WRT Guy Pearce, when he showed up the first time, all I could think of was how absolutely unrealistic the makeup looked and that they MUST have cast him so that his character could de-age somehow.
As far as the "origins of man" stuff goes; there's a lot on the Internet about allegory and symbolism in this movie - one of the blogs I've read suggests, and it is supported by comments from Scott himself , that Jesus was an Engineer, and the reason the Engineers have created the Aliens was because they were coming back to Earth to display their anger over his crucifixion in true Old Testament style. And the "virgin birth" Elizabeth goes through - she was barren, remember - is another very Biblical element.
So in that vein, sure, the film could - COULD - be interesting, but there was too much crucial components left out for my preference. I'm of the mind that one has to care about characters to provide tension and suspense, and quite frankly, none of them were written with any sort of depth whatsoever, and so when they die, it really doesn't register to any great degree
_________________________
i'm not here to be clever.
So everyone has it ingrained that this is not an alien(s) movie right? Takes place in the same universe as the previous series.
This is about
Warning, Spoiler:
man's origin
from what I have read on mumerous boards is, of you went into it thinking this is an alien movie, you came out pissed.
However this is a much deeper movie. On the surface some of it does come off as wtf, but if you look deeper you see a layered story that isn't as dumbed down as some would think it is.
Such as.... Why would they take their helmets off in the temple/base? Well considering that weyland has been terraforming planets as well as the atmosphere was satisfactory to sustain life, why not? On top of that the whole basic atmosphere of the moon is not 2 min & dead as te doc said, humans could breathe for up to 20 hours without a rebreather (poor research on the writing team).
The answers are there for almost every "unanswered" question.
This to me was a gre at Sci-Fi movie, the best at least since boyle's sunshine
WRT Guy Pearce, when he showed up the first time, all I could think of was how absolutely unrealistic the makeup looked and that they MUST have cast him so that his character could de-age somehow.
As far as the "origins of man" stuff goes; there's a lot on the Internet about allegory and symbolism in this movie - one of the blogs I've read suggests, and it is supported by comments from Scott himself , that Jesus was an Engineer, and the reason the Engineers have created the Aliens was because they were coming back to Earth to display their anger over his crucifixion in true Old Testament style. And the "virgin birth" Elizabeth goes through - she was barren, remember - is another very Biblical element.
So in that vein, sure, the film could - COULD - be interesting, but there was too much crucial components left out for my preference. I'm of the mind that one has to care about characters to provide tension and suspense, and quite frankly, none of them were written with any sort of depth whatsoever, and so when they die, it really doesn't register to any great degree
+ 1.
If you are willing to overlook the obvious holes in the plot, and the rather poor characterization, well, then its really deep indeed and this is from someone who really wanted to love it.
WRT Guy Pearce, when he showed up the first time, all I could think of was how absolutely unrealistic the makeup looked and that they MUST have cast him so that his character could de-age somehow.
As far as the "origins of man" stuff goes; there's a lot on the Internet about allegory and symbolism in this movie - one of the blogs I've read suggests, and it is supported by comments from Scott himself , that Jesus was an Engineer, and the reason the Engineers have created the Aliens was because they were coming back to Earth to display their anger over his crucifixion in true Old Testament style. And the "virgin birth" Elizabeth goes through - she was barren, remember - is another very Biblical element.
So in that vein, sure, the film could - COULD - be interesting, but there was too much crucial components left out for my preference. I'm of the mind that one has to care about characters to provide tension and suspense, and quite frankly, none of them were written with any sort of depth whatsoever, and so when they die, it really doesn't register to any great degree
He looked like Biff from Back to the Future 2.
I really like the movie, but there were many WTF moments that a lot of viewers mistakenly refer to as plot holes.
Alien was the first R rated movie I witnessed at the theatre. It will always hold a place in my heart.
_________________________
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain
WRT Guy Pearce, when he showed up the first time, all I could think of was how absolutely unrealistic the makeup looked and that they MUST have cast him so that his character could de-age somehow.
As far as the "origins of man" stuff goes; there's a lot on the Internet about allegory and symbolism in this movie - one of the blogs I've read suggests, and it is supported by comments from Scott himself , that Jesus was an Engineer, and the reason the Engineers have created the Aliens was because they were coming back to Earth to display their anger over his crucifixion in true Old Testament style. And the "virgin birth" Elizabeth goes through - she was barren, remember - is another very Biblical element.
So in that vein, sure, the film could - COULD - be interesting, but there was too much crucial components left out for my preference. I'm of the mind that one has to care about characters to provide tension and suspense, and quite frankly, none of them were written with any sort of depth whatsoever, and so when they die, it really doesn't register to any great degree
+ 1.
If you are willing to overlook the obvious holes in the plot, and the rather poor characterization, well, then its really deep indeed and this is from someone who really wanted to love it.
I think one thing that I liked about this movie, in a strange, nostalgic sort of way, is that it did actually feel like a 1950's sci fi movie to me. The choppy scenes, the plot holes (although I am still suspending that the plot holes may actually be purposeful - not enough info at this point), the tension...it really did feel old school sci-fi to me.
#5771379 - 06/14/1209:52 PMRe: Official "Prometheus" Thread
[Re: JiveTurkeyMoFo]
Ghost TownGhost Town A million points of li... er... comics
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 10/23/03
Posts: 4144
Originally Posted By: JiveTurkeyMoFo
If you are willing to overlook the obvious holes in the plot, and the rather poor characterization, well, then its really deep indeed and this is from someone who really wanted to love it.
It's too bad that the film was populated with such dumb characters. And mostly unlikable characters too. Fassbender/David was good. Stringer Bell, oops, I mean Janek, was alright if you could get past his ever changing accents. But other than that, it was hard to care about anybody in the film.
I think the basic plot was fine. But it's a pity they couldn't bring it to life with some good characters and dialog.
#5771488 - 06/14/1210:41 PMRe: Official "Prometheus" Thread
[Re: Sal]
DoohickamabobDoohickamabob
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 03/18/09
Posts: 4987
Originally Posted By: Sal
WRT Guy Pearce, when he showed up the first time, all I could think of was how absolutely unrealistic the makeup looked and that they MUST have cast him so that his character could de-age somehow.
To me it looked like they were trying to replicate the look of the man at the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey."
and this is from someone who really wanted to love it.
