Just having a bit of fun, my internet fun-sponge friends. 😉 You guys kill fun so efficiently that you cease even making sense. 😕
Originally posted by roughrider
I've had to stay off this page for two weeks - plus Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB - because I didn't want anything more spoiled. Now, after seeing it tonight and reading all the pages since I was last year...there is much to consider.The above article posted by Sadako Of Girth just makes me think even more deeply about what I saw. And feeling like the next time I see this, I want the company of knowledgeable fans who will reflect on this and aren't expecting just a gory action flick. The ideas in it are VERY BIG - it is Ridley Scott's answer to 2001: A Space Odyssey, set within the framework of the Alien universe.
You can argue about where the ratio of art vs. commerce comes in (ie. leaving questions open for us to consider, or just leaving them for yet another film) but then sometimes the greatest art is the kind that causes divisions among people. That's what H.R. Giger has always wanted with his art.
Yeah, not watching any trailers was one of the best ideas I've ever had. I had seen very little from the actual movie, which made it quite an experience. And that's a good point as far art causing division. Reminds me of The Fountain. It was loved by some and despised by others. I thought it was a piece of art, too. And as far as commerce affecting this film... I mean, artists are forced to work within the parameters of the world, and the film industry is a business, but they may have legitimately had more story to tell and couldn't condense it to just one film. So I'm extremely curious to see where this is going to go next.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
continued...Spoiler:
blah blah etc etc
While on the surface it sounds like an in depth analysis of the film it's really all over the place and doesn't seem to care about reconciling the hugely varying religious motifs it says the film represents...A mix of ancient Greek, Roman and Christian symbolism with no relation to each other...Weak at best.
Not to mention when you read interviews with Ridley Scott he seems to have nothing more than a basic knowledge of the story of Prometheus anyway. And co-writer Damon Lindhoff doesn't exactly fit the bill as someone to imbue his work with significant meaning (Cowboys and Aliens isn't exactly a deeply thematic work)
People can read into any film what they want and extract things they think are symbolic. Seems this writer has wanted there to be more than there is to the film.
Originally posted by jaden101People can read into any film what they want and extract things they think are symbolic. Seems this writer has wanted there to be more than there is to the film.
That's an argument that was used against 2001: A Space Odyssey, by it's critics. Stanley Kubrick was willing to say the film's meaning is left open for the viewer to interpret. I like when directors can still feel the freedom to make films that don't check off all the boxes so the audience absolutely gets it.
Originally posted by jaden101
While on the surface it sounds like an in depth analysis of the film it's really all over the place and doesn't seem to care about reconciling the hugely varying religious motifs it says the film represents...A mix of ancient Greek, Roman and Christian symbolism with no relation to each other...Weak at best....
People can read into any film what they want and extract things they think are symbolic. Seems this writer has wanted there to be more than there is to the film.
Um, first you admit that it's there (just "weak"😉, and then you suggest that he's reading things into it that aren't there.. so which is it? And Greek/Roman/Christian mythology are all kind of inherently related to each other. And how is it "weak?" Using some of the very foundations of human meaning-making as a precedent adds meaning, significance, layers, perspectives, depth to what would otherwise be another superficial film.
I walked away thoroughly enjoying this movie...then hours later those nagging questions took hold.
(I'm not gonna bother hiding spoilers.)
*The Scottish geologist & biologist...Was it bad editing or a deleted scene but they clearly left to go back to the ship because they were freaking out...long before the storm hit. Then hours later, they're still in the ruins. Even with the Pups mapping everything & clear communication with the ship...how did they end up lost?
*The hologram depictions of the Space Jockeys past bothered me a bit. I mean David stumbles across a random panel in the corridor that happens to show Space Jockeys fleeing from something.
Yeah I know R2D2 had Leia's hologram plea, Event Horizon had the crazy recordings of the crew being tortured & Serenity had the diary footage of the scientists' log before the Reevers struck....but a random panel in a corridor in the ruins just seemed so odd.
I think that scene of the dead pile of Space Jockeys was scary enough & obvious too that they were fleeing.
*The Space Jockey in the beginning who drinks the black goop. In context, it seemed he was sacrificing his life in order to create new life on that planet. However later in the movie, the crew come to the conclusion that the goop is actually a bio weapon & the whole planet is stock piled with them....So was the original Space Jockey at the start of the movie actually destroying that planet rather than creating life on it?
*The crew came to the conclusion that the Space Jockeys created mankind & then became angry with them (for some reason) & thus their mission was to return to Earth to destroy it. The entire planet was an arms depot with multiple ships storing thousands of canisters of the black goop...surely this pointed that the Space Jockeys were more evil in intention than Gods, givers of life?
Their intentions was on a universal scale & not just to destroy one planet, Earth.
*So it's Shaw that sends the warning beacon to keep away BUT it's clearly not the same planet as the 1st Alien movie.
*Then the cliches of Shaw getting pregnant just screamed of Siquorney rip-off. As did so much of the end when she's left alone in the capsule.
*I know people thought the gigantic face-hugger was over-kill but could it have been an ancestor of the queen alien who was much bigger than the average alien?
I really liked the movie but yeah Ridley created more questions & confusion for me than showing a much hyped prequel.
Originally posted by jaden101
While on the surface it sounds like an in depth analysis of the film it's really all over the place and doesn't seem to care about reconciling the hugely varying religious motifs it says the film represents...A mix of ancient Greek, Roman and Christian symbolism with no relation to each other...Weak at best.Not to mention when you read interviews with Ridley Scott he seems to have nothing more than a basic knowledge of the story of Prometheus anyway. And co-writer Damon Lindhoff doesn't exactly fit the bill as someone to imbue his work with significant meaning (Cowboys and Aliens isn't exactly a deeply thematic work)
People can read into any film what they want and extract things they think are symbolic. Seems this writer has wanted there to be more than there is to the film.
Fair play. LOST was packed full of elements from the faiths and histories you mention though.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
*The Scottish geologist & biologist...Was it bad editing or a deleted scene but they clearly left to go back to the ship because they were freaking out...long before the storm hit. Then hours later, they're still in the ruins. Even with the Pups mapping everything & clear communication with the ship...how did they end up lost?
This confused me too. If I recall correctly when the rest of the crew went outside to go back to the ship they saw a vehicle leaving and said that it must be those guys. I cant really remember this part so I may be mistaken.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
*The Space Jockey in the beginning who drinks the black goop. In context, it seemed he was sacrificing his life in order to create new life on that planet. However later in the movie, the crew come to the conclusion that the goop is actually a bio weapon & the whole planet is stock piled with them....So was the original Space Jockey at the start of the movie actually destroying that planet rather than creating life on it?
Spoiler:
I think he was using his DNA to terraform earth. They said our DNA was a 99% match or something to the space jockeys. It is possible they didn't know the black stuff was a weapon and just wanted to create life and knew that the black goop could do that. By mixing it with their DNA they created life in their image. then after seeing how bad things created from the goop are (creating lifeforms that tried to kill them) they wanted to destroy all traces of life created from it.
Originally posted by Sadako of GirthLost was packed full of utterly random shite they just threw in as they went along. It never had a cogent theme that bound it together and any references was superficial and unrelated. It's the same with Prometheus. People seem to be fooled into thinking a movie/tv series is deeper than it is because random unrelated references are thrown in not to give an underlying theme to a story that fits and can be seen as an interpretation of those themes but simply to be picked up on in isolation.
Fair play. LOST was packed full of elements from the faiths and histories you mention though.
What makes it even worse with Prometheus is that it's not even shoe horned in to solid entertaining film but rather a 2 hour precursor to what will most likely be another 2 hour precursor. The chase for money seems far more important than either giving the audience a decent plot or thought provoking themes.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Ahh... that explains a lot. He's been roofied a few times, has he. Well if that's his idea of fun, no wonder he comes across as a bit dry, drab, and jaded.
Take it easy, fella, you finally found a film to goes balls deep in where you're not one of two people who thought that is wasn't complete and utter shit (eg The Grey, Immortals), I'm even saying that about the first half of this was decent. Don't get cocky though.
Originally posted by jaden101
What makes it even worse with Prometheus is that it's not even shoe horned in to solid entertaining film but rather a 2 hour precursor to what will most likely be another 2 hour precursor. The chase for money seems far more important than either giving the audience a decent plot or thought provoking themes.
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. Do you even like science fiction, dude? Cuz this is quintessential sci-fi. I don't care who you are..
A good question gets asked in the 18th minute of this interview (the rest is relatively boring)...
guy on YouTube video
The movie's tagline is "The Search for our beginning could lead to our end." You mentioned evolution. This also leads one to wonder about God. The Greeks believe Prometheus brought the gift of fire to man. The book of Genesis shows Satan bringing enlightenment to mankind. What does this Prometheus symbolize? Specifically, what is the religious significance?
Originally posted by Robtard
Take it easy, fella, you finally found a film to goes balls deep in where you're not one of two people who thought that is wasn't complete and utter shit (eg The Grey, Immortals), I'm even saying that about the first half of this was decent. Don't get cocky though.
You're a f#cking obnoxious broken record for constantly bringing that up. Do us all a favor here and go suck a tail-pipe, would you please? No, I'm not kidding. Ha-ha-ha... It's not a joke. Just go do it. Thanks. 🙂
I also wanted to mention that someone I know said that there were lots of quotes from Lawrence of Arabia in the film?? I've never seen it, though, but thought I'd mention that in case it rang a bell for anyone...