking your helmet off on an alien world, say). If Slotin had just started banging lumps of fissile material together at random, hoping for the best, you would have a very fine point. However, he didn't, and nor did anyone else. Wiki even has a list of criticality accidents. None of them were caused by people going "Gone fission, LOL!" and acting like idiots.

 

He didn't like the movie? Fine. Just don't attribute everything to the writer's incompetence rather than try to see things in a different perspective, which he clearly did not even try.

 

How can you view scientific errors from a different perspective?

 

Or perhaps he was just lazy and preferred that the whole story was plain and simple and without having to think too much.

 

He quite obviously has thought more about the science than the scriptwriters did. Prometheus' script contains some of the most unbelievable scenes I've witnessed recently. Why can't David, a super-intelligent android, work out the correct dose of a drug to knock Shaw out? What about when Shaw turns up covered in gore, mostly naked, with her stomach stapled up, and no-one bats an eyelid? These examples are some of the less serious errors the film makes. At times, the plot abandons even trying to recognise what the viewer sees, and just rolls on over unbelievable event after unbelievable event.

 

He should stick to Transformers then - the acting and dialogues are more akin to his writing style than Prometheus anyway.

 

Ad hominem. And his writing is nothing like Transformers in style, content, or tone. I get that you like the film, but that doesn't make it flawless, and I don't understand why those rightly criticising it should be insulted.

 

Here's the thing. The themes can still be well-presented even if the characters didn't act like retards. Take the theme of sacrifice, for example. An Engineer sacrifices himself at the beginning. Janek and the pilots sacrifice themselves to stop the Engineer getting to Earth. And of course, Holloway sacrifices himself and gets Vickers to burn him.

 

So why does he take his helmet off?

 

He gets infected by David, so it's irrelevant to that. You can argue that it's easier to film people with helmets off, which is sheer laziness on the part of the film makers, undermines the feeling of isolation/claustrophobia and most of all, undermines Holloway because it presents him as a moron. If he had kept his helmet on, what difference would it have made? Perhaps it would have been a little more difficult to film, perhaps it would have been a little scarier, but definitely you wouldn't have lost respect for him, and the suspension of disbelief (which is utterly critical for fiction to work) would have been retained.

 

I have yet to see a single good explanation for any of these problems. I fear this is because they are simple, clumsy errors.

 

 

 

And TV tropes exist precisely because there's something called Theory of the Imaginary - certain themes are familiar in all stories.

 

Certainly in stories written by lazy scriptwriters, yes. Not so much in those created by people who think about what they are doing. "Because other people do it." is not an excuse for anything. It speaks not just of their laziness, but of their disrespect of the audience.