Prometheus

[swordpath]

Yes, and it was clumsy, hokey, and corny.

No, you.

 

[Totenkindly]

And Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars out of 4. It must've been filmed in Chicago.

Roger! No!!!!!

Also, what exactly was the point in having Charlize Theron in the movie? (Or her character for that matter?)

I agree. She was wasted... which was too bad, because she played what little part she had very well, I wanted to find out more about her.

But anyway, Prometheus was easily Ridley Scott's worst movie since Gladiator.

Yeah, whatever. I enjoyed Gladiator much better, but I already know you have other sensibilities than me.

But it could be worse. It could be Alien Resurrection.

Never found the courage to watch that dog yet.

Since when is Gladiator regarded as bad?

lol. Yup, here we go!
I actually think Gladiator was a decent movie as well.

 

[swordpath]

I think uber is the only person I've ever encountered that slammed Gladiator.

 

[Totenkindly]

They didn't find their feet w this one but I still liked it. I would love to see a different, expanded cut. I am rather taken with the Engineer storyline (and all of the things I hope the next movie(s) might reveal).

Since Scott basically got what he wanted with this movie, I'm not sure what an expanded cut would show that wasn't already here. The Engineer storyline was an interesting choice which didn't really go anywhere as written; but honestly, as far as the ending... what do you think's going to happen when an android with his head in a duffel bag and a human woman half the size of these guys lands on their home planet? The entire crew of this ship couldn't even deal with one of these things.

I think it's ridiculous to imagine, in the way it was written; maybe if it had been written better, it would be worth seeing and believable. There was a lot of the movie that was that way for me -- things were just kind of slapped together and didn't follow in justifiable or sensible way, emotionally and sometimes logistically.

Top Ten List of Things David Mistakenly Said in a Foreign Tongue to the Engineer, That Led to... Well, You KNow...

10. "My hovercraft is full of eels."
9. "Excuse me, but you have beautiful buttocks."
8. "Your momma wears level-3-blaster-resistant combat boots."
7. "Can I stick my thrusting octopus into your adolescent xenomorph?"
6. "Excuse me, but you are standing on my toe."
5. "I'm sorry that I forgot your birthday... again."
4. "Your little girl would have died of old age 2000 years ago or more. Get over it, Ripley did...err... will."
3. "Get out of my way, paste-breath; damn, but you REALLY need to get out in the sun more."
2. " And here's my little secret: *I* killed Mufasa!"
1. "I have a crick in my neck, and I was wondering if you could fix it."

I think uber is the only person I've ever encountered that slammed Gladiator.

I think so.

It had a few small flaws, but overall was pretty decent.

Maybe he got it confused with that perennial classic, House 2.

 

[swordpath]

It had a few small flaws, but overall was pretty decent.

Hard to find a film without 'em.

 

[CreativeCait]

I enjoyed watching it. I don't think its the best sci-fi I've ever seen. Nor do I think it had the most interesting plot. It felt like they have dragged the plot line out to make more than one film, which left the first one a little lacking.

Charleze Theron's character was an interesting example of sp instinctual stacking to the extreme. If you havn't seen the movie don't read on...

I loved the irony that she got crushed to death so close to making it to the pod. Although she probably would have died anyway when she got there. Her character was there to serve the point that her father's selfish quest for immortality is pointless. She was the rational/moral voice of the movie.

I thought David was an interesting character. But I kept wondering...what was the deal with putting hair dye on?? As a robot surely he doesn't 'grow' hair...so was he just trying to expereince what it was like to be human?? Also he clearly has emotions, dispite what the other characters say about him - but maybe that's the point??? (Though that's been done before in much better movies)....I didn't really get a feel for the point of the movie and the plot, twas too loose for me. But I enjoyed the action and expereince of watching it....

 

[violaine]

Since Scott basically got what he wanted with this movie, I'm not sure what an expanded cut would show that wasn't already here. The Engineer storyline was an interesting choice which didn't really go anywhere as written; but honestly, as far as the ending... what do you think's going to happen when an android with his head in a duffel bag and a human woman half the size of these guys lands on their home planet? The entire crew of this ship couldn't even deal with one of these things.

I think it's ridiculous to imagine, in the way it was written; maybe if it had been written better, it would be worth seeing and believable. There was a lot of the movie that was that way for me -- things were just kind of slapped together and didn't follow in justifiable or sensible way, emotionally and sometimes logistically.

Director's cuts. I like 'em. Though yeah, he has said there likely won't be one. I'm an editor as well, so I know how much different lengths of scenes and including/deleting scenes affects/restores flow. I know I watch movies in a different way to people who don't edit. I'm paying attention and fascinated in a different way and that can win me over. It's not purely escapism for me.

 

[Totenkindly]

Director's cuts. I like 'em. Though yeah, he has said there likely won't be one. I'm an editor as well, so I know how much different lengths of scenes and including/deleting scenes affects/restores flow. I know I watch movies in a different way to people who don't edit. I'm paying attention and fascinated in a different way and that can win me over. It's not purely escapism for me.

I like director's cuts, and yes, I think editing a movie impacts it a great deal. I'm a musician and an editor of text and am pretty aware of all the big-picture aspects of the conveyance of art and development of ambiance, and I also typically watch theatrical/director's cuts and compare. (Just watched the Grudge this past week, to do a compare on that movie.)

(Most infamous example of how cutting can change a pic -- the "love conquers all" version of brazil versus the theatrical cut vs what Gilliam wanted to release)

I do think the emotional arc / timing was off in the Prometheus theatrical cut, there were scenes that just seemed disjointed / missing something, they didn't build or transition properly, so the entire movie felt kind of flat to me. I'd like to see if there was anything cut, I'm just not aware based on what Ridley Scott said that there will be that much to cut back into it. Usually the cuts result in more change when the director is being forced to release a picture he didn't plan to release.

 

[Kalach]

I didn't get why all the human characters were all so instantly aggressive with one another. That is, it was a theme, of course, humans were aggressive, the Engineers were aggressive, eventually in other movies the Aliens will be aggressive, etc. And as with Alien, crews of space ships are more like long distance truckers than scientists, but in this one they were all coked up and immediately pushy. Why?

Presumably because it's in our dna.


I watched a blurry cam copy. So I had to focus on how weak the story was and how there were too many structural references back to earlier movies. I'd watch it again though to see if all the 3d stuff and the visuals actually do look good.

 

[The Ü™]

I enjoyed watching it. I don't think its the best sci-fi I've ever seen. Nor do I think it had the most interesting plot. It felt like they have dragged the plot line out to make more than one film, which left the first one a little lacking.

Charleze Theron's character was an interesting example of sp instinctual stacking to the extreme. If you havn't seen the movie don't read on...

I loved the irony that she got crushed to death so close to making it to the pod. Although she probably would have died anyway when she got there. Her character was there to serve the point that her father's selfish quest for immortality is pointless. She was the rational/moral voice of the movie.

I thought David was an interesting character. But I kept wondering...what was the deal with putting hair dye on?? As a robot surely he doesn't 'grow' hair...so was he just trying to expereince what it was like to be human?? Also he clearly has emotions, dispite what the other characters say about him - but maybe that's the point??? (Though that's been done before in much better movies)....I didn't really get a feel for the point of the movie and the plot, twas too loose for me. But I enjoyed the action and expereince of watching it....

The spoiler you mention about Charlize Theron's character was one of my biggest problems.

What is the point of having her be this mysterious character throughout the entire movie if you're just going to kill her off without any kind of big, unexpected revelation? The only remotely surprising thing about her was that she didn't turn out to be a robot.

I'll say one thing about Prometheus though, now that I think about it more, the surgery sequence was pretty cool. Both the drive-thru surgery idea and everything after that. I want that machine.

And on a semi-related note, I had forgotten that Joss Whedon wrote Alien Resurrection. I guess some good came out of that movie, though -- Firefly.

 

[violaine]

I like director's cuts, and yes, I think editing a movie impacts it a great deal. I'm a musician and an editor of text and am pretty aware of all the big-picture aspects of the conveyance of art and development of ambiance, and I also typically watch theatrical/director's cuts and compare. (Just watched the Grudge this past week, to do a compare on that movie.)

(Most infamous example of how cutting can change a pic -- the "love conquers all" version of brazil versus the theatrical cut vs what Gilliam wanted to release)

I do think the emotional arc / timing was off in the Prometheus theatrical cut, there were scenes that just seemed disjointed / missing something, they didn't build or transition properly, so the entire movie felt kind of flat to me. I'd like to see if there was anything cut, I'm just not aware based on what Ridley Scott said that there will be that much to cut back into it. Usually the cuts result in more change when the director is being forced to release a picture he didn't plan to release.

There apparently were a few key scenes cut and one which alluded to why the Engineers changed their minds about humanity. And which I personally wondered about during the movie, given the carbon dating of the head. And because I edit film and video, I'm looking for little clues and foreshadowing along the way - so when I guess right, it's a really neat thing. There were a couple of other little clues, like the line about don't all children really want their parents dead which seemed portentous - and I loved seeing how that played out - why Weyland might have favored the closest thing he has to a son over his actual daughter in some ways, though David clearly has disdain for humanity, his creators... And the tension kept through the whole movie between creator and created, and as in the myth of Prometheus, the risks associated with pushing too far, that it can be disastrous. Also, the line about not minding that it hurts and then watching David incorporating that. And the similarity between David and Shaw in that regard though for different motivations and for the same motivation - hard won survival, though through different methods. Loooved all of those allusions and themes. I like looking for a different kind of consistency and when that is present, I can really enjoy certain movies - it's the same for my other friends who are tv and film editors and cinematographers. Actually, dissecting the technical elements of a movie with one of my friends is often the second part of the movie experience and greatly impacts my enjoyment. I feel like I could see why they cut things the way they did, (probably because I'm looking for reasons as to why with very experienced directors), and I don't blame them for trying to get another franchise up.

I also really loved elements of the production design that they weren't able to show in the Alien franchise because they didn't have the technical prowess and because it didn't fit the story. The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. No, they didn't get there with the emotional elements pertaining to the humans' interactions... Though, I think it was deliberate even though that can happen when you make too many passes on a piece. I know they expanded the role of Meredith Vickers, but I really had the sense that they were all just playthings. And I liked that a lot. (Film directors and god complexes and all that). I think they wanted it as tight as it could be and as an intro to a new franchise, which means sacrificing the fullness of this story. I don't think it's meant to stand alone ideally. Even if it did, it's good enough as is, though madly tantalizing.

It did make me wonder about previous cuts several passes back. One of my pet points when I cut something is to bring in fresh eyes late in the process to make sure I didn't cut anything integral to the story and I wonder if that happened with this piece, (always wondering about process). I really do get the sense they were going for short, staccato interactions, almost horror-movie style in terms of character development.

 

[Lark]

A team of scientists journey through the universe on the spaceship "Prometheus" on a voyage to investigate Alien life forms. The team of scientists becomes stranded on an Alien world, and as they struggle to survive it becomes clear that the horrors they experience are not just a threat to themselves, but to all of mankind.

Arguably could be the best sci-fi movie of all time.

I do think its very good, I was thinking about going to see it a second time.

There's excellent visual references of other classic films, the obvious one is Alien or Aliens since it is supposedly from the same universe or mythose, although I thought that it was also referencing the modern and older The Thing movies too, an octopus like creature at one point looks like the monster which emerged from the corpse of the wolf in the modern film and there is a big humanoid creature which resembled the alien monster from the black and white movie The Thing which was played by Boris Karloff.

I dont know what the whole excitement was abour denying its association with the film Alien or denying that it was a prequel, I know that perhaps it was because they were trying to get a different or broader audience than has since grown up around those movies or the AVP movies but it was over done.

I remember reading books about the Alien movie and a lot of the things they wanted to do but which never appeared in the film for different reasons, at that point I thought that they'd remake Alien one day with all those things in it, in some ways this is it, although I think there's way more of the "grey goo" sci fi bodyshock horror in this movie than in any of the other Alien films.

Although it has to be said that the two or three hypothesis which are given by characters for what is happening throughout the film, ie military installation, the aim of wiping out humankind etc. are not really confirmed in any way.

 

[Totenkindly]

There apparently were a few key scenes cut and one which alluded to why the Engineers changed their minds about humanity. And which I personally wondered about during the movie, given the carbon dating of the head. And because I edit film and video, I'm looking for little clues and foreshadowing along the way - so when I guess right, it's a really neat thing. There were a couple of other little clues, like the line about don't all children really want their parents dead which seemed portentous - and I loved seeing how that played out - why Weyland might have favored the closest thing he has to a son over his actual daughter in some ways, though David clearly has disdain for humanity, his creators... And the tension kept through the whole movie between creator and created, and as in the myth of Prometheus, the risks associated with pushing too far, that it can be disastrous. Also, the line about not minding that it hurts and then watching David incorporating that. And the similarity between David and Shaw in that regard though for different motivations and for the same motivation - hard won survival, though through different methods. Loooved all of those allusions and themes.

Yes, all the things you mentioned are tidbits that I was just expect to see fleshed out, the stubs of the threads were there, and then it was just... gutted or ignored. I don't understand why they were not followed up on. I think where I disagree with you about intentions is that (1) a popular movie doesn't have to run from asking questions and it even improves the popularity and longevity of the movie, look at Inception for example, or Silence of the Lambs; and Scott seems to be a talented enough director to know that and have perpetuated in that philosophy in many of his other movies, and (2) EVERYTHING seemed to be stubbed and gutted, to the level of a popcorn TV series episode. I have trouble believing that someone would want to make a movie with all those potential directions in place and then just choose to remove ALL of them.

If what you suggest is true that there was a reason for removing all depth from the movie, I see this as a failure of the movie-making process because what could have been a compelling work of art instead because an over-priced evening of dumbed-down entertainment.

I did miss the connect between Wayland having a daughter but needing to create a son... which is too bad, because his daughter was damned impressive even if tightly wound, and David was kind of an asshole. (And I still can't wonder if it's some homage to AI as far as the name, although that David was very very different -- he was about feeling and presenting as a "real boy" while this David was meant to be functional and to carry out his father's wishes.)

I like looking for a different kind of consistency and when that is present, I can really enjoy certain movies - it's the same for my other friends who are tv and film editors and cinematographers. Actually, dissecting the technical elements of a movie with one of my friends is often the second part of the movie experience and greatly impacts my enjoyment. I feel like I could see why they cut things the way they did, (probably because I'm looking for reasons as to why with very experienced directors), and I don't blame them for trying to get another franchise up.

I think I do blame them, because I think they gutted the longevity of the franchise. Alien itself wasn't dumbed down, and it's still considered one of the best movies ever made, it's still popular 30+ years later. Do you still see Predator vs Alien around? There's a dumbed-down version meant to appeal to the masses, and it made its easy money and then faded into oblivious. Oh well, a king has his reign, and then he dies, I suppose.

Even the whole ending of this movie was terrible -- it come off as a ripoff of Alien + ST:TNG, rather than as a homage.

I also really loved elements of the production design that they weren't able to show in the Alien franchise because they didn't have the technical prowess and because it didn't fit the story. The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. No, they didn't get there with the emotional elements pertaining to the humans' interactions... Though, I think it was deliberate even though that can happen when you make too many passes on a piece. I know they expanded the role of Meredith Vickers, but I really had the sense that they were all just playthings. And I liked that a lot. (Film directors and god complexes and all that). I think they wanted it as tight as it could be and as an intro to a new franchise, which means sacrificing the fullness of this story. I don't think it's meant to stand alone ideally. Even if it did, it's good enough as is, though madly tantalizing.

We'll see how it works for people in five years and if the movie is still around aside from the hard-core horror and scifi fans. Honestly, I'm bored with the idea of rewatching this. I found the movie "50 First Dates" more watchable, which is probably an insult of some sort.

It did make me wonder about previous cuts several passes back. One of my pet points when I cut something is to bring in fresh eyes late in the process to make sure I didn't cut anything integral to the story and I wonder if that happened with this piece, (always wondering about process). I really do get the sense they were going for short, staccato interactions, almost horror-movie style in terms of character development.

Again, it didn't have to be so. Even the first two Alien movies had far more characterization and depth, and yet are still popular decades later. I have trouble even remembering who the members of this crew were, they were just indistinguishable. I'm far more likely to suspect they were screwing around with the effects and 3D stuff so much, they dropped the ball on other aspects of the movie. Did you see how much they invested in Wayland's aging makeup? But it was too much -- he reminded me more of the shoddy job with Biff in Back to the Future 2, I had trouble taking him seriously, I saw him as an actor buried under pounds of latex and cosmetics. There just seemed to be excess on the visuals.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, we can discuss the execution of the opening sequence, which I didn't really piece together until far late in the movie despite various strands pointing to it. Which is sad, because I'm typically really good at figuring out context early in a movie.

The biggest problem was context framing. It's possible I missed details, I do that when I don't yet have a tree to hang them on; but I don't recall any kind of text or image framing to let me know (1) where the scene was located, (2) WHEN the scene was located, (3) who the guy was walking along the torrents of water, (4) scale -- how big he was, (5) what he was drinking and what it would do, (6) whether it was poisoned or doing exactly what he intentioned it to do, and (7) what it was exactly doing to him. We wouldn't even guess he was one of the aliens because at that point in time, the audience only knows that species as looking like the "elephant head" before we are shown its just a helmet.

Far too many possibilities of what was going on with each of those elements; the stuff he drank didn't do what the stuff people in the movie drank later, so it seemed like something different but unexplained. There were zooms on the DNA, but the DNA *also* looked like it was disintegrating, so I couldn't tell whether it was just a case of murder, or poisoning, or total disintegration, or what exactly. This was one of those movie scenes where if you were the director or writer and knew what the scene was about, your brain would just fill in the gaps and you wouldn't miss it; if you had no context whatsoever or idea of how to frame it, it was actually really confusing. I'm reminded of the opening of Nolan's remake of "Insomnia" starting with the zoom of the staining cloth fibers, where we don't find out what it is until later in the movie... but in that case, finding out the answer is part of the mystery and the sequence isn't so CRUCIAL to understanding the rest of the plot, so it's more like it fills in the gaps. This opening scene here was supposed to give depth to the rest of the movie and failed.

(My intuitive understanding of the scene after watching the pic is that the alien there is likely to be Earth's "Prometheus" who chose to sacrifice his life and seed our planet with his own DNA because he didn't have another way to do it -- his own choice was to disintegrate his own body. For some reason, he considered this sacrifice to be worth the ultimate price. And if the Prometheus had to take that route, it seems likely that the rest of his species did NOT agree on him doing this. This would easily explain why the rest of the Engineers want to destroy us; we were never supposed to exist in the first place, and they are trying to clear up HIS mistake.)

And then there are dumb questions, like, "If the Engineers visited earth before life/humans existed, where did humans get the knowledge to paint the star system pictures on the walls? if the Engineers had come back to visit earth in the years after humans did exist, wouldn't they be trying to kill us instead as they are now once they found us?"

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm putting my thoughts down before I read any more of other peoples' posts.

I thought it was pretty good; not the greatest movie I've ever seen, by any means, but decent.

I'd probably give it somewhere around an 8/10; need to let it marinate for a bit, though.

I was thinking it was gunna answer some questions.

Instead, now there are a whole bunch more questions.

I'm still trying to sort out all the different things it leaves open.

One of my first thoughts after I finished it: "I need to talk to an Ne user."

The first one I hit up said something stupid, which kinda curtailed the desire.

I'm still sorting my thoughts out on it; probably time to read the thread.

 

[Totenkindly]

One of my first thoughts after I finished it: "I need to talk to an Ne user."

That's amusing. I thought the questions it asked never moved out of adolescence, as the point for Ne is not just to ask questions but to explore them. You don't need to arrive at "The Answer" because often there is no "The Answer" and any answer reached will be partial if not contrived -- but it's the exploration that counts... and the film really did not explore questions, it just hinted at them and then dropped them.

What does it mean for a "king to reign, and then to die"?
Or "big things have small beginnings?"
Or to live by the notion that the point is not to avoid pain but to "not mind that it hurts"?
Or to believe in something that makes no sense?

The movie seemed to just toss a bunch of junk on the table and not bother to actually look at it.

 

[Zarathustra]

I thought it was crap.

Would you care to expand on that?

That's cause it was.

I didn't think it was.

now I'm glad i didn't waste my money on it, if it's as bad as everyone's saying

It's not.

It would have been better to have just stuck with the trailer....it was better than the movie.

I thought the movie offered up plenty of food for thought.

Have heard mostly disappointing reviews. Bummer, because I really wanted this movie to rule. Will still see it at some point.

See it.

Form your own opinion.

Also, what exactly was the point in having Charlize Theron in the movie? (Or her character for that matter?)

I see plenty of reason for her to have been in the movie.

If that's one of your criticisms, I can't help but to question your value as a critic.

They didn't find their feet w this one but I still liked it. I would love to see a different, expanded cut. I am rather taken with the Engineer storyline (and all of the things I hope the next movie(s) might reveal).

This is the fairest review I've seen thus far.

I don't know whether a primary thing I'd say is that they didn't find their feet, but I could at least imagine that being a defensible statement.

I'm not particularly anxious to see a different cut, but I'd definitely be willing to watch it, and I agree with you about the Space Jockeys/Engineers -- I feel like they just totally opened up the Alien universe (cinematically, at least [this material has been explored already in other media]).

I think uber is the only person I've ever encountered that slammed Gladiator.

I had a substitute teacher my senior year of high school who did as well. I'm pretty sure he represented the beginning of the hipster movement. I got in an argument with him about it in physics class. He said it was just a Braveheart redux. I kind of agreed with him to an extent, but, I mean, read some Joseph Campbell. The stories we tell are often extremely similar. He also said that Braveheart sucked. At that point, I realized that, despite the fact that he was probably in his late 20s, and I was only 17, I was pretty sure, if I needed to, I could kill him with my bare hands. In fact, I probably would've put money on my sister if the two of them were fighting. That was my first encounter with the thought that later became applicable to almost all hipsters: that some men's absence of masculinity leads them to trash "traditional" masculinity, and the things that honor/respect/uphold it, because, if it came down to it, they would likely get their ass kicked by most athletic girls.

I, personally, very much like Gladiator, but I know there are a fair number of people who will criticize it, and I don't think it's completely out of the realm of "criticizeability" (although, in general, I think the people who will criticize it will do so mostly because they don't like those kinds of movies).

I agree. She was wasted... which was too bad, because she played what little part she had very well, I wanted to find out more about her.

I can agree more with this.

She probably could've been better utilized.

But, I mean, the story is the story; what more did she need to do?

Never found the courage to watch that dog yet.

Me neither.

I love the first one; saw the second one before I ever saw the first one, when I was really young (same thing for T2 vs T1), and loved it, so, while it's definitely hokier than the first (once again, just like T2 vs T1 [although T1 has some hoke, too]), it's still an enjoyable film to watch, and I give it two thumbs up; the third I remember kinda watching a bunch of times, but I always thought it kinda was crap; the fourth, I just have/had absolutely no desire to see (and I saw both AVP movies!).

I enjoyed watching it. I don't think its the best sci-fi I've ever seen. Nor do I think it had the most interesting plot. It felt like they have dragged the plot line out to make more than one film, which left the first one a little lacking.

I can agree with this.

Charleze Theron's character was an interesting example of sp instinctual stacking to the extreme.

Funny you say it, cuz I thought the exact same thing during the movie.

If you havn't seen the movie don't read on...

I loved the irony that she got crushed to death so close to making it to the pod.

I just thought they were both retarded for not running sideways.

Her character was there to serve the point that her father's selfish quest for immortality is pointless. She was the rational/moral voice of the movie.

Not sure where you got all that... (especially the last part)

I thought she was just a selfish cunt looking to take control of the corporation.

I thought David was an interesting character. But I kept wondering...what was the deal with putting hair dye on?? As a robot surely he doesn't 'grow' hair...so was he just trying to expereince what it was like to be human??

Yeah, I thought that was an interesting touch.

I think it mostly served to introduce the uncanny valley.

Also he clearly has emotions, dispite what the other characters say about him - but maybe that's the point???

Hmmm...

I think that's jumping the gun a bit.

Just because he might seem to use pathos appeals when interacting with humans doesn't mean he actually experiences emotion. I think it's an interesting question whether he does, but I don't think anything about the film necessarily points to him experiencing emotion.

(Though that's been done before in much better movies)....

What movies are you thinking of?

I didn't really get a feel for the point of the movie and the plot, twas too loose for me. But I enjoyed the action and expereince of watching it....

I think that's fair.

From my end, as with Alien, I think a large part of what Scott is going for is creating a fictional universe that makes you, in real life, question what exactly is mankind's role in the cosmos. When there are xenomorphs out there that impregnate us with their parasitic offspring, who the fuck are we exactly? Same goes for the Predator movies. It's a very post-Death-of-God universe.

To that end, I think, as I mentioned in my response to [MENTION=4806]violaine[/MENTION], that the Engineer storyline is very interesting, as they seem to be the key to not only resolving the question, "Who are we?", but, "Who are the xenomorphs?", and even, "Who are the predators?" If you are familiar with the ways in which these questions have been resolved in other media, it leads to interesting questions about this movie, and where they might go with this universe (cinematically) now (they really opened up a *huge* can of worms).

[going to respond to a few more, but going to post now just in case my browser crashes]

 

[Elisius]

I just saw it. I thought it was amazing.
The deeper meaning isn't too great, it's one of those things where it's unknown enough that we can construct what we want out of it, and by that we can learn something about ourselves and build up our own ideals and beliefs instead of letting a movie illustrate it for us.

 

[CreativeCait]

The spoiler you mention about Charlize Theron's character was one of my biggest problems.

What is the point of having her be this mysterious character throughout the entire movie if you're just going to kill her off without any kind of big, unexpected revelation? The only remotely surprising thing about her was that she didn't turn out to be a robot.

This is what I thought was the point of her character in the movie:

It’s about the fact that you can’t control life and death no matter how much you delude yourself that you can. The whole reason they went to the planet was so that her father could try to escape death. It was ironic that after all her meticulous planning and ruthless actions to save herself, she got squished to death because of a split second decision where she ran the wrong way. Her death was powerfully and quietly ironic. IMO that was the point and the 'revelation'.

The biggest problem was context framing. This opening scene here was supposed to give depth to the rest of the movie and failed.

(My intuitive understanding of the scene after watching the pic is that the alien there is likely to be Earth's "Prometheus" who chose to sacrifice his life and seed our planet with his own DNA because he didn't have another way to do it -- his own choice was to disintegrate his own body. For some reason, he considered this sacrifice to be worth the ultimate price. And if the Prometheus had to take that route, it seems likely that the rest of his species did NOT agree on him doing this. This would easily explain why the rest of the Engineers want to destroy us; we were never supposed to exist in the first place, and they are trying to clear up HIS mistake.)

Oooooh, I like your hypothesis on what the opening scene meant and how that might play out in the rest of the movies And yes, the fact that the opening scene wasn't contextualised in the rest of the film was immensely frustrating and left me getting distracted during the rest of the movie, thinking but, but, but what has this got to do with the opening scene...., I can only assume that it will sit better in the context of the movies as a whole.

... and the film really did not explore questions, it just hinted at them and then dropped them.
The movie seemed to just toss a bunch of junk on the table and not bother to actually look at it.

Yeah I agree, it was annoying, but I assume this was to set them up to be explored in the next movie....hopefully.

I just thought they were both retarded for not running sideways.

exactly, me too...maybe the exit strategy was less obvious from the persepective they were working from...

Not sure where you got all that... (especially the last part)

I thought she was just a selfish cunt looking to take control of the corporation.

I felt like she didn't want to be there and didn't want her father to go through with it, but was there out of loyalty...and maybe for selfish reasons. She clearly didn't want to be there because of how much danger it put herself in and how much she wanted to leave all the time. I got my impression from the scene where she tried to talk her father out of going through with it [voice of reason]. And the way she died and what that meant IMO which I talked about above in response to the U [moral story].

Yeah, I thought that was an interesting touch.

I think it mostly served to introduce the uncanny valley.

Hmmm...

I think that's jumping the gun a bit.

Just because he might seem to use pathos appeals when interacting with humans doesn't mean he actually experiences emotion. I think it's an interesting question whether he does, but I don't think anything about the film necessarily points to him experiencing emotion.

What movies are you thinking of?

Ooooh, I love the uncanny valley premise, I had not heard of that before you mentioned it. That's a terribly interesting phenomenon. Artificial Intelligence is the one that's sticking in my mind the most.

Maybe whether or not he feels emotions is debatable. My gut instinct said yes. I guess we will find out in later films. My reasoning was that when he gave that dude (sorry i'm terrible with names) the black stuff, it wasn't just because he wanted to see what happened or it was logical because the guy said he would do anything to know more. I felt that it was also out of spite because the guy had been taunting him about not being human and having feelings and outwardly David was agreeing but I felt he was keeping the secret that he actually was starting to have more human characteristics. Also that he had an interest in his partner who was always nicer to David - whom David also experimented with, but treated with greater kindness, had spied on 'her dreams' and later ended up having all to himself. Its probably going out on a limb, and I don't think he would have developed the full spectrum of human emotions but we shall see. I get the feeling that we havn't learnt his true agenda and capabilities yet. What really went on in his research and thinking for 2 years when everyone else was asleep??

From my end, as with Alien, I think a large part of what Scott is going for is creating a fictional universe that makes you, in real life, question what exactly is mankind's role in the cosmos. When there are xenomorphs out there that impregnate us with their parasitic offspring, who the fuck are we exactly? Same goes for the Predator movies. It's a very post-Death-of-God universe.

To that end, I think, as I mentioned in my response to [MENTION=4806]violaine[/MENTION], that the Engineer storyline is very interesting, as they seem to be the key to not only resolving the question, "Who are we?", but, "Who are the xenomorphs?", and even, "Who are the predators?" If you are familiar with the ways in which these questions have been resolved in other media, it leads to interesting questions about this movie, and where they might go with this universe (cinematically) now (they really opened up a *huge* can of worms).

It was interesting that David took away the chick's cross (why????) and she wanted it back. And he was like, in the face of all this you still believe?? And her question of, if the engineers created us...who created the engineers???

 

[CreativeCait]

Ooohhh, and Red Dwarf wth Kryten