re: After giving Promet[h]eus a shot on cable

quote:

---

The distress signal always bothered me, it seemed like a setup but by who?

---

it wasnt a distress signal. after ripley gets access to mother, she learns it was a warning message, not an sos. presumably sent from the derelict craft.

quote:

---

People get turned into eggs

---

if this is the one from Alien, where dallas gets cocooned, its not really all that different from what happens to the others in Aliens, except it looks like shite and ruins the pacing of ripleys escape.

Yup. Turrible scene I loved the aliens special edition so much (it's the definitive version of me) that I checked this one out on HBO about a year ago...ruins more than the pacing. It ruins aliens

No, it is clear and I've heard the commentary, people get kakuened, and turnt inta eggs

quote:

---

Tyrell's building...shape of a pyramid..."

---

The best thing about the flick were its Easter eggs. Besides the christian theme (the "impossible conception" / birth...at Christmas, no less, and Scott admitting that the "event" that pissed the Engineers off at us being the crucifixion of "Engineer Christ" 2000 years before), I also caught the Replicant reference in the pre-release TED Talk speech - how Waylan said the machines would soon be "indistinguishable" from humans - and the blatant Tyrell ref above-

Did anyone catch the sterile Liz Shaw ref to Dr Who? I have only seen Blade Runner and Dr Who referenced together in one other place- the artwork on the LP "Somewhere in Time" by Iron Maiden (1986). Here to see

Follow the great pyramid down to the covered walkway on left side of pic. See the Tyrell Corp sign on the semi-pyramid building just above the 23:58 clock (Two Minutes to Midnight an older Maiden Tune, btw)

Follow the covered walkway all the way to end on left - just above the verticle Rainbow sign, parked on the roof, the blue Dr Who booth.

quote:

---

No, it is clear and I've heard the commentary, people get kakuened, and turnt inta eggs



wtf

---

voice text

quote:

---

Scott wanted cocooned people as the eggs?

---

researching

quote:

---

See, I didn't need an explanation of the ooze. Not even a little bit.

---

Can we make the comparison of Alien to Prometheus? Is that fair? Honest question.

In Alien, you don't know ANYTHING about the Aliens, just like your outline of the goo is. You don't know what the eggs are, what the space jockey is (it's a set piece people, a set piece), where the Alien comes from, it's just "bad shite."

So why oh why is that ok but Prometheus isn't?

In Alien, Scott provides enough CLEAR detail to know what it is, answer some questions, and keep things hidden and satisfying at the same time.

Facts that you do get:

1. After Hurt's chest bursting scene, it's clear that the jockey also went through that. A very large humanoid alien had the same thing happen. Fair enough.

2. You know, for a fact, the alien lays an egg in victims

3. That egg grows and becomes another alien rapidly. It is built for defense in that situation.

4. That alien baby turns into an alien, maybe not a queen, but an alien.

So where did the eggs come from? Where is the Queen? Right there are still questions, but NONE of those questions are relevant (until later films). And most can be at least assumed:

One of two things happen to the crashed ship:

1. Either they WERE Carrying the aliens, which hatched and destroyed the crew

2. Or it crashed first, then the Aliens invaded the area

Both are satisfying conclusions, honestly. And after ONLY seeing Alien, it is quite clear, clear enough, about what was going on.

Then to Prometheus, well let's just sum it up:

quote:

---

I know enough about it to know that it's some evil, weird shite. It's bad enough that it can frick up one dude and turn him into a zombie thing, or make some other dude impregnate a chick and she has an organism inside her that grows exponentially fast, or that it can create weird snake-like creatures that can frick shite up, etc. The black ooze is some bad shite..that's the bottom line

---

There's no consistency. The movie itself starts out posing a gigantic question concerning the new aliens, the goo and life itself. I mean, that is the assumption you have to make.

But it never explains the goo.

quote:

---

Some people may want to know what the ooze is, what it does specifically, why/how it was created, etc. But you certainly don't need to know any of that, because it isn't relevant to the movie when it comes down to it. All you need to know is that it's just some bad shite...that's it...time to go home. Just like he said.

---

You specifically do need to know because the director flat out asks you in the first scene, "What is this substance that can create life in death?"

But then it does way more than that. It becomes a tool for the writer, not a tool for the narrative itself. There is a difference.

quote:

---

CocomoLSU

---

It has to be Lindelhof as the difference between us. I think, as a writer, he asks questions then uses some device in his plots to solve anything you can come up with. He doesn't think anything through and creates faux "mystery" out of meaning what he perceives as true meaning.

There were few rules for the island or for the black smoke monster. Same for the goo. And that's just weak writing.


If the goo means everything, then it means nothing. And since it was the central plot device of the film, the film means nothing as well, hence the backlash.

There is a scene in the movie where someone asks upon on returning to the scene of the vases, why is the black ooze is suddenly oozing out the vases? I'd like to know as well?

i just wanted to learn more about the space jockey. mission accomplished

quote:

---

This. But that's Scott's fault. And the film's fault honestly.

It should have been a clear prequel or a clear separate film. Not both.

---

It may be his fault. But I disagree that it can't be both. Maybe not a direct prequel, but that's not what it was supposed to be...just in the same universe, which was a plenty good enough explanation for me.

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.