Prometheus: The Spoiler-Ridden thread to discuss the Big Ideas

[GoldenBears]

Originally Posted by TheCroShow

required viewing IMO. cross-post from OOT

literally laughed for 4 minutes straight

[Ryan Firpo]

I finally saw Prometheus last night. Now I'm going to say a bunch of stuff:

Firstly, I made it a point to avoid all threads/posts related to the film, but I did catch the impression that many people were disappointed with it. When the end credits rolled, I was pretty much baffled by that. What were they so disappointed by? I wondered. So I went home and started reading the threads. My thoughts…

RANDOM STUFF
- Why did people expect a 2001? The trailer did nothing to suggest a 2001. Alien is not a 2001. Why did you think this was going to be a deep, philosophical life-changing sci-fi film? If you had done research beyond the trailer, and read in-depth articles/watched the Ted Talk Viral videos etc, then I can see your point. But to the mass populous, this film was advertised as nothing more than a really exciting action-packed sci-fi thriller. And it delivered on that promise, imo. It was a thrilling ride film.

- Why do people keep saying Alien was such a great story? Alien was a simple monster movie -- a very well executed one, but a very simple story. Scott himself said he was at least partially inspired by the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when he made it. Alien is a great film, but it's really just a top-notch horror movie. People seem to remembering a whole bunch of symbolism and philosophy that just wasn't there. The characters in Alien weren't complex portraits of the human experience. Screenwriter Dan O' Bannon and Scott both said they weren't interested in exploring their personal lives. And they don't. Alien is 100% about trying to escape this dangerous monster loose on the ship. There's nothing explored about their relationships, hope and dreams, etc. The characters may have been more memorable, but there're just as two (or one) dimensional -- in terms of what we learn about them -- as the ones we find in Prometheus.

- My take on Prometheus is: it's best described a philosophical Alien. The similarities to Alien from a story/structural standpoint are so glaring, it's hard not to see it as a loose remake, at times. On that note, I enjoyed all the little nods to Alien throughout the film (the opening credits, the detached replicant head who's still influencing the action, the character who's just "there for the money", killing the Engineer by opening the hatch, and many more). Previous posters have identified Prometheus as Scott's attempt to raise the Alien story (the monster movie) to the next level and explore some big questions (well, THE big questions). That's obviously the case. Scott said at the time he made Alien, how much he admired 2001, and was very conscious not to mimic it in any way -- because the imitation could never match the real thing. I believe at the time, he wanted to make a film with more philosophical elements, but a young career, his reverence for Kubrick and the fear of making a cheap knock-off prevented him from doing so. IMO, Prometheus is that movie. It's what Alien would have been if it weren't so close to 2001, and Scott had much more experience and confidence at the time.

RE: CRITIQUES
- I think many questions have already been answered well ITT. The opening scene, for example, is pretty clearly about the beginning of life on Earth. But some questions are still open to debate. The biggest critiques of the film (and there are plenty of smaller ones) seem like they can be boiled down to these elements:

1) Idiotic, irresponsible and unrealistic behavior from what should have been the world's premiere scientists.
2) Unclear answers about David's motivation. Why did he poison the scientist? How did he seem to know so much more?
3) Unclear answers about the Engineer's motivation. Why did they want to create, then destroy the human race?

Here are my thoughts:

1) This is a valid complaint, but it also hugs the line of nit-pickery, imo. Humans get really excited about discovering/creating something new -- especially scientists. Throughout history there are examples of foolish mistakes being made (scientific and otherwise) because the persons involved got too excited in the heat of the moment. Marie Curie died of radiation poisoning. Remember the NASA metric system mistake? Human beings are risk-takers and have a long history of leaping before they look. With a little suspension of disbelief that you should bring to all movies, this gets me past that problem. Although that guy who tried to pet the inside-out penis snake was pretty stupid.

2) There are a few things going on with David I haven't seen discussed yet. Mainly, in the philosophical sense, on Prometheus, David is us and we are the Engineers. The scientists are so excited to meet their makers. They think they will finally learn the answer to all of life's big questions. But David has met his makers, and he knows the dream does not live up to the reality. He is not awarded the reverence that should accompany the miracle that he is. He is not even treated with the same respect as the humans. At best, he is tolerated and at worst, he's treated with disdain. To his makers, he is little more than a utilitarian pet…like a donkey. This is not the feeling one wants to have when meeting/connecting with his makers. This instills in him a Pinochio-like condition (I wish I was a real boy) and injects him with a potent and unrelenting melancholia. Beyond that, this experience with his makers has awarded David a nihilistic view of the world -- not because he believes in nothing, but because he KNOWS there is nothing. If your own makers don't care whether you live or die, what meaning can your existence really have?

The thing about replicants is: they can never actually be perfect, because they've been created by imperfect beings (us). Computers can only do what we tell them to do, and even in AI -- where the computer thinks for itself -- we're using human perception of logic and reasoning to write its code. So, since we are not perfect, the AI is bound to expose the flaws in human logic and reasoning with a large enough sample size. [NOTE: I don't know much about real-life AI, so this is all based on my perception sci-fi fictional AI.] On top that, we design this perfectly logical being, and then ask him to operate in our world -- a world that is not purely logical and/or black and white. Eventually he'll be faced with a situation where there is no logical conclusion and then what happens? Does he malfunction? You could see David's poisoning of the doctor as an act of aggression born out of his 'feelings' of disappointment, of being mistreated and under-appreciated by those he worships so much (his makers). Or it could have been one move in a complex chess game that ends with him alone with the Engineers. Perhaps he was just as excited to meet/convene with his maker's makers and he wanted to get the humans out of the way. Maybe they will have the answers I'm searching for…I'm not really sure at this point.

3) IMO to clearly explain the motivations of the Engineers would have completely stripped away the philosophical purpose of the movie. Prometheus is about our search for the answers to the big questions -- mainly, WHY ARE WE HERE? That's the big one. This spans religion, science, art -- basically every aspect of the human experience. Prometheus' response to this can be found in the scene where Shaw rescues a beheaded David from the crashed ship --

SHAW: Why did they decide to destroy us?
DAVID: The reason why is irrelevant.
SHAW: Not to me.
DAVID: I don't understand.
SHAW: I guess that's why you're not human.

It's like Neitzcshe said: "Man would rather have the Void for a purpose than be void of purpose." Our greatest flaw as a species is believing we are the most important thing in the Universe. We just can't wrap our heads around the idea that maybe the Universe doesn't really give a **** about us, and that prevents us from ever finding true peace, and seeing reality as it truly is.

WEYLAND: (as he dies) There is nothing.
DAVID: I know. [I've always known]

The fact that you, as an audience, DEMAND to know exactly what the Engineer's motivation was -- the reason WHY they did what they did -- simply proves the film's theory. To give their actions some simple, digestible reason WHY would have sucked all the meaning out of the whole argument.

BTW All my Ridley Scott quotes come from the Alien director's commentary.

[Ryan Firpo]

Also, what does it really matter wether Vickers was an android or not. Does that really change anything? FWIW, I think she was.

[All Hail Circe]

Ryan, your post was awesome.

I myself have some problems with the film but overall I thought it was good and I look forward to seeing it again. ( also when the dvd comes out with that extra footage...30 minutes you say? Sign me up! )

All I know is when I hear that the sequel is greenlit, I will be happy because I think there is a lot more to this story and its world to explore and I will be along for the ride.

Again, solid post Ryan.

[Dominic]

You make good points, Ryan...but it's hard to get past point 1. The scientist were idiots. It's hard to care for anyone in a film who is an idiot.

Everything about David and "why" is right on, and still there on screen. It's too bad every single character in the film except Davis was disposable, uninteresting fodder.

[Hitch-22]

What was that black goo?

[amoeba]

Ryan, the issue isn't that Prometheus doesn't provide answers but rather it is inconsistent in going back and forth between not giving answers and giving answers that have large amounts of logic flaws. Same issue with the characters. Not only are they stupid, they are inconsistent from scene to scene.

With regards to your comparison to 2001, why should it matter what the film was advertised as? There are plenty of philosophical elements presented in the movie itself. Should I ignore this because the film was advertised as a simple space horror?

Even if we accept Prometheus as a sci-fi thriller with a sprinkling of philosophy, its internal inconsistencies due to needs to tie it to an existing franchise makes it inferior to say the first Matrix.

Since the idiocy of the 'scientists' has already been covered, lets go over the other issues with the characters.

The biologist - It makes no sense that he would be scared ****less at the thought of a lifeform near him one minute then very curious at the penis the next especially since they already saw the hologram of the Engineers running from something.

Weyland - why keep everything a secret? why would you not explain a mission of this magnitude to the people involved before its undertaken? Scientists should jump at the chance to join this mission had its true purpose been revealed instead of having to resort to the likes of angry incompetent mercenary geologist man. But if you are hiring people who are just in it for the money, why keep your presence on the ship a secret? they are just in it for the money.

Stringer Bell - utterly incompetent. So you see a lifeform on the radar and the only thing you do is fire off a nonchalant cool quip to freak out the 2 people lost in an alien complex? By the way Stringer, you're probably wrong about the whole weapon storage thing since I've never seen any weapon storage areas adorned with elaborate murals and statues but I guess we're supposed to take you at your word since everybody else on the ship is stupid.

Vickers- It doesn't matter if Vickers is an android. It doesn't really matter that she revealed Weyland is her father. It doesn't even matter if she lived or died in the end aside from some kind of "hey you were kind of bitchy, so here's some comeuppance". Wait, whats the point of having her in the movie?

Alchoholic scientist - one minute hes the most excited guy on the ship at seeing straight lines (bear in mind, still high probability of not finding anything, but hes high as a kite), next minute hes depressed because he hasn't met a living Engineer on the very first day they are there, minute later hes instantly cheered up because he finds out human DNA matches Engineer DNA even though nothing has changed with regards to meeting a living Engineer.

Engineer - Capable of flying the ship by himself. Was on a mission to destroy humanity but somehow decides to hypersleep for 2000 years. After being woken up, immediately resumes mission, ignoring the human ship. After being thwarted and having the human ship destroyed, somehow realizes that there is one more human alive on a working escape pod and decides to no longer ignore her and instead of flying one of the other alien ships there to continue his mission, decides to go kill her using hand to hand combat. These creators are pretty dumb.

So apparently Engineer spacecrafts are really easy to fly? There is enough info there for David to figure out how to fly a spaceship and fly it to the Engineer home planet but not any info on the ship about what the black goo was and what the Engineer mission was ?

Is it really prudent to fly to the Alien homeworld immediately after the hostility you've seen and that you know, you've just scratched the surface of the information that can be gathered from the other ships? How does Elizabeth plan on avoiding a planet full of Engineers from killing her? Shouldn't she send something back to earth in the very likely event that the Engineers kill her?

Prometheus could have easily kept some of the big philosophical ideas and the amazing visuals without such a convoluted and nonsensical plot and characters that just sinks the whole thing.

[Ryan Firpo]

Originally Posted by amoeba

Ryan, the issue isn't that Prometheus doesn't provide answers but rather it is inconsistent in going back and forth between not giving answers and giving answers that have large amounts of logic flaws. Same issue with the characters. Not only are they stupid, they are inconsistent from scene to scene.

I'm not saying your wrong, but this post doesn't really address inconsistencies in answers/logic -- only the characters. Can you provide some examples of story inconsistencies?

Originally Posted by amoeba

With regards to your comparison to 2001, why should it matter what the film was advertised as? There are plenty of philosophical elements presented in the movie itself. Should I ignore this because the film was advertised as a simple space horror?

I simply meant that during the build-up to release, there seemed to be this expectation (especially amongst Loungers) that Prometheus was the next great sci-fi epic -- that we should expect to have our minds blown and lives changed (hyperbole, obv). In essence, we were to expect a film of an extremely high philosophical and intellectual caliber (like a 2001). My question was: where did this expectation come from? Since movie expectations are created through marketing, I focused on that.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Even if we accept Prometheus as a sci-fi thriller with a sprinkling of philosophy, its internal inconsistencies due to needs to tie it to an existing franchise makes it inferior to say the first Matrix.

I'm not sure you could call it inferior. They're just different. The first Matrix presents a closed/complete philosophy whereas Prometheus is open/incomplete.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Since the idiocy of the 'scientists' has already been covered, lets go over the other issues with the characters.

These are really just more examples of idiocy

Originally Posted by amoeba

The biologist - It makes no sense that he would be scared ****less at the thought of a lifeform near him one minute then very curious at the penis the next especially since they already saw the hologram of the Engineers running from something.

In situation one, he had an option: leave. He chose it. In situation two, he had no other option than to face the situation. I agree, he made a poor choice, but maybe he thought this was the best way to diffuse the situation. Also, the dead body in the first situation was a product of a mysterious life-sized hologram (something that spans far outside the realms of biology) whereas the snake in the second situation was a fairly straightforward organic life-form. In reality, I still think an actual biologist would have exercised more caution, but that was a really awesome/scary scene so I can get past it.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Weyland - why keep everything a secret? why would you not explain a mission of this magnitude to the people involved before its undertaken? Scientists should jump at the chance to join this mission had its true purpose been revealed instead of having to resort to the likes of angry incompetent mercenary geologist man. But if you are hiring people who are just in it for the money, why keep your presence on the ship a secret? they are just in it for the money.

Why did Howard Hughes keep mason jars full of urine in his room? Weyland was a one hundred year old, wildly eccentric trillionaire. He was probably crack-head level paranoid. If things went wrong on the ship -- and since apparently the crew didn't know about the mission until they were woken up, that was a very realistic possibility -- he would have represented an extremely valuable bargaining chip between the mutineers and Vickers/Weyland Corp if they knew he was there. Maybe he wanted to eliminate that possibility.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Stringer Bell - utterly incompetent. So you see a lifeform on the radar and the only thing you do is fire off a nonchalant cool quip to freak out the 2 people lost in an alien complex? By the way Stringer, you're probably wrong about the whole weapon storage thing since I've never seen any weapon storage areas adorned with elaborate murals and statues but I guess we're supposed to take you at your word since everybody else on the ship is stupid.

I agree. He's was a bit too flippant, even for a Mr. Cool movie character. Re: weapon storage area, this was all on their ship. Why is it hard to believe they would have carved murals/decorations into the wall of the weapons storage area? Or maybe I misunderstand your point?

Originally Posted by amoeba

Vickers- It doesn't matter if Vickers is an android. It doesn't really matter that she revealed Weyland is her father. It doesn't even matter if she lived or died in the end aside from some kind of "hey you were kind of bitchy, so here's some comeuppance". Wait, whats the point of having her in the movie?

Somebody had to torch Holloway (alcoholic scientist). Would any other character have done it?

Originally Posted by amoeba

Alchoholic scientist - one minute hes the most excited guy on the ship at seeing straight lines (bear in mind, still high probability of not finding anything, but hes high as a kite), next minute hes depressed because he hasn't met a living Engineer on the very first day they are there, minute later hes instantly cheered up because he finds out human DNA matches Engineer DNA even though nothing has changed with regards to meeting a living Engineer.

He's an alcoholic. His world is highs and lows. I don't really see any problems with character in consistencies there.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Engineer - Capable of flying the ship by himself. Was on a mission to destroy humanity but somehow decides to hypersleep for 2000 years. After being woken up, immediately resumes mission, ignoring the human ship. After being thwarted and having the human ship destroyed, somehow realizes that there is one more human alive on a working escape pod and decides to no longer ignore her and instead of flying one of the other alien ships there to continue his mission, decides to go kill her using hand to hand combat. These creators are pretty dumb.

I think it's unwise to guess at the motivations of the Engineers, but as has been suggested earlier in this thread, that dude was probably just a soldier and not very intelligent (I mean no offense to actual soldiers). He probably just had death and destruction on the brain. Also, when these humans just took down his entire ship, it makes sense that he may think: I better kill all of them so they don't go destroy the other ships. I don't know what they're capable of.

Originally Posted by amoeba

So apparently Engineer spacecrafts are really easy to fly? There is enough info there for David to figure out how to fly a spaceship and fly it to the Engineer home planet but not any info on the ship about what the black goo was and what the Engineer mission was ?

David is a super-genius computer who had three years + to download and process data about this ancient organization. It seems feasible he could figure it out. I don't understand the obsession with the black goo. It's some sort of life-generating/DNA-alternating plasma. It produces their weapons of mass destruction and deconstructs human DNA when ingested. It's Alien space goo. What more do you want to know? The Engineers mission seems pretty clear: fly to Earth with these WMD's and destroy everyone.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Is it really prudent to fly to the Alien homeworld immediately after the hostility you've seen and that you know, you've just scratched the surface of the information that can be gathered from the other ships? How does Elizabeth plan on avoiding a planet full of Engineers from killing her? Shouldn't she send something back to earth in the very likely event that the Engineers kill her?

Shaw is flying into certain death and even she knows it. This is a spiritual mission now. Any ties to Earthly responsibilities are of no consequence. She's searching for an answer for herself -- not the mission. She's headed towards the end, but she doesn't care. She just has to know, even if that means she dies -- or worse, discovers the nothingness beyond birth and death. Again, it's back to that obsession with the WHY. In this state, doing "what's prudent" flies out the window. Survival isn't as important as knowing.

Originally Posted by amoeba

Prometheus could have easily kept some of the big philosophical ideas and the amazing visuals without such a convoluted and nonsensical plot and characters that just sinks the whole thing.

Remember, this is a big budget Hollywood movie. With that comes certain ...responsibilities and limitations. Under those circumstances, I'd consider this a huge success.

[amoeba]

too lazy to do multiquote and I can concede some of the points.

As to the David supercomputer flying the ship point, I think it reeks of macbook uploading a virus in Independence day. But I can overlook that.

If Shaw was intent on finding out why the Engineers created humans and why they decided to kill humans, she has a much higher probability of doing that studying the ship and other stuff on the planet rather than flying to the alien homeworld where her most likely scenario is getting killed before finding out jack. Of course it matters what the goo is. Something goo related killed the Engineers and they decided not to use the goo for 2000 years until you woke up one of them. So it was apparently a bio weapon that was too dangerous to use until an Engineer met some real life humans and said f it, I'm killing these Homo sapiens. Seems pretty critical to the story. There just seems a whole lot more she can find out on the planet they are on than flying to the Engineer homeworld. I mean they were only there for 2-3 days. Even if she makes it to the homeworld and doesn't get blown out of space, how does she expect to converse with the Engineers? using David? that sure worked out real well the first time.



And if she really is going because she has to know and she doesn't care about about the people on earth, then shes a selfish bitch. She talks 3 guys in to sacrificing themselves then goes off on her soul searching.

[ianlippert]

Although that guy who tried to pet the inside-out penis snake was pretty stupid.

I thought it was just common sense: don't ****ing pet inside out penis snakes!!!

I think this movie can be deeply enjoyed with a little suspension of disbelief, it's just sad that with a little better writing we wouldnt have to and this could easily have been up there with 2001.

We just can't wrap our heads around the idea that maybe the Universe doesn't really give a **** about us, and that prevents us from ever finding true peace, and seeing reality as it truly is.

I'm on this line and made the same case in the other movie thread almost verbatim. I think maybe that's why the movie is so unsatisfying for some, the is no answer that will satisfy and most will come off as cheesy. So either you pull the vague lost crap (good choice of writer in this case) or you put something super cheesy in. It's basically lose-lose. I guess the closest anyone has come is 2001, and thats why that movie is on of the GOAT, it doesn't fall into either trap and pulls it off.

[Ryan Firpo]

Originally Posted by ianlippert

I'm on this line and made the same case in the other movie thread almost verbatim.

Yeah, I read your post. I worded mine like that as a reference. Same with the inside-out penis snake. Like you said, it's a lose-lose. 2001 wins because it relies on images instead of dialogue...and because it was directed by a certified genius.

Little known fact about 2001 though: the ending was originally supposed to much more literal. We were meant to actually meet the aliens (like men in costumes) when we jumped dimensions and have a sort of conversation with them. But they ran out of money so they couldn't shoot it. The current ending is what Kubrick came up with as a result.

[Jyprock Jones]

FWIW, it looks like there is a resaonably definitive answer about what David says to the Engineer:

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/06/...-in-prometheus

[wil318466]

Anyone know how the filmed the engineers? In other words, they weren't regular people in body suits, right? Like, a jacked actor or something? They weren't CGI? I mean, they were some big creatures.

Ok, did some youtube research (lol), and saw this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxcof...feature=relmfu

So I guess they were actors. They were HUGE dudes though.

[Hitch-22]

^^ I thought they just cut and pasted from I Am Legend?

[wil318466]

The I am Legend dudes looked like inner-city crackheads compared to the Engineers from Prometheus.