Prometheus - Ridley Scott's 'Alien Prequel' (or not)...
Discussion
JonRB said:
otolith said:
accepting the premise that the Engineers can do impossible feats of genetic engineering and then getting upset when the fictional molecular genetics is fictional. The nerd complains too much.
Ohhh, so the film was set in a different universe where genetics works differently then? Okaaay. 
"Well, I'm guessing, but, inherited memories, passed down generationally at a genetic level by the aliens, like its strength. Plus a, uh... ...highly evolved form of instinct."
So yes, our contemporary understanding of molecular genetics does not explain what the Engineers and their technology can do. I don't see that an engineer having the same genotype as a human but a different phenotype is a problem in a film which has the basic premise that we are the engineered creation of a species with an understanding of biotechnology far beyond our own.
JonRB said:
Also, your pejorative use of the word "nerd" says more about you than it does about him.
Making a list of 100 nit-picking objections to a bit of Hollywood sci-fi, the main motivation of which is to demonstrate that he is smarter than the screenwriters? Just calling it how I see it, that is supremely nerdish behaviour. I work in IT and a have a PhD in biology, I've spent time in their tribe and know their ways.Edited by otolith on Friday 12th October 10:28
The fact that we've got 90-odd pages discussing massive plot holes says a lot about the scripts ability to suspend belief in the audience (ie, it has no ability).
The point of a Science Fiction film (or any film really) is to get the audience wrapped up in a story so they don't shout out "How come that guy's fired 50 shots out of that revolver?" or "How is that woman capable of walking after getting her stomach stapled up?"
It's lazy, lazy writing.
Take Stomach-gate as an example. That machine could have easily fired a futuristic looking laser at her stomach and the audience would have accepted that she could walk.
The point of a Science Fiction film (or any film really) is to get the audience wrapped up in a story so they don't shout out "How come that guy's fired 50 shots out of that revolver?" or "How is that woman capable of walking after getting her stomach stapled up?"
It's lazy, lazy writing.
Take Stomach-gate as an example. That machine could have easily fired a futuristic looking laser at her stomach and the audience would have accepted that she could walk.
Raify said:
The fact that we've got 90-odd pages discussing massive plot holes says a lot about the scripts ability to suspend belief in the audience (ie, it has no ability).
The point of a Science Fiction film (or any film really) is to get the audience wrapped up in a story so they don't shout out "How come that guy's fired 50 shots out of that revolver?" or "How is that woman capable of walking after getting her stomach stapled up?"
It's lazy, lazy writing.
Take Stomach-gate as an example. That machine could have easily fired a futuristic looking laser at her stomach and the audience would have accepted that she could walk.
Maybe they thought the audience would be more bothered by the goriness of what they had just seen rather than thinking logically? This is a supposed machine that can perform surgical procedures on humans. Maybe the bit of the machine that holds the skin together was injecting some sort of glue before the staples are done. Superglue anyone?The point of a Science Fiction film (or any film really) is to get the audience wrapped up in a story so they don't shout out "How come that guy's fired 50 shots out of that revolver?" or "How is that woman capable of walking after getting her stomach stapled up?"
It's lazy, lazy writing.
Take Stomach-gate as an example. That machine could have easily fired a futuristic looking laser at her stomach and the audience would have accepted that she could walk.
Most films have stuff like that in them. It's not what I would call a massive plot hole. I'd call it nit-picking.
Pugster said:
Raify said:
The fact that we've got 90-odd pages discussing massive plot holes says a lot about the scripts ability to suspend belief in the audience (ie, it has no ability).
The point of a Science Fiction film (or any film really) is to get the audience wrapped up in a story so they don't shout out "How come that guy's fired 50 shots out of that revolver?" or "How is that woman capable of walking after getting her stomach stapled up?"
It's lazy, lazy writing.
Take Stomach-gate as an example. That machine could have easily fired a futuristic looking laser at her stomach and the audience would have accepted that she could walk.
Maybe they thought the audience would be more bothered by the goriness of what they had just seen rather than thinking logically? This is a supposed machine that can perform surgical procedures on humans. Maybe the bit of the machine that holds the skin together was injecting some sort of glue before the staples are done. Superglue anyone?The point of a Science Fiction film (or any film really) is to get the audience wrapped up in a story so they don't shout out "How come that guy's fired 50 shots out of that revolver?" or "How is that woman capable of walking after getting her stomach stapled up?"
It's lazy, lazy writing.
Take Stomach-gate as an example. That machine could have easily fired a futuristic looking laser at her stomach and the audience would have accepted that she could walk.
Most films have stuff like that in them. It's not what I would call a massive plot hole. I'd call it nit-picking.
It's like the script / plot writer started with a tick list of scenes they wanted to do - an every sci-fi movie must meet the following criteria list - and then wrote the scipt to ensure that each of these plot elements were realised.
It's the only way to describe the utterly contrived nature of the plot. In every scene you are bombarded with elements that make you think: why the hell would they do that.
Pugster said:
It seems it proves you can't please all the people all the time.
I certainly think it was cut too much but I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the story. It's very ambiguous but then I think that's Lindelofs input. Just look at what happened with Lost.
Yeah he spent x years denying what everyone suspected from the start and then the ending was what everyone thought it would be I certainly think it was cut too much but I don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the story. It's very ambiguous but then I think that's Lindelofs input. Just look at what happened with Lost.
Pugster said:
Pesty said:
And is also proves some people are easily pleased 
That must be me then!I can't work out why there is so much hate. Was it overhyped? I hope Ridley Scott doesn't end up revisting Blade Runner. The internet will want his head on a spike after that.
Take away the big budget effects and Alien connection and all you have got is a film with a bad plot, acting, script, editing and score.
If it had been made with the same budget as something like Moon (a far superior SF movie IMHO) and had no connection to any other film I'd be saying the same thing.
Forget all the stuff about plot holes etc., at the end of the day it's just a poor film.
marshall100 said:
Is anyone anywhere going 'you know what? it's not half bad I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKED IT' ?
Thought not. And it's because of what the poster above said, special effects and alien connection aside, it's a crap story, with crap characters.
I loved it. Many people did, just not many of those people are here on a car forum backing up the film. Thought not. And it's because of what the poster above said, special effects and alien connection aside, it's a crap story, with crap characters.
I can understand the criticism but 91 pages of moaning about plot holes is quite a struggle to get through.
marshall100 said:
Is anyone anywhere going 'you know what? it's not half bad I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKED IT' ?
Strangely their are a few people on this thread. Weird I know, and I thought I had a high tolerance level to bad sci-fi. As for the deleted scenes, it does seem like they cut out some really important bits that would have at least stopped you from going WTF so often. The engineer just randomly starting to kill people is a prime example. In the original cut you are left thinking what the hell was his motivation for doing that when in fact a 30 second deleted scene gives you a fairly plausible answer.
Unfortunately the film is absolutely full of these WTF moments of illogic so unless they cut the film by about an hour, it still won't help.
Aphex said:
I loved it. Many people did, just not many of those people are here on a car forum backing up the film.
I can understand the criticism but 91 pages of moaning about plot holes is quite a struggle to get through.
Just wondering is this an age thing?I can understand the criticism but 91 pages of moaning about plot holes is quite a struggle to get through.
i'm 41 and believable characters is pretty high up my scale for an enjoyable film. regardless of all the plot holes the characters were idiots and unlikable.
are you perhaps a younger gentleman or am I way off the mark here.
The film looked good but beneath the veneer it was just chip board.
I thought it was 'OK' 
Right, here's Ridley dropping a hint about Prometheus 2 (whilst also talking about the new Blade Runner film)
http://www.metro.co.uk/film/914651-ridley-scott-bl...
Right, here's Ridley dropping a hint about Prometheus 2 (whilst also talking about the new Blade Runner film)
http://www.metro.co.uk/film/914651-ridley-scott-bl...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff