|
r1flyguy1
223 posts
45 months
|
Northern Munkee said: What? I've just watched the credits, the only odd thing is the very last graphic, is a Weyland company logo, saying they have been building better worlds since 10/11/12 (presumably thats American so is 11October12), unless the sequel has gone into production, this is merely a joke. Care to expand? Or have a I fallen for an oh so funny, made you watch the credits? No seriously,I watched it recently and unless I'm seriously confused, (i was on a long haul flight) there was a minute or so at the very end where an alien emerges, hence the prequel to the alien films. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong Cheers
|
|
|
r1flyguy1
223 posts
45 months
|
Just did a search on you tube, it's on there 
|
|
|
funkyrobot
5,879 posts
97 months
|
Do you mean the scene where the alien emerges from the Engineer the big squid face got? If so, then that has been seen by quite a few people. If not, do you have a YouTube linky? I'm intrigued 
|
|
|
TEKNOPUG
7,463 posts
74 months
|
It was in the version I saw at the cinema 
|
|
|
ZesPak
11,484 posts
65 months
|
TEKNOPUG said: It was in the version I saw at the cinema  So did I. And I hated that part. I mean, what does that mean? Is that critter supposed to be the first Alien?? If yes, weren't there Aliens with the mayans and the like (AvP)? Wasn't Predator 2 set in "current day" or the near future? (the Predator had an Alien "skull" on his trophy wall). 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Raify
6,332 posts
117 months
|
|
|
ZesPak
11,484 posts
65 months
|
Raify said:  I know, that's why I said "skull".
|
|
|
Beefmeister
10,804 posts
99 months
|
I rented it from iTunes last night and the alien 'birth' bit was just at the end of the film, before the credits.
FWIW, I was a little disappointed with it too, the trailer promised a lot more. Sadly another victim of ruthless post production cuts, only to be potentially saved by a director's cut.
|
|
|
im
Original Poster
27,866 posts
86 months
|
ZesPak said: So did I. And I hated that part. I mean, what does that mean? Is that critter supposed to be the first Alien?? If yes, weren't there Aliens with the mayans and the like (AvP)? Wasn't Predator 2 set in "current day" or the near future? (the Predator had an Alien "skull" on his trophy wall). AvP and Prometheus are set in ENTIRELY different universes. Ridley does not associate his storyline with anything other than his original Alien film.
|
|
|
otolith
19,345 posts
73 months
|
Raify said: I find that list works better if you read it out loud in a really adenoidal voice  "I think you might find that the preferred unit of astronomical distance is not the kilometer!" He's happy to swallow faster than light travel and stasis pods, but takes issue with the material used for the windows and suggests cameras and screens as used in Star Trek? Maybe Scottie popped in and spent twenty seconds keying in the formula for "transparent aluminum"? He thinks that the fact that a 21st century human should be immediately able to understand how the space ship of a species which has been terraforming and seeding life across the universe since before humanity existed propels itself? I'm quite happy to accept that many people were disappointed with the film, but much of that list is really nonsense - picking and choosing which bits of impossible technology you are going to believe in, 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.
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,050 posts
67 months
|
otolith said: Raify said: I find that list works better if you read it out loud in a really adenoidal voice "I think you might find that the preferred unit of astronomical distance is not the kilometer!" He's happy to swallow faster than light travel and stasis pods, but takes issue with the material used for the windows and suggests cameras and screens as used in Star Trek? Maybe Scottie popped in and spent twenty seconds keying in the formula for "transparent aluminum"? He thinks that the fact that a 21st century human should be immediately able to understand how the space ship of a species which has been terraforming and seeding life across the universe since before humanity existed propels itself? I'm quite happy to accept that many people were disappointed with the film, but much of that list is really nonsense - picking and choosing which bits of impossible technology you are going to believe in, 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. I agree. I found the film s  te, but for reasons of plot and acting and not the credibility of the sci-fi; you have to suspend your disbelief for sci-fi to work.
|
|
|
Pugster
287 posts
50 months
|
Having watched the Blu ray and then the deleted scenes I personally think they cut too much out of the film. All the extra scenes add something to the film particularly with character development. The bit where David gets decapitated is just stupid and the bits they cut explain it perfectly. The commentary on why they cut certain bits out is interesting too.
But that seems to be a theme of films nowadays. Studios think they can't hold the audiences attention and maybe they are right for the vast majority of film watchers. They've only put a small selection of deleted scenes on the disc and you can bet there was a lot more cut. It's a fairly long film now at 2 hours and I guess it was possibly 2 1/2 hours at some point.
I still enjoyed it however and I suppose that's the point. They've left enough ambiguous stuff in the story to ensure a sequel and that's maybe a lot of the problem. They had to to do that to ensure they get the funding to do it.
|
|
|
JonRB
39,405 posts
141 months
|
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. We're back to Superman not snapping the wingtips off aircraft, or a lake of ice being able to be supported by its edge. otolith said: The nerd complains too much. You appear to have discounted all 100 of his objections based on 1 or 2. I actually thought a lot of his points were very valid, although I agree that the ones that you highlighted were not. Also, your pejorative use of the word "nerd" says more about you than it does about him.
|
|
|
ZesPak
11,484 posts
65 months
|
JonRB said: You appear to have discounted all 100 of his objections based on 1 or 2. I actually thought a lot of his points were very valid, although I agree that the ones that you highlighted were not.
Also, your pejorative use of the word "nerd" says more about you than it does about him. Tbh, I read all of them  , and I agree that A LOT can be discounted on "chosing which fairy sci fy tech he wants to believe".
|
|
|
otolith
19,345 posts
73 months
|
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. We already know that, it was established in Alien 4 when it turned out that if you clone some cells from an infected human you get a creature which is something between a hybrid and a chimera and which has somehow retained the memories of the human you cloned. "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.
|
|
|
Raify
6,332 posts
117 months
|
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.
|
|
|
Pugster
287 posts
50 months
|
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? 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.
|
|
|
JonRB
39,405 posts
141 months
|
Raify said: 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?" 
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,050 posts
67 months
|
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? 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. Taken in isolation yes, but the film is just one long WTF moment. 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
287 posts
50 months
|
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.
|
|
