Prometheus (Post-release)

[Dave Ward]

I liked the film a lot, but I've yet to see anyone, anywhere, in all the commentaries I've read, give a convincing case that the solutions to the situations I outlined above, are actually onscreen.

I think that's precisely the point - those things are weak, sure, and those solution might not exist. But the bigger themes and subtexts are so good, that the odd unconvincing detail and sometimes poor characterisation don't matter.

People get all hung up, "but, but, but, why would he touch the hammerpede?", and can't see past the small stuff. You also see, as evidenced several times in this thread, folks who say, "you're all reading too much into it", or "you'd need to be a genius to see those things, don't fib and say you saw that"...in other words, trying to torpedo those people who actually do enjoy movies with some depth.

 

[Jeyl]

People get all hung up, "but, but, but, why would he touch the hammerpede?", and can't see past the small stuff. You also see, as evidenced several times in this thread, folks who say, "you're all reading too much into it", or "you'd need to be a genius to see those things, don't fib and say you saw that"...in other words, trying to torpedo those people who actually do enjoy movies with some depth.

No. I just hated the Space Jockeys being Humans.

 

[Solo4114]

I watched it tonight. Thought it was ok. Nothing all that special, really. I think the real weakness in this is the need to connect it with Alien at all. The film would, I think, have been more enjoyable if it was a completely standalone product. No references to Weyland, no Engineer-Space-Jockeys, no biomechanical creepy-crawlies. But then it'd just end up being Mission to Mars or First Spaceship on Venus or any number of other films.

The thematic stuff...eh. It's ok. Nice try, but I think the execution was hampered by the need to delve into the Alien connection and create another "spam in a can" scenario.

I guess my take on it was that it wasn't BAD really (certainly not as bad as Mission to Mars), but it had some bad elements that hamstrung it, other elements that hamstrung it in a different way, and what was left ended up being a little...I dunno...uninteresting.

Part of the issue with the lack of characterization (and bad characterization in some instances) was that I really didn't give a crap about anyone in the film except...uh...whatshername. The Ripley stand-in.

I had similar problems with Alien 3, actually, when half the cast is there just to get killed in a variety of ways. That, in my opinion, is a hallmark of crappy horror films which, while entertaining, are hardly what I'd call a thinking person's film. I felt the same connection with the bulk of these characters as I do with the average character in a Friday the 13th film. That could have been dealt with differently if the characters hadn't been portrayed as they were, or if their behavior was a bit less "DON'T GO IN THERE" stupid.

Meanwhile, somewhat more interesting themes of discovery and faith end up lost in the shuffle to the point where, yeah, I saw them...I just didn't really care. I mean, I had my own questions (the obvious stuff like "Why create, only to destroy?" and "So, who the hell are they bombing anyway?"), but let me put it this way:

If not further Prometheus films were made, would I feel ripped off due to the unanswered questions? Nope. Not really. It might be interesting to see, but I have a hunch the answers won't really satisfy.


On the whole, I give this film a solid "meh."

 

[Birdie]

I think that's precisely the point - those things are weak, sure, and those solution might not exist. But the bigger themes and subtexts are so good, that the odd unconvincing detail and sometimes poor characterisation don't matter.

Again, I just don't agree. Big themes are no excuse for such extensive narrative shoddines. As I already stated, the foundation of the film is so flawed that many, many people just discarded the bigger themes as ill thought out nonsense too.

While I don't agree, who can blame folk for passing on the bigger stuff when the basic plotting of the movie and it's character motivations play like the worse kind of C-movie slasher?

I liked the movie for its vision, but mourn the movie it could have been if it hadn't been so rushed (see the Bluray doc for evidence - there's a real hint of the Alien 3 situation with the sets and design work being done without a finished script)

The tension over the scripting problems is evident throughout the Blu-ray extras.

 

[Dave Ward]

Again, I just don't agree. Big themes are no excuse for such extensive narrative shoddines. As I already stated, the foundation of the film is so flawed that many, many people just discarded the bigger themes as ill thought out nonsense too.

While I don't agree, who can blame folk for passing on the bigger stuff when the basic plotting of the movie and it's character motivations play like the worse kind of C-movie slasher?

I can completely see that, but to me, it seems like such a cut and shut job, a great SRS concept with a shoddy second draft slapped over the top by that prat from Lost, I've no problems separating the bigger movie from some more surfacey issues.

I would put it to you the other way round, that some shallow plotting issues are no excuse to negate what is to me a deep and evidently textured bigger story. If the "haters" would be more willing to discuss the subtextual stuff rather than/as well as playing gotcha with some of the admittedly poor character stuff, I'd be more willing to listen to their critiques.

The tension over the scripting problems is evident throughout the Blu-ray extras.

That's interesting - can you elaborate? I don't have a blu-ray player, alas.

 

[Birdie]

Just watch the film

That's a cop-out. I've watched three times now, I see nothing, no hidden subtext that explains the appaling stupidity of the way the humans act in the movie, unless it is supposed to illustrate why the Engineers hate us!

If you don't want to go back into what's already been discussed, maybe you could direct me to those posts?

 

[Solo4114]

Dave, to try to explain some of what my own response to the film was, let me put it another way. If you don't have good characters who behave believably, then the larger themes lack a vehicle for delivery. I can see that they're there and they might be kinda interesting...I just don't care. With the exception of David, nobody's really interesting. They're stupid people doing stupid things for incomprehensible reasons.

The characters are our way in to the story and those larger themes. If they fail, it's like a car with lovely design concepts where the engine doesn't work and it's sitting up on cinder blocks in someone's front yard.

 

[Kit Rae]

That's a cop-out. I've watched three times now, I see nothing, no hidden subtext that explains the appaling stupidity of the way the humans act in the movie, unless it is supposed to illustrate why the Engineers hate us!

If you don't want to go back into what's already been discussed, maybe you could direct me to those posts?

Not a cop out for me because I don't have the issues you have. Every one of those points was played out logically in the film and made perfect sense. These points have all been discussed-to-death. If you want to retread it all, go back and read. There is another thread just as long as this one that was started before it too. Happy reading.

If you just don't like the film...can't help you there, but it's interesting that you feel the way you do about the film...and still watched it three times.

 

[Art Andrews]

But, it's all laid out plainly in the finished film too, and those points have been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.

You know I am a MASSIVE fan of this film. I seriously think it is the best I have seen in a decade. However, I disagree with you that motivations are "plainly" laid out in the final cut of the film. Can motivations be deduced? Ehh... I think for the most part, yes. Did it add anything to the film to make cuts that made it more difficult to understand Milburn's fascinating with the hammerpede or Fiefle getting lost? No. This didn't add mystery or intrigue. It removed clarity and added confusion unnecessarily. It actually makes me a little bit angry that they filmed ALL of these sequences that changed NOTHING in the overall story but answered minor niggles that collectively caused many people to pan the film as being poorly written when it wasn't poorly written but poorly edited.

 

[NAZGÛL]

I like the theatrical cut and that it left me "hanging" there with my questions. I gave the film a lot of thought afterward. For me its the same as Blade Runner DC that did the same for me (I saw that version first). They filmed shots showing that Tyrell was a replicant originally. It was cut, and I prefer to wonder if he was or not.

 

[Solo4114]

Wondering whether Tyrell is a replicant is a far cry from wondering why the hell supposedly smart characters are behaving like idiots.

I watched this on a Netflix rental Blu-Ray which lacked the deleted scenes, so I have no idea what any of those are or how/if they effectively explain this stuff. But the bottom line is that those actions -- stupid as they are when you don't have context -- SHOULD have been explained.

I agree with Art that it was BAD editing, though. Beats in the story happen in very odd sequence. The c-section scene is incredibly tense and well done, but then all the air is let out of that balloon so we can find the hidden old dude who was hidden for no reason (or at least no reason even really alluded to in the film) who happens to be one of the characters' fathers? And now we're gonna go check out the base with the frozen alien even though this other character has gone through an incredibly traumatic experience but is acting like it ain't no thang but a chicken wing? Or how about the scene where zombie Fifield shows up and kills....um....what were those guys' names again? Who were they? Doesn't matter. They're just around to get killed like idiot teenagers in a slasher flick as the film takes a detour from stuff that actually matters.

I'm sorry, but that's bad editing, bad characterization, bad writing, or just plain bad. It muddles any of the greater themes that would otherwise be interesting by drawing attention away from them while the film indulges in other pointless stuff.

My issue with the film isn't the unanswered questions. I get leaving things open for a sequel and that could be interesting. No, my issue is that I don't CARE about the unanswered questions because I didn't care about any of the characters. This one gets eaten. That one gets their head caved in. The blonde chick has a ship fall on her. So what? The film didn't take the time to establish these characters in ways that made them interesting and relatable, because it was too busy doing cheap slasher flick gags. (Don't smoke pot, kids! Jason always kills the teens who smoke pot.) Without relatable, interesting characters that you care about (like the characters in Alien), it's hard to give a damn when they die or when they make a big discovery.

 

[Birdie]

Not a cop out for me because I don't have the issues you have. Every one of those points was played out logically in the film and made perfect sense. These points have all been discussed-to-death. If you want to retread it all, go back and read. There is another thread just as long as this one that was started before it too. Happy reading.

If you just don't like the film...can't help you there, but it's interesting that you feel the way you do about the film...and still watched it three times.

I'm sorry, but constantly ducking out by saying 'go re-read everything' is just avoiding discussing the evidence that the film was compromised that has arisen from the Blu-ray deleted scenes, the documentary and the Spaights script.

No offence intended, but it comes across as a little smug saying that you didn't have the issues we're talking about here, because it's all in the movie, then refusing to clarify that.

Many of the issues I have with the script are clarified by Spaight's script, either in exposition or slightly different setups. These were either cut out completeley or not picked up when rather clumsily grafting Spaight's script to Lindhoff's rewrite (ie the change from a salvage vessel to a scientific expedition).

So how is this 'in the film?'

You are also apparently selectively reading my posts, when I already stated that I found much to enjoy in the movie. The issues with the script that have doomed it for many could have easily been addressed to make it overall a much more successful film. That is what I find disappointing.

 

[Birdie]

The c-section scene is incredibly tense and well done, but then all the air is let out of that balloon so we can find the hidden old dude who was hidden for no reason (or at least no reason even really alluded to in the film) who happens to be one of the characters' fathers?

The deleted scenes show a different edit where the C-section is cut with the attack on the Prometheus by Fifield. This at least addresses why no-one is around while Shaw is going through her ordeal.

It's also addressed in the doc how they tried various different edits of where the C-section should go in the movie, which shows there was a lack of clarity in blocking who was where at what time!

There is also an 'enhancement pod' where Spaights talks about the problems he had mapping out all the characters and their motivations and movements in the script.

This all seems to further indicate an overly hurried production period dictated by the cut to Ridley's proposed budget, and a lack of clarity within the shooting script.

 

[Solo4114]

And the bottom line is that, while all that is illuminating on the process....what's ultimately up on the screen is incoherent and poorly paced.

I mean, in the end, it's a film, not a Tolkien or Herbert novel where I can refer to the appendices, nor a journal article where I can refer to the footnotes. All I get is what's on the screen, and what's on the screen is pretty, but pretty jumbled.

There's a LOT there that could've been great. Much that could've been amazing. But instead, it's fairly mediocre due to poor execution. Frankly, I like the idea of malevolent (or at least morally ambiguous) creators a lot better than, say, Mission to Mars' benevolent Martians. I like the themes of sacrifice for knowledge. All that stuff is great. I LOVE the design of the film, even though it really doesn't jive with the Alien series in terms of the tech and such. I love Fassbender's portrayal as David. I like the hints of ambiguity in Vickers' origins. Is she an android like David? Is she trying to emulate him? I like the parallels between her as a biological child and David as an "engineered" child of Weyland. But all that stuff gets lost in the shuffle with "OMG MUTANT ZOMBIE ATTACK KILLING...er...DUDES WE'VE ONLY SEEN ONCE OR TWICE!!" and pot smoking doofus "scientists."


There's a good story somewhere in there, but what's up on the screen, for me, is a bad story based on some good ideas.

 

[Art Andrews]

The c-section scene is incredibly tense and well done, but then all the air is let out of that balloon so we can find the hidden old dude who was hidden for no reason (or at least no reason even really alluded to in the film) who happens to be one of the characters' fathers? And now we're gonna go check out the base with the frozen alien even though this other character has gone through an incredibly traumatic experience but is acting like it ain't no thang but a chicken wing?

I was initially put off by this as well. It IS jarring. However, upon watching it again, I really like how this was handled because it shows just how little Shaw matters to Weyland/David/Vickers and just how utterly expendable everyone is. They simply don't care what happened to her. To me, that seems short-sighted, but I guess, at that point, none of them fully appreciated just how dangerous the black goo was and the sole intent of the mission was to save Weyland, at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Jeyl]

This all seems to further indicate an overly hurried production period dictated by the cut to Ridley's proposed budget, and a lack of clarity within the shooting script.

Also consider the apparent intent on making Prometheus PG-13. We get only one clear f-bomb drop (A PG-13 standard), the violence is relatively non-bloody (Engineer bonks and pushes people to death, zombie attack has obvious post-cgi blood) and there's a PG-13 cut of the c-section. It's like this film wasn't even made as a movie, but as a product dictated by various parties who decided to change their minds in post. The zombie attack actually reminded me of the Unrated cut of the first AvP film where all the extra violence is clearly thrown in when it was not the intent.

 

[Jeyl]

To me, that seems short-sighted, but I guess, at that point, none of them fully appreciated just how dangerous the black goo was and the sole intent of the mission was to save Weyland, at the expense of everyone else.

I wonder who they got to clean up the hanger before everyone set out towards the temple. The sight of crew members' heads bashed in and a burnt body crushed multiple times would make it pretty clear that heading to the place that caused that cause all this might not going to yield life saving chems.

This is why Ripley is so much better than any of the characters from Prometheus. When she decides to raid the Xeno's Nest to rescue Newt, she brings a whole freaking arsenal with her. Makes sense when she and Hicks barely got out of the complex with the weapons they had. In Prometheus, that zombie had multiple people shooting it multiple times and it did absolutely nothing. So naturally when they decide to head out to the temple where all of this mayhem originated, they bring only one gun. :facepalm

 

[Solo4114]

I was initially put off by this as well. It IS jarring. However, upon watching it again, I really like how this was handled because it shows just how little Shaw matters to Weyland/David/Vickers and just how utterly expendable everyone is. They simply don't care what happened to her. To me, that seems short-sighted, but I guess, at that point, none of them fully appreciated just how dangerous the black goo was and the sole intent of the mission was to save Weyland, at the expense of everyone else.

Yeah, and showing their disdain for everyone else is interesting...but it doesn't fit in the movie where it appears and the execution of that point only further muddles things. I don't know that there's a better way to do it, but what ended up happening just makes the tension and pace of the movie hit a brick wall. Then it's followed up by Shaw saying "Ok. Let's go back into the place where those guys are who obviously are somehow connected to Cthulhu Jr. that I just pulled out of me." It would've made more sense if Weyland had ordered his guards to force her to come with him because he thought she'd be a fitting "offering" to the Engineers or something.

The individual elements are all very cool and very interesting and engaging. But it's like a stew where the ingredients are all out of balance even though you like their flavors individually. Or at least, that's how it was for me. All of these individual bits? Awesome! Stuck together as they are? Meh.

Also consider the apparent intent on making Prometheus PG-13. We get only one clear f-bomb drop (A PG-13 standard), the violence is relatively non-bloody (Engineer bonks and pushes people to death, zombie attack has obvious post-cgi blood) and there's a PG-13 cut of the c-section. It's like this film wasn't even made as a movie, but as a product dictated by various parties who decided to change their minds in post. The zombie attack actually reminded me of the Unrated cut of the first AvP film where all the extra violence is clearly thrown in when it was not the intent.

Good point. There's an aspect of this film that makes it feel like it was designed by committee. It's being pulled in too many different directions at once, and as a result does none of them particularly well, even as it seems that more in one direction or the other would've made it considerably more entertaining.

 

[Birdie]

That's interesting - can you elaborate? I don't have a blu-ray player, alas.

Some of it is evident in the stuff I mentioned above. There is an obvious tension within the crew regarding the lack of a finished script while pre-production is racing forward.

Spaights' is clearly unhappy that Lindhoff was brought in to re-write his script, and seems somewhat bemused that he was not allowed a shot at the 'redirection' himself.

Given how much of his story we can now see remains, this consternation is understandable.

There appears to be a lot of confused back-and-forth on how the Fifield attack sequence plays out. The entire sequence was shot with a fully realised CG creature, before it was decided to go with the actor in make-up 'Because he's such a good actor.'

One of the crew mentions how no-one liked the idea of the Space Jockey head being a helmet :lol

 

[Kit Rae]

It was one of the art department guys, and he basically said they all hated the idea of the space jockey simply being a space suit, as did just about everyone else when we first heard this news. I suspect there was probably more candid talk like that that did not make it into the doc.

I like the theatrical cut and that it left me "hanging" there with my questions. I gave the film a lot of thought afterward. For me its the same as Blade Runner DC that did the same for me (I saw that version first). They filmed shots showing that Tyrell was a replicant originally. It was cut, and I prefer to wonder if he was or not.

Absolutely agree there. I hated the voice over the first time I saw it, and never really got used to it, as many of my friends did. It was completely unnecessary and always bugged me, as does anything like that that dumbs down a film for the viewer. Other people loved it, and don't see it as dumbed down at all because they would prefer a film lay everything out directly for them. Two completely different types of films. I prefer films that I can watch multiple times and see something new each time, where you actually have to use your brain.