AggieChick42
Active Member
bwahahahahahahahaha
Prometheus (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
bwahahahahahahahaha
SmilingOtter
Master Member
Ok, I'm gonna have to watch it again from that perspective. The poor little xenomorph... :cry
:lol
HaHa:facepalm
I gave it a real try but the design of the Alien at the end killed it. How could Ridley Scott miss what was so magical about the first one was the dark and sinister design of the creature. All we get in Prometheus is a little baby teeth gremlin and a giant stereotypical squid.
Let Down!
Last edited:
Kit Rae
Sr Member
It didn't for me in any way.
CB2001
Master Member
You do realize that the alien that came out of the Engineer's chest is basically a chestburster, right? That means that this isn't even the adult version of the alien yet.
Couldn't disagree more.
Ripley's character wasn't trying to prove anything... it was the way her character was written that was sad and a bit pathetic, especially in Aliens.
Again, I disagree. Shaw was not out to prove something. Shaw already believed without definitive proof. That is what faith is all about. Now Holloway on the other hand, I would say Holloway wanted something to be proved to him. He wanted to believe but he was the "doubting Thomas" and needed to see evidence first hand. He needed proof, not Shaw.
Perhaps my wording was not the best, but I see female empowerment and gender equality going hand in hand and I often feel it, much like race inequality, being handled VERY poorly by Hollywood. You may not agree, but I think Ripley is a great example of this poor handling. Making a woman act like a man does not make a woman equal to a man. Men and women are born equal and innately have equal worth. Giving a woman male characteristics doesn't make women equal to men but only serves to imply that the way men naturally act is superior to the way women naturally act and that women would be equal to men if they would act like men. This is pure rubbish. The worst example I have ever seen of this was GI Jane which I thought was absolutely and completely counter-productive to the message they were trying to get across. I see similar themes with Ripley's character, especially in Aliens and I don't care for it. I didn't see that in Shaw's character. She was competent, strong, brave and smart, all while still clearly being a woman and not having to resort to acting like a man or taking on classicly male characteristics. I LOVED that about her character. She didn't have to resort to being mannish to be awesome.
Ripley's character wasn't trying to prove anything... it was the way her character was written that was sad and a bit pathetic, especially in Aliens.
Again, I disagree. Shaw was not out to prove something. Shaw already believed without definitive proof. That is what faith is all about. Now Holloway on the other hand, I would say Holloway wanted something to be proved to him. He wanted to believe but he was the "doubting Thomas" and needed to see evidence first hand. He needed proof, not Shaw.
Perhaps my wording was not the best, but I see female empowerment and gender equality going hand in hand and I often feel it, much like race inequality, being handled VERY poorly by Hollywood. You may not agree, but I think Ripley is a great example of this poor handling. Making a woman act like a man does not make a woman equal to a man. Men and women are born equal and innately have equal worth. Giving a woman male characteristics doesn't make women equal to men but only serves to imply that the way men naturally act is superior to the way women naturally act and that women would be equal to men if they would act like men. This is pure rubbish. The worst example I have ever seen of this was GI Jane which I thought was absolutely and completely counter-productive to the message they were trying to get across. I see similar themes with Ripley's character, especially in Aliens and I don't care for it. I didn't see that in Shaw's character. She was competent, strong, brave and smart, all while still clearly being a woman and not having to resort to acting like a man or taking on classicly male characteristics. I LOVED that about her character. She didn't have to resort to being mannish to be awesome.
I think you are still choosing to miss the point of the kind of people these guys are. They aren't lab scientists... they are archaeologist type people... think Indiana Jones. They are more adventurous and free-spirited than analytical and procedural. No one craps on Indiana Jones for how reckless he is as a "scientist" but you are purposefully choosing to overlook that same quality in Holloway and Shaw. Not making excuses for them. Taking off the helmets was not a well thought out move... but then, that is the kind of people they are.
made007
Sr Member
I saw it today finally, i like the effects, suits, and the space jockey, but they didnt explain too much, i wanted to know a lot of things, i wanted to know what happened with the first spacejockey? What went wrong? What were they running from? The black poison in those containers, where did they get that? Ifcreating us why to destroy us then? , and then at the end the creature the women had inside, grew up then infected the jockey then an alien like creature came out of his body? WTH?????? I wish they would had explained more and i found it was a short movie too
And yet here you still are. I would argue you have had pretty good entertainment value out of your $20.
I agree, because now some of the "Lovers" are willing to admit that the movie has major flaws and see the reasons why people would be turned off to it. Ain't midle ground grand?
I think a lot of us did that from the start. I haven't recommended the film to anyone without expressing major reservations. This is as subjective as the moviegoing experience gets.
I do agree about prequels in general. I groaned, but I got over it and let go, two years ago. The PT is annoying but doesn't ruin Star Wars for me. Star Wars remains a great movie. Same here.
madmartian
New Member
I'm a tad late to the party, but I finally saw it. While I didn't think it worked so well as a prequel to "Alien", I did like it as a stand-alone film. I watched "Alien" at home right after and I still don't think so highly of "Alien" - I actually like "Prometheus" better. At least Veronica Cartwright isn't standing in front of the monster screaming. Too much "people being stupid" in "Alien" for me. Reminds me of "The Creeping Terror". "Aliens" is still one of my top fav films of all time, though.
blipper
Sr Member
Art - at risk of repeating myself, I believe this is more an example of the incompatable movie universes I mentioned that exist with Alien on one side and Prometheus and Indiana Jones on the other - not a case of confusing job descriptions.
Alien, despite it's sci-fi trappings is firmly based in plausible people, actions, circumstances, cause and effect. It's as grounded in the real world as The Godfather was and as a result transcends it's sci-fi trappings. Prometheus and Indiana Jones rely heavily on the implausible to tell their story and never escape their sci-fi/fantasy trappings.
NAZGÛL
Sr Member
Ive been totally into the Alien saga. Big time.
That started to fade when Alien 4 came out, and when AvP came out it all died.
So for me Prometheus has been a real turning point in getting me actually interested in that universe again. Its not often we get good sci-fi movies like Prometheus, and having it making the Alien universe interesting again is great.
you got it right art,i saw alien in 1979 and the mystery of the space jockey was scary and perfect.there's nothing that could have been done in any form of a sequel that would work except maybe coming across another dead space jockey.....but what would be the point of that.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
The thing that could have been done was only show the space jockeys in the biosuit... and only reveal their true form in the next movie. Keep some of the mystery there... and make it a progression of discovery instead of in your face in the first five minutes.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Yeah, a sequel could have worked just as well, if not better. Ridley wanted to explore the Space Jockeys... there really was no point in going backwards. If he's acknowledging the other 4 movies, but his not being a direct link to the others, then he could have set his story at any time after the first one just as well.
Would also explain why there is such a huge gap between A3 and A4, where they go into cloning Ripley 200 years after she died to get the creature... I'm sure they would have spent loads of funds and research on finding other options in that timeframe. Something definitely happened that made them go back to her, instead of going to other sources. At least she was a known needle in a hay stack... but they would still have searched the galaxy for these things, right?
We just never got a sense that the discovery of the space jockey's in Prometheus was human's first encounter with an alien race... there was no reaction to the conclusion "we are not alone" at all in the movie, so clearly... mankind has been exposed to alien life by the time of Prometheus.
Would also explain why there is such a huge gap between A3 and A4, where they go into cloning Ripley 200 years after she died to get the creature... I'm sure they would have spent loads of funds and research on finding other options in that timeframe. Something definitely happened that made them go back to her, instead of going to other sources. At least she was a known needle in a hay stack... but they would still have searched the galaxy for these things, right?
We just never got a sense that the discovery of the space jockey's in Prometheus was human's first encounter with an alien race... there was no reaction to the conclusion "we are not alone" at all in the movie, so clearly... mankind has been exposed to alien life by the time of Prometheus.
I NEVER said that Ripley was a great character because she acted like a man. I only said that in the Alien universe, everyone treats each other like equals regardless of what gender they are or how they act. Did anyone tell Lambert as she was cowering to stop acting like a woman? No.
Remember that scene in ALIENS in the APC after the disastrous first encounter with the Alien hive? Ripley didn't tell Burke that she's taking charge or that everyone should follow her orders. She tells Burke that Hicks, a male marine she barely knows is the high ranking officer. And like Ripley, he knows how to handle a situation proper by following her suggestion.
I also can't get over how you feel Ripley is acting like a man. You honestly believe Ripley is trying to make it in the galaxy by "acting" like a man? Art, she's got a cat! She was a mother! She has to work for a living!
Hmmm... I don't feel the disconnect is quite as great as you do, but I can see where you would believe that Alien shows people acting realistically while Prometheus has people acting in ways that are more broad strokes to push the story forward. Maybe that is why I didn't care for virtually anyone in Alien... they were too much like people we all know while Prometheus' cast are more archetypes.
But is there an interesting story to tell there? We have already seen "aliens run amok" numerous times now. It was fun the first couple of times, but that story has gotten a bit old, predictable and boring. I can't believe you would be more interested in just having more of the same shoveled in than something new and different that opens new possibilities and treads new ground. Love it or hate it, Prometheus didn't follow the same tired model that has become the standard for the aliens franchise.
Jedi2016
Sr Member
Art, I think you and me and a few others need to go make our own "We Like Prometheus!" thread.. lol.
It's been a long time since I've seen a film generate this kind of polarized response. My friends and co-workers all like the film well enough, so it's definitely not a universal hatred.
One thing that the naysayers should understand is that we're not necessarily defending every aspect of the film and claiming that it's flawless. No film is perfect (a few come close, IMO, but none of them are directed by Ridley Scott). We see the flaws, too, it just doesn't detract from the film enough, for us, to make a difference. Yes, it's got flaws.. we just don't care.
It's been a long time since I've seen a film generate this kind of polarized response. My friends and co-workers all like the film well enough, so it's definitely not a universal hatred.
One thing that the naysayers should understand is that we're not necessarily defending every aspect of the film and claiming that it's flawless. No film is perfect (a few come close, IMO, but none of them are directed by Ridley Scott). We see the flaws, too, it just doesn't detract from the film enough, for us, to make a difference. Yes, it's got flaws.. we just don't care.
Similar threads
