Scots Taffer on 18/6/2012 at 03:47
I think you're beginning to skirt on the edge of a bigger discussion there though, which is: is it better for a movie to never strive for deeper meaning and greatness but be incredibly effective at entertainment whilst delivering solid characters & plots, or should movies always reach for a bigger theme and be more than just a rollercoaster?
I like movies that do both, but so few manage it. I think Prometheus compared to Star Trek is an interesting one because they set out to do very different things as movies and one succeeded considerably more than the other, yet they both had many similar flaws.
The problem is, you can't have your cake and eat it unless you're really fucking good. Nolan proved that with Inception and he still gets his vehement detractors.
N'Al on 18/6/2012 at 08:15
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
But at the same time I do get the impression that people are more angry because they can glimpse true greatness and it doesn't make it.
There's actually a precedent for a movie just like this right in this very franchise:
Alien 3.
The theatrical cut of
Alien 3 is a big mess, with many of the same problems that
Prometheus has - too many characters that aren't given the light of day, non-sensical character motivation, scattershot editing, etc. Nonetheless, personally, I always felt the movie had
potential.
The (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_3#2003_Assembly_Cut) 2003 Assembly Cut of
Alien 3, then, managed to significantly build on that potential, imo. Still not 'true greatness', admittedly, but pretty solid (again, imo).
That's why I'm hoping there'll be some sort of
Prometheus Director's Cut that irons out the kinks in the theatrical version (as far as that's possible, of course). It shouldn't require this in the first place, of course, but again, it seems par for the course with Ridley Scott nowadays. :erg:
SD on 19/6/2012 at 16:22
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
It's a lot less retarded than answering/explaining a massive list of simple things that people don't get. The amount of nitpicking, a lot of it because stuff wasn't spoonfed (and why should it be?), I've seen re: this film is on a whole new level.
Agreed. The mind boggles at what those people might make of a film like
2001. My advice to them would be to stick to the conveyor belt of cookie cutter superhero movies so their poor brains aren't taxed excessively :thumb:
Prometheus's flaws didn't stop me from really enjoying the film. I honestly do think if questions like OMG WAI DID HE TAEK HIS HELMET OFF??? prevent someone from enjoying a movie as ambitious and downright beautiful as this one, then it is a textbook example of not seeing the wood for the trees.
Ted O'Toole on 19/6/2012 at 21:41
I think the disappointment many feel is due to the film not being Alien enough. It's like a completely new IP, with a new feel to it, though it references Alien quite heavily, it isn't the same type of film and shouldn't be viewed as such.
I came out of the cinema with mixed feelings on it myself. I'm still not sure if I like it or not, but I certainly didn't love it.
Scots Taffer on 20/6/2012 at 00:09
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how ambitious a movie wants to be if it can't deliver on any level. Not only does Prometheus fail to deliver, it doesn't even try. It is content to merely be the set-up part of a trilogy that puts a whole bunch of extra-terrestrial window dressing on the oldest story of all time - not really sure how ambitious that re-telling is, in all honesty.
edit: fuck off Alch
The Alchemist on 20/6/2012 at 00:28
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
edit: fuck off Alch
el oh el.
Angel Dust on 20/6/2012 at 00:55
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
In my opinion, it doesn't really matter how ambitious a movie wants to be if it can't deliver on any level.
Tee hee, that's pretty much my issue with most of Nolan's output. :p
BEAR on 20/6/2012 at 03:19
I think the movies annoyances are more frustrating because the movie was otherwise so great. If it were a shitty movie nobody would care. Its much like my complaints with bioshock, if the base thing weren't so fucking good, the obvious stupidity of pretty much all the "scientists" wouldn't have bothered me. I thought that "geologist" was a mercenary until he started wigging out and getting in everyones faces, it just made no sense. And why did the biologist have to be stupid? The same end could have resulted from him not being a fucking retard, but he was anyways, because thats what people seem to expect. It didn't make a it a bad movie, but it made it a worse movie simply because it had so much potential and yet had to do the same dumb shit you see in many a lesser film. Thats why it bugged me, but ill still see the shit out of the next one.
Yakoob on 20/6/2012 at 03:40
After reading this thread, and letting the thoughts simmer, I finally came to acceptance that most of you guys are right, and the movie does suffer from significant issues, particularily the issue of nonsense crew structure and retarded / underdeveloped characters. Congratulations, Internet, you actually managed to change my opinion :thumb:
STILL, I did enjoy the movie. Maybe I'm just able to suspend my disbelief better, or maybe it was the nice coctail me and my friend had right before entering the cinema, but I was genuinely engrossed. I guess, in my case, good (captivating) storytelling, but not the best story? Kind of like Lost - it's full of holes and bullshit but, by god, did I always want to know what happens NEXT.
Scots Taffer on 20/6/2012 at 06:12
BEAR, on a similar note ... what is the main female character's background ... is she an archeologist as her opening scene suggests ... or is she a xenobiologist when she starts dissecting the Engineer head later?
None of the characters, their motivations or behaviour makes much sense beyond Vickers and her "dad" and theirs are the most boring of all.
