Prometheus (2012) discussion - *SPOILERS!*

You know I look at conversations like this one, and I understand why Hollywood doesn't try very hard to make intelligent movies. People here are taking the position that you are only allowed to raise a question if you answer it.

I don't mind unanswered questions. But I don't want careless or stupid "science" in my science-fiction. A little leeway maybe, like the fantastic growth capabilities of the alien creature, but some of the other bloopers in this thread. As others have said, it's like they didn't even try to check the maths.
 
If only they could have had the "space-jockeys" as another alien (perhaps aggressive) race that a human ship comes across rather than suited giant humans who have created us. The idea of them engineering the aliens we know and love would have been fine but not the humanity aspect.
But the main problem, ignoring incorrect science or plot holes or unanswered questions, is simply too many uninteresting characters whose actions make little sense. All that said it is quite a fun (and visually pleasant) movie but we expected more (It is not Transformers after all). It definitely would get better reviews from someone who hasn't seen / doesn't revere Alien 1-3 highly. Really the prequel should appeal to fans of the originals.
I will watch the next one and it will probably be ok but I doubt very much that it will answer the questions we have. We can still hope, but it would be safer to expect an action movie.
 
That's true. Really, they don't have to make all their money off tickets anymore, and at this point, I do not believe they are worried. They don't need to "save their skin."
In today's market, if you can cover 75% of production costs in a couple weeks after release, then you're going to make a profit on the movie in the years that follow, and you are judged to have done pretty well. Online sales, DVD's, licensing to Netflix, and so on, can easily make more money total then the movie made at the movie theater. Movies don't need to do quite as well at the movie theater as they used to, to make a profit.

Not true. If the film doesn't have good opening weekend, and earn back during its US release, then it will be classified as a flop. It may later make a profit on international release or via merchandising or sell-through DVD/Blu-Ray/PPV. But it will still be a flop. Like John Carter.
 
Not true. If the film doesn't have good opening weekend, and earn back during its US release, then it will be classified as a flop. It may later make a profit on international release or via merchandising or sell-through DVD/Blu-Ray/PPV. But it will still be a flop. Like John Carter.

Well, "the" may call it a flop, because they like to go by years of past history that no longer apply, and because they like calling things a flop. But the people who paid for the movie are the ones who will generally be deciding about investing in a sequel. And if they make their money back on their investment, the silliness of other people's judgement on their matter will not likely matter to them.
 
Sigh. No, she really didn't. I saw the scene. She grabbed him and threw him against the wall. She did not pick him up and hold him unsupported in the air. And you will notice that he didn't actually resist. There was nothing remotely superhuman about what she did, I've seen people do it. He (the android) allowed himself to be thrown against the wall. He did not physically resist, probably because of the nature of his programming.

Go watch it again. You are now so committed to your point, that you are reorganizing facts in your brain. It just didn't happen the way you described.

I'm going to go ahead and say it. Just because you didn't see something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. The theme I described was very, very obvious, and you would probably have picked it up if you weren't obsessing over strange stuff.

And I do not concur that the truck was lost incidentally... anyway have fun picking it to death.

I congratulate you guys on managing to dislike the first intelligent science fiction movie I've seen in the theaters in years. I despair of the genre that science fiction used to be sometimes. When Independence Day the sequel hits the theaters, I'll think of you.

That would be when she lifted David completely off the floor.
The truck clearly was no longer there. That is why they had been believed to have gone back to the ship. It isn't a prime reason to dislike the film, but it is further evidence of the poor scriptwriting.
I did, about three quarters of the way through. Probably about the same time when the C-sectioned woman began running and jumping around. I'm more disappointed than anything else.

I really don't like the "Space Jesus" idea. It wasn't in the Alien films before and it does not stand up to close scrutiny. And that isn't a new thought-provoking idea. Behold the Man was more historically accurate. This could in no way be described as an "intelligent movie". Even the characters made stupid ridiculous decisions.
 
PS - another example is having the one guy in charge of the tech that maps the structure being the one guy who manages to get lost while everyone else is just fine at finding their way around. Again, that's just bad writing, not an intriguing unanswered question.

Well, when the android went wandering off, he was working on something nobody else knew he was working on, which was finding a living alien for the old guy living in his old.

He wasn't lost. He was deliberately avoiding the rest of the group, so he could accomplish his real primary goal, which he had to do while the others were not around.

If you're talking about the jerk who ran the robots for mapping the structure, I do not recall that the he got lost. He wandered off with the biologist to go check out his geology and beloved rocks... which was stupid, but stupidity on the part of a character is not a plot hole.

The person who didn't fear the small alien was the biologist, not the geologist, and it's not hard for me to imagine that a guy who must have made his living studying life would have been thrilled to see something truly Alien. He didn't know it was a bio-engineered creature.

I haven't heard a plot hole yet. What I'm hearing from are bunch of a guys who didn't understand what they saw.

As of yet, I haven't seen any plot holes in the movie.
 
As of yet, I haven't seen any plot holes in the movie.
I'm really glad you liked it, but the consensus here, and from other people I've talked to, and a quick Google at any online forum, would say you were in an unusual position. You may well be right, and everyone else is wrong, but I won't be watching this at the cinema again to check the points you made, and I doubt it will make my Christmas DVD wish list.
 
Well, when the android went wandering off, he was working on something nobody else knew he was working on, which was finding a living alien for the old guy living in his old.

He wasn't lost. He was deliberately avoiding the rest of the group, so he could accomplish his real primary goal, which he had to do while the others were not around.

If you're talking about the jerk who ran the robots for mapping the structure, I do not recall that the he got lost. He wandered off with the biologist to go check out his geology and beloved rocks... which was stupid, but stupidity on the part of a character is not a plot hole.

The person who didn't fear the small alien was the biologist, not the geologist, and it's not hard for me to imagine that a guy who must have made his living studying life would have been thrilled to see something truly Alien. He didn't know it was a bio-engineered creature.

I haven't heard a plot hole yet. What I'm hearing from are bunch of a guys who didn't understand what they saw.

As of yet, I haven't seen any plot holes in the movie.

The biologist and geologist were heading back to the ship, disliking the discovery of the dead engineer (wait, who is the guy who didn't understand what they saw again?) They do not go in search of rocks. They do get lost (characters inquire why they are not back yet.)

The fact they got lost is silly, as the geologist was the one in charge of the mapping technology. David was not in charge of the mapping bots, so no, I wasn't talking about him. And the geologist seems to think a lot of the bots, referring to them as his pups if I heard him right. Yet he seems clueless on how to read the map they generate.

Biologist was thrilled to see an alien - but he just ran away from one when the probe detected a life form, when he declared with obvious fear that they should go in the other direction from the detected ping. I can get if he is thrilled on discovering life being a biologist, but then he would move TOWARD that first ping of life, excited to see what it is.

Yet when a lifeform shows up, he goes right up close. I get if he is afraid of unknown life even as a biologist, especially given that he and geologist buddy just discovered huge pile of dead bodies, but then he should move AWAY from this life form just like he did the first detection of one.

He should be consistent in his desires, and he isn't.

I don't think we are picking apart the first intelligent sci fi movie in ages, because it just is not intelligent, sorry. We're picking apart a sci fi movie we hoped would be intelligent, that perhaps the director intended to be intelligent, but that has so many badly written characters and events that any pretension to the throne of being a smart sci fi that makes you think is totally lost.

We discuss it in such detail, because we had such high hopes, sadly dashed.
 
To dig up the quote that makes it quite clear where Laurel and Hardy are headed:

Fifield: What? Look, I'm just a geologist! I like rocks! I love rocks! Now it's clear you two don't give a **** about rocks. But what you do seem to care about is gigantic dead bodies, and I don't really have anything to contribute in the gigantic dead body arena! I'm gonna go back to the ship, if you don't mind.
[he turns to face the others]
Fifield: Anyone want to join me, hey?
[to Millburn]
Fifield: You staying?
Millburn: Uh...no. Ship's good.
Fifield: Yeah. Ship very good.
 
I congratulate you guys on managing to dislike the first intelligent science fiction movie I've seen in the theaters in years. I despair of the genre that science fiction used to be sometimes. When Independence Day the sequel hits the theaters, I'll think of you.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. I wouldn't call the rest of us, in effect brain dead, because we disagree.

It is difficult for me to see this as the intelligent SF movie you believe it is. There is a big difference between vagueness done on purpose to get one to think, and vagueness because plot points are just picked up and dropped at random.

Prometheus was definitely the latter.

There is also the inevitable, and I believe appropriate comparison between his two movies, Alien and Prometheus. Alien was well thought out, indeed brilliantly so. Directed to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, both wondering and fearing what is going to happen next.

It is hard to believe Prometheus was directed by the same guy. It has none of the cohesiveness and intensity of Alien.
 
Well, "the" may call it a flop, because they like to go by years of past history that no longer apply, and because they like calling things a flop. But the people who paid for the movie are the ones who will generally be deciding about investing in a sequel. And if they make their money back on their investment, the silliness of other people's judgement on their matter will not likely matter to them.

Disney have officially classified John Carter as a flop. And yes, that was solely on domestic box office receipts. As a result, there will be no sequel.
 
I congratulate you guys on managing to dislike the first intelligent science fiction movie I've seen in the theaters in years. I despair of the genre that science fiction used to be sometimes. When Independence Day the sequel hits the theaters, I'll think of you.

Then I suspect you need to watch a lot more sf films. Prometheus was not intelligent. It was not as monumentally stupid as Star Trek XI, but it was pretty close. For example, we are supposedly descended from Engineer DNA. Yet in the billions of years it took us to evolve from primordial slime, they didn't change one bit. In fact, our DNA ended up an exact match for theirs. How does that work? Because it's not science.
 
Hi Wonk,
As you seem to have a fair handle on the vagueness of the movie, I'd appreciate an answer on one question that has been bugging me. I cannot figure it out.

In the beginning the archaeologists find this star map in cave paintings all over the planet from different ancient civilizations. They make the logical (to me) assumption that the aliens want humans to go to that place.

But the story takes a bizarre turn in that they aliens apparently want to destroy humanity???? Still don't really understand why.

My question, if the aliens wanted to destroy humankind, why leave them all these messages on where to find the Engineers?
 
With regard to questions, there is a difference between the question the zen master poses, and the little kid who repeatedly asks why

What no one seems to have mentioned yet is that once humans develop interstellar space flight, by that late stage, it's too late to eradicate them. Once the genie is out of the bottle, I can guarantee humans are gonna spread like the worst kind of plague across the galaxy
 
What no one seems to have mentioned yet is that once humans develop interstellar space flight, by that late stage, it's too late to eradicate them. Once the genie is out of the bottle, I can guarantee humans are gonna spread like the worst kind of plague across the galaxy

Possibly true but there was no sign that we were "better people" by then. As a population we're only a few square meals from the stone age. Look at how the UK turned near-feral in March when there was a threat of petrol shortages. In Japan at the moment there is real fear about nuclear energy, yet the government has ordered some of the reactors back on: the lack of electric power is a greater threat. And that's the problem - we need so much energy at the moment. Until someone creates a vast new source of energy, removing it (be it accident, terrorism, natural phenomenon or intergalactic intervention) would wipe us back to very uncivilised people.
 
GK - I think I can help as the possible answers have already been proposed here. To sum them up, either:

1. They did not originally want to wipe out all humanity, but only changed their minds later when they discovered how badly we had worked out, or after we killed their messenger 2000 years ago on cross in Jerusalem. (This does not explain why the messages are not pointing to their home world though.)

2. They always planned to wipe out humanity. Rather than leave directions to their own home planet, they instead left messages to a world they were planning on populating with Aliens; a trap containing their WMD which we would then take back to Earth and wipe all humanity out.

As James points out, by the time we were able to reach that planet, it would already be too late for their plan to work. We would already be everywhere like a rash.

The other point this raises is that we must have been much slower at developing interstellar space flight than they had expected. xx,000 years ago, they must have expected us to arrive fairly soon, but their mad science experiments went wrong and the Aliens wiped them out instead.

At least that is what I gathered, though it being such an intelligent film I probably missed something somewhere.
 
Disney have officially classified John Carter as a flop. And yes, that was solely on domestic box office receipts. As a result, there will be no sequel.

Right, then they would certainly know that. It opened to awful reviews and lukewarm response from audiences, and made substantially less than they spent. It was a special effects heavy movie and they aren't cheap to make.

On the other hand, a lot of movies get made for 5 million or less and never make it to the theater at all. Straight to DVD they go.
 
Hi Wonk,
As you seem to have a fair handle on the vagueness of the movie, I'd appreciate an answer on one question that has been bugging me. I cannot figure it out.

In the beginning the archaeologists find this star map in cave paintings all over the planet from different ancient civilizations. They make the logical (to me) assumption that the aliens want humans to go to that place.

But the story takes a bizarre turn in that they aliens apparently want to destroy humanity???? Still don't really understand why.

My question, if the aliens wanted to destroy humankind, why leave them all these messages on where to find the Engineers?

That question is pretty much the whole point of the movie really, and they spend most of the movie talking about it, indirectly. Probably one of the most interesting scenes of the movie to me was when the android had a conversation with the archaeologist early in, and the archaeologist indicated he had come because he wished to speak to his creator.

The Android told him that he was in that moment, speaking to his own creator. (Humans built him.) Since he had no emotions, it wasn't the same issue to him, but wouldn't he find it terrible if his creator told him that he built him, "Just because he could?"

And that's the actual fruit of it right there, and here's the idea that came to me then, in that moment.

If we made new life forms, we might not really know what would happen to them. We might not actually care that much. We might make an experiment and forget about it. Thousands of years later, our descendents might decide to destroy it. Don't you get it? That's the idea here. So much time has gone by, that their entire civilization is utterly different from the one that actually made us, in this storyline. It makes perfect sense.

If we made such an artificial lifeform, and our descendants found it thousands of years later, why would their reactions to it be the same as ours, we who made it? Would they even think of it as their own? Who knows? The archaeologist made the same fundamental assumption that you did, because he was ascribing a sort of godhood to them. But that assumption doesn't really make any sense if you look at it objectively.

The 'jesus engineer' which was brought up as an idea was never actually put into the movie, and I prefer not to bring it up because it's actually superfluous. The whole point of it is, they don't know.

He went thousands of light years, to find out why his creators made us. And he found out this his creators wanted us dead, and he doesn't even know why. It's extremely realistic, and it made his girlfriend more than a little annoyed too, as you could tell from the ending sequence when she managed to get a spacecraft, and elected to go to another one of their worlds to try to find out what they are doing, rather than go home.
 
Then I suspect you need to watch a lot more sf films. Prometheus was not intelligent. It was not as monumentally stupid as Star Trek XI, but it was pretty close. For example, we are supposedly descended from Engineer DNA. Yet in the billions of years it took us to evolve from primordial slime, they didn't change one bit. In fact, our DNA ended up an exact match for theirs. How does that work? Because it's not science.

I have never, in the history of sf, seen a film that couldn't be picked apart the way you just described. And I've seen plenty of science fiction films.

The thing I have noticed is that those films which make some effort at realism tend to be the ones that get picked apart the most. Nobody bothers to pick apart Independence Day, they generally come after movies like this one.
 
Let me be really clear on something; I'm not calling you brain dead. I just read what I wrote, and I don't see me saying that. I think it was a good movie, you don't.

I do think that the kind of nitpicking I see here is one of the most awful habits of science fictions fans. It's one I've grown to dread over the years, because I think it's one of the reasons why we see more and more fantasy, and less 'science fiction' that you can even name as such. I'm very serious about that.

As to the vagueness... well, I don't agree with that. It was a very deliberate movie. He laid out his point in the beginning, with the discussion with the Alien, then he put it out, scene by scene. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. I wouldn't call the rest of us, in effect brain dead, because we disagree.

It is difficult for me to see this as the intelligent SF movie you believe it is. There is a big difference between vagueness done on purpose to get one to think, and vagueness because plot points are just picked up and dropped at random.

Prometheus was definitely the latter.

There is also the inevitable, and I believe appropriate comparison between his two movies, Alien and Prometheus. Alien was well thought out, indeed brilliantly so. Directed to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, both wondering and fearing what is going to happen next.

It is hard to believe Prometheus was directed by the same guy. It has none of the cohesiveness and intensity of Alien.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top