Prometheus (Post-release)

[Noeland]

I loved the film despite what I see are flaws, but with this one I don't think people can even agree on what are flaws and what is well executed. It's just such a subtle film, and very understated in ways, that it's easy to disagree on.

My first viewing was on a new, bright 3D screen and it was flat out amazing to witness the level of dynamic imagery the movie is chocked full of.

The second viewing, though also 3D was on a much older, dimmer screen, and the 3D effect was nearly lost entirely. It was a very different experience, and had that been the first viewing, well, I can see how some folks were disappointed in the 3D if that's what they saw. I think that's too bad.

So, I'm planning to see it at least once more in a new digital 3D theater. I'd love to see it in Imax, but I dont think that's in the cards for me.

 

[Vivek]

I liked the movie, even more of its aesthetic and technical qualities, but still can't overlook the obvious flaws in character motivations, plot holes and bad pacing during the later half.

I love movies that make you think and lets you draw your own conclusions, Prometheus tried to do that as well. But being ambiguous is one thing but having the audience struggle to really figure out and understand even the basic and essential character actions means the writer has failed in doing his job. (I am not even referring to the Engineers and their plans)

Eg: Can someone really say they have the answers as to why David did the things he did?

More unanswered questions so that the audience returns next week for another episode works good for television not for a movie. Saying it will be addressed in the sequel is not cutting it.

I agree with Gavin on the following from his blog post.

"It seems that by touching on the epic notions of gods and eternal life, the film's creators are playing a rather cheap game where they are leaving it up to us to "figure it all out". I've seen all sorts of discussions on internet forums recently where people are looking into ancient myths and thinly stretching things together so it makes more sense and the film seems to gain a greater sense of worth. Generally I have no problem with this sort of thing, and I certainly do it myself occasionally, but I do feel that any film has a responsibility to it's audience to establish that sense of worth in it's own right. In this case, it feels like they are encouraging people to fill over the holes that have been exposed in the reviews. A good example of this is Ridley Scott saying in an interview recently that ***** was an engineer. What the effing what now? Did I go to the loo and miss a scene? No I didn't, I held it in. And there weren't no ***** scenes in there. So what does it matter after the fact? Never mind, moving swiftly on... Blade Runner 2."

 

[Noeland]

I don't think the writers, or Ridley, failed. I had no problem understanding the characters actions or motivations. No problem with the black goo and what it was capable of. I have not had to research anything to fill in holes, and if there is no sequel I still feel like I watched a film that does stand on it's own. I thought the ending was pretty damn good.

 

[rodneyfaile]

I don't think the writers, or Ridley, failed. I had no problem understanding the characters actions or motivations. No problem with the black goo and what it was capable of. I have not had to research anything to fill in holes, and if there is no sequel I still feel like I watched a film that does stand on it's own. I thought the ending was pretty damn good.

Exactly!

I don't understand people's hostility to this movie. I think Ridley made exactly what he set out to do, and it is great. I wish more movies gave me as much to think about. Everything is dumbed down lately. It's like they want every character to give a synopsis speech about themselves.

 

[TK765]

It's like nobody making this film cared about anything that makes a movie a movie. Characters? Story? Motivation? Resolution? None of these are the highlights of Prometheus. It's like all they had was an idea and in the end that's all they wanted to sell.

"Our movie stands on it's own." my aunt fanny. Is that why your clamoring to make sequels?

Exactly

I didn't care about any of these characters they were all so dumbly written.

It seems the people that love it are spending more time analysing the script more than the the writers ever did.

 

[blipper]

Exactly!

It's like they want every character to give a synopsis speech about themselves.

Not a synopsis - just reasonable attention to character plausibility and plot coherence. I used to deride Aliens for reducing the ideas in Alien to a cartoon but by crimminy the plot's more stable and characters more truthful than those of Prometheus.

 

[ghostryder]

Red Letter Media talks about Prometheus - SPOILERS - YouTube

 

[Vivek]

Red Letter Media talks about Prometheus - SPOILERS - YouTube

Saw that video yesterday. Though they did a humorous take on it, they really addressed the several flaws in the plot lines.

 

[Dave Ward]

Eg: Can someone really say they have the answers as to why David did the things he did?

That's probably a bad example - I thought his character was extremely well drawn, and worked on both thematic and plot levels.

I do agree more generally that there were some poorly sketched characters though.

 

[Vivek]

That's probably a bad example - I thought his character was extremely well drawn, and worked on both thematic and plot levels.

Thematically I agree. And as others had mentioned I felt David definitely seems to think superior of himself, even after he realized the reason of his existence is probably nothing really significant. But his actions though seem sinister didn't really justify even in the wake of Weyland being alive.

With the revelation of Weyland I had understood that David's priority was to try and save Weyland, but every of his action including getting infection on board was potentially lethal not just for the safety of the crew but Weyland himself. So I still found his motivations hard to comprehend.

But another forum member reminded me that it is Weyland's desperate situation that resulted in David taking drastic measures using the crew members to experiment, even though he probably didn't know the consequences of the black goo.

But to me it always appeared like David was already in the know-how of things including what the black goo does. Though he was shooting in the dark seems to be the approach taken and is probably more acceptable.

 

[Dave Ward]

At the same time, we're not really supposed to understand what's going on underneath the surface of David's calm appearance.

The movie's thematic strands give us a lot of different clues as to what might be some of the undercurrents though. Oedpidal rebellion against Weyland? Maybe - after all, we don't know what he said to the engineer...perhaps it was "do yourself a favour, kill them all". Pride? It's certainly hinted at that he's suffering from the sins of the fathers.

Maybe there's a sadism in his giving the goo to the doctor...a sort of, "you think you know everything, well check this out" mentality.

The point is that someone could have said "Looks like his wiring went wrong" and that would have satisfied a certain part of the audience, but this is a more interesting film than that.

 

[Kit Rae]

Eg: Can someone really say they have the answers as to why David did the things he did?

This just goes to show how people watch films and pay attention to things differently. David was one of the most clear and obvious characters to understand in the film for me. The heart and heartlessness of his character were telegraphed in the first 20 minutes of the film. I thought they went out of their way to make his perspective on humans, his creator, and their creators very obvious, which explains his motives and every action he made in the film. There are so many details packed into the film regarding him I could write an essay on it.

It seems you did not care for the film, but I invite you to watch it again just for that performance, because if you missed it, you missed something special.

The only question open with him are what his motives are with helping Shaw at the end, and this should be up for interpretation. I know exactly what I think he has on his mind at the end, but in every other part of the film, it SHOWS you what is on his mind by his actions and reactions the the various characters.

 

[NAZGÛL]

I watched it this evening. I really enjoyed it, and think its one of the better sci-fi's that weve had for some time. It didnt feel comic book, the themes held it together and the visuals were superb. The themes are interesting and mature, and leaves you with questions, and thats a good thing. 4/5.

Is it Alien? No. Is it The Phantom Menace? No. Im actually surprised that it was this good, thinking of what it is, a prequel to one of the most iconic sci-fi films ever.

 

[rodneyfaile]

The only question open with him are what his motives are with helping Shaw at the end, and this should be up for interpretation. I know exactly what I think he has on his mind at the end, but in every other part of the film, it SHOWS you what is on his mind by his actions and reactions the the various characters.

David did make the comment that if his creator died, he would truly be free.

 

[terryr]

Can someone really say they have the answers as to why David did the things he did?

Because the script told him to. Just like Lost, it's just a bunch of stuff to distract you until the show is over.
You can't judge their motivations because they didn't behave like real people.

 

[Vivek]

This just goes to show how people watch films and pay attention to things differently. David was one of the most clear and obvious characters to understand in the film for me. The heart and heartlessness of his character were telegraphed in the first 20 minutes of the film. I thought they went out of their way to make his perspective on humans, his creator, and their creators very obvious, which explains his motives and every action he made in the film. There are so many details packed into the film regarding him I could write an essay on it.

Those early opening scenes with David and its subtlety was not lost on me. And I didn't have a problem understanding David's quest to know himself and his origins nor had issues him mirroring his existence with the humans. But that still didn't explain his rogue mission in spite of the pretext of saving Weyland's life, whose life he was also jeopardizing with his actions. But I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures, as Weyland was running out of time.

It seems you did not care for the film, but I invite you to watch it again just for that performance, because if you missed it, you missed something special.

Before Shaw, David is the one character that truly stood out for me in the movie, so yeah I still question his motives but didn't miss out on his performance. And no, I did care of the film, I liked parts of the movie while its other shortcomings disappointed me.

 

[ghostryder]

10 Things You Didn't Know About the Making of Prometheus

http://whatculture.com/film/prometheus-5-things-we-want-to-see-in-a-sequel.php

 

[messfx]

Thanks for the link. That io9 article has some good quotes from Ben and Arthur Max, as well as the rest of the design team.

 

[Kit Rae]

David did make the comment that if his creator died, he would truly be free.

Yes, but now that he is free...

Of course he won't be doing much of anything other than talking unless Shaw for some reason decided to give him his body back. She obviously knew she would have to do that at some point or she would not have taken it.

But that still didn't explain his rogue mission in spite of the pretext of saving Weyland's life, whose life he was also jeopardizing with his actions. But I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures, as Weyland was running out of time.

That's why you need to watch it again. I think I know what you would call his "rougue" actions, and the reasons for each of those are in there, as well as his attitude about it.

This is outside of the film, or maybe not, but if an android programmed to understand emotions - like the joy of discovery, disappointment, sarcasm, recognizing foolishness - can recognize them in humans enough to in turn use them in his expressions, words, and body language when communicating with humans, does he truly not feel them? The mechanics may not work the same in the programmed mind as the flesh and blood mind, but looking at Ash and David in this universe, they clearly had a sense of understanding in this area enough to use them that I find very interesting in both performances.

Hal 9000 would be a good example of a completely emotionless automaton that comes across as all programming. Bishop even falls more into that realm of permormance, but Ridley's androids do not.

 

[Vivek]

That's why you need to watch it again. I think I know what you would call his "rougue" actions, and the reasons for each of those are in there, as well as his attitude about it.

Yeah might do that. Been planning to do so ever since I saw it on the opening day.

does he truly not feel them?

There is real no way to know if he feels them nor can we establish what "feel" means to an android.