E
Et_Cetera
Guest
I know that a lot of people are really hyped for this movie. I think it’s going to be really cool, and this isn’t even usually the genre that I go for. Yeah, should be a fun summer film.
- Status
C
colliric
Guest
The more I think about this film, the more I think it’s going to be awesome that most people will go into the film without thinking it’s actually the direct Alien Prequel… Well done on Ridley for “dancing around” about it being the prequel, in his interviews, he’s onto a winner with this one.
They will be pretty suprised by the ending… It sounds like a real ripper of an action packed climax that should do the last 20 minutes of Alien, and Aliens, justice.
T
Theophorus
Guest
The fourth one was pretty bad alright not to mention the crossover alien Vs. predator shenanigans. Prometheus should redress the balance quite nicely.
C
CGDouglas
Guest
As long as it isn’t another airlock, three of four movies, and they all die from an airlock.
AvP was awful…
God Bless,
Christopher.
E
edwest2
Guest
I watched a few more trailers and it’s still not adding up for me. I honestly dislike writing about what I do, but I’ve been involved in creating large-scale science-fiction and fantasy worlds. The company I work for has contacts with Hollywood and I had the privilege of helping a young screenwriter who is now working on his first ‘real’ screenplay for a name Hollywood company.
As a storyteller, I’m seeing odd, and disjointed exposition. I don’t care about David. He is a device in a humanoid shell. He has no will and no internal potentiality. Any references to what he thinks about or what he can do cannot be self-referential. He’s just a mimic and can’t do anything beyond his programming. Such a device would only be under the control of the military and not a private corporation. Of course, such a device excludes certain human frailties/problems but that is the point of building it. Note I’m not saying this will be a bad movie at all.
WARNING: Spoiler Alert
From what I can tell, the first FTL spaceship from earth makes it to this planet at exactly the wrong time, which is contrived. Plus the establishing shots did not impress me much.
My 2 cents,
Ed
As a storyteller, I’m seeing odd, and disjointed exposition. I don’t care about David. He is a device in a humanoid shell. He has no will and no internal potentiality. Any references to what he thinks about or what he can do cannot be self-referential. He’s just a mimic and can’t do anything beyond his programming. Such a device would only be under the control of the military and not a private corporation. Of course, such a device excludes certain human frailties/problems but that is the point of building it. Note I’m not saying this will be a bad movie at all.
WARNING: Spoiler Alert
From what I can tell, the first FTL spaceship from earth makes it to this planet at exactly the wrong time, which is contrived. Plus the establishing shots did not impress me much.
My 2 cents,
Ed
C
colliric
Guest
I have seen the synopsis, and knowing the plot of the this has only made me more exicited to see it, because it really creates a rock-solid origin story, and has one of the best Science Fiction plots of a film since the mid eighties. I agree the trailers have seemed disjointed, but this is REALLY, in my opinion, because the Filmmaker has a made a concious choice not to allow the plot to be totally spoiled by the trailer, in particular how this film actually really does relate to the 1979 original and IS it’s prequel.
In the film, he does do something beyond his programming and it plays a major part in the film. What you don’t realise is that his external flesh contains elements of Human DNA. This was actually shown in the film Alien, when Ash is bashed to shreds by Parker(you can see Ash is made of a “fleshy” substance). While in Aliens, it was established that Bishop had been programmed to mimic certain human emotions(Mostly Compassion, he is given the ability to understand why he was programmed to commit to acts that would normally be impossibly dangerous for Human Beings to do, while it would be a “walk in the park” for him) as part of the “upgrades” given him.
These “androids” have some humanity and flesh in their make up. Ridley Scott originally likened Ash to the Frankenstien monster(And not coincidently this new film is called Prometheus!)… esentially dead flesh, reanimated(and with electrical “control” parts “installed”).
Also in Aliens, it was shown that the Military is in Cahoots with the Weyland-Yutani corporation, providing security services for them, No doubt including co-developing these Androids.
I have an even bigger spoiler Alert that I will only converse with you in the Private Messages, but its related in a big way to this!
E
edwest2
Guest
For me, Ash was covered in "stuff’ to help him mimic a human being, nothing more. I do hope this movie is not just another 2001: strange alien force - no actual beings seen - who somehow affect humanity in a fundamental way. The “slab(s)” were just so advanced - I doubt they were controlled as events unfolded - that they just played out a preprogrammed scenario over long periods of time triggered by key events/developments in human history.
Slab or alien being replaces God.
My two cents again,
Ed
Slab or alien being replaces God.
My two cents again,
Ed
M
MugenOne
Guest
So this movie’s story-line is similar to Asimov’s Foundation and Earth. By the way, Roland Emmerich will direct a movie based on the Foundation series of novels by Isaac Asimov. It’ll an explosion porn.
M
Midwest88
Guest
Just watched this and I liked it, for the most part. I’m an active user on IMDb and there are a few threads on Prometheus’ board that have turned into anti-religion threads. It’s too bad I am not an experienced apologetic or else I would’ve said something, and add to the fact that such a site is devoid of anything meaningful unless a film is considered artsy and secular.
P
Paul1Up
Guest
I just went ahead and read the whole plot on Wikipedia. 
I’ll watch it eventually, I’m sure, but I’m much too busy with work now that the summer’s started.
I’ll watch it eventually, I’m sure, but I’m much too busy with work now that the summer’s started.
C
colliric
Guest
I kind of liked and disiked the way it portrayed Shaw as rather loose Christian with strong faith, but an almost total lack of scruples. Partly because of the scene where she has sex seemingly before marriage… Ok she was a million miles away in space, but I still don’t believe a good faithful christian would actually do that.
But then I liked the ending where she re-finds her faith(and hopefully her scruples, as after all she is rather gruosomely punished for that sin… which inevitably leads to further grusomeness set approximatly “30 years later”!), and I thought the character would have benifited from being portrayed as a “lapsed” Catholic, rather than a “christian of ambigious denomination”(which I thought was done by the studio not to upset Protestants watching the film). All it would have taken was a simple change from the empty cross, to a crucifix.
It was nice to see another Christian character portrayed on screen, but one that didn’t seem to have any scruples about sexual sin, and who then has to perform an abortion on herself after finding herself pregnant with “the first alien”(in the most gruesome scene in the film), arguebally as some kind of warped “penetant” act, was a real problem to me.
M
Midwest88
Guest
I wasn’t too hung up on that. It was rather inconsistent since like you said, but I took that the writers thought “Hey they’ve been asleep for two years, they must be very h*rny so let’s have them have sex - even the most religious one.” Inconsistent writing which resulted in out of character actions.
What I find odd is that a somewhat decent Christian character is portrayed on screen and people go nuts over it like in a bad way. “Christian propaganda” and “Creationist propaganda” are the reoccurring themes I come across.
C
colliric
Guest
I found the scene where she refound her faith to be a treat though. I didn’t really expect it, and it was nice to see the film do that. It wasn’t just treated as a throwaway thing, which I liked.
I also found the scene where she unleashed the “first facehugger” on the Engineer to be rather satisfying from a “poetic justice” point of view, even though you know in about 30 years time, the smaller more evolved ones are going to be giving Ripley some headaches!
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ve seen more images and refuse to read more until I see this movie - I’m in no rush. Once again, it just strikes me as disjointed, even after seeing a few more images from it.
As it sounds like the Alien prequel then, for me, it’s “yeah. I know how this will turn out.” So no big expectations or surprises expected, and no rush to the theater.
And the big stone head was like - what? No mystery, no tension, just a big head.
Peace,
Ed
As it sounds like the Alien prequel then, for me, it’s “yeah. I know how this will turn out.” So no big expectations or surprises expected, and no rush to the theater.
And the big stone head was like - what? No mystery, no tension, just a big head.
Peace,
Ed
C
clark_kent_1
Guest
…but you’ve not seen it!
E
edwest2
Guest
Doesn’t matter. Like the original questions asks - I’m not interested enough to run out and see it soon…
Peace,
Ed
C
colliric
Guest
No you don’t, even though it’s an Alien Prequel, it doesn’t end on that note at all… as they knew that was what the audience would be expecting, so they decided to “change it around a bit and give the Alien fans a bit of a suprise”
And the Big Stone head plays an important part in the film.
Also the lead character is shock horror… A Christian(although a “loose” or “lapsed” one… nevertheless she finds her faith in the end, but also happens to start believing in the death penalty! She goes alittle Dirty Harry, Ripley-style, right at the end!).
E
edwest2
Guest
Now I have fewer reasons to go see it. Dirty Harry set the tone for “your police detective is now the vigilante” trend. Sad. The first Alien movie could have done without the cursing and the graphic violence. A far cry from the original Star Wars movie that came right before, which, in my mind, is the last science-fiction movie that respects language and certain behaviors from exploitation. Parents were right to complain that the Alien toy figure was too frightening/inappropriate for kids.
Peace,
Ed
K
KevinAK
Guest
Not interested at all.
C
colliric
Guest
I don’t think so, because in the end it was a Horror film, More like “Jaws Horror in Space”, and therefore distinct as a science fiction film from Star Wars, which itself was really “Lord Of The Rings Fantasy, set in Space” rather than pure Science Fiction. Without the violence in some parts(although the best Scary scene actually contains no violence at all, the scene with Dallas in the tunnel!) it would have made a pretty poor horror film.
Although the character does become a little like “Dirty Harry”, I didn’t mean that she became a Vigilante killer! I ment that she becomes toughened by the experience, Perhaps I should have just said that she takes on the Ripley character a bit… Does she turn out to be related?(a question for the sequel no doubt)
I agree with your very last comment… After all, it’s a Horror film, and it’s inappropriate for kids to be playing with toys from a franchise that is mainly horror based… Same goes for the Nightmare on Elm Street toys and games that were made.
- Status