Sign In

PROMETHEUS was (Alien 0?) NOW NO LONGER SPOILER FREE. — Page 20

Author
Time
 (Edited)

For me the biggest problem was people not doing their jobs.

In Alien the mechanics repair the ship, the navigator plots the ship's course and calculates the distance from Earth, the Science Officer does science. This helps us identify them and gives their character some flavour.

Parker and Brett are vital to the running of the ship but are paid less and this creates friction.

In this film we see a little bit of the medical officer doing medicine and it seems that the bridge crew steer the ship but that's about it.

If the script had been arranged around what the characters did it would have made more narrative and dramatic sense.

The biologist should have been fascinated in the dead aliens and wary of the living ones.

He should have been obsessing over the decapitated head and Shaw (the archaeologist) should have obsessed over the carved one (which she almost fails to notice in the current film).

She too should have had some grasp of the latest interpretation of the same Vedic languages (maybe not as fast or as detailed) that David has studied.

She should ask David for confirmation and maybe be wary of some of the spin he seems to be giving his readings (creating friction).

If Fifield had been the Cartographer, he could have been keen to map the other buildings and get trapped in one of those because the storm interferes with his instruments.

If the bridge crew had been closely monitoring what was happening to the stranded guys via their headsets (instead of sleeping with the boss or just sleeping) we would have had a more tense scene with the crew powerless to help them. The sound of what was happening to them being the main source of information would make the few bits we see more intense (think the air duct scene in Alien).

As I suggested earlier the crew could be more defined if there were less of them doing more.

Making Holloway the biologist makes more sense than having him the 'other' archaeologist who does even less archaeology than the main one.

Making the nurse the android and having her played by Theron makes sense and condenses three characters into one rich character that is narratively stronger.

Making Kate Dickie Vickers gives the film three strong females which are significantly different in look and role.

Having the crew know where they are going and what they are doing before they go to sleep makes them seem less stupid. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Bingowings said:

 Just look at Ridley's own Robin Hood, the script was thought of a masterpiece (the good King John holding back the vile terrorist Robin) then the suits twitched and it became a vehicle for Russell Crowe's global accent.

I managed to get a copy of the original script, titled simply 'Nottingham'. It really is excellent, would've made a terrific movie. It could've done with a few rewrites, but overall it is very, very good. Such a shame it mutated into such a naff film.

 

FYI the script isn't about King John as the goodie, but rather the script centres around the Sheriff of Nottingham, investigating a string of murders that may or may not have been done by the Terrorist 'Robin Hood'

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Thanks for the correction.

In a similar vein, there is Hannibal (a film I'm rather fond of BTW).

The novel ruffled many feathers, no less Jodie Foster who refused to be in the film if it was a straight adaptation of the book.

The script was reshaped to try an entice her into returning to the role but she was 'busy' with other projects so Julianne Moore was cast instead.

Rather than doing the obvious thing of returning the script to match the book (which is better than the final film) they carried on with the Jodie Foster lure script which I think weakened the project.

It also suffered cuts of some really interesting material which made the film tie together both in itself and also with Silence Of The Lambs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

xhonzi said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

evan1975 said:


I'm not even completely sure if Engineers = Space Jockey.  The Space Jockey looked like it was 20 feet tall and the Engineer looked half that, at most.
I've read some fan theories out there which run with that idea. One is that the Engineers are emissaries of the Space Jockeys or something like that, and that their Space Jockeyesque suits are some form of bioengineered outfit that allows them to interface with Jockey technology.
But the size difference remains. The chair is also smaller than the one in Alien.

You can come up with whatever Fansplanations you want... the fact is- it just doesn't match and it doesn't matter to the people who made it as much as the people who watch it want it to.

You're missing the point of the theory. The theory posits that the Space Jockey in Alien would be a real Space Jockey, ie. what you see is what you get - that is the creature itself, not an external suit - while the Engineers in Prometheus are the "men in suits", the emissaries, servants, slaves, etc. of the true Space Jockies. They, being two different species, wouldn't be the same size for that very reason - they are not one and the same.

I don't think I'm missing the point. It's like saying that I've trained my dog to drive my car, but before he can sit in the driver's seat, he has to wear a Richard Nixon mask. Even so, my dog isn't six feet tall and can't reach the pedals, so either he can't drive a car, or he would have to have a half sized car designed for him, but why design it for a dog sized human instead of just for a dog? Which is the same as saying- he can never drive a car meant for a human.

For this theory to work- that the engineers as seen in Prometheus are different than the Space Jockey as seen in Alien, but dress up like the SJ to interface with SJ technology. This would only make sense if the SJ suit made the engineers the same size as the SJs or that the SJ tech we see is sized for the engineers only (since it's so much smaller than the SJ tech we see the SJ in in Alien). If you're making it sized smaller for the engineers, why make it only work for an engineer in an SJ suit? Make it work for an engineer in an engieneer (birthday) suit.

Again, I stand by this theory- it's a goof. They wanted the SJ to be huge in Alien because that was cool. In Prometheus, they wanted the SJ's to be more relatable to the humans, so they shrunk them. Yes, it's a visual continuity error... but I assume they thought it was the lesser of two evils.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Ooo! Ooo! I just remembered. There was something that I really liked at my cinema experience. While everyone was getting their seats, they played the soundtrack to Moon. That was probably one of the things I enjoyed about my trip to see Prometheus.

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time

greenpenguino said:

FYI the script isn't about King John as the goodie, but rather the script centres around the Sheriff of Nottingham, investigating a string of murders that may or may not have been done by the Terrorist 'Robin Hood'

My mother will be disappointed to hear that.  Our ancestor is once again relegated to Disney villain status. ;)

I guess there's worse guys to be related to.  I'm so thankful she hasn't found any slavetraders or Nazis in our background.

Oh back to Prometheus, here's a choice quote from an AICN talkbacker:

you're an idiot.  you're pointing out "plot holes" that a child could have picked up on answers to. i don't have the time to start explaining it all to you.

I'm seeing that excuse a lot.  "You're too dumb to understand it, but I'm smart, so I do.  But I'm not going to tell you for some reason."

Author
Time

evan1975 said:



greenpenguino said:
FYI the script isn't about King John as the goodie, but rather the script centres around the Sheriff of Nottingham, investigating a string of murders that may or may not have been done by the Terrorist 'Robin Hood'


My mother will be disappointed to hear that.  Our ancestor is once again relegated to Disney villain status. ;)
http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsU/17468-16138.gif

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress / Facebook / Twitter

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress / Twitter

Author
Time

LOL!  I loved that movie as a kid, too.  I saw it recently and still found the villains (Ustinov and Pat Buttram) pretty hilarious.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

evan1975 said:

greenpenguino said:

FYI the script isn't about King John as the goodie, but rather the script centres around the Sheriff of Nottingham, investigating a string of murders that may or may not have been done by the Terrorist 'Robin Hood'

My mother will be disappointed to hear that.  Our ancestor is once again relegated to Disney villain status. ;)

Well, to be fair he IS technically a good guy in the script. He just isn't all that prominent, the film focuses on the Sheriff solving murders.

<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>

Author
Time

Some redditor found this on youtube. Spot on.

 

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time

asterisk8 said:

eros said:

pointless opening scene.

Huh? How could it be a pointless scene to show how the engineers sacrifice themselves to create life on other planets, using the black ooze that is shown later in the film? Do you know the myth that inspired the film's title? I mean, I thought the film was pretty bad, but I don't get people who make lazy criticisms like this without backing their opinion up. Explain WHY it was a pointless scene.

Anyone who want a GOOD critique of the film that explains what's wrong with it from someone who knows what he's talking about, check out Gavin Rothery's blog (VFX supervisor of MOON): http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2012/6/11/so-what-was-wrong-with-prometheus.html

 

Really? is that what it was supposed to be? all I saw was an alien being drink some black stuff and fall into a waterfall somewhere means absolutely nothing to me, doesn't get explained what it was supposed to mean later in the film either. The story is about a bunch of archeologists that where WRONG about their theories. For all we know that opening scene could have been about the destruction of a world. Don't really care, I say the film didn't need the scene..on second thoughts that applies to about 50% of the movie. Quite possibly Ridley Scotts worst..

 

1 Alien

2 Aliens

3 Alien3 (I would put the Assembly Cut at #2)

4 Alien Resurrection

5 AvP

6 AvP Requiem

7 Prometheus

Author
Time

Saying "Quite possibly Ridley Scotts worst.." and following up with a list of 7 movies of he directed only two, is a little strange.

Author
Time

Highlights what a shite director he's become since 1979..PLEASE NO BLADERUNNER!!!

Author
Time

eros said:

1 Alien

2 Aliens

3 Alien3 (I would put the Assembly Cut at #2)

4 Alien Resurrection

5 AvP

6 AvP Requiem

7 Prometheus

I think we all know the order that they were released, thanks

J

Author
Time
 (Edited)

eros said:

asterisk8 said:

eros said:

pointless opening scene.

Huh? How could it be a pointless scene to show how the engineers sacrifice themselves to create life on other planets, using the black ooze that is shown later in the film? Do you know the myth that inspired the film's title? I mean, I thought the film was pretty bad, but I don't get people who make lazy criticisms like this without backing their opinion up. Explain WHY it was a pointless scene.

Anyone who want a GOOD critique of the film that explains what's wrong with it from someone who knows what he's talking about, check out Gavin Rothery's blog (VFX supervisor of MOON): http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2012/6/11/so-what-was-wrong-with-prometheus.html

 

Really? is that what it was supposed to be? all I saw was an alien being drink some black stuff and fall into a waterfall somewhere means absolutely nothing to me, doesn't get explained what it was supposed to mean later in the film either.

Yeah, it DID get explained, and it was totally obvious what was happening in the first scene, with the Engineer's DNA dissolving and reforming as single cells that start to divide. I'm not one to defend the film - like I said, I thought it was pretty bad - but this is one of the few things that was clearly explained in the film.

Author
Time

This X-Files/Lost/Prometheus garbage isn't even proper storytelling.  It's more like bad beat poetry or something, where imagery is invoked but is ultimately meaningless.

What did David do
With that black goo?

That hip albino cat
Just made old man Weyland splat