- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: After giving Promet[h]eus a shot on cable
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:39 am to CocomoLSU
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:39 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
But again, it doesn't have to explain it...at least not to me; not yet. I know that the goo (assuming that's the same thing the engineer drinks at the beginning of the movie) can create life. I also know it can destroy life. And create new life out of that. And change existing life. Etc.
But I don't need to know about it because watching the movies, it seems like the engineers don't even know about it completely. What they do know is that it's bad shite, and affects the bilogy of things that it comes in contact with. Which is why they store it on a "remote planet in the middle of space." (Charlize quote I believe)
I almost feel like I liked Prometheus because I went into it expecting a decent thrill ride and for it to have some small tie to the Alien series, whereas I think a lot of others went into it expecting Alien 0.
I completely agree with Cocomo. I think films get way too bogged down explaining their mythology and at the end of the day, I don't care. I'll use the old maxim that advanced science to a primitive people is no different than magic. The goo is technically science, but to us, its magic. The important thing is that WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, but we try to harness and use it anyway.
It's likely that the Space Jockeys had the same hubris.
I disagree about the opening sequence. It established that the goo can create life. It is Chekov's gun, and in the second act, it goes off. The Jockeys are the masters of the goo, but it ultimately destroys them as they cannot control it anymore than we can.
And it does work as an Alien prequel. The alien is in the final scene. It is born out of genetic experimentation. It is not "natural", it is the result of scientific engineering, which ties neatly into the themes and narratives of the first three films. The alien is "perfect", as described in the first film. Prometheus points out that "God does not build in straight lines". Hence, God does not build a perfect organism. It can only be designed through engineering. This film showed how, even if it was an uncontrollable accident.
1
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:44 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Please don't take offense to this (and I doubt you will), but you strike me as someone who takes SUCH a critical stance on movies, and who views them with such a critical eye, that it almost seems like it's harder for you to just sit back and enjoy movies as pure entertainment than it is for me. And I know you can "turn off your brain and enjoy things" because we've talked about that before. But I guess maybe you go into a lot more movies than I do with a LOT higher expectations than I do. So while I'm sitting back loving this one and that one, you're uber critical of a lot of them. Just goes to show you how differently people can take in media and entertainment, and why we end up "agreeing to disagree" so often.
None taken. And it just depends, see I feel Scott is ASKING us to ask big questions. To wonder. TO think. Not to sit back and turn our brains off. If Scott heard you say that, he might be a little offended himself, I would think.
You mention that you know I can just sit back and enjoy, so you know I can enjoy the shite out of something like Bad Boys.
But Micheal Bay isn't asking me to question the meaning of life. He's asking me to sit back, listen to Smith and Lawrence banter, enjoy the scenery, including the explosions, and have a good time.
Nothing wrong with that, I'll watch that movie any time it's on.
This goes back to what I said about director's intention. I think that does mean A LOT in film, and if either:
1. The director has no point
2. The director has a point that he misses
Then the film can suffer, but that's the beginning of it. What is the director's intention? I just think Scott's intention in Prometheus was both crowded and missed, and I had no idea what he wanted me to do as a viewer (hence the prequel/separate film comment). He wasn't clear with me.
This post was edited on 4/11/13 at 11:46 am
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:50 am to Freauxzen
quote:
And it just depends, see I feel Scott is ASKING us to ask big questions. To wonder. TO think. Not to sit back and turn our brains off. If Scott heard you say that, he might be a little offended himself, I would think.
I do agree with this. Scott is asking us to ponder his film. It is not meant to be an empty popcorn film full of cool looking monsters. Which could also be cool.
But I think Scott is trying to engage his audience, and it's only fair that we evaluate the film on those terms. It stands up to more analysis than the Expendables. Though I really liked the Expendables.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:51 am to Freauxzen
I will say if you thought you were goin to get the answer to the biggest question of all, you shouldn't have seen it in the first place, though the origins of life are shown we're still not given the why, and I think the point is we never will but we won't stop lookin (noomi rapace not going home at the end)
The only mystery I didn't like was the ooz. I just wanted a clear idea of how it functioned but not even what it was.
The only mystery I didn't like was the ooz. I just wanted a clear idea of how it functioned but not even what it was.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:55 am to Baloo
quote:
I completely agree with Cocomo. I think films get way too bogged down explaining their mythology and at the end of the day, I don't care.
I think it depends on the film.
quote:
I'll use the old maxim that advanced science to a primitive people is no different than magic. The goo is technically science, but to us, its magic. The important thing is that WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, but we try to harness and use it anyway.
Fair enough. Even if I take that stance, it just seems to freewheeling of a device. I don't know. Maybe if the goo had some more rules in place I might be more forgiving. But it could do anything, it was a little ridiculous.
quote:
And it does work as an Alien prequel. The alien is in the final scene. It is born out of genetic experimentation. It is not "natural", it is the result of scientific engineering, which ties neatly into the themes and narratives of the first three films. The alien is "perfect", as described in the first film. Prometheus points out that "God does not build in straight lines". Hence, God does not build a perfect organism. It can only be designed through engineering. This film showed how, even if it was an uncontrollable accident.
I don't remember the last version of the alien, but I remember being very confused. Was it the alien? The queen? Etc.
I plan to watch it again, just an FYI. I literally have not seen it since Opening night.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 11:55 am to Baloo
quote:
It is not meant to be an empty popcorn film full of cool looking monsters. Which could also be cool.
but thats what 80% of Prometheus is. after opening up with a very cool first scene, the rest of the film is rote and ceases to be half as intriguing as the first scene.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:04 pm to cigsmcgee
quote:
after opening up with a very cool first scene, the rest of the film is rote and ceases to be half as intriguing as the first scene.
I completely disagree, but to each his own. I think the film is very concerned with the concepts of faith, the conflict with science, the origins of life, what makes us alive, what makes us human, and the value of skepticism.
And the abortion scene is rife with subtext.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:10 pm to Baloo
quote:
And the abortion scene is rife with subtext.
Fill me in. Matricide. The idea that the engineers were going to kill humans? Cmon
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:14 pm to Baloo
quote:
And the abortion scene is rife with subtext.
yeah, not really seeing that either, since my attention was being pulled from alien zombie to wondering why no one was looking for her while she aborted a freaking alien and then being pissed that people were more surprised by guy pierce than the abortion.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:16 pm to Baloo
quote:quote:
after opening up with a very cool first scene, the rest of the film is rote and ceases to be half as intriguing as the first scene.
I completely disagree, but to each his own. I think the film is very concerned with the concepts of faith, the conflict with science, the origins of life, what makes us alive, what makes us human, and the value of skepticism.
I have always thought the reactions to Prometheus were interesting. Some people saying routine monster flick, nothing new.
Others actually confirming that Scott had a very large point to make.
I'm not saying we are all in disagreement, but usually a film is clear for both sides. This one just isn't.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:18 pm to Freauxzen
quote:i think that adds to the appeal for me. it's not blatantly obvious. i get so bored with easily digestible films
This one just isn't.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:28 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I'm not saying we are all in disagreement, but usually a film is clear for both sides. This one just isn't.
I agree. It's a far from perfect film but I did find it challenging and interesting. It also has some genuinely tense scenes.
As for the abortion scene... really? You don't see it? Are you just trying not to? Matricide? Yeah, there's that. There's also the foreshadowing of destroying your creation, as well as the parallel structure of the same (the Jockeys destroying us). Also, since we can agree the squid isn't human, what is it? What makes us human? Is it more human than the robot? Both are engineered, and the squid has the added benefit of being from our genetic material and being incubated in the womb. Only I think we'd find it less human than David. Why?
There's also that abortion is contrary to her Christian faith, yet she rejects that teaching in the face of necessity. But she picks her cross back up after the scene, as if her faith is restored. Meanwhile, her husband has his faith destroyed by the discovery, but hers is strengthened. There's also the fact that David started the whole ball a-rolling by infecting the alcohol glass.
We also have the baggage of the alien movies, and we know the aliens to be "female", in that they have queens and lay eggs. Otherwise, they are asexual. The first Alien movie had a classic riff on pregnancy with the chest-bursting scene. This is just the same song, different verse. For a movie so strong with "female" and "mother" themes, its interesting we talk of "mankind". The first Alien has an easy Feminist reading, as does Prometheus: female leads, questions of motherhood, paranoia of pregnancy, and a distrust of the patriarchy. Here she has to use a machine designed for a man and is literally bound in shackles for the procedure.
Sure, no subtext whatsoever.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:34 pm to Baloo
quote:
I completely disagree, but to each his own. I think the film is very concerned with the concepts of faith, the conflict with science, the origins of life, what makes us alive, what makes us human, and the value of skepticism.
Agree with all that. Aside from the things you listed above, I think a huge concept of the film is human curiosity. We always want to know more. We're always trying to figure out the Cosmos, so to speak. We want to know where we came from. And within the movie, we get all these "star clues" and think it can lead to some answers, so we want to go check it out. We get to the planet and see dead things and black ooze, and we want to study it and figure out what it is and what it does. We want to find out who the engineers are and if/why they created us and if/why they want to destroy us. Etc. And there's also the sort of deeper theory of "Maybe humans were simply an experiment of the engineers and we didn't work out and so now they want to destroy us just like any other failed experiment." There are all kinds of things you can read into the movie if you choose.
And to an earlier point you said:
quote:
I think films get way too bogged down explaining their mythology and at the end of the day,
First thing I thought of when I was reading your post was the thread about Room 1408 years ago and how much you liked that the only "explanation" of the goings on was Sam Jackson's line of "It's just an evil fricking room." That's similar to the goo here for me...it's just really bad stuff. It can cause good things (like creating life, although depending on what it creates that may not necessarily be a good thing), wreak havoc, cause mass destruction, etc. It's not something that is understood by anyone on screen, including the engineers. So for me, I don't need much more explanation than that either. And to be honest, had they gone overboard with explaining the goo and what it's all about and why it was created and what exactly it does, etc...it wouldn't be as scary or dangerous as it was without knowing all of that. If they had given ANY sort of explanation, it very well would've made the substance less important/serious.
ETA: to continue my point of human curiosity...even in the end, when Shaw survives and realizes that David is still alive and that there are more ships on the planet, David is talking about getting home, and she says she doesn't want to go home...she wants to go to where the ships originated. Curiosity and the drive for answers about life..
This post was edited on 4/11/13 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 4/11/13 at 12:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
There's also the fact that David started the whole ball a-rolling by infecting the alcohol glass.
I remember that being a HUGE point of contention from people in the threads when it was in theaters. Everyone seemed to question why David did that, what was the point, etc. To me, it was as simple as David was sent there basically to find out what was up, and by any means necessary. So the crew were expendable for the larger mission of "answers." So when they find the goo, the first thing David does is starts to experiment with it. Didn't bother me at all and made complete sense to me, but when I read through the threads after watching it, that was a major issue with some people.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 1:16 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
None taken. And it just depends, see I feel Scott is ASKING us to ask big questions. To wonder. TO think. Not to sit back and turn our brains off. If Scott heard you say that, he might be a little offended himself, I would think.
This
Posted on 4/11/13 at 1:32 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
None taken. And it just depends, see I feel Scott is ASKING us to ask big questions. To wonder. TO think. Not to sit back and turn our brains off. If Scott heard you say that, he might be a little offended himself, I would think.
No...I agree that he's asking us those things. I'm not saying that Prometheus is a "turn your brain off" kind of movie at all. You and I just disagree that Scott "missed the point" or didn't have one at all...I imagine it is those statements that would most offend him.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 1:42 pm to Freauxzen
quote:I agree with you on this point. I agree with Baloo that there was a lot of religious subtext in the movie. I feel like it was meant to be that way more than just a good movie.
see I feel Scott is ASKING us to ask big questions. To wonder. TO think. Not to sit back and turn our brains off.
But I feel like it accomplished an entertaining movie, even though it fell short of intentions. And I agree about a lot of stereotypical characters, but honestly, what movie doesn't have those?
And once you have a couple of problems with a movie, it becomes real easy to pick apart every little detail and say the movie was awful, which it wasn't.
I've only seen it once though in theaters. I also though Avatar had changed the world when I first saw it in 3-D. Not so much on my 42 inch at home.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 2:05 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
I remember that being a HUGE point of contention from people in the threads when it was in theaters. Everyone seemed to question why David did that, what was the point, etc. To me, it was as simple as David was sent there basically to find out what was up, and by any means necessary. So the crew were expendable for the larger mission of "answers."
which, BTW, ties back to the events on the Nostromo. The Company has always believed the crew is expendable. The reason it feels different in Prometheus is because David is our point of entry. He's the first character we meet, and we feel attached to him in a way we never were to Ash. Let's face it, Ash was creepy from the start. Here, we feel David's wounds whenever he is treated as less than human (which also, morally, kinda frees him to do what he wants to the crew).
As for explaining things, I look at it like this: I'd hate if they spent 30 minutes in Hunt for Red October explaining how a submarine works. And I don't actually know how one works, I just know it does. I accept it, and I move on.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 2:29 pm to Baloo
quote:
David is our point of entry. He's the first character we meet, and we feel attached to him in a way we never were to Ash. Let's face it, Ash was creepy from the start. Here, we feel David's wounds whenever he is treated as less than human (which also, morally, kinda frees him to do what he wants to the crew).
More on that, David actually tries to endear himself to the crew, and tries his best to put them at ease. Like when he wears the helmet when he goes out...obviously he doesn't need them because he doesn't need to breathe, but he does it anyway to make everyone else feel more comfortable.
Now, that could also be seen as another way for him to gain the trust of the crew which would, in turn, allow him to experiment on them as necessary.
Posted on 4/11/13 at 2:41 pm to CocomoLSU
I enjoyed the movie pretty good. Was it Alien or pt2? Nah. But it was fun and it made me think. I wasn't wanting to check my phone (not that I do that, jus sayin) because I felt that if I did I might be lost. Something key could happen at any point of the film that could effect what the concept was. There were also quite a few tense scenes. 1. If I get married, I'm not watching my wife have the baby from the front. I've seen enough of a birth as I want now. 2. I love Ridley Scott. He's yet to make a movie were I don't feel like the time period was wrong or not well put together, especially with the sci-fi's. Or as the kids say, scy fy. I wasn't disappointed at all.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News