Forum Topic
JEC
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 3:16 PMI can't believe Prometheus has a 73% rating on Rotten Tomatoes! That most reviewers who rate it positively must surely do so because of its visual content really says a lot about mainstream audiences. Taken as a whole, the film doesn't deserve to be rated higher than 65%, given that it can't stand on its own feet, but needs to stand on the feet of a sequel to be properly understood, and that's assuming a sequel will have a more coherent script.
For what it represents, audiences both mainstream and independent in their thinking, deserved a film that was, to say the least, more coherent. Yes, its visual content was stunning. But the unfolding of events and the characterisation were poor, which is a serious disappointment for a film of this calibre.
Starting from the beginning, Prometheus fails with the opening image. Why introduce the bad guys first? We didn't need to see the "Engineers" seeding a planet in order to understand who they are: the scene following the opening credits, where the protagonist Elizabeth Shaw discovers ancient cave paintings answers that adequately. It was a waste of script setup time. And had it not been included, the scene nearer the end of the film, where we do finally get to see just one of the Engineers, would have been more effective. As it stands, seeing this humanoid again at this late stage leaves no real wonder to the imagination.
One almost gets the feeling that studio bosses were initially presented with a version of Prometheus where the engineer wasn't shown until the end, and not being too happy about it, and no doubt somewhat bored, demanded he is introduced earlier in the film, so Ridley Scott slotted in the Prologue to keep them happy. Either that or it really was a poor script.
Prometheus fails again, and this time much harder, when after discovering the cave paintings, the scene moves straight onto the arrival of the Prometheus at LV-223, with just minor setups to the primary and secondary characters, except for David.
There is about 10 minutes of setup missing here, which was largely allocated to the Prologue. If you exclude the Prologue and include the 10 extra minutes required to get to know and care about the people we are watching, Prometheus would have had a much better start before begins.
One gets the feeling of the whole thing being rushed. There is an urgency to get to the point of the film, to answer the questions we all want to know.
I would like to have seen Elizabeth Shaw's beliefs debated more seriously, not just on a personal level but also professionally, quite possibly by the Weyland Corporation that invested in her, rather than have this whole acceptance of one woman's whim to prove she is right imposed upon my sense of logical appreciation. I would also like to have seen a little more of Peter Weyland. It could still have worked, to have seen him near the start, being cared for and close to dying, and then near the end. The turn up would have been more of a surprise. Sadly, his inclusion is all but irrelevant.
Prometheus fails for a third time when David activates a holographic recording of events that allow us to have some idea of what's going on. Just think about that. If there is one thing that Prometheus does well, it is explain itself through dialogue and poor action sequences. And that is anathema in Hollywood. Instead of being allowed to see the bad guys in action, we are presented with a holographic recording of past events. As far as visual story telling is concerned, that is a cheap shot at an unsuspecting audience. Holographic recording! Who ever records events, except on special occasions, and even then they're not recorded so precisely. This is a poor action sequence, and one that cheats us out of seeing the real thing. The explanations come thick through these holograms.
Another poor action sequence is when Fifield's character turns up as some kind of deformed maniac and starts killing everyone in sight. The less said about that the better.
I can easily overlook Elizabeth Shaw's moment in the Pauling MedPod, despite it being completely ridiculous. But something I can't overlook and that bother's me tremendously is David's sense of wonder and amazement towards something he couldn't possibly comprehend and appreciate the way a human being could. I can see the irony in it, and that kind of works. But I'm not convinced that an android, no matter how advanced, can ever have the capability to appreciate what is essentially thousands of years of psychological and emotional evolution. His awe and wonder towards the engineers should really have been given to Elizabeth Shaw. It was wasted on his character, because no member of the audience could relate to a robot. It should have been expressed through a human being.
All it's other shortcomings can easily be overlooked.
22 Replies
abordoli
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 3:23 PM@JEC,
Welcome to [b]www.prometheus-movie.com[/b]!
Nice review. You stated your points, backed them and was quite civil.
David 1
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 4:11 PMHi JEC, and welcome:
Allow me to disagree to this point:
"Starting from the beginning, Prometheus fails with the opening image. Why introduce the bad guys first? We didn't need to see the "Engineers" seeding a planet in order to understand who they are: the scene following the opening credits, where the protagonist Elizabeth Shaw discovers ancient cave paintings answers that adequately."
I found it one of the most interesting scenes in the whole movie. A bit short to the eye, but aesthetic-wise beautiful.
The thing is that there may be a misinterpretation to the "sacrificial" Engineer to begin with. I had the impression he wasn't expecting to die. [I even made a thread about a possible ancient murder in action].
But yes, there are a lot of oddities with the movie [screenwriting]
[b]Ask nothing from no one. Demand nothing from no one. Expect nothing from no one.[/b]
abordoli
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 4:28 PM[i]But yes, there are a lot of oddities with the movie [screenwriting][/i]
Oddities that become worked out and more clear after multiple viewings, IMO.
[u][b]The "Prometheus Onion"[/b][/u]:
[b]First layer[/b] - A sci-fi/action film with a few gory scenes
[b]Second layer[/b] - A CSI in space movie with lots of clues (right under your nose) to figure stuff out
[b]Third layer[/b] - Metaphorical undertones
[b]Fourth layer[/b] - Religious undertones
[b]Nth layer[/b] - More undertones
[b]The core[/b] - If you can arrive here (few have) then Prometheus is a "masterpiece"
[b]Advice?[/b]:
[i]"Try harder!"[/i]
David 1
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 4:52 PMAbordoli.
I've only seen it once. But there were things "odd" enough to giggle about it.
Can't remember all of them obviously, but I mentioned some of them in my review.
I usualy don't need to see a movie more than once to get all there is to get about it [sometimes I indeed need to watch it twice for some details, and such as happened with [i]The Usual Suspects[/i], [i]The Manchurian Candidate[/i] and [i]Jacobs Ladder[/i]].
I believe Prometheus is [b]not that hard to get at all[/b] [a pretty straight forward flick] and all "layers" are in plain sight [I also mentioned Sub-narratives and dualisms in my review]
[b]Ask nothing from no one. Demand nothing from no one. Expect nothing from no one.[/b]
neilrieck
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 5:06 PMIn my mind, the movie only had one or two weak spots.
1) was when one astronaut decided to remove his helmet (could their tests really be sure their were no viruses or bacteria present? That's when you want to use an available lab animal like a canary or rat.
2) was when one astronaut thought a snake-like creature was cute. I couldn't imagine a visitor to Earth being so stupid as to approach a cobra. Now to be fair, we all knew this was an alien prequel so this astronaut was a stupid as those teenagers in the slasher movies who decide to keep safe by moving into the woods :-)
David 1
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 5:11 PMneilrieck:
cannon fodder basicaly, yeah.
I almost hate teenager slasher movies, and I hate nothing nor no one.
Seriously, those movies make me feel my IQ suddenly drops to the "mharghhhh" level [somewhere between a zombie and a traffic light]
[b]Ask nothing from no one. Demand nothing from no one. Expect nothing from no one.[/b]
patchold
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 5:56 PMThanks you for a great review. You hit points that stood out, and yes David 8's reactions were somewhat overboard for a worker bot. The characters were in fact cheated, and because of their mishandling we could careless of their predicament... screenwriters who have good ideas must stick to your ideals and fight for what is right for the story. Ridley, God bless him is a visual director and having too much plot gets in his way. The balance between director and writers is critical and when it works you have a masterpiece of cinema art.
[img]http://i1157.photobucket.com/albums/p582/mr_lincolnlog/FatherAndDaughter_400.png[/img]
Maiafay
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 5:57 PM[i]But something I can't overlook and that bother's me tremendously is David's sense of wonder and amazement towards something he couldn't possibly comprehend and appreciate the way a human being could. I can see the irony in it, and that kind of works. But I'm not convinced that an android, no matter how advanced, can ever have the capability to appreciate what is essentially thousands of years of psychological and emotional evolution.[/i]
I think you kinda missed the point there. RS has a soft spot for his synthetics. David was presented as more than what he seemed - and like you, Weyland also assumed David had no soul, David can't feel, David can't experience amazement or wonder. it's why DAvid had issues with it during the film. How would you like someone who created you saying what you are and what you aren't capable of?
Never assume. I've seen humans with less emotion than David in RL - and that's with so-called thousands of years of evolution. Androids, like humans, are created. Some humans are idiots. Some are brilliant. Some do amazing things that seem almost unnatural. Who is to say what David can do or feel? It's pretentious to assume your "programming" (instincts, reactions) is any better than a cybernetic being - who in fact, is made to be BETTER than us.
If anything, we're the flawed ones. We're the ones who took forever to "evolve".
And not sure who said it, but David was Weyland's personal droid, created specifically for Weyland (as he states David is like a son to him). Not a worker bot.
David 1
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 6:10 PMMalafay:
"Never assume. I've seen humans with less emotion than David in RL - and that's with so-called thousands of years of evolution."
And I know a bunch of them, sadly.
[b]Ask nothing from no one. Demand nothing from no one. Expect nothing from no one.[/b]
patchold
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 6:28 PM I just write words... other people fill in the emotions. I am a writing forum bot.
David 1
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 6:31 PMpatch:
lol. I have to say the bunny from MAU would love to hump that bunny of yours... just saying.
[b]Ask nothing from no one. Demand nothing from no one. Expect nothing from no one.[/b]
Forever War
MemberOvomorphJun-26-2012 6:48 PMJEC
Nicely written review, although I don't share most of your points of contention, I do understand why you don't see it as a masterpiece, in part it being only one part of a larger story that appears likely to follow. I myself, although I like it very much have yet to write a review seeing it as possibly premature until the home version is released.
JEC
MemberOvomorphJun-27-2012 2:36 PMHi. Thanks for the replies. I'd like to address two of them, starting with David 1 -
I do actually agree with you. It [i]is[/i] one of the most interesting scenes in the whole movie, and it [i]is[/i] open to misinterpretation. I for one didn't get what was happening in that scene during my first viewing of it. It wasn't until later, while reading about Prometheus on the Net, that I learned the alien humanoid in the beginning was seeding the planet. But just because it is one of the most interesting scenes doesn't mean it should have been left in.
We are shown a scene introducing us to an alien humanoid seeding a planet, then we are shown a scene with a cave painting depicting a humanoid figure pointing to the stars. Although the two scenes cohere, did we really need to see the engineer at the beginning? The second scene would have been enough to let us know what direction the film intended to go; with the first scene included, however, we got to the end of the journey before the protagonist did. There was no mystery. It's like watching a film with someone who has already seen it, and he tells you what's going to happen next, or how it is going to end.
The first scene is a spoiler scene. It's too much clarification right at the beginning. It almost ended the film, and maybe it should have done. What is the tagline for Prometheus:
"They went looking for our beginning. What they found could be our end."
Couldn't we as an audience have been spared that much to be able to enjoy the protagonist's journey. What Elizabeth Shaw went looking for we already knew within the first 5 minutes. A better beginning would be to have been introduced to the protagonist discovering the cave paintings and to have built the setup from there. But as I pointed out in my first post, the real problem with Prometheus is the absence of an antagonist: a tangible one. It isn't the only major problem, it's just the real major problem. No tangible antagonist, except for the unnecessary prologue and the final appearance at the end.
Really and truly, it isn't enough for a scene to be just visually pleasing. It has got to compliment the whole story. It isn't enough for any film to be just visually pleasing. The story has got to hold together. The characters need to have arcs. Those Hollywood folk are always saying that film is a visual medium, as if to justify their approach to it. It [i]is[/i] a visual medium, but it is used to tell a story, and a story is made up of more than just what you see.
This is to Maiafay:
I got that about David. That's part of the irony of his character in the story. I just didn't appreciate the sense of marvel coming from him while the human characters expressed no real marvel at all. I felt it was overdone because it wasn't shared by anyone else. Had it been shared, David's awe might have been more balanced. But in any case, I don't accept that an android can connect with existence, his or others, as expressed by David due to the fact that he doesn't have a spirit or consciousness (except possibly an artificial one). I could easily have overlooked it, however, had it not been entirely one-sided and so full on.
[u]A recap on where Prometheus fails:[/u]
1. The Opening Image (unnecessary)
2. The Setup (not enough)
3. The Antagonist (intangible)
4. Action Sequences (poor)
5. Characterization (poor)
For me the best part of the film is when Elizabeth Shaw has a caesarean. Though ridiculous, it can be overlooked, and the scene moves at the pace the film needed to move, but didn't. When I watched that scene, it caused me to react the same way as when I watched the alien burst out of John Hurt's chest. I was shocked.
I wanted Prometheus to be an exceptional film because of what it represented. Sadly, I really don't think it is. Yet despite its faults, it hits all the beats. If you haven't done so already, and you would like a little bit more insight into the structure of the screenplay, get a copy of Blake Snyder's Beat Sheet (you'll find it on the Net somewhere), and go through the film with it. From the Opening Image to the Closing Image, it's all there. Check the Midpoint. That's when the stakes are supposed to be raised. At this point in the film Holloway and Shaw are having sex.
I might not be able to enjoy Prometheus the way I hope to, but at least I can enjoy it from Blake Snyder's point of view.
Berserker and Facebugger and Forever War: thanks for your appreciation.
visualizer
MemberOvomorphJun-27-2012 3:13 PM[quote]The core - If you can arrive here (few have) then Prometheus is a "masterpiece"[/quote]
And this core understanding will make the acting better, the plot and the characters believable and turn a mediocre action flick into an intense sci fi experience?
soundsgoodtome
MemberOvomorphDec-23-2012 5:40 PM"something I can't overlook and that bother's me tremendously is David's sense of wonder and amazement..."
Something I can't overlook and that bothers me is your inclusion of an apostrophe in the word "bothers." (And we're to take seriously your review of someone's writing skills?)
ummester
MemberOvomorphMay-29-2013 7:13 AMWhat is this core understanding, I wonder?
I have watched the film countless times and posted about it since release.
have not found a core understanding, other than something that can be likened to a David Lynch film - whereby any core understanding is still entirely open to interpretation.
Major Noob
MemberOvomorphMay-29-2013 11:47 AMUmmester-
Part of the brilliance of Prometheus is the layers mentioned above, which makes it very open to interpretation, and, unfortunately, rancor.
For me, the core is humankinds fallibility, it's relentless attempts to acquire power, and the ever increasing downfalls of same.
David is the first example: a creation that can't be fully controlled, and well beyond our ability to comprehend. A device that evolves itself. David is the root of almost every hazard they face.
Shaw and Holloway foolishly want answers from what they can only imagine as Gods. And someone with the wherewithal to propel such a mission, Weyland, is willing to make it happen.
Weyland wants Godhood, or at least immortality ( he apparently already considers himself a God), and puts many lives and dollars on the line for this insane, and secret, pursuit
The Engineers have a similar problem, and just like us, their pursuits got away from them. And we can bet in the sequel, if there is a creator of the Engineers, they will have the same arrogance, though with even grander and more horrific consequences.
Powers exist that no mortal being should touch. Atomic energy. Artificial intelligence. Genetic engineering. The list goes on, as I imagine it will in Paradise.
Last thing: the opening scene was necessary, and fantastic. RS made a surreal and somewhat opaque fable, much in the spirit of Kubrick or a new age Hitchcock. The opening scene lights the fuse, so to speak.
ummester
MemberOvomorphMay-30-2013 8:27 AMThanks for the reply major noob,
The opening scene is still my favourite in the entire film - so I must agree it was needed.
I'm not sure no mortal being should touch AI, GE and so on:)
I do agree that the film did represent broad strokes of the downfalls that come with human arrogance and a very central theme of creation requiring destruction - or the price, or cost, required to attain knowledge. I mean that's the whole Prometheus/Frankenstien myth in a nutshell.
There are elements of the film I really do appreciate - that can lead to endless discussion and conjecture. But the narrative drive of the film doesn't resolve, or offer anything close to resolution. It's a tricky one:)
Major Noob
MemberOvomorphMay-30-2013 11:28 AMUmmester-
That's true, there is no resolution, which is frustrating because we go to movies to be entertained, not challenged, me included.
For one thing, what we have in Prometheus is a story that can't be told in one movie. I think RS gambled that it's success would be sufficient to warrant a sequel, and I think he knows perfectly well where the story is headed. The rumors about script troubles may have been true, but I suspect it's more about tone than story.
Prometheus on its own is much like a silent film, with a good deal of its content being visual information. I think they ran with the discussion and conjecture that has swirled around Alien for 30 years and propelled it forward, and successfully IMO. Look at us now. I've been in advertising for 25 years and it's very true that even negative response is preferable to no response. When 2001 came out many people, some of them notable, walked out of the theatre because it made no sense. It was poorly received. It's both a good, and bad comparison because times have changed, but it's also why I think Prometheus was a daring film to make.
I, like many people here, would have welcomed a dark, violent space horror movie. But I wonder if it would have ignited the debate and just flat out thinking that has gone strong for almost a year now.
Last thing and I'll shut up: I'm not against exotic technologies, they are a fact of sentient life at a certain level, and exciting in the abstract. But power corrupts, strange terrifying things emerge when they are inevitably weaponized, or, in the case of AI, weaponize themselves. The logic is always the same: we must stay ahead of our enemies. But often the weapon becomes the enemy. And this will never change. Prometheus suggests that this is universal.
ummester
MemberOvomorphMay-31-2013 7:19 AMI agree that Prometheus suggests tech getting out of control is universal - its actually one of the things I liked least about it. I view those things as very human flaws and suggesting it is universal somehow made the universe of Prometheus seem very human centric.
This is one very large area where I think it failed alongside Alien.
Alien suggested the universe was very anti human - not a comfortable place at all. That was closer to a 2001 antithesis than what Ridley promised, but failed to deliver on with Prometheus.
Even though the film of Prometheus has many questions about the human elements, the universe it is contained in feels like it has very little - like they are all resolvable in human terms. In this way it is much more spiritual fiction than science fiction.
Major Noob
MemberOvomorphMay-31-2013 11:32 AMUmmester-
The popular notion has always been that the MORB was a bio weapon. That felt wrong to me for a long time because a large organism is such an inefficient weapon of mass destruction. But entertainment is another matter. I could see breeding them to pit against other things, for example, or prisoners. Or to study it for the sake of new technologies, including weapons.
If I was an advanced race with access to a Morb the first thing I'd do is make a bunch of little beings to manage and study this dangerous thing for me while I went about the dark, sinister business of being me. Could it be the humanoid shape is just the result of logical tool design?Maybe it took horrible eons for the Engineers to understand and refine the biology, and the latest iteration was the Goo, but even that was beyond their control. That could explain their apparent reverence for it. Maybe that carving is not a crucifixion, just an image of the MORB restrained. Or emerging from the abstract guts of a host.
Throughout the series humans try to capture the MORB. Why would we be the only ones trying to harness it? Certain physical laws do seem to govern the universe, so it's not unreasonable to assume sentient life could have certain cultural similarities. For example, it seems that on Earth, cultures that arise in extreme conditions have less reverence for life and less aversion to the infliction of pain. Now imagine a race like this that has somewhat if not altogether transcended mortality. Such a race would be quite cruel, and maybe find the MORB to be exquisite. But let's not dirty our hands with this thing, let's make some little blue tools to do it. And the little blue tools grow even smaller copies of themselves to feed the experiment. Voila! Why are we here? Lab assets.
Custodian and I have talked about how great a truly alien movie would be. But there would have to be true genius behind such a movie to make it work, and lots of money. And, in the end, only a limited audience to sell it to. Alien worked because it was a human story. But to get really alien, with a culture, history, language etc. is quite a hurdle. But who knows, something similar to this may be on it's way!
Add A Reply
