I've seen it a couple of times, but I really wasn't as keen on Mulholland Drive as Lynch's earlier work. It struck me as a bit forced somehow, David Lynch consciously making a 'David Lynch film'.
Saying that, there was a very interesting video analysis of it up on youtube, but alas the blighter seems to have taken it down.
That's a shame, I always enjoy reading or hearing about different perspectives of Mulholland Drive. The other Lynch film I like is Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me as I enjoy the darker twist on the series (which I should receive the film on Blu-Ray soon!). Tried watching Inland Empire, but didn't like it as much as Mulholland Drive despite the similarity of the themes. Maybe the I just didn't like Laura Dern's acting.
Hmm, I never did see Inland Empire - I remember the reviews being pretty mixed and the lengthy running timebeing a bit offputting. I thought Laura Dern did well enough in Blue Velvet, but I guess it wasn't a role that needed a great deal of subtlty.
In a word: disappointing. I had deprived myself of all tv spots and info going into ‘Prometheus,’ barring the one shown in the cinema, to avoid spoilers and it turns out it wasn’t really worth it. I must confess right away that I’ve always been more of a Predator man than an Alien one, and I much prefer ‘Aliens’ to ‘Alien’, but from the intriguing theatrical trailer I was anticipating ‘Prometheus’ quite a bit, especially with a cast full of actors I liked. However, I found the eventual film raised more questions than it set out to answer, had hollow, one-note characters and was ultimately lacking and thrill-free.
The beginning builds the tension and wonder quite nicely, but everything is dealt with far too quickly, like a child throwing away a toy when it finds a new one. Each time a situation crops up it’s usually dealt with withing minutes, leaving little room for any true tension to develop (though there is one surgical exception to this which was as intense as it was creative). The ending was blatant sequel bait, and fanservicey to the max in a way that raised yet MORE questions.
All the answers offered by the film are either lazy, unsatisfying, or handwaved. For instance, the identity of the Space Jockeys present in the first ‘Alien’, while someone interesting, was at the same time incredibly lazy and disappointing. I had wondered with great anticipation how they’d explain the giant human head statue got on another planet and the answer left me feeling decidedly misled.
The acting was fair enough, but the script leaves little to no room for the characters (besides Shaw and David) to develop any real personality beyond a single trait: Rafe Spall’s a coward, Sean Harris is a dick, Charlize Theron is uptight (and hot), Benedict Wong and Emum Elliot are gamblers, Idris Elba is a cool guy, Kate Dickie is scottish and Logan Marshall-Green has no personality. The faith angle with Shaw was interesting, if anvillicious, thanks to the flashback sequence that was 100% unnecessary.
However, ‘Prometheus’ is far from a bad film, it is simply over-ambitious and underwhelming. It promised much and delivered little. As a standalone film it doesn’t work all that well and as part of the ‘Alien’ universe it actually works even less well. Nonetheless, Fassbender and Rapace deliver solid performances, with a disclaimer. While Fassbender has lost his wandering accent that was present in ‘First Class,’ Rapace seems to have caught it, considering there is all most no point in the film where you can definitively say “yes, that’s an English accent.’ It doesn’t really detract, merely beg the question “Why did she need to be English rather than Swedish at all?”
In the end ‘Prometheus’ is a film which crumples beneath its own burden; In trying to deliver an original sci-fi epic, Ridley Scott has only conjured up unfavourable comparisions to his old one.
@Ark: I agree, with most of what you said, though I thought the acting was ok from much of the cast, merely brought down by a bad script and poor characterisation. I totally agree about the 2 movies killing each other thing. It sort of tried to be its own thing and still part of the alien world and failed at both.
@Ark: I agree, with most of what you said, though I thought the acting was ok from much of the cast, merely brought down by a bad script and poor characterisation.
I meant to say that the dialogue was terrible. Most of the cast are great actors. As regards Rapace, did you notice that in her dreams her younger self has a perfect english accent?
I totally agree about the 2 movies killing each other thing. It sort of tried to be its own thing and still part of the alien world and failed at both.
Setting a story about "The Origins of Mankind" in the Alien universe, makes about as much sense as setting it in the Star Wars universe. It was nothing but a gimmick to attract fans of the original film. The film was literally 50% gimmick.
@Ark: I agree, with most of what you said, though I thought the acting was ok from much of the cast, merely brought down by a bad script and poor characterisation.
I meant to say that the dialogue was terrible. Most of the cast are great actors. As regards Rapace, did you notice that in her dreams her younger self has a perfect english accent?
I totally agree about the 2 movies killing each other thing. It sort of tried to be its own thing and still part of the alien world and failed at both.
Setting a story about "The Origins of Mankind" in the Alien universe, makes about as much sense as setting it in the Star Wars universe. It was nothing but a gimmick to attract fans of the original film. The film was literally 50% gimmick.
Yeah, I mean it started life as an Alien prequel, then a standalone and then a mix of the two; it seems like Scott didn't have the courage to make it a standalone film, but in doing so he's diluted part of the mystery of the original Alien.
The main problem with this film plot-wise is that it's composed of two conflicting elements. It felt like it was trying to be both a prequel to Alien, and at the same time a totally original story merely set in the Alien universe. In the end these two strands just end up killing eachother. It lacked any cohesive direction of where it wanted to go and ended up going no where as a result.
The worst scene for me was the final scene when the proto-"Alien" is born. I knew it was going to happen but they just had to show its mini-mouth, just to emphasize that this was a proto-Alien. As if it wasn't already obvious.
I disagree with all of that. Speaking as a MAJOR fan of the Alien franchise I found Prometheus was a great entry in the series. Okay the characters lacked the solidity of the crew of the Nostromo but they were still compelling and vivid enough for me to care about them and this was partly due to the acting which was great. It did link up with Alien (apart from Space Jockey at the end) and while the creatures in this one were disappointing look at what they have to live up to - the xenomorph from the Alien films is damn scary. I doubt any movie aliens will match it. The visuals were great and the 3D was good.
Okay the characters lacked the solidity of the crew of the Nostromo but they were still compelling and vivid enough for me to care about them and this was partly due to the acting which was great.
There may be good actors in the film but there's no way you can claim that the acting in the film was great. Were you convinced by Noomi Rappace's English accent?
The majority of the characters were not only totally one dimensional but didn't even play their one dimensional roles well; "I'm a geologist, I have a Mohawk and I'm a prick for no reason. End of character development". "I'm the captain, I'm a stereotypical cool black guy who likes pussy. Also for some reason I'm so selfless that I'm willing to give my life for others based on almost no knowledge of the wider situation"
I agree with Ark here Genki (though I would say that I think Fassbender's acting is worthy of comment at least). I mean I guess the 'Alien' crew didn't have all that much personality either, but the rest of the film made up for that, we believed their camaraderie. The prom' crew had none of that. I know they weren't supposed to like each other but the lack of camaraderie or chemistry made it that much harder to care about them.
All fine actors, but woefully underused. Idris Elba's role seemed relegated to reading the big 3D map and piloting the ship (and ocassionally one-sidedly flirting with Charlize Theron).
Vickers could've been really interesting, but we see so little of her it hardly matters. And highly obvious reveal later in the movie was just pointless since it was never expanded upon or referred to in anything apart from the holo-speech at the beginning where Weyland pointedly says David is like a son to him.
I really wanted to like the film, but I just couldn't. That being said, I'm not the biggest 'Alien' fan, I much prefer 'Carpenter's The Thing' in terms of 'single alien picks off isolated crew' sci-fi, though my friend, who is, was even more disappointed than I.
edit: side note - I would also like to comment on how bad Guy Pearce's old man makeup is. It's a problem I had with Bilbo in Return of the King too. I get that these character's are supposed to be old, but being old doesn't just mean "add as many wrinkles as we can fit on a face before it becomes a raisin," I think one of the few cases of successful old person make up was Carla Gugino's in Watchmen. It was subtly done and therefore believable, with Bilbo and Weyland they are so wrinkly I just can't take them seriously. I have never seen an older person actually look like that.
I think you guys are being way too glib in your assessments.
The characters were fine because the point of the movie was introducing the Space Jockey and the origin of the xenomorph. The writing didn't measure up to some of the hype but it explored it adequately. I understood and bought the story and origins.
As for your minor points... Did I care about the accents? Does it matter? It's science fiction and it is clear that Noomi's character lives an international life. The lack of camaraderie? The crew of the Nostromo had been with each other for a long time in deep space on their mining expedition and are bored out of their minds. The crew of the Prometheus had been hand-picked and only just met. The actors added enough to the characters for me to care about them. If it didn't work for you then too bad. You're probably expecting Alien and Scott has set out to make something other than that.
Talking about The Thing... I love that movie was well but the Xenomorph is scarier for me and if you want an example of awful prequel with terrible characters watch the recent version of The Thing.
Let me rephrase. You're probably expecting a film exactly like Alien in tone but Scott has set out to make something other than that. Prometheus is a film that fits into the Alien franchise without retreading the same ground that three other sequels do. Instead of being a horror/sci-fi it is an action adventure which explores space jockey and fleshes it out. The film does a fine job of being a prequel as well as being its own film. Everything from MAJOR SPOILER HERE space jockey to the origins of humanity and the xenomorphs is explained or at least made obvious and it links in to the rest of the franchise and sets up the actions/environment/players of the other films.
No, I was expecting a serious science fiction "Origins of Humanity" film because that's what Ridley Scott said it was going to be in interviews before it was released. He made it very clear that this was going to be real science fiction that deals with ideas and claimed to have consulted scientists about it, and said that the Vatican and NASA agree that life couldn't have started on its own blah, blah, blah etc. The problem is that this part (and it is only a part) of the film is totally cliched and shallow. Ancient relics being linked to extra-terrestrial life? Please. Didn't they already do that in Alien vs Predator? Who are the creators of humanity? Taller, blue versions of humanity.
Genkina Hito said:
Prometheus is an Alien film but instead of being a horror/sci-fi it is an action adventure which explores space jockey etc. and does a fine job of being a prequel as well as being its own film. Everything from space jockey to the position of humanity and the xenomorph's is explained or at least made evident and it links in to the rest of the franchise.
What's the point in linking all those things together though? Let's be honest, Alien is really just a monster horror movie but done in a mature, intelligent and skillful way. Why do we need to know about the origins of the Xenomorph? It's just a monster in a monster movie, it's not a character. Likewise with the Space Jockey. There was never any reason given in Alien to think it was anything other than a non-human life-form who was on this ship, who got faced-hugged and chest bursted. That's it. I don't even think the Space Jockey is even mentioned again for rest of the film. There's really no reason for it to be given an origins story anymore than there is for Jones the cat to be given a story.
That being the case, if Ridley Scott really wanted to tell a Human Origins story why on earth does it need to be set in the "Alien Universe" when there's zero material in that universe that relates to that theme. Like I said before you wouldn't set a human origins story in the Star Wars universe. It doesn't make any sense other than as a gimmick to attract people who like Alien.
When it ended the main thought in my head was, "That wasn't a story. That was just a bunch of tropes forced together".
You're probably expecting Alien and Scott has set out to make something other than that.
Everything from MAJOR SPOILER HERE space jockey to the origins of humanity and the xenomorphs is explained or at least made obvious and it links in to the rest of the franchise and sets up the actions/environment/players of the other films.
Entirely untrue. As I said before, I'm not a big 'Alien' fan, so if anything I wanted it to be something different. I think ultimately it impressed visually, but wasn't interesting enough for me. The trailer had made me think "Wow, I wonder what's going on here" and when the film answered that, I responded with an "oh..." instead of a "wow".
And yes, I am being a bit glib, but exaggeration can bring out valid points too. I also don't think it IS made obvious, much is inferred and far from explicitly besides
the engineers being our creators [/spoilers] it doesn't infer or explain who they are, why they [spoilers] created us, how those pictograms appeared in all the caves when it seems like they must have left Earth immediately after creating humanity, why they then decided to destroy us yet waited over thousands of years to do anything about it, ok that one guy was asleep, but why was he asleep and not dead or already going to kill us all?
The situation with the [spoilers] xenos [/spoiler] is, if anything it's now more complicated. Why is it that some characters mutated horribly while Shaw became pregnant with a proto-facehugger which became massive and then also birthed an alien. Not a chestburster, an alien. I get that it's not the same type of alien, but that just creates the issue of they made these weird aliens in prometheus and it went horribly wrong, so they later create yet more on another planet, which are only slightly different and it STILL blows up in their face... it just makes the engineers look stupid...
I think the one inferred link up with Alien which I DID appreciate (though it's more fridge logic than true inferrence) is that the distress call to the Nostromo may well have been the engineers luring humans to their death. They still want to kill them I guess (yet the fact that a separate engineer is also f***ed over, presumably on the way to kill us, is another issue, including if there's one guy off-planet in Prom, then surely there are others...) so by sending a distress signal they act as a siren, calling any human ships in range to come into contact with the xenomorphs and hopefully spread the xeno infestation back home.
That part I thought was clever, but that is purely my speculation inferred from information in Prom and Alien, it's never directly referenced at all. I may be overthinking and be over-demanding of the film, but when the film itself offers so few concrete answers, it's hard not to. Some films can be ambiguous and have it work, I didn't feel that way about 'Prometheus'.
That's just a niggle like thew makeup/ accent thing, it didn't really impact my enjoyment of the film, but it's something worth noting I feel.
I think in the end it comes down to preferences. By all accounts 'Aliens vs. Predator Requiem' is a bad movie, but I enjoyed it a lot more than Prometheus, despite Prometheus being the better film, because in AVPR I wanted to see an alien kill a bunch of other aliens and that's what I got, dumb as it may be. With 'Prometheus', I wanted an intriguing sci-fi mystery movie about the origins of life and I got a rather tired concept which was not elaborated or altered enough to really grip me.
No, I was expecting a serious science fiction "Origins of Humanity" film because that's what Ridley Scott said it was going to be in interviews before it was released. He made it very clear that this was going to be real science fiction that deals with ideas and claimed to have consulted scientists about it, and said that the Vatican and NASA agree that life couldn't have started on its own blah, blah, blah etc. The problem is that this part (and it is only a part) of the film is totally cliched and shallow. Ancient relics being linked to extra-terrestrial life? Please. Didn't they already do that in Alien vs Predator? Who are the creators of humanity? Taller, blue versions of humanity.
So you went into Prometheus expecting The Tree of Life? I haven't seen any of the interviews you mentioned because I shielded myself from the media released from the film but when anybody claims they'll explain life, the universe and how to make the perfect souffle it's best to go in with an open mind because few films have managed that efficiently. If you want the origins of humanity try another movie franchise which isnt based on a giant penis sexually assaulting everything in sight. One glance at a trailer will tell you that this is going to be an action adventure. Also your point about the film being cliched... the original script for Alien was running on similar lines (Nostromo finds an ancient temple full of eggs) and Scott has done a lot to establish those sci-fi tropes/cliches so who can blame him if he uses them, he's more than welcome to. Also, the creators of humanity are us only much more violent, vicious, and evil. That's a nice twist.
Ark said:
What's the point in linking all those things together though? Let's be honest, Alien is really just a monster horror movie but done in a mature, intelligent and skillful way. Why do we need to know about the origins of the Xenomorph? It's just a monster in a monster movie, it's not a character. Likewise with the Space Jockey. There was never any reason given in Alien to think it was anything other than a non-human life-form who was on this ship, who got faced-hugged and chest bursted. That's it. I don't even think the Space Jockey is even mentioned again for rest of the film. There's really no reason for it to be given an origins story anymore than there is for Jones the cat to be given a story.
That being the case, if Ridley Scott really wanted to tell a Human Origins story why on earth does it need to be set in the "Alien Universe" when there's zero material in that universe that relates to that theme. Like I said before you wouldn't set a human origins story in the Star Wars universe. It doesn't make any sense other than as a gimmick to attract people who like Alien.
You're right, Alien is a monster movie which Ridley Scott orchestrated to be an engine of terror and nothing more but Ridley Scott made it very clear after the original Alien came out that he was interested in making a prequel which explored who Space Jockey was. He never got to explore that direction because Aliens was started under James Cameron. Flash-forward 30-some-odd years and he gets back to the project, still intrigued by Space Jockey but adding more grandiose themes - the origins of humanity - to differentiate it from the films that have gone before. Okay, the themes don't match up to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 or 2010 but the main draw for fans of the Alien franchise and for Ridley Scott was that we got to see who Space Jockey was and how the Xenomorphs tie in and the film more than adequately does this.
Entirely untrue. As I said before, I'm not a big 'Alien' fan, so if anything I wanted it to be something different. I think ultimately it impressed visually, but wasn't interesting enough for me. The trailer had made me think "Wow, I wonder what's going on here" and when the film answered that, I responded with an "oh..." instead of a "wow".
And yes, I am being a bit glib, but exaggeration can bring out valid points too. I also don't think it IS made obvious, much is inferred and far from explicitly besides
the engineers being our creators [/spoilers] it doesn't infer or explain who they are, why they [spoilers] created us, how those pictograms appeared in all the caves when it seems like they must have left Earth immediately after creating humanity, why they then decided to destroy us yet waited over thousands of years to do anything about it, ok that one guy was asleep, but why was he asleep and not dead or already going to kill us all?
Okay, I apologise to both you and Ark for reading the wrong reasons into your unfavourable impressions.
Here's what I made of that situation. The Engineers are like the mysterious obelisk in 2001. They've created/manipulated/monitored and interacted with humanity and left clues as to how to contact them, hence the cave paintings which prove that they haven't just high-tailed it to the other side of the universe and ignored us but their reasons for creating us are experimentation/curiosity. Humans have disappointed the Engineers, maybe because we are greedy and violent or just plain boring, and so they created the Xenomorphs as a biological WMD to wipe us out. Just like humans who toy with synthetics/androids/dolls, Engineers don't care about the consequences, they just want the results of wiping out their play-things. Only that never happened and things went very wrong. The crew at the factory were wiped out and only one survived by placing himself into a hyper-sleep tube. Weyland and the team he has hired believe that they will meet a kind a wise God only what they meet is a monster that mirrors humanity at its worst (in the franchise Weyland has constantly sought the Xenomorphs as a weapon). When they wake him up, he's disorientated and then he sees Weyland's security guard hit Elizabeth and it jogs his memory - he has a mission.
Sparrowsabre7 said:
The situation with the [spoilers] xenos [/spoiler] is, if anything it's now more complicated. Why is it that some characters mutated horribly while Shaw became pregnant with a proto-facehugger which became massive and then also birthed an alien. Not a chestburster, an alien. I get that it's not the same type of alien, but that just creates the issue of they made these weird aliens in prometheus and it went horribly wrong, so they later create yet more on another planet, which are only slightly different and it STILL blows up in their face... it just makes the engineers look stupid...
I'm no expert on Xenomorph biology but I do know that they take on genetic variations of their hosts. The planet is a WMD factory and home to many variations of WMD's and ships that will deliver them. Do the Engineers look stupid? No, they look fallible and very evil for creating genetic weapons and not like the benevolent Gods that the characters hope to meet.
Sparrowsabre7 said:
I think the one inferred link up with Alien which I DID appreciate (though it's more fridge logic than true inferrence) is that the distress call to the Nostromo may well have been the engineers luring humans to their death. They still want to kill them I guess (yet the fact that a separate engineer is also f***ed over, presumably on the way to kill us, is another issue, including if there's one guy off-planet in Prom, then surely there are others...) so by sending a distress signal they act as a siren, calling any human ships in range to come into contact with the xenomorphs and hopefully spread the xeno infestation back home.
That part I thought was clever, but that is purely my speculation inferred from information in Prom and Alien, it's never directly referenced at all. I may be overthinking and be over-demanding of the film, but when the film itself offers so few concrete answers, it's hard not to. Some films can be ambiguous and have it work, I didn't feel that way about 'Prometheus'.
Prometheus takes place on LV-223 as the map in the briefing scene clearly shows.
The distress call was probably a genuine warning to its own kind. These are highly advanced aliens with space travel who have set up shop/crashed on remote and inhospitable planets to protect their own kind because they know what they have created and are carrying is powerful stuff that can wipe them out.
That's just a niggle like thew makeup/ accent thing, it didn't really impact my enjoyment of the film, but it's something worth noting I feel.
I think in the end it comes down to preferences. By all accounts 'Aliens vs. Predator Requiem' is a bad movie, but I enjoyed it a lot more than Prometheus, despite Prometheus being the better film, because in AVPR I wanted to see an alien kill a bunch of other aliens and that's what I got, dumb as it may be. With 'Prometheus', I wanted an intriguing sci-fi mystery movie about the origins of life and I got a rather tired concept which was not elaborated or altered enough to really grip me.
The actual Space Jockey in Alien was 26ft tall, the Engineers are nowhere near that but then why can't they have variations?
I agree with you on preferences whole-heartedly. I'm a major fan of the Alien franchise and I've read the fiction around the films so I was aware of more than others - maybe that was an aid and it allowed me to overlook things. I think I also went in with an open mind not knowing what to expect since I avoided all but one of the trailers. Maybe my reading of the film is wrong? It's good to talk these things out.
Actually I hated The Tree of Life. Unlike Prometheus I wouldn't claim it was badly constructed though. The style just didn't appeal to me. Anyway, the Tree of Life doesn't provide some alternative fictional explanation about the Origins of Humanity, it just tries to find beauty in the Naturalistic explanation. So no I wasn't expecting anything like that. When I think "Origins of Humanity" science fiction I think 2001, Battlestar Galactica 2004, Evangelion, Scientology :wink: . All of those have totally different plots though, so I didn't really have any specific expectation plot-wise.
Genkina Hito said:
I haven't seen any of the interviews you mentioned because I shielded myself from the media released from the film but when anybody claims they'll explain life, the universe and how to make the perfect souffle it's best to go in with an open mind because few films have managed that efficiently. If you want the origins of humanity try another movie franchise which isnt based on a giant penis sexually assaulting everything in sight.?
But that's the point, he said it wasn't going to be an Alien film. Just set in the Alien universe. I expected a few references to the franchise but I didn't think they'd be as extensive as they were.
Genkina Hito said:
One glance at a trailer will tell you that this is going to be an action adventure. Also your point about the film being cliched... the original script for Alien was running on similar lines (Nostromo finds an ancient temple full of eggs) and Scott has done a lot to establish those sci-fi tropes/cliches so who can blame him if he uses them, he's more than welcome to.
The thing is I'm looking at this from a Science Fiction point of view. Fiction is supposed to be about stories and telling the best and most creative stories as possible. Like I said, this was based purely on what Scott said about it. If he'd just said it's a major action movie where people die in weird ways then I wouldn't have a problem.
Genkina Hito said:
Also, the creators of humanity are us only much more violent, vicious, and evil. That's a nice twist.
I don't really think it was established that they were any worse than humans at all. Infact I'm not even sure the film was even intending to suggest that was the case.
Genkina Hito said:
Flash-forward 30-some-odd years and he gets back to the project, still intrigued by Space Jockey but adding more grandiose themes - the origins of humanity - to differentiate it from the films that have gone before. Okay, the themes don't match up to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 or 2010 but the main draw for fans of the Alien franchise and for Ridley Scott was that we got to see who Space Jockey was and how the Xenomorphs tie in and the film more than adequately does this.
We keep coming back to this problem. The film's writers don't seem to know or agree about what this film is. Is it a prequal or is it an original story? If it's a prequel, then there's really no justification for the "Origins of Humanity" stuff and especially no justification for Scott selling this as the guiding theme. If it's an original story then there's no need for the Face huggers, chest bursters and Xenos.
Oh man, that film went on a bit didn't it? It could have been half as long. I sat through the whole thing (20 min outer space segment and all!) only to fall asleep 20 minutes before the end, which really annoyed me and made a pretty pointless (well it obviously had a point, but you know what I mean) film all the more pointless. I guess it wasn't so bad, but all the floaty bits got a bit boring.
Prometheus takes place on LV-223 as the map in the briefing scene clearly shows.
The distress call was probably a genuine warning to its own kind. These are highly advanced aliens with space travel who have set up shop/crashed on remote and inhospitable planets to protect their own kind because they know what they have created and are carrying is powerful stuff that can wipe them out.
I agree with you on preferences whole-heartedly. I'm a major fan of the Alien franchise and I've read the fiction around the films so I was aware of more than others - maybe that was an aid and it allowed me to overlook things. I think I also went in with an open mind not knowing what to expect since I avoided all but one of the trailers. Maybe my reading of the film is wrong? It's good to talk these things out.
No apology necessary, opinions are opinions =) And I was fully aware that Prom and Alien were not on the same planet, apologies if I didn't make that clear. I too avoided all but one of the trailers, but even a single trailer can colour your expectations of a film, it's something I've had happen to me a lot. I go into a film or show expecting one thing and thus am disappointed when it's not what I thought it would be.
Regarding the "engineers are like us" point, I think that's an interesting take and very old mythology too. I mean that's exactly the point of the Norse and Greek myths, no? The Gods are just as petty and childish as we are. I did a brief read-around today and Scott compares the film to the Old Testament in terms of the idea of an angry God.
Actually I hated The Tree of Life. Unlike Prometheus I wouldn't claim it was badly constructed though. The style just didn't appeal to me. Anyway, the Tree of Life doesn't provide some alternative fictional explanation about the Origins of Humanity, it just tries to find beauty in the Naturalistic explanation. So no I wasn't expecting anything like that. When I think "Origins of Humanity" science fiction I think 2001, Battlestar Galactica 2004, Evangelion, Scientology :wink: . All of those have totally different plots though, so I didn't really have any specific expectation plot-wise.
I mentioned 2001 with Sparrow, I just thought you might have liked The Tree of Life more - apologies for inferring the wrong thing again.
Ark said:
Genkina Hito said:
I haven't seen any of the interviews you mentioned because I shielded myself from the media released from the film but when anybody claims they'll explain life, the universe and how to make the perfect souffle it's best to go in with an open mind because few films have managed that efficiently. If you want the origins of humanity try another movie franchise which isnt based on a giant penis sexually assaulting everything in sight.?
But that's the point, he said it wasn't going to be an Alien film. Just set in the Alien universe. I expected a few references to the franchise but I didn't think they'd be as extensive as they were.
He achieved that. It's not an Alien film in tone it's an action adventure set in the Alien universe and it expands that universe in the direction that fans wanted to see it go - Space Jockey. Xenomorphs have had three sequels and numerous spin-offs. I loved the references to Aliens, Alien resurrection. If the film didn't provide that then the fans would have been upset.
Ark said:
Genkina Hito said:
One glance at a trailer will tell you that this is going to be an action adventure. Also your point about the film being cliched... the original script for Alien was running on similar lines (Nostromo finds an ancient temple full of eggs) and Scott has done a lot to establish those sci-fi tropes/cliches so who can blame him if he uses them, he's more than welcome to.
The thing is I'm looking at this from a Science Fiction point of view. Fiction is supposed to be about stories and telling the best and most creative stories as possible. Like I said, this was based purely on what Scott said about it. If he'd just said it's a major action movie where people die in weird ways then I wouldn't have a problem.
Ridley Scott has done a lot for sci-fi by helping create and shape the visual aesthetic for Blade Runner and Alien and he has spent 30+ years talking about Space Jockey. If he wants to make Prometheus which reuses ideas and themes he helped create he's more than welcome to because he has earned the right to do that by establishing so much. Although I'm not convinced about the need for a Blade Runner sequel he has earned the right to make it. That may not wash with you but it works for me.
Genkina Hito said:
Also, the creators of humanity are us only much more violent, vicious, and evil. That's a nice twist.
I don't really think it was established that they were any worse than humans at all. Infact I'm not even sure the film was even intending to suggest that was the case.
quote]
The Engineers have created Xenomorphs and housed them at the WMD factory. One of the planets on their projector that David activates is Earth which must mean that humanity was the target. Are they worse than humanity? Maybe not. Just like us they create vile weapons and they care not for what they create as the interactions between David and the other humans show.
Ark said:
Genkina Hito said:
Flash-forward 30-some-odd years and he gets back to the project, still intrigued by Space Jockey but adding more grandiose themes - the origins of humanity - to differentiate it from the films that have gone before. Okay, the themes don't match up to Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 or 2010 but the main draw for fans of the Alien franchise and for Ridley Scott was that we got to see who Space Jockey was and how the Xenomorphs tie in and the film more than adequately does this.
We keep coming back to this problem. The film's writers don't seem to know or agree about what this film is. Is it a prequal or is it an original story? If it's a prequel, then there's really no justification for the "Origins of Humanity" stuff and especially no justification for Scott selling this as the guiding theme. If it's an original story then there's no need for the Face huggers, chest bursters and Xenos.
It's a prequel that sets up the franchise and the origins of humanity stuff was tied in. As far as face huggers etc. go well that's how they Engineers created them to spread so that's plenty of justification.
edit: I noticed I left a huge spoiler in the open so I've had to cover it up.
second edit: Adding my apologies.
No apology necessary, opinions are opinions =) And I was fully aware that Prom and Alien were not on the same planet, apologies if I didn't make that clear. I too avoided all but one of the trailers, but even a single trailer can colour your expectations of a film, it's something I've had happen to me a lot. I go into a film or show expecting one thing and thus am disappointed when it's not what I thought it would be.
Regarding the "engineers are like us" point, I think that's an interesting take and very old mythology too. I mean that's exactly the point of the Norse and Greek myths, no? The Gods are just as petty and childish as we are. I did a brief read-around today and Scott compares the film to the Old Testament in terms of the idea of an angry God.
It's definitely an interesting take that elevates the movie and it fits in with the themes of Gods and Humanity. The comparison to an Old Testament God shows them as very powerful and dangerous so they must have been disappointed in human nature.
Talking about trailers misleading people - Sucker Punch. I think I championed it on here. Then I saw the movie and it was awful. No Country for Old Men was ruined by trailers and thank God I avoided trailers for The Cabin in the Woods.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
