I agreed that the script was a mess, remember? Then I stated that, despite the messy story, Prometheus has led to more discussion than Sunshine. But every time I say this you want to stop talking to me.
Actually, you're confusing the hell out of me -- fighting me tooth and nail with what I consider to be spurious discussion tactics and proclaiming how great Prometheus is, then turning around in your posts this afternoon and arguing the other side with Cascade and ZPowers.
I have no clue what you actually believe anymore, it's almost like you're just playing extreme devil's advocate. I don't even know how to position myself in this discussion anymore.
EDIT: Any time I leave a discussion, it's because I perceive that further discussion will be useless unless something changes. I don't like to waste my time or energy beating my head against the wall. I'm only responding now because you shifted in some way and I don't understand it, but it does mean maybe there's a possibility for a change in the discussion as well.
Yes. And why should it? What's wrong with being forced to think instead of being spoon-fed answers?
Maybe I need to explain this differently.
I look at a work of art is stand-alone. It has to be self-explanatory, if it is good. Maybe people will resonate in different ways with it, but this is a very logical foundation: If the work of art is only good depending on who is listening to it, then it's not the work of art that is good but the listener, and if the work of art is consistently good regardless of the audience, then it is the work that is excellent in its own right.
In that light, I don't think Prometheus is a great movie, as the positives of the experience are all generated by the viewer -- it's whatever the viewer is using the movie as a vehicle for, but the movie itself doesn't actually generate any of that, it's all the viewer using the movie to simply explore things they would have already explored within themselves. Again, the goodness is NOT within the movie itself. Everything you've been talking about, I just feel is you 'projecting yourself' onto the movie to make it mean what you want it to mean.
I also feel that it is not self-explanatory; if the movie has to be explained in long treatises by guys arguing over what it means and doesn't explain anything within itself, then it is not a coherent narrative on its own two feet. Compare it to riddles: When you hear the answer to a riddle, you expect an a-ha moment, where the paradigm becomes clear and it all makes sense and you just needed to get in the right frame of mind; but if what you get is some elaborate answer that you could have never figured out on your own by getting in the right frame of mind, then it means the truth of the riddle was not coherent or accessible regardless of how you positioned yourself. In other words, the riddle is a "cheat."
I admire art that is coherent within its own rights, no matter who is observing it, and generates the responses to it, and contains its own definition in a way that can be discovered within itself. (or, ha ha, "I admire its purity. [art that is] A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality. ")
I hope this makes more sense.
With two androids traveling to the alien home planet, perhaps they will have a chance to find the answers.
Again, I think I said above that the 'sequel' if one is made is what will determine whether the first movie was part of a cohesive whole or simply a cosmic joke.