Prometheus - Ridley Scott's 'Alien Prequel' (or not)...

[Brigand]

MOST LIKELY SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

WEHGuy said:

Has anyone seem the alternate beginning and ending?

Alt beginning is all of 3 seconds extra footage, where they show other Engineers giving the drink to the guy who sacrifices himself.

Alt ending is a bit of extra dialogue between David and Noomi (forget her characters name) nothing else.

As per usual, some mid-deleted scenes were minimal but added something to the film, in a less-significant but still interesting way that the deleted scenes from Aliens really fleshed out the movie.

Having finally watched the movie though, I loved the special effects in it, (the initial scene in the Bridge/Universe map room in the alien ship was stunning) but the whole thing felt like too much was crammed into it. Even at almost two hours I still felt that some bits were rushed.

People talk of plot holes, and I couldn't really see any on my first watch, other than one part where the Captain came rushing in to speak with Noomi and told her that the stuff in the vases were weapons of mass destruction. Erm, how did you figure that out? All you did was fight the zombie/alien crew member, and suddenly you came to that conclusion?

Overall, I really liked the movie, but don't for one second think it'll add much to your thoughts of Alien/Aliens/Alien3, because if your a fan of those, you probably already know more than what Prometheus tells. (See beginning of the thread, even I imagined things that were beyond what the movie showed)

[wevster]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, cba to read the whole thread.

i found this funny:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBaKqOMGPWc&fea...

[Brigand]

Yeah, that pretty much points out the plot holes I didn't quite see on my first watch!

[JonRB]

Brigand said:

People talk of plot holes, and I couldn't really see any on my first watch, other than ...

Um, really? I can only surmise that you're either very accepting / unquestioning, very unobservant, or simply weren't really watching it (ie. had it on in the background whilst you flicked through a magazine or were having a conversation with someone).

Edit: Or watching it whilst very drunk.

[Oakey]

The alt ending raises even more questions. Noomi Rapeface says "they wanted to destroy us, then they changed their minds, I want to know why".

At what point in the film was this ever conveyed? There was absolutely no suggestion they changed their mind. Everything that preceeds this suggests otherwise. No wonder they didn't go with that ending.

[MocMocaMoc]

JonRB said:

Um, really? I can only surmise that you're either very accepting / unquestioning, very unobservant, or simply weren't really watching it (ie. had it on in the background whilst you flicked through a magazine or were having a conversation with someone).

Edit: Or watching it whilst very drunk.

I find people take great pleasure in pointing out 'plot holes' as it often embiggens them to themselves. That they're so clever they outsmarted the writers.

But what I also find, is an equal number of people who miss the small details that actually explain the 'plot holes'.

It's often the editors job to ensure the audience are hand fed the plot - if an editor takes for granted that the audience aren't retarded, 'plot holes' occur.

An 'unlikely occurrence' is not a plot hole.

And in a film that purports to explain the origins of humanity... A suspension of disbelief is an essential prerequisite.

It's a good film : )

[SystemParanoia]

seeing the deleted scenes with the bald albino's makes me think that they were on earth for this beginning scene, and the black goo that he drank disassembled him and "seeded" the planed with a DNA blueprint for intelligent life to begin evolving in however many eons it will take

[JonRB]

MocMocaMoc said:

I find people take great pleasure in pointing out 'plot holes' as it often embiggens them to themselves. That they're so clever they outsmarted the writers.

But what I also find, is an equal number of people who miss the small details that actually explain the 'plot holes'.

It's often the editors job to ensure the audience are hand fed the plot - if an editor takes for granted that the audience aren't retarded, 'plot holes' occur.

An 'unlikely occurrence' is not a plot hole.

And in a film that purports to explain the origins of humanity... A suspension of disbelief is an essential prerequisite.

It's a good film : )

On this we will have to disagree.

With a background in science and logic, and having read "hard" sci-fi for decades, I've come to appreciate that a good sci-fi story lays out a framework on which you suspend your disbelief, and then stays consistent with that.

Sadly, films rarely do that.

For example, Superman. We suspend disbelief that a man can be super-strong and can fly. But when he picks up a standard aircraft by its wing-tip, we expect that the wing-tip will snap off, not that he will lift the aircraft by it. Yes, "it's just a film" but it doesn't make it any less stupid.

In the same way, we suspend disbelief that an AutoDoc could perform an emergency caesarian section, but it's implausible that someone would then be able to run with severed abdominal muscles (don't forget that it stapled her up, rather than performing some amazing re-constructive surgery). We also find it very unlikely that said person would not say "holy cr*p! You'll never guess what just happened to me!" when they meet up with some other people immediately afterwards.

I'm really glad you enjoyed the film though.

[Halb]

MocMocaMoc said:

I find people take great pleasure in pointing out 'plot holes' as it often embiggens them to themselves. That they're so clever they outsmarted the writers.
But what I also find, is an equal number of people who miss the small details that actually explain the 'plot holes'.

Which of the films plot holes are covered by small details?

[DamienB]

Oakey said:

The alt ending raises even more questions. Noomi Rapeface says "they wanted to destroy us, then they changed their minds, I want to know why".

At what point in the film was this ever conveyed? There was absolutely no suggestion they changed their mind. Everything that preceeds this suggests otherwise. No wonder they didn't go with that ending.

I heard that as along the lines of 'They created us, then they wanted to destroy us. They changed their minds [about the creation], I want to know why.'

[Halb]

wevster said:

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, cba to read the whole thread.

i found this funny:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBaKqOMGPWc&fea...

That was quite funny, best line?
'Stay away from Blade Runner.'

[MocMocaMoc]

JonRB said:

MocMocaMoc said:

I find people take great pleasure in pointing out 'plot holes' as it often embiggens them to themselves. That they're so clever they outsmarted the writers.

But what I also find, is an equal number of people who miss the small details that actually explain the 'plot holes'.

It's often the editors job to ensure the audience are hand fed the plot - if an editor takes for granted that the audience aren't retarded, 'plot holes' occur.

An 'unlikely occurrence' is not a plot hole.

And in a film that purports to explain the origins of humanity... A suspension of disbelief is an essential prerequisite.

It's a good film : )

On this we will have to disagree.

With a background in science and logic, and having read "hard" sci-fi for decades, I've come to appreciate that a good sci-fi story lays out a framework on which you suspend your disbelief, and then stays consistent with that.

Sadly, films rarely do that.

For example, Superman. We suspend disbelief that a man can be super-strong and can fly. But when he picks up a standard aircraft by its wing-tip, we expect that the wing-tip will snap off, not that he will lift the aircraft by it. Yes, "it's just a film" but it doesn't make it any less stupid.

In the same way, we suspend disbelief that an AutoDoc could perform an emergency caesarian section, but it's implausible that someone would then be able to run with severed abdominal muscles (don't forget that it stapled her up, rather than performing some amazing re-constructive surgery). We also find it very unlikely that said person would not say "holy cr*p! You'll never guess what just happened to me!" when they meet up with some other people immediately afterwards.

I'm really glad you enjoyed the film though.

Good points, well made.

The whole 'running away' thing, I just dont buy into - you're running away from a spaceship that's about to squash you, blind terror takes hold and, well, you ever tried turning around, looking up, then turning back and hoofing it? It takes time to turn, you stumble and you're flat. So they ran in blind terror and one of them got it wrong... I see no issue here.

The kids finding the fanny faced snake thing - young, daft lads, totally over come that they've found ET life... and they act unprofessional? They're both stoned. I can buy into this.

I cant remember the other 'holes' but I dont recall anything massive that stood out.

[SystemParanoia]

ET life or not... if its behaving like a bloomin cobra, in going to steer well clear!

[SWoll]

MocMocaMoc said:

JonRB said:

Um, really? I can only surmise that you're either very accepting / unquestioning, very unobservant, or simply weren't really watching it (ie. had it on in the background whilst you flicked through a magazine or were having a conversation with someone).

Edit: Or watching it whilst very drunk.

I find people take great pleasure in pointing out 'plot holes' as it often embiggens them to themselves. That they're so clever they outsmarted the writers.

But what I also find, is an equal number of people who miss the small details that actually explain the 'plot holes'.

It's often the editors job to ensure the audience are hand fed the plot - if an editor takes for granted that the audience aren't retarded, 'plot holes' occur.

An 'unlikely occurrence' is not a plot hole.

And in a film that purports to explain the origins of humanity... A suspension of disbelief is an essential prerequisite.

It's a good film : )

It really isn't.

Forgetting about plot holes for a minute (which I am usually fairly happy to forgive) everything else about the film other than the premise and the SFX was substandard.

Awful script, acting, storyline.
No excitement or suspense.
Far too may "WTF did they do that for" moments
A soundtrack that appeared to be written for another film entirely.

I wanted to love it so much, it just wouldn't let me.

I did also enjoy MF as David. Best part of the film was him on the ship before he woke anyone else up.

[Bill Carr]

SWoll said:

MocMocaMoc said:

JonRB said:

Um, really? I can only surmise that you're either very accepting / unquestioning, very unobservant, or simply weren't really watching it (ie. had it on in the background whilst you flicked through a magazine or were having a conversation with someone).

Edit: Or watching it whilst very drunk.

I find people take great pleasure in pointing out 'plot holes' as it often embiggens them to themselves. That they're so clever they outsmarted the writers.

But what I also find, is an equal number of people who miss the small details that actually explain the 'plot holes'.

It's often the editors job to ensure the audience are hand fed the plot - if an editor takes for granted that the audience aren't retarded, 'plot holes' occur.

An 'unlikely occurrence' is not a plot hole.

And in a film that purports to explain the origins of humanity... A suspension of disbelief is an essential prerequisite.

It's a good film : )

It really isn't.

Forgetting about plot holes for a minute (which I am usually fairly happy to forgive) everything else about the film other than the premise and the SFX was substandard.

Awful script, acting, storyline.
No excitement or suspense.
Far too may "WTF did they do that for" moments
A soundtrack that appeared to be written for another film entirely.

I wanted to love it so much, it just wouldn't let me.

I did also enjoy MF as David. Best part of the film was him on the ship before he woke anyone else up.

SWoll, I agree with you entirely (including your footnote) And with JonRB's earlier post.

I'm not happy I found "plot holes", I'm pissed off that a movie I'd been eagerly anticipating was a dud.

A number of poster's have implied that there's some sort of hidden meaning in this film and you have to look beyond the obvious to seek explanation. I believe that argument is fatuous and an attempt to make them look clever. There is no deeper meaning at work here. There is no subtly, no allegory. It's just poorly written, period.

[SWoll]

It just smacks of people desperately grasping at straws, which to a degree I can understand. As I say i wanted to love it, but it just left me annoyed TBH.

What a wasted opportunity.

[Guvernator]

Apart from the lame script, the crap acting, the improbable coincidences, the rolling ship (what EXACTLY is that ship made of anyway, rubber?) the thing that disappointed me most was that the whole premise of the plot was that they were traveling halfway across the galaxy to try to find answers to some really important questions.

However once they got there, all this setup is thrown out the window. None of the interesting questions\premises go anywhere, the motives of the Aliens are still just as ambiguous after 2 hours as they were at the beginning of the film. It's almost as if the creators thought up this great concept and then the producers decided that it was all too high brow to make money so they decided to turn it into Friday the 13th in space to appeal to popcorn munching morons.

[Bill Carr]

Guvernator said:

the thing that disappointed me most was that the whole premise of the plot was that they were traveling halfway across the galaxy to try to find answers to some really important questions.

However once they got there, all this setup is thrown out the window. None of the interesting questions\premises go anywhere, the motives of the Aliens are still just as ambiguous after 2 hours as they were at the beginning of the film.

Exactly! The premise implies the film is going to be some profound journey, but what follows is about as profound as a wet fart. It's just an excuse for some mid-level gore, some fighting and explosions. If they were going down that route they could have at least had the decency to put some tits in it.

[Oakey]

Bill Carr said:

SWoll, I agree with you entirely (including your footnote) And with JonRB's earlier post.

I'm not happy I found "plot holes", I'm pissed off that a movie I'd been eagerly anticipating was a dud.

A number of poster's have implied that there's some sort of hidden meaning in this film and you have to look beyond the obvious to seek explanation. I believe that argument is fatuous and an attempt to make them look clever. There is no deeper meaning at work here. There is no subtly, no allegory. It's just poorly written, period.

If you have to seek out external sources outside of the film to find answers, ie interviews with the Scott and Lindeloff, then the film has failed.

Also, the marketing campaign for the Blu-Ray is literally "Questions Will Be Answered"

[The Hypno-Toad]

Hear that noise? Its the sound of every geek on the planets head exploding...

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/22925/has-the-prom...