I'm a fan of the Alien series, even the 3rd and the 4th movie, but not the AvP crossover series. So, I guess I'm easy to be pleased by Prometheus, it met my expectation except for the sci-fi horror elements that the Alien (1979) famously introduced ... maybe we're too jaded already, not easily shocked anymore.
It's kinda like a remake of the 1979 Alien. I watched it again back at home after watching Prometheus in cinema. The 1st Alien movie only showed like maybe 15mins of scenes inside the Derelict alien spacecraft and the Space Jockey; the rest of the movie is inside the human spaceship playing hide and seek with the Xenomorph alien.
So, Prometheus' links to Alien is exciting to watch especially when the former expanded upon the discovery aspect of the Space Jockey and its ship, plus injecting a bit of creationism discussion. But Ridley Scott isn't known for making abstract artistically ambiguous intellectual movies such as 2001:Space Odyssey, The Fountain or The Tree of Life; so the questions Prometheus posted could be straightforward and easily revealed in the sequels. The contribution of creator/head writer of Lost tv series, as co-writer of Prometheus, could be seen here for its numerous unanswered questions, but most of them are minor and could be answered with external info; hopefully the sequels won't drag the major questions too long (as with Lost). The only question I wanted to know the answer to, now is .... what the heck did David say to the surviving Engineer?

Prometheus managed to be the 10th highest opening weekend of all time for a R-rated movie in US box office.
I guess it's not a box-office flop, but how much the budget for the sequel? I imagine would have much more visual effects since it'll be even more 'alieny' world.

I thought I read somewhere that Lindelof was brought in to provide his 'Lost' writing style ... ambiguity; he advised and expanded on the opening 'creation' scenes and aspect of Engineers, whereas Ridley if follow the original script, would do a direct two-part prequel to Alien with more straightforward take on the creation part.

I'm glad they didn't do a direct prequel, it'll be too restrictive and might have to follow Alien canon (which has 'morphed' throughout the 4 series, not including the AvP 'prequels'). This way, it's like a re-make of Alien (hence the similar plots) akin to the new Star Trek reboot but still got plenty of space for them to link back to the 1st Alien movie, if they decided to.

One thing Ridley had decided to not do in Prometheus, that is to show Shaw straightaway would know the reasons of the Engineers actions.

http://collider.com/ridley-scott-prometheu...terview/172202/
http://collider.com/prometheus-2-sequel/172444/


... see the MTV interview link provided by Claire.

LOST is great for its earlier seasons (the flashback parts) ... but it got too muddled after the flashforward season, and quite confusing (without googling for discussions) during the flashsideway ending seasons. But overall, it's unique and enjoyable when in the mood to watch ambiguous story.
As mentioned in a link in the previous post, there'll be deleted extra scenes (extra 27 mins), but if they're just action scenes and not character development scenes like in Kingdom of Heaven's 3-hours Director Cut, then no need to edit them into extended version.
One thing I adjust myself when viewing 'Lost' kind of ambiguous series or abstract movies ... don't look for the logical explanations while viewing, feel the emotional aspect instead ... this kind of writers/directors usually want viewers to 'watch' with their hearts and not their mind ... or maybe they themselves don't have the complete answers, heheh. But I think Ridley Scott (and sequel writers) won't leave audience hanging without clear explanations (at least explainable reasonings, no need direct spoon feeding) at the end of sequels ... he knows he has to balance the commercial aspect of film-making.

The opening scene.
An Engineer with the black goo, presumably on Earth.
DNA in water, presumably become life's DNA on earth.

Above points are just own ramblings ...

Kinky lesbian androids 5eks ... rated more than R ... AO or M, haha.

Btw, as mentioned elsewhere ...
Alien's android name - Ash
Aliens' android name - Bishop
Alien3's android name - Bishop
Alien 4's android name - Call
Prometheus' android name - David
'Prometheus:Paradise's android name - Ellen Ripley'

(off topic - Deckard in Blade Runner's sequel novelization is hinted to being an android himself)

1st time watched in cinema long time ago, quite enjoyed it.
Re-watched the special edition cut recently, thought it tried to be funny but doesn't really suit the movie ... maybe as Joss Whedon (the writer of Alien 4) said, if the director didn't play it straight and follow exactly his script, maybe the humour will be witty type.
Anyway, I liked the idea of Ripley's clone and her extra-human strengths ... now she knows the feeling of not being fully human.

This post has been edited by r2t2: Jun 14 2012, 10:03 AM

1. I still haven't read enough to conclude, was the act intentional? There are mentions of rebel Engineers..and unfilmed scene that an elder Engineer offered the younger Engineer the black goo. Is the one in the opening act a rebel? Then the other Engineers tried to destroy the resulting earthlings coz that wasn't in their plan? Anyway, was it mentioned how long since the mixing of the DNAs with H2O that human beings appeared? For all we know, it's just the beginning of evolution, with the external DNA a trigger ingredient in the primodial soup, and took billions of years (but then, how come the Engineers race didn't improve along much? heheh, more questions ... )

2. The box-office of 50million for a R-rated film in US is above expectation. Prometheus held the box office throne in the United Kingdom (Ridley Scott's country) coz no Madagascar 3 to compete. Overall, it did 90millions internationally (RM2juta in Malaysia). Not bad. Blu-rays and DVDs still to come after theatrical runs. (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=prometheus.htm)

3. I guess that's why the producers or the director brought Lindelof in, to provide the 'religious' viewpoint. As we know, LOST ending is very religiously biased. In a way, I was satisfied with the series ending ... from the emotional aspect. From the logical aspect which demands clear cut answers, one is bound to be disappointed. As with most religions, one have to rely on faith, personal emotional experience ... not empirical explanations. (see Contact)


Ya, Ridley Scott isn't the preachy type of director. Even with Kingdom of Heaven, he tried to balance both the Islamic and Christian Crusaders points ...
I guess with old age, one tends to more religious (to be on the safe side) and he's using his current movies to include some religion/creation themes, but not too 'atheist' ... more to agnostic ... open minded. I'd liken Naomi's Shaw character to Jodie Foster's Arroway character in Contact ... both a scientist who like to believe (altho one only realized it in the end) and both gets 'invitation' to meet the 'higher beings' ... I only hope Prometheus sequel doesn't go the "oh, we're not the prime movers, there were others before us".

Btw, a cool post ....
http://www.m.prometheus-movie.com/communit...rums/topic/7487

I guess that part was properly scientifically consulted ...

This post has been edited by r2t2: Jun 15 2012, 11:38 AM

[deleted]

This post has been edited by r2t2: Jun 15 2012, 11:37 AM

We got trolled by Mr. Scott ...
Anyway, there are movies worth the time for discussion even if they're straightforward. Prometheus, being part of the approved Alien-canon movies, is one; then, there are the intentionally left unanswered questions. While it does not necessarily make it an intelligent movie, it does provoke more than some thoughts.

Not sure if the subtitles for the 'alien' language will be provided in the blu-ray/dvd, coz the director purposely don't want the audience to know the translation ... whether that's important or not, we don't know yet. If it's important to the storyline, then we'll only know the clear answer in sequels. But, if the ancient language is based on earthly ancient language, nothing-better-to-do fans might try to decipher it.
Or, just ask directly from these people :- Anil Biltoo, Wambui Kunya, Sonam Dugdak, Shin Okajima, Kay Rienjang, Zed Sevcikova and Reynir Eggertsson.
From imbd trivia, "Ridley Scott approached SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), University of London, in 2011 to find experts who could help create a new language for the film. Anil Biltoo from SOAS' Language Centre worked to create the language, as well as the alien script, which can be seen throughout. Anil Biltoo can be seen briefly in a scene with Michael Fassbender." as well as other SOAS staff members (aforementioned names) that appeared briefly and are credited.

This post has been edited by r2t2: Jun 15 2012, 04:52 PM

You sir, is a well-learned Beast; I wonder if you're the real Dr. McCoy, the world authority on biochemistry and genetics?
jk jk

I guess Mr. Ridley (Ripley) Scott and Lindelof wanted to simplify the science for majority of us, laymen. (iinm, the other writer originally intended this movie to be a direct prequel of 1979's Alien. Those former two, are the one who wanted to expand the creationist part, while Lindelof advise the prequel(s) to be ambiguous...his expertise). Maybe it's their take on the earth's primodial soup (could've made it hot boiling lava, but water comes to mind when talking about life) and the external ingredient needed to trigger the creation of life (other theories being, extra-terrestrial objects e.g. meteor, bringing the source of life to Earth)...heheh.

Ya, read about that in imdb board ... if only they'll just change the 3% to 5% ... then again, as long as the point is made, sometimes I'll just have to suspend belief in order to enjoy sci-fi movies more ... else I'll be nick-picking on every factual errors.

However, movies that categorized themselves in the sci-fi genre, are assumed to have scientific basis, else they can be called fantasy. The Avengers is a comic-book movie ... not sci-fi.
Having said that, I guess it all depends on individual movies, ... those we don't like, we'll nick-pick the goofs; those that we like, we'll ignore the errors.

That sir, is deep analyzation .... before the movie Lawrence of Arabia, T.E. Lawrence's writings are quite influential at as well ... at least in western worlds.

Any android/synthetic beings trying to be more human in films, I can't help but to compare with Spock or Data; which is of equal but not more importance than Captain Kirk or Jean-Luc Picard, respectively.

Regarding the spacecraft in the beginning, now that you've mentioned it, ya ... it's more saucer-shaped than the crescent derelict spacecraft that we've known.

_________________________________________

One aspect/'weakness' of the film I'm glad that have been discussed elsewhere:-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/board/nest/200425162?p=1

Is it possible that the crew were intended to be stupid and incompetent?

Copy pasta from an imdb post again ... me lazy, they articulate better ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/board/nest/200474498?p=1
(with att. to koolspyda who like the character David the most ... )



Maybe the director/writers developed their own God complex, until they ignored the minute details i.e. see the bigger picture, not just day-to-day mundane life ... (blasphemy!)

I understand what you're saying about the satisfactory feeling when leaving the cinema ... however, I often believe that feeling corresponds to the expectation before entering the cinema. But let's say for casual movie-goers, who usually choose movies based on posters/movie stars and who want to enjoy the movie as standalone, without the need to consult external FAQs; I guess the feeling of being disappointed with Prometheus' scientifically 'stupid' with plenty of unanswered questions movie, is expected.

For me, I was wary of the mixed reviews before watching, so maybe that's why I could accept and shrugged off most of the minor complaints, but those 'bad writings' don't distract me from the bigger picture ... I was actually excited when the Engineer 'suited' up the Space Jockey gear; ya, the link to the 1st Alien film, however distant, is cool for me. And when I left the cinema, the movie got me thinking, made me read up more online and wanted to discuss more ... so, in that sense, it's a good movie for me; unlike some genuinely bad movies that made me wanna forget the whole thing.

A case in comparison; last weekend, I watched Synecdoche, New York (2008), the debut directorial film by the writer Charlie Kaufman who often used some scientific speculations in his screenplays. I thought based on his previous works, Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Human Nature, etc., I would be sufficiently entertained even though I might not get the whole film on 1st viewing. I watched without expectation, without even looking up the ratings/review score ... halfway thru the movie, I was totally confused and then sleep-watched thru the 2nd half. When the film ended, I was like WTF did I just watched? I went on imdb, expecting low if not mixed reviews ... it has 7.2/10 on imdb, and 67 metascore. So, I'm the one that don't get the film, I guess ... after reading the FAQs, I'm was humbled ... this is one of those films that required a lot of pre-requisite knowledge before watching in order to fully enjoy it. Is this the type of serious artistic movies that shouldn't be watched for pure entertainment? I'm not sure ... those who got it wrote reviews saying that it made them laugh...it is categorized as a drama & comedy. So, can it be considered an intellectual film and is the writing too clever for average audience? I guess so ... one user review said that half the cinema audience walked out half-way. And Roger Ebert considered "Synecdoche, New York" the best film of the decade ... (of course, we don't often agree with Mr. Ebert). So, without fully understanding, I could easily dismissed the film as a bad movie. What is a bad, a good or a great movie then? That I think, is what's interesting about films made not just for casual commercial entertainment ... it could be one man's meat or another man's poison, which reflects the diversity of human minds. When one starts to feel all films are boring, then one should analyze one's jaded life. We are all still learning ... no such thing as boring if our minds aren't.

Sorry, too much thinking aloud ...

As mentioned before, Ridley Scott and James Cameron don't consider the AvP 'prequels' canon. Anyway, AvP could be said are more to Predator series, the xenomorph aliens are just animals to be hunted.

http://collider.com/what-david-said-to-the...metheus/174637/

~ according to Dr. Anil Biltoo of the SOAS Language Centre in London, who served as the Linguist Teacher on Prometheus.

Was David the nearest? I can't remember.
Or maybe it's a case of the messenger get shot first.

Anyway, before this I thought David said something which made the Engineer realized that David is a creation of human being; which confirmed their intention to eradicate human race before we become more advanced than the creator. He will kill everyone, and the idea of David being a creation of their creation, made them angry ... jealous even, perhaps. Heheh ...

... not forgetting District 9 (the aliens are just squatters, not really evil), E.T., Contact, the good Star Trek & Star Wars aliens, Autobots, the coming 'Teenage Alien Ninja Turtles', various other animated aliens, ... heheh.

Srsly tho, for discussion point, I guess the evil/bad aliens are normally those that want to expand their territory / get more resources / just plain nbtd evil; those good aliens are those pacifist types that adhere to Prime Directive e.g. Vulcans. i.e. they don't interfere with human race unless necessary, so that's why we don't often see them in our sci-fi films.

Anyway, sorry to hear about your expensive VHS player/recorder. Those were the days ... even when VCD was cheap, I still prefer VHS coz the image quality (original ones lah, not those rented and re-recorded many times over).

This post has been edited by r2t2: Jun 23 2012, 09:16 AM

Heheh, my opinion is contrary to yours. I re-watched the whole quadrilogy (director's cut, assembly cut, studio cut, whatever they called the extended version) recently after Prometheus; I chuckled at the chestbuster in Alien; I thought why was I horrified at the cute thingy when watched it as a kid ... now it looks like a p3n1s when bursting out ... the scuttering away without showing the feet doesn't help the illusion of horror .. more like a muppet show.

On the other hand, the more 'mechanical' Aliens still look menacing; the fight between the powerloader n the queen still looks nice. Only maybe, the acting of the marines are weaker and over the top especially Bill Paxton's character.

Surprisingly, Alien3 (the Assembly Cut) isn't that bad on the re-watch ... the 1st half, that is. I thought the script/dialogues are word worthy, well-thought ... unlike the plain simple easier to digest words used on previous two; but I slept-watched during the 2nd half.
And Alien Resurrection; I remember I enjoyed it a lot in cinema last time ... now, I think it's ok only, tries to be funny but doesn't fit the movie. (But as Joss Wheldon explained, the French director has the final say over his screenplay).

However, like you said ... it's a matter of taste, which I guess changes over the time for almost everyone.

Haha, nice reply.
Yeah, read about that H.R. Giger had to tone down the sexual overtone in his design for Alien (which later he didn't have to in the Species movie). I guess those are among the main ingredients in a horror movie; sex and gore.
Queen mother in Aliens wasn't really Giger's design, was it?
Alien3 producers didn't want to credit Giger, but he sued them. Ya, was quite weak in the 3rd due to the use of CGI in most non close-up scenes, which wasn't really realistic yet ... maybe for that time, but quite jarring to see it now. The Assemble Cut didn't show the chestbuster ending scene tho.

Already kinda answered a while back.
From imdb board.

I'm repeating myself, but will take this chance to add a bit ...

__________________________________________________________________________

http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...20&p=52249035&#

One aspect/'weakness' of the film I'm glad that have been discussed elsewhere:-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/board/nest/200425162?p=1

Is it possible that the crew were intended to be stupid and incompetent?









So, while the discussions / theories put forth in that imdb forum seems apologetic and defensive of one among Prometheus' weaknesses, they do seem logical and acceptable to me; my then complaining mind has been put at ease and has since then moved on to other aspects / unanswered questions / analysis of the movie.

Ya, I guess based on common sense, most of what the 'expert' crews were doing seem stupid and incompetent; but like what quoted above, some were too eager, some didn't really care, some were in it just for money, some were just following orders, etc.

The mission was a privately funded one; while Weyland had the money, maybe he couldn't afford to spend more time searching for better scientists to come along; he was dying. So, in the two relatively short years (when the dates of the cave discovery and the arrival of Prometheus were shown, I was thinking why the hurry, don't they want to take time to plan carefully the mission?), Weyland got more mercenaries on board instead of NASA-like approved scientists. Hence, the bunch of idiots.

As for the most important discovery of mankind; similar to the plots of Contact (1997), for all we know, Shaw & Co. might've gone to the government but got rejected, no agency could justify the cost of the expedition just to satisfy the curiosity of an 'invitation', without further long-term study. But Weyland got the means to sponsor, plus his own personal agenda to rush it, and of course, most probably there was non-disclosure agreements; whatever Shaw had further analyzed since, remained as company property and not to be shared with the public (Shaw wouldn't have minded, she was blinded by her faith & eagerness, and Holloway was weak) ... so, it's more like the most secret not-so-urgent important discovery for mankind.

Good for you that you caught it early during the film, then could concentrate on other parts ... others weren't paying attention then.
Fifield's line about money, ... I forgot about that ... maybe wasn't paying attention also , too busy trying to figure out where have I seen this actor before? Oh ... The Borgias.
Credits with mercenary# as character names ... ya kah? That confirms it then. Too bad the cinema I watched in stopped the projection after the Proto-xenomorph scene.