criterionforum.org

In other words: I advise that you spend as much money as possible to see this movie that I don't think is worth seeing.

That's right, or you could say that bigger screen, louder sound, 3D textures, leather reclining seats and reduced number of pre-movie commercials might make the movie worth your time.

Sounds like you have a much better IMAX theater nearby than I do. Leather reclining seats?! If only.

I do have a really nice IMAX theatre nearby, and I always insist on seeing "real IMAX-footage" films there (Dark Knight, M:I4), but I really don't like 3D, mostly because I don't like wearing glasses at all, and IMAX 3D in particular I've had trouble focusing on. In all honesty, this theatre's regular screens are pretty good too, so I guess I'm just wondering if the IMAX outweighs me having to wear the glasses? Money's not really an issue.

Wait, was any of the movie even shot in IMAX?

Brian C wrote:

david hare wrote:I have probably the most trouble with the insistent sleeve wearing of the religious belief stuff that feels totally grafted onto the Noomi character as though one is obliged to pander to all the "believers" out there who can't deal with a non theist based conception of the universe.

The irony here is that I've been engaged in a Facebook discussion with a friend who is upset that the film was "very blasphemous," and was specifically upset by Noomi's cross and the way that her character didn't seem authentically Christian ("she misses the point" of the cross, in his words). So I guess it didn't pander hard enough.

Oh the film is structurally blasphemous. That's seems like the whole point of the CYA pandering with her cross and such. I'm sure Ridley and the writers knew that to posit human creation by a dark race of warlike alien tinkerers would cause quite a stir at the American multiplex and so designed this detail into the script so they could point to in in interviews. See? The film isn't atheist propaganda because our protag is one of you!

Brian C wrote:So which of the two suggestions are you actually arguing, since they're in opposition to each other? Our technology today is not "alien" in relation to earlier human technologies - it's simply evolved and connected more dots. We know that primitive man can "evolve" (not a very precise use of the term, but you know what I mean) to understand our modern technologies, because it has indisputedly happened over the course of human history.

DNA isn't destiny. The more modern science learns about this, the more they understand that DNA interacts with the environment an organism is born into, even in certain surprising ways with identical twins. We've not exactly like them because they haven't evolved on Earth. Certainly all of their tech seems much more organic and biological (if it's merely a projection of eventual human tech then it stills seems like such a far way off as to be for all intents and purposes "other"). I guess l still don't get why you don't see them as "other" just because they look like humans? Sure the Engineers are more like humans than a telepathic ocean. Maybe more like us than apes. But the unknowable head start they have (in years existing, in biological and other technological evolution), the foreign environment they're from, etc. -- all of that clearly makes their motives pretty darn alien to us. So to even begin to understand how or why to create (or destroy) life itself with some magical black bio nano goo -- well, it would be like trying to teach the first upright-walking cave man how to use a smartphone, a technology that seems pretty alien to the only simple machines he'd know, like the lever and the wheel. I suppose that qualifies as "other" enough for me. Or maybe I should say instead that they are so advanced behind a certain point -- call it a singularity -- in intelligence, technology and intentions as to appear godlike or magical or unknowably inscrutable from our point of view.

For me, the inanity in the film resides much more in the basic character motivation and bread and butter storytelling. The reasons people walk into or out of doors, etc. Which is sad because that's screenwriting and storytelling 101 stuff. The handling of the film's big questions and thematic ideas on the other hand, while not as smart and compelling as I'd like it to be, isn't the disaster of muddled pretension that some detractors are intent on making it into.

Caught the movie last night; we decided to just go with 2D, which I thought looked great. My fiancée Steph was not really a fan, though she didn't like Alien either. I was a bit more receptive to the film, and despite all of the obvious plot holes, inconsistencies, my only real issue was this:

Spoiler

They spend the entire movie labeling the alien beings and these higher intelligence, almost God-like “Engineers”, yet when we finally do meet one, he’s nothing but a lumbering, Frankenstein-style monster. Since there is obviously going to be a sequel, there must be more to the Engineers, and I just would have preferred that the filmmakers give me a little bit more of a taste as to what they’re all about. But yes, I realize asking for more info from Damon Lindelof is a fool’s errand.

[Steph is still pissed off, to this day, about Lost, so I haven’t told her yet that Lindelof wrote Prometheus.]

david hare wrote:John read Brody's piece on his New Yorker blog I linked above. I don't always share Richard's likes and dislikes but in general his taste is impeccable and he has a sharp eye for snake oil.

Your link got me to reading his reviews and subsequently watching the entire back catalogue of Lena Dunham which in turn bought me back to reading the twenty two pages of COMPLETELY APPALLING forum posts we have on here devoted to her.

I thought this was funny

Spoiler

Has "Prometheus" killed "At the Mountains of Madness"?

I've always felt that not enough has been written about Ridley Scott and co.'s debt to Lovecraft. And here I was hoping that its success would lead to Del Toro's film being greenlit.

I get why Lovecraft is important to so many horror genre storytellers, but I've never been able to connect directly with his work in any satisfying way. So far this year I've seen two films that out-Lovecrafted Lovecraft without being direct adaptations of his work. Prometheus and Cabin In The Woods. I always found Lovecraft's actual writing to be more maddening than the worst all-setup/no-payoff crimes people accuse Lindelof of. And worse than that, when he finally reveals what's making that strange noise or shadow it's usually a really goofy creature described in portentous hushed tones. If Lovecraft had been a production designer his work would probably be more Ed Wood than H.R. Giger.

Dan O'Bannion says: “It’s very, very difficult to achieve that tone in film. What you need is the cinematic equivalent of Lovecraft’s prose, that’s the problem, that’s very hard to achieve. " But I'd say that the most successfully Lovecraftian films are the ones that forget about his purple prose and dispense with his tone altogether and instead cherry pick a few key ideas.

To me this is the key Del Toro pull-out qoute:
“...and the notion of being created as a joke, as a cosmic joke, and humanity being given free will and ambition as you would give catnip to a cat, to amuse yourselves.”

Yes! That's a large part of what I find so interesting about Prometheus. Its willingness to posit most of what we hold dear about humanity as a kind of afterthought. Free will, ambition, philosophy, society, art -- all of it vanity, all of it a likely a bug rather than a feature of our existence in the eyes of our creators. Though in Prometheus it's an inscrutable scientific experiment or interstellar farming program that's more likely the motive than a more whimsically sinister or literal joke.

I finally saw Prometheus. It broke my brain. I liked it, and I was very positive towards it immediately after leaving the theater, but every minute afterwards, I have a different opinion of it. The plot holes were numerous, and the scientists were dumber than posts, but the movie was so gorgeous (it reminded me of The Tree of Life; every frame could be framed and called a work of art) and there were many great scenes (David's introduction in particular). For now, I'm mildly positive, but ask me again tomorrow, and I'll tell you something completely different.

Finch wrote:

Spoiler

How can dreams be watched? Can thoughts be read?...

What are the snake things? Why don't they infect the host?

Spoiler

As you may have already worked out, the snake-like creatures are the result of the worms eating the black goo that begins to leak out of the canisters once the canisters are exposed to atmospheric change.

The idea that David can "see" Dr. Shaw's dream has its roots in studies going on right now

WOW, that video is truly incredible.

Just got back from seeing this. I really enjoyed it, and you're all a bunch of sourpusses.

Honestly, some of the characterization is slight, but outside of Theron's useless character it's far from dreadful. Visually, it has a lot going for it. In terms of its ideas, Scott touches on some interesting subjects, but offers few if any answers. We learn no more than the characters learn, and I think that's a very deliberate choice. They go in search of answers and find themselves in an incomprehensible death trap. They don't really have time to find out anything more, because it turns out the answers are a lot more complicated (and probably a lot less savory) than they thought. Science is like that sometimes.

Spoiler

Frankly, I find Shaw's decision to persist at the end an interesting choice in face of what she's been through. Obviously it establishes the need for a sequel (which I'm game for), but that desire to know is at the heart of the film, and also at the heart of her "faith", which has more to do with a need for understanding rather than anything involving a specifically Christian god.

willoneill wrote:Caught the movie last night; we decided to just go with 2D, which I thought looked great. My fiancée Steph was not really a fan, though she didn't like Alien either. I was a bit more receptive to the film, and despite all of the obvious plot holes, inconsistencies, my only real issue was this:

Spoiler

They spend the entire movie labeling the alien beings and these higher intelligence, almost God-like “Engineers”, yet when we finally do meet one, he’s nothing but a lumbering, Frankenstein-style monster. Since there is obviously going to be a sequel, there must be more to the Engineers, and I just would have preferred that the filmmakers give me a little bit more of a taste as to what they’re all about. But yes, I realize asking for more info from Damon Lindelof is a fool’s errand.

[Steph is still pissed off, to this day, about Lost, so I haven’t told her yet that Lindelof wrote Prometheus.]

Regarding the question posed in your spoiler:

Spoiler

This particular "Engineer" is presumably a soldier, given that he is in stasis in a warship destined to destroy earth. Presumably, like humans, this race has a wide range of individuals with their own strengths and peculiarities, so this guy is good at destroying things. Also, he just woke up after a few millenia. He might be a little out of sorts.

The movie was a mess. It has some great ideas, and executes them horribly (all the examples noted of idiot plotting and characterization). That said, I am intrigued by the possibilities of where this could go. In reading and viewing fiction, sometimes I play a game where I review what the characters actually did, as opposed to their professed motives and intentions...

Spoiler

So, the "Alien monsters" were biological weapons that seemed to turn on and wipe out the "engineers". Yet, the Earth humans, a supposedly failed experiment, have survived the monsters in all the "Alien" movies. (This is every bit as surprising as the primitive Southern Californian humans wiping out the Sabre Tooth Tigers in Southern California.)

Could it be that the "engineers" felt Earth humans were too vicious? And that the reaction of the awakened engineer was similar to how an Earth human would feel upon being greeted by the Alien monsters upon awakening?

Let's carry this thought a little farther (a little embarrassingly, as I am getting uncomfortably close to the worst form of prose ever- fan fiction). The engineer spaceship is then taken down by a more primitive non-military Earth craft, and the soldier-engineer bested by the least dangerous human on the mission. Next, the engineer homeworld is about to be visited by an Earth human, a representative of the most lethal variant of the engineer dna. This is "Alien" in reverse, where we are the awful monsters.

Blu-ray details, a point of interest obviously the 15 minutes of deleted and alternate footage.

Most of the questions from the previous five pages condensed :

Spoiler

Red Letter Media Talks About Prometheus

Second viewing, on behalf of my daughter. As Alfred E. Neuman once said, "Ecch!". I'm sorry, but this has all the intellectual depth of "Chariots of the Gods". Great to look at, but even dumber than KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (which, for all of its faults, I still think is close to good). I hope to God the rumors of a prequel to BLADE RUNNER never happens. Flaming anticipated...

I'm surprised it's so near release date and there hasn't been a 'formal' announcement for the disc.

But from what I gathered, the 3D Blu-ray will come with 4 discs, 3D movie, 2D movie, bonus features disc, and a DVD copy.
And the 2D comes version is 2 discs, with the 2D movie, and a DVD copy.

So the only way to get all the bonus features is to get the 3D edition? Is this the case in every region's release?
I was thinking of getting the UK disc, but there so far has been no formal announcement on extras, and the BBFC has not passed any extras for "Prometheus", and no etailers mention any info on the discs.

I'm a bit confused on this myself, and yeah I'm surprised there hasn't been a formal announcement from Fox on it, just second-hand stuff I've been reading so far. And I do believe the only way to get all the bonus features is to get the four-disc version, but the American version is 29.99 on Amazon so it's not too terribly expensive.

Here, actually. Since it looks like the 4th DVD disc has no extras, I'm just going to go with the UK 3-disc version without the DVD copy...

Pretty cool cover for the 4-disc edition.

I'm coming pretty late to the game here, but I thought I'd mount a modest defense of a very mixed film. I saw it back when it came out, in 3D IMAX, which was a lovely experience -- the film is well shot, and it had been a while since I'd seen anything on IMAX. The plot has plenty of problems, and you have talked about those details, but my enjoyment of the film is oriented around its thematic content.

What prompted this post was actually a post matrixschmatrix made in the Looper thread, comparing the two films. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Prometheus sets up a lot of big questions only to lose them in the course of running around and shooting at monsters

Which is partly true -- but I think that's precisely the point (although I'd argue it's less about shooting monsters and more about being mercilessly pulverized by them).

Alien was very much concerned with anxiety over invasion -- a monster in the ship, phallic beasts inside of you, rape anxiety, penetration. All that flows darkly under the skin of the film. Prometheus takes that a step further, and fixates on a fear of birth, creation, and offspring.

This manifests in several ways. Its root is in the biological weapon developed by the Engineers, something which breeds life in seemingly endless forms, but invariably hostile and invasive forms (phallic snakes, infections, parasites [children] which kill the hosts [mothers]). It finds its most explicit representation in the self-caesarean scene, where a mother extracts an unnatural infant from her body (it's a sardonically sentimental twist when this child inadvertently saves her life later*). This is all tied up in her anguish over her infertility, a fear of venereal disease (the infection her lover receives creates this organism), and a revulsion toward the thing you've created. Death as a result of creation is also a vital theme, and birth almost always requires a sacrifice, even with the Promethean Engineer at the beginning of the film.

A similar revulsion is directed toward Fassbender's android. It is seen as unnatural and antagonistic, yet it is created by us. The stoicism of Weyland's daughter is also significant -- both she and the actual android have been neglected or abused in some manner. Neglect of the child is central to this schema as well.

Neglect of the child/creation is also key to the relationship between the Engineers and humans, which is the central dynamic in the film and the heart of these anxieties. We are obsessed with where we come from, and when this crew ventures into space seeking out our origins, they have all sorts of high hopes about making contact with our creators and learning the truth.
Obviously, that's not how things turn out.

It goes beyond neglect. Our creators, while they resemble us, are intent on our destruction, for reasons beyond our knowledge. Upon being awakened, the Promethean figure immediately destroys everyone it can and sets out to annihilate our home planet. It's the sow that eats her farrow. Not only do our creators fail to provide insight regarding our purpose, they also exhibit an inexplicable abhorrence for us, akin to the more mild abhorrence that some of the characters feel toward the android. We are not wanted, and like any child, we want to be wanted.
In an interesting move, Fassbender's android possesses the most complex personality. He's the most rounded character, while most of the humans are stock characters, and the Engineer is little more than a belligerent savage. It's like each watered down duplicate becomes somehow more nuanced and humane than its predecessor.

The rest of the film expresses this central fear: the Engineer wreaks havoc and prepares to destroy the human race. Matrix implied that the more compelling themes were lost in the shuffle, but I see this as a culmination of those themes: the inability to achieve a certain degree of knowledge, and the inability to seek solace from a parent which abhors its offspring. In certain respects, the film parallels the story of Moby-Dick. A crew, led by a fanatic man of science (Ahab is part android himself), tries to track down the unknowable and ultimately (inevitably) fails (in this reading, the whale represents God, or the unknown). It's the hopeless effort of trying to find meaning outside of the self, following arbitrary pursuits, rather than making meaning for one's self. Even the uncanny paleness of the Engineers mirrors the whiteness of the whale.

That's kind of a summary of the themes, rather than an in-depth exploration, but hopefully it helps to show what I saw in the film, and why I think it's worth discussing seriously. The film has its flaws, but some compelling stuff is at work in it.

(*For anyone who has played Super Metroid, this scene probably felt familiar, although in that game the alien child's aid is a sacrifice, and a conscious one. But the correlation between that game series and this film series is interesting, because they've been mutually influential: the game's Ridley boss was named after Ridley Scott.)