Prometheus (Post-release)

Some interesting comments from Damon Lendelof from interviews he has done in the past few days, now that he can open up about the film somewhat. He confirms what a few of us have surmised from the film.

"I don't want to talk too specifically about what the black goop does. Obviously the characters in the movie are trying to theorize based on what is happening to them. "This thing is a weapon, it's really bad for us." When it interacts with living species, bad things result. So you see little worms and when the black goop gets on the little worms we see what happens to them. And when Fifield gets it all over his face mask, we see what happens to him. When Holloway just has a drop of it in a glass of champagne, we see what happens to him.

We wanted to be purposefully vague, [but steer] the audience towards some conclusions as to what that stuff was supposed to do: Is it supposed to kill you? Is it supposed to transform you—which seems like the most obvious choice—and to what end? Like, why in God's name would the engineers want to create abominations out of mankind? Some of these questions we wanted to answer directly and some of these questions we didn't want to answer directly, which sets you up for a certain level of frustration and disappointment that I am well familiar with, but I'll take it any day of the week because I also feel like it forces you to fire your own imagination.

We clearly have answers for those questions ourselves that we did not present in the movie purposefully, not just because we're saving them for potential sequels, but because the power of the original Alien—or even Blade Runner—is that to a certain degree, we're giving you all the numbers in the equation but we're not adding them up for you. And that's intentional."

"I would say, did we explore the idea of Vickers being a robot? Well, is there anything in the movie that says she’s not? Yes. For us, it was important for Janek to ask the question and for Vickers to say, “Come down to my room, and I’ll show you if I’m a robot or not.” But what does she show him? Can robots in 2093 have sex? That’s as much as we wanted to explain it. I will say this, it sure seems she got crushed pretty hard."

"It's not arbitrary. [But] the movie has to speak for itself. I will say that the theory that is formed by Shaw by the end of the movie—that the black goo is some sort of weapon and it is headed towards earth and if it gets there the result is going to be terrible—[is] based on the information that she has in the movie, but that's not necessarily the correct deduction for her to make. The audience is privy to pieces of the story that Shaw is not. I hope that the movie is one of those films that [is rewarding on] subsequent viewings as opposed to more confusing and more frustrating."

"So he was thinking about that stuff many, many months before he even began photography. And the way that he wanted to play the hits in terms of xenomorphs and face huggers, he wanted to make sure that they looked different than they had in previous movies because of some of the things that we were trying to say in this movie... I've always looked at Prometheus as this huge orgy between three generations of creation. So you have our creators, the engineers; us; and then our creation, the synthetic beings, the androids. And so basically everybody is kind of screwing each other."

"These are questions we can’t help but to wonder about, and it’s in our programming. So, if you gave us the opportunity to answer these questions, we would not stop. We’re dogs at the bone, you know? We gotta go after it, even if we know we’ll probably die in the process or, at the end of that line, are all those things I talked about: disappointment, and that’s the whole point of that conversation between Holloway and David, where David says, “Why did you make me?,” and Holloway says, “Because we could.” David tells him to imagine how disappointing it would be if that’s what your makers told you, and it’s completely and totally true. When David asks Holloway what he would do to get his answers, after saying all that, Holloway doesn’t even hesitate, saying, “Anything and everything.”

"They all have a role in the end result of this movie. None of it would have happened had David not taken that little drop of goo that was generated from the engineers and spiked Holloway's drink with it and then Holloway has sex with Shaw and then their baby essentially ends up infecting the person who started it all, the engineers. So it goes full circle."

"One of the things I think is really cool about David, as a character and Fassbender’s portrayal of him, is that there’s no part of David that wants to be a real boy. He is not enamored by humanity or jealous by our ability to experience emotions. He’s basically thinking, “You’re morons.”"

And one more quote regarding the science of Prometheus...

"John Spates did a tremendous amount of research in terms of interspace travel, cryonics, artificial intelligence. You're also married to the original Alien in a lot of ways—this is 30 years before that, so can we present our gadgetry so that it doesn't look like it's backwards, considering that movie was made 30 years ago? The Nostromo was a mining ship. It's going to be completely and totally dressed down. The computers are going to do the bare minimum of computing because its only job is to get from A to B and then mine, whereas the Prometheus is designed as a science vessel to basically answer the meaning of life. So that's the way you get around that issue. And Arthur Max, who was the production designer, designed all the ships and the Alien landscapes, and he had a whole slew of advisors that he [checked with].

There was a NASA guy that came in a couple of times and spoke to Ridley and us about the theoretical realities of extraterrestrial life. If you're trying for it to feel real and there's any degree of veracity, it's absolutely critical to have that stuff. But as a storyteller you kind of have to say: It's really good to know it, but we are writing a movie."
 
Last edited:
If you look, there are lips there, and the faintest trace of a bottom of a nose.

skullface.jpg

I don't see lips or the bottom of a nose. I would have to really want to see them. Either way, it still makes no sense. It isn't how erosion works.
 
...and a sculpture that has withstood thousands of years of erosion is not going to drastically change during one brief sand storm. I did not see a face before the storm either. I saw exactly what is pictured above, a skull. The film barely showed it either time.
 
Very interesting to hear Damon Lendelof's comments as many of his statements affirm my beliefs about choices that were made.

The one real surprise was this comment:

"One of the things I think is really cool about David, as a character and Fassbender’s portrayal of him, is that there’s no part of David that wants to be a real boy. He is not enamored by humanity or jealous by our ability to experience emotions. He’s basically thinking, “You’re morons.”"

I guess I will just have to watch the movie again because I didn't get that at all. I felt that a considerable deal of the movie was devoted to David learning what it was to be human... and not only learning it, but trying to imitate it, much like Data from Star Trek. Did I see a bit of superiority in him? Yes. Do I think he would jump at the opportunity to be human if he could be? From what I saw, I would have said "absolutely" so I am surprised that he was not written that way.
 
I suppose everyone sees things differently, but I got the exact opposite. David's actions and emotions were subtle, but overall he seemed disappointed in people, even telling Holloway exactly that at one point. Everyone except Weyland. David also knew more than anyone why they were there and had an agenda he was programmed to perform regardless of the human consequences, so he had a slight air of superiority over these lesser people who were more or less tools for Weyland to use to achieve his goal. He continually ignored their direction, and talked down to a few of them just as they did with him, though in a far more subtle, prickish way.

David was higher on the rung than they were, and he knew it. Weyland considered him his offspring, more so than his own human daughter, which he was also well aware of based on his encounter with Vickers in the hall.

His perception of people in the films he watched seemed to guide his character far more than the screwed up set of values and motives of the people around him.
 
I don't see lips or the bottom of a nose. I would have to really want to see them. Either way, it still makes no sense. It isn't how erosion works.

Being realistic isn't the purpose of this image... It's purely symbolic.
The wind of death blows on the Prometheus and its crew... and since Giger's art comes from Symbolist art (and Art Nouveau) it makes sense to use this symbolic image of Death here.

Fred
 
Last edited:
I suppose everyone sees things differently, but I got the exact opposite. David's actions and emotions were subtle, but overall he seemed disappointed in people, even telling Holloway exactly that at one point. Everyone except Weyland. David also knew more than anyone why they were there and had an agenda he was programmed to perform regardless of the human consequences, so he had a slight air of superiority over these lesser people who were more or less tools for Weyland to use to achieve his goal. He continually ignored their direction, and talked down to a few of them just as they did with him, though in a far more subtle, prickish way.

David was higher on the rung than they were, and he knew it. Weyland considered him his offspring, more so than his own human daughter, which he was also well aware of based on his encounter with Vickers in the hall.

His perception of people in the films he watched seemed to guide his character far more than the screwed up set of values and motives of the people around him.

I totally agree with this.

David made me think of HAL 9000 embodied in a blonde replicant. He "knows" / has "his" idea of what this mission really is about and he won't let the (obviously expendable) crew jeopardize it.

Fred
 
I liked this:

"It's not arbitrary. [But] the movie has to speak for itself. I will say that the theory that is formed by Shaw by the end of the movie—that the black goo is some sort of weapon and it is headed towards earth and if it gets there the result is going to be terrible—[is] based on the information that she has in the movie, but that's not necessarily the correct deduction for her to make. The audience is privy to pieces of the story that Shaw is not."

Again, tying in with that Nietschian quote. Transformation rather than eradication? Could the biogoo be so programmable that it is the medium for sparking new phases of what we've been calling 'evolution'? Clearly, in the film's world our biological evolution has been directed as much as our cultures.

I don't see lips or the bottom of a nose. I would have to really want to see them. Either way, it still makes no sense. It isn't how erosion works.

I can see the lips but I doubt they're intentional - I think it's actually the gums and teeth of the upper jaw.

...and a sculpture that has withstood thousands of years of erosion is not going to drastically change during one brief sand storm. I did not see a face before the storm either. I saw exactly what is pictured above, a skull. The film barely showed it either time.

Agreed. Skull, both times - the second shot was the reveal/warning, which thanks to the crew's COMPLETELY ABSENT surveying protocols, they remain ignorant of throughout. :p

I guess I will just have to watch the movie again because I didn't get that at all. I felt that a considerable deal of the movie was devoted to David learning what it was to be human...

I suppose everyone sees things differently, but I got the exact opposite.

Me too. Much of his dialogue was subtle snarkery - he has his likes and dislikes from human culture, but I took him as fairly scathing towards most of the other characters. It is hard to blame him. He's surrounded by screwed-up people and he knows exactly the meanness of the reasons for which he was built.

Fassbender's viral was brilliant. "...distressing" - lol.
 
Some interesting comments from Damon Lendelof from interviews he has done in the past few days, now that he can open up about the film somewhat. He confirms what a few of us have surmised from the film.

"It's not arbitrary. [But] the movie has to speak for itself. I will say that the theory that is formed by Shaw by the end of the movie—that the black goo is some sort of weapon and it is headed towards earth and if it gets there the result is going to be terrible—[is] based on the information that she has in the movie, but that's not necessarily the correct deduction for her to make. The audience is privy to pieces of the story that Shaw is not. I hope that the movie is one of those films that [is rewarding on] subsequent viewings as opposed to more confusing and more frustrating."

Very interesting.
 
When I first noticed this in the trailer I knew I'd seen it before and here it is.

dune_palais_harkonnen_version_alejandro.jpg


A closer look.

DUNEIV_bettercolor_000_thumb.jpg


dune6_hrgiger.jpg


Here's the info,
It was concept art of the the Harkonnen castle/palace type thing produced for Alejandro Jodorowsky’s sadly never-produced version of Frank Herbert’s Dune
 
Hopefully going to see this tomorrow night. I've been avoiding most of the threads on the movie in case of spoilers, so it will be interesting to finally check them out and see what people are building. Now I just have to decide whether of not to follow the 3D fad or just watch the 2D version...
 
The arm down the side of the building holding the handle is replicated in the Space Jockey design from the first movie.

I'm sure the production team on Prometheus will be more than happy to clarify that the whole temple in that concept art is just a suit as well.
 
Now I just have to decide whether of not to follow the 3D fad or just watch the 2D version...

My advice? See the 2D version. Much of this film is set in dark places and those 3D glasses already cut down on the brightness.
 
My advice? See the 2D version. Much of this film is set in dark places and those 3D glasses already cut down on the brightness.

My advise is go see it in 3D at imax, it is incredible and converted me fro being a 3D hater. If its not Imax then 2D
 
Hopefully going to see this tomorrow night. I've been avoiding most of the threads on the movie in case of spoilers, so it will be interesting to finally check them out and see what people are building. Now I just have to decide whether of not to follow the 3D fad or just watch the 2D version...

I saw it in 3D and LOVED it. Yes, parts of the movie may be darker than if you were to see it in 2D, but I really believe the movie was visually more enjoyable because of the 3D.
 
Back
Top