Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 2:26:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2012 6:00:29 GMT -5
For all the people who kind of didn't like it, or had many, many unanswered questions; the video contains spoilers if you haven't seen it, but if you have, watch it, you'll get a kick out of it! haha excellent.
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jun 17, 2012 1:55:08 GMT -5
popwatch.ew.com/2012/06/14/prometheus-engineer-deleted-scene/^ That link has a picture of some footage from the film that was not in the theatrical release.This is a spoiler thread so here is the article in full: Ridley Scott’s Alien quasi-prequel Prometheus raised a lot of questions. Questions like, “How come it’s the guy with the state-of-the-art 3-D mapping thingamabobs who gets hopelessly lost?” And, “Who exactly decorates their house with a big statue of their own head?” And, “Does Stephen Stills even own an accordion?” And… “What was that opening scene all about?” We can’t help with the first three queries but we can offer some fresh information about the film’s first sequence. The Prometheus Forum has acquired an image from some presumably deleted footage which finds the Engineer who commits planet-enriching suicide hanging out with a character who doesn’t appear in the film at all. You can see the image below although, alas, it just raises more questions. Is this so-called “Elder Engineer” an AARP-ized version of his humanity-creating colleagues? Is he from a different alien race altogether — one which engineered the Engineers? Or is it Bill Hader doing his James Carville impersonation? Concept art in the newly published Prometheus: The Art of the Film shows the Engineer from the opening sequence being handed his fatal dose of black goo by a hooded figure who looks so much more wizened than his buddy that he might indeed be from a different alien race. Your theories on the subject would be most welcome… ---------------------- I guess the director's cut DVD will be something I have to see.
|
|
|
Post by LeighD on Jun 17, 2012 6:44:35 GMT -5
That being a little silly aside, I really loved the movie, and I enjoyed that it didn't answer all of our questions. There are parts I wish had been a tad more clear or direct, and it wasn't perfect by any means, but I liked it a lot. Unfortunately, they don't make many Sci-Fi movies like that anymore. I hope we get another. I loved that not all of the questions were answered. It leaves us wondering and wanting of a sequal. I do hope a sequel is not too far behind as I love how they left off with Shaw, David, and proto-xeno. I would hope a Predators sequel is out in the next two or three years.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Show on Jun 17, 2012 15:27:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Boy Wonder on Jun 17, 2012 20:54:14 GMT -5
Saw it this afternoon and really enjoyed it. It had some creepy parts and set up some interesting questions for a future film. I wish they had added some time to develop the story and make it a little slow moving for creep factor. But overall look forward to what we will see in the future
And Noomi has a rocking body.
|
|
|
Post by Edgeman05 on Jun 18, 2012 17:41:59 GMT -5
Film Crit Hulk is AWEEESOME. Thanks for reminding me that this exists. I forgot he posted it.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 21, 2012 10:10:12 GMT -5
I thought it was the best pure Sci-Fi movie I have seen in a very long time. I personally love walking out and having more questions than answers. It really lets the mind run wild on what you just saw, and for me, that's all I can ask for from a movie that poses so many questions.
I think, unquestionably for me really, that the film is David's story. He is, of course, Lawrence of Arabia. He is the watcher, he seems to understand everything, and everyone around him takes him for granted, which is specifically shown during his banter with Holloway. David made countless comments that really drove the story for me.
"I can carry out directives that my future counterparts might find distressing or unethical."
"I understand human emotions, although I do not feel them myself."
"How far would you go to get your answers?"
"There is nothing in the desert and no man needs nothing."
"Sometimes to create, one must first destroy."
"Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?"
And there were several other moments where I felt David was communicating the backstory, but that last line, in that conversation with Holloway, was the most intriguing imo. I'm convinced David had Weyland killed by the Engineer during their dialogue. "Doesn't every child want their parents dead?" But then, what was his motivation? Motivation for Holloway, did he intend on creating the "baby"(since we knew he was trying to preserve it inside Shaw), and are we to assume that David's journey was to discover emotion, through action?
I've read through some of the comments and I'm not sure I agree with there really being any, or at least many, plot holes or continuity issues. This is a "prequel" to Alien in its rawest form, and I believe it really is as simple as the biochemical weapons (the black matter if you will) are a parasite that when latched onto the Engineers, breeds a new mutation of creature. Which would explain to me how it could happen in multiple locations on various ships, given that Shaw gave birth to what I assume is just a normal parasite that was mutated by the decontaminate process of the medical pod (Easily the most incredible scene of the movie imo, loved it).
The Engineers, from what I gather, created life on what appeared to be hundreds of planets in multiple solar systems. I would guess the scene at the beginning is the ritual for which that life is created. So Alien and Aliens taking place on similar but different worlds, and David referencing many other ships, tells me that that the Engineers had a "fail safe" to destroy their creation in many other worlds. However, as indicated by Janek, those weapons turned out of their control at some point.
I personally, don't think that the Engineers decided not to destroy Earth. I think the ship that was intended to destroy Earth was stopped by the parasites before it had a chance to take off. Which is why you see the one Engineer take off towards Earth once he is awake, as he would be fulfilling his duty. And as it would stand from the hologram, Earth could be insignificant, "because they could." We don't really know, and there could have been civil war amongst the Engineers or there could have been a reason they changed their minds, but I love that it poses the question.
This is just how I chose to interpret what I saw. It could be right, it definitely could be wrong, but it's why I loved the film so much. I love Alien, Aliens is easily one of my favorite movies ever, but this is a different animal imo. This was really a setup, to a setup. A film that clearly defined its protagonist, but then made you really question what her journey is truly all about.
The one thing I don't care for when I read movie critiques or comments, is the over analysis of human reaction, and interaction. Why would she do this, she would never do that, and this is not something real people do, etc., etc.. In my short time as a person, I've found that there is no one person just like me, that thinks the way I do, that reacts the same as me in given situations. So it is absolutely impossible for me to be in the mind of Shaw and really put my thumb on exactly what she is thinking or how she is feeling at any one time. Can I relate? Can I assume, guess, or even understand? Yes, to some degree, I believe that I can, and I think Rapace does an amazing job of translating that emotion, but imo, I can't tell a character how they should or shouldn't react when it's writer and actor interpretation of a character. I just don't like that type of criticism, especially on a great character that was played exceptionally well.
I will definitely be buying this on Blu-ray, and I will most likely see this again over the weekend. I hope that we definitely get at least one sequel, if not a full trilogy. This is what Sci-Fi is all about for me, this is very much my feelings on how I got when I saw The Matrix, Blade Runner, and Aliens for the very first time. Maybe it's not for you, but this was definitely a homerun imo.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. McCluer on Jun 21, 2012 14:21:53 GMT -5
WOW! Amazing write up on that bro! Love it!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 2:26:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 21:37:34 GMT -5
I thought it was the best pure Sci-Fi movie I have seen in a very long time. I personally love walking out and having more questions than answers. It really lets the mind run wild on what you just saw, and for me, that's all I can ask for from a movie that poses so many questions. I think, unquestionably for me really, that the film is David's story. He is, of course, Lawrence of Arabia. He is the watcher, he seems to understand everything, and everyone around him takes him for granted, which is specifically shown during his banter with Holloway. David made countless comments that really drove the story for me. "I can carry out directives that my future counterparts might find distressing or unethical." "I understand human emotions, although I do not feel them myself." "How far would you go to get your answers?" "There is nothing in the desert and no man needs nothing." "Sometimes to create, one must first destroy." "Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?" And there were several other moments where I felt David was communicating the backstory, but that last line, in that conversation with Holloway, was the most intriguing imo. I'm convinced David had Weyland killed by the Engineer during their dialogue. "Doesn't every child want their parents dead?" But then, what was his motivation? Motivation for Holloway, did he intend on creating the "baby"(since we knew he was trying to preserve it inside Shaw), and are we to assume that David's journey was to discover emotion, through action? I've read through some of the comments and I'm not sure I agree with there really being any, or at least many, plot holes or continuity issues. This is a "prequel" to Alien in its rawest form, and I believe it really is as simple as the biochemical weapons (the black matter if you will) are a parasite that when latched onto the Engineers, breeds a new mutation of creature. Which would explain to me how it could happen in multiple locations on various ships, given that Shaw gave birth to what I assume is just a normal parasite that was mutated by the decontaminate process of the medical pod (Easily the most incredible scene of the movie imo, loved it). The Engineers, from what I gather, created life on what appeared to be hundreds of planets in multiple solar systems. I would guess the scene at the beginning is the ritual for which that life is created. So Alien and Aliens taking place on similar but different worlds, and David referencing many other ships, tells me that that the Engineers had a "fail safe" to destroy their creation in many other worlds. However, as indicated by Janek, those weapons turned out of their control at some point. I personally, don't think that the Engineers decided not to destroy Earth. I think the ship that was intended to destroy Earth was stopped by the parasites before it had a chance to take off. Which is why you see the one Engineer take off towards Earth once he is awake, as he would be fulfilling his duty. And as it would stand from the hologram, Earth could be insignificant, "because they could." We don't really know, and there could have been civil war amongst the Engineers or there could have been a reason they changed their minds, but I love that it poses the question. This is just how I chose to interpret what I saw. It could be right, it definitely could be wrong, but it's why I loved the film so much. I love Alien, Aliens is easily one of my favorite movies ever, but this is a different animal imo. This was really a setup, to a setup. A film that clearly defined its protagonist, but then made you really question what her journey is truly all about. The one thing I don't care for when I read movie critiques or comments, is the over analysis of human reaction, and interaction. Why would she do this, she would never do that, and this is not something real people do, etc., etc.. In my short time as a person, I've found that there is no one person just like me, that thinks the way I do, that reacts the same as me in given situations. So it is absolutely impossible for me to be in the mind of Shaw and really put my thumb on exactly what she is thinking or how she is feeling at any one time. Can I relate? Can I assume, guess, or even understand? Yes, to some degree, I believe that I can, and I think Rapace does an amazing job of translating that emotion, but imo, I can't tell a character how they should or shouldn't react when it's writer and actor interpretation of a character. I just don't like that type of criticism, especially on a great character that was played exceptionally well. I will definitely be buying this on Blu-ray, and I will most likely see this again over the weekend. I hope that we definitely get at least one sequel, if not a full trilogy. This is what Sci-Fi is all about for me, this is very much my feelings on how I got when I saw The Matrix, Blade Runner, and Aliens for the very first time. Maybe it's not for you, but this was definitely a homerun imo. great post man!!
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jun 22, 2012 2:39:04 GMT -5
I agree that Punksnotdead had a great post. Here is another article about the movie this time revealing what David said to the Engineer when Weyland was in the room: insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/21/prometheus-questions-engineer-david/Ridley Scott’s Prometheus prompted a lot of questions from cinemagoers, like “What the f—?” and “No, seriously: What the f—?” We can’t provide answers for either of those queries. But we can resolve the question of what Michael Fassbender’s android David said to the Engineer just prior to the alien going ape and trying to kill everyone in sight. Movie website The Bioscopist tracked down linguistic expert Dr. Anil Biltoo of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. In Prometheus, a projection of Biltoo acts as David’s language tutor, and in real-life Biltoo worked as a consultant on the film. According to the doctor, the line of alien dialog David speaks in the film “serviceably” translates as “This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life.” The “Man” in question is, of course, Guy Pearce’s expedition-financing Peter Weyland and, as that is pretty much a recitation of the businessman’s already established plan, it doesn’t come as a big surprise nor resolve the issue of our big white buddy’s subsequent freak-out. But Dr. Biltoo also says that originally David and the Engineer had “a conversation, not merely an utterance from David” and that “We’re all going to have to wait for the director’s cut to see if the conversation…yields any fruit.”Mmm. Riddles wrapped in mysteries. Puzzles wrapped in riddles. Small sausages wrapped in pastry. Enough! What do you think might have driven the Engineer to Hulk out?
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 22, 2012 13:35:28 GMT -5
I agree that Punksnotdead had a great post. Here is another article about the movie this time revealing what David said to the Engineer when Weyland was in the room: insidemovies.ew.com/2012/06/21/prometheus-questions-engineer-david/Ridley Scott’s Prometheus prompted a lot of questions from cinemagoers, like “What the f—?” and “No, seriously: What the f—?” We can’t provide answers for either of those queries. But we can resolve the question of what Michael Fassbender’s android David said to the Engineer just prior to the alien going ape and trying to kill everyone in sight. Movie website The Bioscopist tracked down linguistic expert Dr. Anil Biltoo of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. In Prometheus, a projection of Biltoo acts as David’s language tutor, and in real-life Biltoo worked as a consultant on the film. According to the doctor, the line of alien dialog David speaks in the film “serviceably” translates as “This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life.” The “Man” in question is, of course, Guy Pearce’s expedition-financing Peter Weyland and, as that is pretty much a recitation of the businessman’s already established plan, it doesn’t come as a big surprise nor resolve the issue of our big white buddy’s subsequent freak-out. But Dr. Biltoo also says that originally David and the Engineer had “a conversation, not merely an utterance from David” and that “We’re all going to have to wait for the director’s cut to see if the conversation…yields any fruit.”Mmm. Riddles wrapped in mysteries. Puzzles wrapped in riddles. Small sausages wrapped in pastry. Enough! What do you think might have driven the Engineer to Hulk out? Well there goes my theory. The Hulk out was the exact reason that I felt David told the Engineer to, probably much more graciously, put him out of his misery. I think that leads me to believe he viewed the humans as either a threat to his "mission," i.e. destroy Earth, or he simply had disdain for our race, which goes back to them wanting to destroy us in the first place. I don't know, that's definitely an eyebrow raiser imo. I was pretty convinced based on the everyone wants to see their parents die line that David pulled a "meet your maker" on Weyland. Very interesting. The Director's Cut for this should be insane imo. Can't wait for the commentary but I'm still expecting a number of open ended explanations.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Show on Jun 22, 2012 23:40:56 GMT -5
As far as the whole "unanswered questions" thing goes, there is a big difference between using mystique as a way to get people thinking, and having good ideas that don't really go anywhere, so they just get dropped with no resolution and never mentioned again. Personally, I feel like most of the questions in Prometheus fall into the latter category. And yes, I do realize that these questions DO have people thinking and discussing, and coming up with interesting theories on what this means, and what that means (punksnotdead has some neat ideas above), but those theories aren't really supported by the film itself. There's no real connective tissue in Prometheus, so fans of the film are forced to create their own answers. Some of them make sense, some don't, but the point is that all of them come completely from fan's imaginations, and not from Ridley Scott or anyone else involved with the film. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself, I can fully appreciate a film that makes you fill in the gaps on your own, and there are lots of GREAT films that do just that. But the thing about Prometheus is, its such a big dumb mess, that whatever questions I had, weren't even worth answering in my opinion. I had no real reason to care, because I knew the real answer was probably, "well it looked cool so we threw it in there, even though we couldn't figure out a way to make it fit into the film organically, but here it is!"
Weeks after watching it, I still feel like Prometheus is a failure. An interesting failure, sure, but still a failure. And the only question I want an answer to, is "Can Ridley pull a Kingdom of Heaven, or a Blade Runner, and release a director's cut that actually turns this into the great film that it should have been in the first place?" I honestly don't think this one can be salvaged.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Show on Jun 25, 2012 16:10:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 26, 2012 12:28:28 GMT -5
His biggest complaint is the films lack of synergy with the rest of the franchise but then blatantly admits that if you view the franchise as just Prometheus and Alien it makes sense. That's sort of how I am looking at it since Scott only made those two films and the rest was built on various interpretations of the universe and the characters. Even then, an argument could be made that any true continuity ended with Aliens. Again, every complaint piece I have read goes back to individuals who don't like the open-endedness of the story. Which definitely isn't for everyone, obviously, but it isn't sh*tty storytelling, as implied in that article, just because the writers presented a situation where it's your responsible to use your own imagination to finish the puzzle. However, I wholeheartedly believe this was a set up to a sequel, if not multiple sequels. So the underlying question is if they did a sequel, would you spend the money to see those questions answered? The last few paragraphs he wrote were absolutely atrocious. It goes from a solid POV piece to an all out rant imo. I agree Guy Pearce was an odd choice since we only saw the elder Weyland version in the film, I know Pearce shot video as a younger Weyland for the website, and I agree that the black "goo" is a serve-all link, which the blogger admittedly doesn't mind, but to call them pretentious after a 15 paragraph psychobabble over analysis because you didn't get all the answers you wanted is pretty hypocritical imo. I get it, it's a stalemate. Someone will call it lazy writing, but I could just as easily call them lazy minded. It was presented as a summer blockbuster, when in reality it was a niche Science Fiction movie that a lot of people just should not have seen imo. Let us not forget that the last time a big budget Alien Franchise film was released it didn't even make back anywhere near its budget on domestic gross. Jesus, Prometheus has already passed the worldwide gross of every single Alien movie by like 100 million dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Show on Jun 27, 2012 8:11:21 GMT -5
His biggest complaint is the films lack of synergy with the rest of the franchise but then blatantly admits that if you view the franchise as just Prometheus and Alien it makes sense. That's sort of how I am looking at it since Scott only made those two films and the rest was built on various interpretations of the universe and the characters. Even then, an argument could be made that any true continuity ended with Aliens. Again, every complaint piece I have read goes back to individuals who don't like the open-endedness of the story. Which definitely isn't for everyone, obviously, but it isn't sh*tty storytelling, as implied in that article, just because the writers presented a situation where it's your responsible to use your own imagination to finish the puzzle. However, I wholeheartedly believe this was a set up to a sequel, if not multiple sequels. So the underlying question is if they did a sequel, would you spend the money to see those questions answered? The last few paragraphs he wrote were absolutely atrocious. It goes from a solid POV piece to an all out rant imo. I agree Guy Pearce was an odd choice since we only saw the elder Weyland version in the film, I know Pearce shot video as a younger Weyland for the website, and I agree that the black "goo" is a serve-all link, which the blogger admittedly doesn't mind, but to call them pretentious after a 15 paragraph psychobabble over analysis because you didn't get all the answers you wanted is pretty hypocritical imo. I get it, it's a stalemate. Someone will call it lazy writing, but I could just as easily call them lazy minded. It was presented as a summer blockbuster, when in reality it was a niche Science Fiction movie that a lot of people just should not have seen imo. Let us not forget that the last time a big budget Alien Franchise film was released it didn't even make back anywhere near its budget on domestic gross. Jesus, Prometheus has already passed the worldwide gross of every single Alien movie by like 100 million dollars. The open-endedness of the story wouldn't be an issue if it was handled with gravitas. Lots of films that ask you, the viewer, to connect the dots yourself are great films. But Prometheus doesn't do that. It gives you a dot here, a 27 down on a crossword puzzle here, a jigsaw piece here, and a Jenga piece here. It becomes obvious while watching the film that the "unanswered questions" never had an answer to begin with, they were just written as a series of interesting moments that don't really connect. "why was charlize theron's character given a big reveal of being weyland's daughter, when it had zero impact on the story and was never mentioned again, and they both die in unrelated incidents so there can be no further exploration of that theme?" That same sentiment can be applied to almost all the "unanswered questions", and thats why, ultimately, the film fails.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 27, 2012 10:01:24 GMT -5
That's fair. For me it explained why she was on the ship, why she felt entitled to act as if she were in charge, and why she confronted David about what "he" said. Ultimately, the reveal explained to me why Vickers was on the ship to begin with since it appeared she didn't want to be there at all the entire time. You say it failed because it was more of a side path than a focus, big build, not a lot on delivery? Which again, I get, but for me I didn't feel was necessary.
I will say that I wanted more from the Weyland character. Pearce is a great actor and I would have liked to see more development with that path of the story, and maybe with a Director's Cut there will be more given the casting choice in general.
Again, I don't really care, it's not my job, nor am I attempting, to convince you that it was entertaining. I just completely disagree with your stance on the movie because I viewed it from an entirely different perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Show on Jun 27, 2012 11:23:46 GMT -5
I understand that completely, and I certainly don't fault you for liking the movie at all. There is a lot to like about it, but as a whole, it just didnt do it for me.
Im glad that for once on these boards, two people can have totally different opinions on something and still be civil.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 27, 2012 12:08:01 GMT -5
I understand that completely, and I certainly don't fault you for liking the movie at all. There is a lot to like about it, but as a whole, it just didnt do it for me. Im glad that for once on these boards, two people can have totally different opinions on something and still be civil.Definitely agreed.
|
|
|
Post by wyleecyotee on Jun 27, 2012 17:08:13 GMT -5
One thing I will say about this movie is it gets people talking and I've seen a lot of good and some very bad ideas about the unanswered questions in the film. For me I really enjoyed it and will buy the DVD but I can see where someone would hate it and I love that theres been no arguments over opinion in this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 2:26:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 12:57:21 GMT -5
Im very much looking forward to the Blu Ray.will go in expectation free this time and look at the movie from another perspective.
|
|