Re: Prometheus [2012]

[video=youtube;DPQ6YnB3uik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPQ6YnB3uik[/video]

Re: Prometheus [2012]

im not watching any more vids of this now. there is too much stuff getting put out and i dont want to know 90% of the movie before it happens.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

Certainly feels that way!

Re: Prometheus [2012]

So it occurred to me, if David is an android, why does he need a space suit, or a helmet?

Re: Prometheus [2012]

^probably will explain it like his body isn't invincible so he has to have it or something such.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1039181]im not watching any more vids of this now. there is too much stuff getting put out and i dont want to know 90% of the movie before it happens.[/QUOTE]

I've stopped watching promos/videos for the movies that I am want to watch.... some trailers just kill it for me. I always so back later after I've watched the movie and catch all the extra bits :)

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[url="http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/05/11/damon-lindelof-prometheus-life-after-lost/"]'Prometheus': Damon Lindelof on whether it's an 'Alien' prequel | Inside Movies | EW.com[/url]

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[video=youtube;b0KdRc7jBgY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b0KdRc7jBgY[/video]

Re: Prometheus [2012]

nooooo

Re: Prometheus [2012]

There's nothing much in that clip :lol:

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[video=youtube;zwEtldZQNew]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zwEtldZQNew[/video]

Wow the designs of the overlays are awesome.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

nooooo

Re: Prometheus [2012]

few more days! it's been a while since I've last been really excited to see a movie. maybe V for Vendetta or 300.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

Think of it as how American Psycho is to The Rules of Engagement - the links are there if you're familiar with the material, and you will notice them. But, they're two very separate stories that possibly co-exist in the same universe (and suggests that the timeline of this film isn't that far away from the first Alien movie), but aren't directly tied to each other in any direct way, more because they share some peripheral elements.

I really wanted to like this more than I did - it is one of Ridley Scott's best movie in years, but when you think about his output in the last decade or so, it's not that high a praise, with the possible exception of a couple of movies here and there (I'm thinking Body of Lies and the extended cut of Kingdom of Heaven, some might argue that American Gangster - but I felt kind of the same way about that like I do this - long on promise, something missing in the delivery).

It felt like Ridley Scott is the most engaged here visually than he's been in years - the visuals on this film are really remarkable and his use of 3D is probably the best I've seen yet. He's subtle and not overusing the 3D effect and really makes it work incredibly well with some of the massive landscapes he manages to conjure up. He gets great performances out of just about everyone in the film, a lot of characters feel distinct enough to be memorable and the viral promo material really serves the film extremely well (especially the TED conference). There's some great scenes and it functions pretty well as a sci fi horror flick.

But I think the disappointment stems from the plotting of the story - after a very strong start, the action keeps shifting back and forth between two locations, and it causes the narrative to start and stop in fits - there isn't that feeling of a consistent rollercoaster-like build and the wild ride that ensues like the first two movies did so incredibly well. When characters die, there's a bit of a disconnect going on despite them being unique and distinctive. There's a muted sense of wonder with the idea of humanity making first contact with what could possibly be their maker, but it doesn't quite take hold. Kind of like how the Jodie Foster movie Contact felt a bit like a letdown with a pretty solid first two thirds that gave way to that unbelievably shitty ending. With Prometheus, it's not a bad film overall, it just feels like the parts add up to a smaller sum than what was expected or hoped for.

He kind of screwed himself from the start - it's kind of tough to go back to your original work for source material and then claim it's not really a prequel. It's almost impossible to not compare it to the rest of the Alien canon when you're getting constantly reminded of the first film either directly or indirectly.

It is a good film, but you can't help but feel like it's just short of something that could have been really stunning. Maybe the hint of a sequel might change the outlook on this.

Oh, and I now know what a spaceship designed by Apple would look like. Quite the contrast from the Nostromo.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

Saw it. I thought the villainous plot felt really petty and stupid next to the grandiose ambition and [url="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/djdb.php?id=172"]scope[/url] of the premise. Men's creator has to go all the way to a different galaxy to create some bio weapon to destroy us? WTH.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

pass

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[url="http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1"]cavalorn: Prometheus Unbound: What The Movie Was Actually About[/url]

oh, i just got back from seeing this, i read this review, and now I want to go back and see it. holy hell. (indeed!)

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[QUOTE=88Mariner;1044903][URL="http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1"]cavalorn: Prometheus Unbound: What The Movie Was Actually About[/URL]

oh, i just got back from seeing this, i read this review, and now I want to go back and see it. holy hell. (indeed!)[/QUOTE] wow. I haven't seen it.. but after reading this I will for sure. Thank for sharing!

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[QUOTE=88Mariner;1044903][URL="http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1"]cavalorn: Prometheus Unbound: What The Movie Was Actually About[/URL]

oh, i just got back from seeing this, i read this review, and now I want to go back and see it. holy hell. (indeed!)[/QUOTE]

I read it before seeing the film and some of it does resonate though I'd say the whole space jesus thing is a red herring from Scott.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[QUOTE=feather;1046199]I read it before seeing the film and some of it does resonate though I'd say the whole space jesus thing is a red herring from Scott.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I heard he had cut out specific parts just to keep it less controversial from that standpoint. Why else would they be landing on Christmas Day? The part about 2000 years ago? The immaculate conception of a women previously known to be barren?

I think that's exactly what Scott is suggesting. Some people may find it hokey/cheesy/stupid, but it really engages the "Chariot of the Gods" concept from a [I]very[/I] cool angle.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

From what I understand of the livejournal post, the idea of self-sacrifice, the Engineer dissolving himself and using his DNA to seed life, cool.

But the post did not, IIRC, make a distinction between the dissolved-Engineer-blackish-ooze, and the black ooze found by humans.

In fact now that I recall more, the post posited that the black ooze IS the same, but causes different evolutions based on the psyche imprinted on it—hence Engineer self-dissolves in a good act leads to life-generation, humans lead to deranged zombies, earthworms become space cobras, and no effect from David (Did David actually get infected besides touching everything in sight? I don't remember. It's just as likely that David could NOT be infected because he is synthetic).

Now on to the space jesus theory. Jesus came from a barren woman, and the post tried to draw a parallel with Shaw being barren and giving birth to a squid. So is Jesus an Engineer, or an emissary created by the Engineers? How was Jesus created and why was he not a squid/proto-face-hugger?

The lifecycle of the squid diverges from Jesus and was lost on me—Did an Engineer self-dissolve, impregnate, and create Jesus? With what in mind? In the creation of life, is the self-sacrifice a seeding, or can it be so fine tuned as to create a specific individual with a specific template of mind and behaviour and a specific mission? If the process allowed for such micro-evolution, it also seems counter intuitive to the more maco-scale evolution of life that the Engineer's DNA seeds.

I think the theories of self-sacrifice, that we pissed off the Engineers, work within the story's framework but I'm finding it hard to fit Jesus into this.

Some other minor thing, the blog post mentioned the use of fire to kill Holloway—I thought that was just a nod to the flamethrowers in Alien(s).

Re: Prometheus [2012]

saw at IMAX 3D - absolutely unbeliebvable graphics and 3D world. Was totally drawn in. highly recomend seeing it at IMAX!

storyline was meh.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[QUOTE=feather;1046242]From what I understand of the livejournal post, the idea of self-sacrifice, the Engineer dissolving himself and using his DNA to seed life, cool.

But the post did not, IIRC, make a distinction between the dissolved-Engineer-blackish-ooze, and the black ooze found by humans.

In fact now that I recall more, the post posited that the black ooze IS the same, but causes different evolutions based on the psyche imprinted on it—hence Engineer self-dissolves in a good act leads to life-generation, humans lead to deranged zombies, earthworms become space cobras, and no effect from David (Did David actually get infected besides touching everything in sight? I don't remember. It's just as likely that David could NOT be infected because he is synthetic).

Now on to the space jesus theory. Jesus came from a barren woman, and the post tried to draw a parallel with Shaw being barren and giving birth to a squid. So is Jesus an Engineer, or an emissary created by the Engineers? How was Jesus created and why was he not a squid/proto-face-hugger?

The lifecycle of the squid diverges from Jesus and was lost on me—Did an Engineer self-dissolve, impregnate, and create Jesus? With what in mind? In the creation of life, is the self-sacrifice a seeding, or can it be so fine tuned as to create a specific individual with a specific template of mind and behaviour and a specific mission? If the process allowed for such micro-evolution, it also seems counter intuitive to the more maco-scale evolution of life that the Engineer's DNA seeds.

I think the theories of self-sacrifice, that we pissed off the Engineers, work within the story's framework but I'm finding it hard to fit Jesus into this.

Some other minor thing, the blog post mentioned the use of fire to kill Holloway—I thought that was just a nod to the flamethrowers in Alien(s).[/QUOTE]

Your post is such a mind-fuck that I never ventured out to read the live-journal blogpost. With that said, I saw the cut out parts on bluray and noticed a few things that they don't show you in the movie. In the beginning of the movie, they just show this Engineer walking along the waterfall and drinking the black Ooze. That in itself adds questions to his intentions and motives, but the cut out scene actually shows him walking away from a group of other engineers with the spaceship in the background and it eventually then taking off, hinting that this Engineer had been picked for the eternal sacrifice - and had way more clarity in it.

Other than that, why did they pick earth, why did they come here from planet LV-whatever-the-fuck-it's-called, why were they trying to run away from that planet and what was their dangerous "cargo". Other than failed DNA morphing resulting in maddening creatures being created, resulting in them attempting to flee planet LV-you-know-who - I can't imagine what went wrong there. Rather simplistic but Occam's Razor - so there.

And I read somewhere else online that David made that Doctor dude drink the black ooze because David's intention was to give his Father, eternal life, just like a God. And so in order to test the effects of the black ooze, he experimented with the Doctor first and since that failed, it's where his experiments with the ooze ended.

But other than a whole bunch of incredible eye-candy, the movie was, as Huggie eloquently said it, a massive "meh". It just ended with more questions and a sense of "emptiness" (in terms of having to presume too much). The sequel better be filling a whole bunch of holes to make the series survive and succeed.

Worst part of the movie? I just couldn't decide between the shitty pick for Ms. Theron being the cold-hearted richest woman in the universe type of personality or her wiltering Val-Kilmer look-alike father.

That abortion machine was just tipping scale of the Titanic iceberg for me.

Give it a [B]5/10[/B] - worthy of a few re-watches to satisfy the cinematographic hunger.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

[QUOTE=Kamal;1062859]

And I read somewhere else online that David made that Doctor dude drink the black ooze because David's intention was to give his Father, eternal life, just like a God. And so in order to test the effects of the black ooze, he experimented with the Doctor first and since that failed, it's where his experiments with the ooze ended. [/QUOTE]

I think that's right because after David's conversation with the 'father' and 'father' telling him something like try harder, he infected the Doc with the ooze to test its effect.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

Wow 5/10? Not wasting my time, thanks for the reviews.

Re: Prometheus [2012]

This movie was definitely worth a watch if you are a fan of the Aliens series, but it does leave a lot of holes. Knowing Ridley Scott though, I believe it was intentional. The article posted giving theory about it all was interesting and makes sense for the most part. I think the sequel is going to kick major ass. Prometheus was definitely an adventure, and I enjoyed it, but probably not for everyone. I can't wait for the next one. BTW, saw it in IMAX, and that absolutely kicked major ass!

Re: Prometheus [2012]

watched it yesterday, really disappointed with the storyline, after reading Kamal's and feather's posts i am understanding a bit more :lol: fassbender acting very good tho