Reply to: Prometheus

[BolshieBastard]

Ridley Scott went to great lengths to say this is not a an Alien prequel it's just set in the same 'universe', the creature at the end was most probably stuffed in there by the studio to maintain the link and subsequent profits.

I still liked it despite the flaws and Peter Weyland looking like a younger man who'd melted, Dave (Nexus 7??) was a great character and I found the idea intriguing even if there were daft scenes that could have been handled better (chiefly the general naivety of the crew, the giant squid and rolling doughnut squishing Theron).

IMO scott can say what he likes. He's being economical with words imho. Whether by design or not, it clearly is a prequel to Alien. And as such the plot has massive holes in it even if you disregard the last 2 minutes of the version transmitted by sky.

As sci fi goes, its a piece of crap. As a story its disjointed and full of holes.

Originally Posted by OwlHoot View Post
It's also been on Sky over the last day or two. Watching it again, I was struck by how much the plot relies on the recklessness and stupidity of the clownish crew, especially when the aliens are so tough and cunning you might think this was mostly unnecessary. I wouldn't trust most of the crew to run a milk float let alone a star ship.

Quite. A whole crew is put into hibernation for 2 years and its only when they wake up that they introduce themselves to each other!?

Then you have the two clowns who want to go back to prometheus but manage to get lost when one of them supposedly had the mapping devices!? Then they get the collywobbles when they are told another lifeform has been picked up a couple of clicks away and instead settle down for the night. until one sees a snake like lifeform and he starts saying 'hey beautiful, how ae you?' and trying to stroke it!? Really?

Pathetic. No, sorry, stupid, stupid plot.

[minestrone]

I watched it in the cinema and when I left I remember thinking it did not make sense, there was one particular point, which I can't remember now, where there was a massive unworkable contradiction. It is on the sky box so I will watch it again, maybe tomorrow.

I just can't believe that they could have so many people involved of such standing in the industry and so much money invested and nobody put their hand up to say "this is a bit pish really"

It is a stunning film though, just a massive amount of nonsense mixed in with it which is a shame.

[Doggy Styles]

It's also been on Sky over the last day or two. Watching it again, I was struck by how much the plot relies on the recklessness and stupidity of the clownish crew, especially when the aliens are so tough and cunning you might think this was mostly unnecessary. I wouldn't trust most of the crew to run a milk float let alone a star ship.

That's what I meant. Nobody would send a ship-full of such cretins on a mission like that.

The film started to lose me very quickly from "It's Christmas and I want to open my presents!"

[amcdonald]

Seeing it at the cinema, it had the best use of CGI I'd seen in a long while, it's just looked so lush.

See it on a big screen and all the plot holes are almost forgiven

[minestrone]

It was a tulip film, but in one of the viral videos Dr Lisbeth Salander was asking Mike from Neighbours to fund her mission, a line flashes up that her call was coming from the Huntarian Museum. Then later on some geo-coordinates flash up which correspond to a location very close to Glasgow University where the Huntarian Museum resides. I thought that was quite neat, shame the rest of the film was so tulip though.

I believe the Hunterian has an 18 inch pickled cock in a jar on display, although I think you have to be a medical student to get into that bit. Might be an alien cock.

[MyUserName]

Not quite with you. How would sounds determine that?

Or do you mean listen carefully to gingerjedi explaining what Ridley Scott was at pains to make clear?

Because they say the name of the planet in the dialog and it is not LV426. It is close, ISTR there being one digit difference but it was different.

[OwlHoot]

Nah, if you listen carefully it is not the same planet.

Not quite with you. How would sounds determine that?

Or do you mean listen carefully to gingerjedi explaining what Ridley Scott was at pains to make clear?

[MyUserName]

If so the creature at the end was sloppy continuity, because in Alien the "navigator" was seen in that large reclining seat we saw him using while alive in Prometheus. But in the latter he must have presumably died on the ground.

Nah, if you listen carefully it is not the same planet.

[OwlHoot]

Ridley Scott went to great lengths to say this is not a an Alien prequel it's just set in the same 'universe', the creature at the end was most probably stuffed in there by the studio to maintain the link and subsequent profits. ...

If so the creature at the end was sloppy continuity, because in Alien the "navigator" was seen in that large reclining seat we saw him using while alive in Prometheus. But in the latter he must have presumably died on the ground.

[gingerjedi]

Its a piss poor attempt at a prequel, setting up the link to Alien. To be frank, the 'plot' if it can be called that, has more holes in it than our road.

I wont go into my reasoning in case anyone hasnt seen it yet but come on, it's a piss poor storyline. Thank goodness I didnt spend money to see it at the cinema. 2 out of 10 imo.

Ridley Scott went to great lengths to say this is not a an Alien prequel it's just set in the same 'universe', the creature at the end was most probably stuffed in there by the studio to maintain the link and subsequent profits.

I still liked it despite the flaws and Peter Weyland looking like a younger man who'd melted, Dave (Nexus 7??) was a great character and I found the idea intriguing even if there were daft scenes that could have been handled better (chiefly the general naivety of the crew, the giant squid and rolling doughnut squishing Theron).

[MyUserName]

I didn't get the point of the engineer in the beginning drinking the liquid and falling to bits.

What was all that about?

Wasn't that the start of life on our planet or something ... or just the start of a boring, confusing film where the characters make no sense and are possibly the most stupid people who ever lived?

[stek]

Prometheus

I didn't get the point of the engineer in the beginning drinking the liquid and falling to bits.

What was all that about?

[BolshieBastard]

Its a piss poor attempt at a prequel, setting up the link to Alien. To be frank, the 'plot' if it can be called that, has more holes in it than our road.

I wont go into my reasoning in case anyone hasnt seen it yet but come on, it's a piss poor storyline. Thank goodness I didnt spend money to see it at the cinema. 2 out of 10 imo.

[OwlHoot]

Supposed to be the "beginning of it all" but I felt it asked more questions than it answered.

Are they answered in the DVD deleted scenes?

qh

I guess one is meant to draw some soppy conclusion along the lines that the engineers turned against humanity due to our supposed bad green credentials and propensity for violence etc.

But it seems much more plausible that the engineers themselves turned mad and bad, perhaps due to long isolation in a small group or even infection with a prototype version of the black gunk they were working on.

[quackhandle]

Supposed to be the "beginning of it all" but I felt it asked more questions than it answered.

Are they answered in the DVD deleted scenes?

qh