If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Collider)   Expected news: Ridley Scott announces plans for Prometheus 2. GOOD NEWS: Damn Lindelof will most likely not be a part of it   (collider.com) divider line 159
    More: Cool, Damon Lindelof, Ridley Scott, plot holes, Akiva Goldsman, The Terminator, World War Z, Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace  
•       •       •

4145 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Aug 2012 at 10:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-02 11:58:45 AM
My point was that scientists are still people, and even highly educated people can do really stupid shiat. So the whole, "OMG a scientist would never do anything that stupid" argument is not based in reality.
 
2012-08-02 12:01:46 PM

TyrantII: The smug, fart sniffing, nerd superiority is strong among them.


I suppose when Fark was fawning over District 9, you were all about how we're a bunch of fanboi sheeple?

If there's a reason why I wouldn't want to befriend anyone in a Fark film thread, it's because of the retarded circular reasoning. I mean, seriously, any movie you have to turn your brain off to enjoy probably isn't very good. But no, any flaw pointed out is met with accusations of joyless, smug elitism. It makes the discussions every bit as pointless as the Politics tab.

The sad thing is that I enjoy talking about a well-made movie, and there are plenty. I could talk about a good movie for hours. But lately it's hard to find people who share the same sort of joy, because the way I enjoy film is socially unacceptable, or something.
 
2012-08-02 12:15:50 PM

hubiestubert: Lost relied on it. Heroes relied on it. BSG relied on it. It was a brand of lazy writing that set out not to tell a coherent story, but to confuse and "reveal" elements from nothing.


Seriously, those shows were shiat. These writers need to stop. Why can't they just write another CSI series or maybe re-boot The Love Boat?
 
2012-08-02 12:16:19 PM

dragonchild: If there's a reason why I wouldn't want to befriend anyone in a Fark film thread, it's because of the retarded circular reasoning. I mean, seriously, any movie you have to turn your brain off to enjoy probably isn't very good. But no, any flaw pointed out is met with accusations of joyless, smug elitism. It makes the discussions every bit as pointless as the Politics tab.

The sad thing is that I enjoy talking about a well-made movie, and there are plenty. I could talk about a good movie for hours. But lately it's hard to find people who share the same sort of joy, because the way I enjoy film is socially unacceptable, or something.


I don't entirely understand your point or if you were being sarcastic. It was a whole lot of flaws that made it joyless for me.

Another thing that should be thrown in are the expectations going into said film, which I don't think I've seen many arguments saying that they were met. The trailers were misdirection and gave away too much. Some farkers (myself included) compare movies to expectations, advertising, and everything up to and including the movie when judging. Does, or should everyone do this? I don't know, but I do it. It's because I get excited and am enthusiastic.

Love talking good movies and bad movies too. I just think people don't like to hear the excuses for why this movie should be considered ok, or accusations against them saying its because they aren't being a good audience.

Politics tab is disgusting though.
 
2012-08-02 12:17:05 PM

Teufelaffe: So the school's mascot is a good way to judge the quality of their scientists?


If your sarcasm meter is broken to the point where you can't even recognize a mascot-ribbing, I suppose. After all, if you think I was being literal then I'm not too hopeful I can discuss anything more complicated.

TyrantII: We do after all find out the "scientific mission" was a sham, and we early on find out everyone but Shaw, Holloway, and Vickers had signed up for a 4 year mission, with no briefing or understanding of the mission, payable upon return. What kind of day laboratory scientist are you going to get with that craigslist ad? Surely not PHD's at the top of their fields.


You can't really fix derp with more derp, though. That's a nice explanation but trying to make a comedy of errors into something scary isn't an effective way of telling a story. Hell, the way they acted, the only reason why they made it to the planet in the first place is because all the idiots were put to sleep. I didn't even need them to be "top men", just grown-ups. Aliens and Predator are examples of how capability in the face of adversity adds to tension. When you're thinking "wow I wouldn't be that stupid" it's not nearly as scary as "wow these guys are good and they're STILL getting their asses kicked". Aliens gives me sweaty palms when I watch it.
 
2012-08-02 12:22:31 PM

amindtat: hubiestubert: Lost relied on it. Heroes relied on it. BSG relied on it. It was a brand of lazy writing that set out not to tell a coherent story, but to confuse and "reveal" elements from nothing.

Seriously, those shows were shiat. These writers need to stop. Why can't they just write another CSI series or maybe re-boot The Love Boat?


Sorry. I lost interest in Lost fairly early on, because of the writing. Same with Heroes. Same with BSG. Crappy writing kills a show for me.
 
2012-08-02 12:22:40 PM

dragonchild: But no, any flaw pointed out is met with accusations of joyless, smug elitism. It makes the discussions every bit as pointless as the Politics tab.


You can point out flaws. Prometheus has plenty of them, and I liked the film.
It's the petulant child attitude that I have a problem with, the point of view that a movie (or book or record or whatever) is the worst thing that ever existed and if you disagree STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!
 
2012-08-02 12:24:04 PM

dragonchild: Teufelaffe: So the school's mascot is a good way to judge the quality of their scientists?

If your sarcasm meter is broken to the point where you can't even recognize a mascot-ribbing, I suppose. After all, if you think I was being literal then I'm not too hopeful I can discuss anything more complicated.


Yeah, sorry...I'm working at the moment, so I'm sometimes too distracted to catch sarcasm. Mea culpa.
 
2012-08-02 12:25:49 PM

Staffa Kar Therma: Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.


I believe what you are trying to say is:

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me - you can't get fooled again

Its an old saying from Tennessee, or Texas. Common mistake.
 
2012-08-02 12:45:10 PM
dragonchild: TyrantII: The smug, fart sniffing, nerd superiority is strong among them.

I suppose when Fark was fawning over District 9, you were all about how we're a bunch of fanboi sheeple?

If there's a reason why I wouldn't want to befriend anyone in a Fark film thread, it's because of the retarded circular reasoning. I mean, seriously, any movie you have to turn your brain off to enjoy probably isn't very good. But no, any flaw pointed out is met with accusations of joyless, smug elitism. It makes the discussions every bit as pointless as the Politics tab.

The sad thing is that I enjoy talking about a well-made movie, and there are plenty. I could talk about a good movie for hours. But lately it's hard to find people who share the same sort of joy, because the way I enjoy film is socially unacceptable, or something.


I don't know. I have problems with the film too, but you read down the list and it's like someone pissed on the Baby Jesus (baby Darwin? God is a deus ex afterall). But there's also some really good stuff there, and it is entertaining. The macguffins for the supporting roles were weak, but that "makes a movie worst movie of all time now"? What really get annoying is the no nothingness of people repeating internet group-think attacks. They pat themselves on the back for repeating ad infirm the same argument said a million times, because they are smart, and it was dumb, and they have the answer, cause they Google something and stole it instead of coming up with their own criticisms.

Same with TDKR. Flawed, but I can still enjoy it and talk about it. I liked Moon, Primer, and Tree of life; but likewise I can see Tron: Legacy for the popcorn summer chase flick it was intended to be, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I don't know why, I should not be, but I'm also excited for Silent Hill: Revelation.

Not everything needs to be 2001, to have value. Going by this thread hard science fiction is the only thing worthy of film, but going by Scott's two films, hard science fiction was never his genre. The secondary cast in Prometheus is about as needed as it was in ALIEN.

Hell, I'm not even sure if I can think of 10 hard science fiction movies, let along good ones.
 
2012-08-02 12:48:17 PM

thecpt: I don't entirely understand your point or if you were being sarcastic.


Neither; I think i was venting. This thread is hardly the worst I've been in, but Fark never fails to push the notion that the way I try to enjoy films (brain on) is invalid or something.

Rev. Skarekroe: It's the petulant child attitude that I have a problem with, the point of view that a movie (or book or record or whatever) is the worst thing that ever existed and if you disagree STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!


I'm perfectly OK with anyone liking the film. I enjoyed it, FWIW. But the idea that I'm not allowed to say a movie sucks (let alone how) when it does is grating, because for me it ties back to the anti-intellectual movement where any semblance of higher thought above "durr" is "smug" or "elitist". I don't want to hide the fact that I can actually think while watching a movie; since when was this a motherfarking taboo?? It reminds me of my last job where a manager called me into a special meeting because I was intimidating my co-workers with my vocabulary. They honestly thought this was a problem. Vocabulary was my worst subject in school.

Prometheus, 300, Twilight. . . these are the entertainment equivalent of Twinkies. If you enjoy the flavor, you're free to enjoy the product. That's fine. The thing is that almost no one makes the serious case that Twinkies are good for you, or that mentioning they have sugar in them makes you a bad consumer.
 
2012-08-02 12:52:17 PM
thecpt:

Another thing that should be thrown in are the expectations going into said film, which I don't think I've seen many arguments saying that they were met. The trailers were misdirection and gave away too much. Some farkers (myself included) compare movies to expectations, advertising, and everything up to and including the movie when judging. Does, or should everyone do this? I don't know, but I do it. It's because I get excited and am enthusiastic.

Love talking good movies and bad movies too. I just think people don't like to hear the excuses for why this movie should be considered ok, or accusations against them saying its because they aren't being a good audience.


If you haven't learned to go into blackout mode yet, you're just a sucker for the marketing firms attached to these movies. After the first trailer I knew I needed to do so, otherwise there would be nothing surprising or interesting to take in.

Someone a few back took all the media released of the new Spiderman through clips and trailer and stitched together something like 40 minuets of the entire movie. That's almost 1/3 the film already released. And most of that was the important moments or action spectacle you tend to go to theaters for. Whats left is the mundane and stuff that binds everything else together...

TDKR was a bit ruined for me because of the #3/4 trailer they tacked on in front of Prometheus. Lots of stuff in there that I hadn't seen from a similar media blackout.

Trailers and net clips are ruining the need to even see the movies. I wish directors would start taking more control over trailers cause of it.
 
2012-08-02 01:04:49 PM

TyrantII: I have problems with the film too, but you read down the list and it's like someone pissed on the Baby Jesus


I don't see it that way, but FWIW I can only speak for myself. At the risk of getting trolled, though, I get riled up at the "you're a bad audience" type arguments because even if they aren't directed at me, it's essentially an attack on how I roll. It doesn't even attack the arguments; snark like "EVERYTHING SUCKS" is an attempt to set the expectation that discussion itself is socially unacceptable. You're talking about how the haters are sheep; I can't think of a group that pushes harder for conformity than the type that tries to shut down all discourse. What are we supposed to do, just smile at each other and nod?

I will say, though, that I didn't agree with most of the arguments attacking Prometheus outside this thread. I saw the preview but to me, giving away too much was a crappy preview. A lot of the blogs I've read attacking the movie are more about hearing the sound of their own smug voice as they read what they've typed to themselves than any coherent argument. I just have a hard time enjoying what's supposed to be a serious movie that needs people to act stupid to get in trouble. At least slasher flicks are supposed to be campy.

TyrantII: Not everything needs to be 2001, to have value.


OK, but I (at least) never said so. Thing is, it's not like Aliens (for example) is an culturally enriching movie. It's not a movie that's supposed to "have value" in the sense that it makes you think. It's just a DAMN GOOD MOVIE, a gold standard for sci-fi action, and once you taste it you can't help but compare everything else to it. But it's just a "bug hunt" flick and even said so in its own dialogue. The main difference is that, with the exception of a few troublemakers (who were also well-scripted mind you), the cohesion and mindset among that group allowed the threat to be that much more serious and still allow a few to survive. The problem with Prometheus is that the cast was so stupid I can't help but feel a more responsible group would've been just fine. And when I think that, all tension goes out the window. I enjoyed the show by just sitting back and soaking in the visuals, but that was more an adjustment on my part than a case that the movie rawked.
 
2012-08-02 01:09:23 PM

TyrantII: Trailers and net clips are ruining the need to even see the movies. I wish directors would start taking more control over trailers cause of it.


Agreed. You can see where it should be a constant argument for control, the creation of trailers that is, but I never hear of it being one. My stupid film fanboy wish is that directors realize it is part of the final product, and they do it themselves or at least have them submitted for their approval. Execs really want those big opening weekends though. Once I found out that people make their living, and are paid way too well, by being hired by a studio to make trailers I should have found out how to get in on the act.
 
2012-08-02 01:49:40 PM

natmar_76: steamingpile: Compared to the shiat they have released it was great, but I will agree it was a film that had more questions than answers by the end of it, I like those films that never wraps everything up in a neat little bow.

People expect this today in a michael bay world where his films draw audiences even though all his film ...

Biggest problem with Prometheus is the first 45 minutes. After all the terrible actors/characters die, and we get past all the painful Alien/Aliens ripoff scenes, and we don't have to listen to anymore pseudo-scientificphilosophic babble, it's pretty good, just like the first two movies. Except for the parts that aren't so good, like the terrible captain scenes.


Thats a criticism I can agree with, but to hold it up to some standard is stupid, if you really get down to it this is the same script as the first alien film and people have seemed to tire of great film making like that and only want michael bay type 'splosions!
 
2012-08-02 01:51:45 PM

TyrantII: TDKR was a bit ruined for me because of the #3/4 trailer they tacked on in front of Prometheus. Lots of stuff in there that I hadn't seen from a similar media blackout.

Trailers and net clips are ruining the need to even see the movies. I wish directors would start taking more control over trailers cause of it.


I'm sorry, but science says you're wrong. You may think TDKR was "a bit ruined" for you, but you'd be wrong. You enjoyed it just as much, if not more, than you would have going in without having seen that trailer. You can't argue with science, so I don't want to hear anything from you about how you're different. SCIENCE motherfarker. SCIENCE.
 
2012-08-02 02:00:13 PM
Oddly enough, the only time old man make-up was convincing to me was Dewey Cox.
 
2012-08-02 02:02:21 PM

hubiestubert: amindtat: hubiestubert: Lost relied on it. Heroes relied on it. BSG relied on it. It was a brand of lazy writing that set out not to tell a coherent story, but to confuse and "reveal" elements from nothing.

Seriously, those shows were shiat. These writers need to stop. Why can't they just write another CSI series or maybe re-boot The Love Boat?

Sorry. I lost interest in Lost fairly early on, because of the writing. Same with Heroes. Same with BSG. Crappy writing kills a show for me.


Well at least you're not opposed to a Love Boat re-boot.
 
2012-08-02 02:16:31 PM

Ebenator: Oddly enough, the only time old man make-up was convincing to me was Dewey Cox.


K-19 had the best old age makeup I've seen.
 
2012-08-02 02:26:55 PM
I created this alt just for this thread: TyrantII: TDKR was a bit ruined for me because of the #3/4 trailer they tacked on in front of Prometheus. Lots of stuff in there that I hadn't seen from a similar media blackout.

Trailers and net clips are ruining the need to even see the movies. I wish directors would start taking more control over trailers cause of it.

I'm sorry, but science says you're wrong. You may think TDKR was "a bit ruined" for you, but you'd be wrong. You enjoyed it just as much, if not more, than you would have going in without having seen that trailer. You can't argue with science, so I don't want to hear anything from you about how you're different. SCIENCE motherfarker. SCIENCE.


i09 is the bastion of Fark science now?

This thread is starting to make sense!


/If I'm paying $12+ extras for a movie, I don't want to know half+ of it going in beforehand. Otherwise I'll wait for it on the cheap at home in the home theater room I have.
 
2012-08-02 02:28:09 PM
Ridley tricked me out of my money with Prometheus. That won't happen with a sequel, nor a sequel to Blade Runner.
 
2012-08-02 02:43:05 PM

TyrantII: i09 is the bastion of Fark science now?

This thread is starting to make sense!


Oh, forgive me for not linking directly to the release from UCSD or to the full text of the study.

Face it, you know less about what you enjoy than a couple of scientists in California do.

SCIENCE
It knows you better than you know yourself.
 
2012-08-02 03:13:14 PM
I created this alt just for this thread: TyrantII: i09 is the bastion of Fark science now?

This thread is starting to make sense!

Oh, forgive me for not linking directly to the release from UCSD or to the full text of the study.

Face it, you know less about what you enjoy than a couple of scientists in California do.

SCIENCE
It knows you better than you know yourself.


hmmmm

Why? The answers go beyond the scope of the study, but one possibility is perhaps the simplest one: that plot is overrated.

"Plots are just excuses for great writing. What the plot is is (almost) irrelevant. The pleasure is in the writing," said Christenfeld . . . It's also possible that it's "easier" to read a spoiled story. Other psychological studies have shown that people have an aesthetic preference for objects that are perceptually easy to process.



So Prometheus is the a masterpiece?
 
2012-08-02 03:48:40 PM

TyrantII: Rev. Skarekroe: [farm7.staticflickr.com image 600x347]

Yup, this thread only proves there's a lot of people out there that would drive me to skewer myself on hot iron rods rather then befriend them.

The smug, fart sniffing, nerd superiority is strong among them.

Check back next week to find out why Trek 2009 isn't really Star Trek, or Dune is the BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.


Weird how I've been agreeing with most of your posts in this thread.

Sometimes I think people here hate on something just to "seem cool".

That said I was disappointed by Prometheus but I didn't think it was a bad movie. It certainly wasn't entirely Lindelof's fault on what ended up on screen. Ridley Scott is just as culpable for any flaws in the finished film, perhaps even more so because what was on screen was his vision.

/and I *really* enjoyed the shots of Charlize Theron's ass.
 
2012-08-02 04:32:10 PM
thought the biggest problem with the film was the plot.
why would extremely advanced engineer aliens, who happen to have the same DNA as humans (and who created the human race) leave celestial maps with humans (way back at the beginning of human civilization mind you) showing them where the world that contained biological weapons that were going to be used to destroy the human race was located.
why would the engineers want to destroy the nascent human race anyway?
why didn't more engineers come to clean up the mess when things went bad on the bioweapons world.
how could the engineers have failed at destroying the human race.
why was the space jockey in stasis.

I dislike the ancient alien creator bullshiat every time it is presented.
always seems like lazy writing.
 
2012-08-02 04:54:48 PM
Prometheus was disappointing. It wasn't a bad movie by a longshot, but it wasn't nearly as good as the rest of the Alien movies (ok well it was better than Alien 3 and slightly better than Resurrection, but still). I thought, gee, with this much time in between them and what they can do with special effects now, Prometheus is going to kick ass! As others have said, the plot was a little silly. I was never really "shocked" at any point in time in the movie either. The only thing that was surprising was the fact that the Engineers made us in their image (sort of). The plot in Alien, and Aliens was WAY better. Just stick to the basics, you don't have to do something way out there and try to be uber intellectual, people by and large don't care! We just want a good entertaining movie.

Prometheus was enough to get me to not want to pee and miss anything, but not something I am really waiting for to watch again on OnDemand/Netflix/Redbox/Cable. It will be a treat like 3 years from now when there is nothing on to watch, but still. It makes me wonder how they could do that to something that has so much potential? I am really? You look at the transition from Alien -> Aliens. You cannot repeat Alien, because people know what the xenomorphs are now, that whole suspense mechanic is gone. Aliens, in my opinion, worked exceptionally well. Arguably, that is my favorite movie of the series. Then with Alien 3, they tried this whole crappy dramatic take on Alien, and with Resurrection, I guess they wanted to show off CG and stuff (I'm looking at you stupid Aliens swimming and jumping out of the water).

In Prometheus, there were no clear antagonists or protagonists. They tried to force both on you. I didn't really have anyone or thing to look forward to the entire movie.
 
2012-08-02 05:18:27 PM
I just dropped by to say Prometheus sucks. Thanks. Now my day is complete.

/it's just a movie
 
2012-08-02 05:22:49 PM

relcec: why would extremely advanced engineer aliens, who happen to have the same DNA as humans (and who created the human race) leave celestial maps with humans (way back at the beginning of human civilization mind you) showing them where the world that contained biological weapons that were going to be used to destroy the human race was located.


I was OK with this. The idiots jumped to this conclusion by assessing the danger of a single facility on an entire planet, which makes about as much sense as aliens landing on Fort Lewis and concluding all of Earth was built for war. And about the time they jumped to this conclusion they had already been firmly established as idiots. My own interpretation was that the planet wasn't their homeworld, but not a bioweapon testing ground, either. Rather, it was an isolated terraforming planet used for biological research both good AND bad. It's plausible that both humans and the instruments to destroy them came from the same planet; from an R&D perspective it's efficient to keep all relevant knowledge and equipment in the same place.

If I had an issue with the engineers at all, it's that they seemed to have no motivation other than to be mean to the Crystal Lake party. You wake them up and they can't "kill all humans" fast enough even though the Human Annihilation Project was, like, thousands of years behind schedule. This is where I most hoped for a cerebral movie, only to be disappointed by a glorified monster mash.

relcec: why would the engineers want to destroy the nascent human race anyway?


That was mentioned more than once as an open question, unresolved at the end of the movie.

relcec: why didn't more engineers come to clean up the mess when things went bad on the bioweapons world.


Because there was no threat to the homeworld. It's an isolated planet. Sucks to be there, but why bother sending more engineers to die -- or worse, come back and spread plague -- when the planet itself is one giant quarantine?

relcec: how could the engineers have failed at destroying the human race.


Because their experiment lost control? Kind of contrived, but we don't know the details and I'm OK with leaving it a mystery. Records from a FUBAR situation thousands of years ago will be a bit spotty.

relcec: why was the space jockey in stasis.


Conceptually it's rather easy to run a spaceship on autopilot, and it's cheaper than feeding the guy if he's not needed. You need a pilot for an airplane because planes are always being boxed around by the air. In space, you really only need a pilot to take off and land. The New Horizons probe en route to Pluto goes into hibernation for months at a time, during which it's about as guided as a rifle bullet.
 
2012-08-02 05:33:53 PM
Simmer down Y'all, now the ship was pretty like the lady folks in the film. The complete lack of common sense and logic made it hard to watch.Perhaps a director's cut will make more sense,
 
2012-08-02 06:50:21 PM

steamingpile: Thats a criticism I can agree with, but to hold it up to some standard is stupid, if you really get down to it this is the same script as the first alien film and people have seemed to tire of great film making like that and only want michael bay type 'splosions!


My standard is good acting and good dialogue, the first 45 minutes of which Prometheus did not have. It doesn't matter if it has the same plot elements as Alien. It did not execute them well. The first 45 minutes is ham handed. There was no team chemistry, ala Alien. There was no subdued, realistic dialogue. An example was the mission briefing, where the husband goes, "Wow... (long pause)... uh... (long pause)... that was something... (long pause)... how do I follow that? (long pause)" Painful stuff. Then you have the punk Scotsman violently screaming at the wife scientist with the thinnest of excuses, all to (poorly) build up dramatic tension.

I was grateful when most of the characters died. Once the cast was thinned down to the core elements, it was quite a good movie (except the captain).

The first 45 minutes felt more like Avatar than Alien, tbqh.
 
2012-08-02 08:28:35 PM

Teufelaffe: My point was that scientists are still people, and even highly educated people can do really stupid shiat. So the whole, "OMG a scientist would never do anything that stupid" argument is not based in reality.


It's not just "a scientist wouldn't do that," it's a matter of "a biologist isn't going to ignore every red flag nature throws up that says 'get the hell away from me.'" I'm sure even Steve Irwin might hesitate for a minute before trying to poke a mysterious alien dick-cobra in the eye...
 
2012-08-02 08:34:06 PM
Prometheus 2: Xenomorphic Boogaloo

Wonder where they'll fit this one into the Alien timeline.
 
2012-08-02 08:38:13 PM

Mentalpatient87: Teufelaffe: My point was that scientists are still people, and even highly educated people can do really stupid shiat. So the whole, "OMG a scientist would never do anything that stupid" argument is not based in reality.

It's not just "a scientist wouldn't do that," it's a matter of "a biologist isn't going to ignore every red flag nature throws up that says 'get the hell away from me.'" I'm sure even Steve Irwin might hesitate for a minute before trying to poke a mysterious alien dick-cobra in the eye...


In one of the deleted scenes, you'll find out the scientist was a member of the Jackass crew.
 
2012-08-02 08:58:28 PM

dragonchild: If I had an issue with the engineers at all, it's that they seemed to have no motivation other than to be mean to the Crystal Lake party. You wake them up and they can't "kill all humans" fast enough even though the Human Annihilation Project was, like, thousands of years behind schedule. This is where I most hoped for a cerebral movie, only to be disappointed by a glorified monster mash.


I don't think it was clear that they did want to kill all the humans (prior to them waking the engineer).
 
2012-08-02 09:07:37 PM
The thing that bugged me the most were too many "too dumb to live" moments. In Alien, the deaths came from being genuinely overwhelmed, under prepared, and sabotaged by that goddamn robot. Yeah, it's probably not smart to go poking your face near some strange alien egg thing in a derelict alien spacecraft, but compared to the morons in Prometheus, Kane, Dallas and Lambert were Nobel Laureates. In Aliens, the marines were overconfident and also under prepared. None of them did anything incredibly stupid in order to make the plot move forward (other than using live ammo under a fusion reactor's primary heat exchanger). The dorks in Prometheus were Too Dumb to Live, and that's b/c the script was too weak. Hopefully cutting out Damn Lindelof improves things. The only Lindelof flourishes I actually liked was the philosophical heart of the mission; what if we could go find God, humanity's creator on an alien planet? What if He wasn't what you expected Him to be? Add in the android's point of view, there's a lot of cool stuff to work w/. You just need some characters worth a damn to make the audience care about it all.
 
2012-08-03 03:07:59 AM

dragonchild: relcec: why would extremely advanced engineer aliens, who happen to have the same DNA as humans (and who created the human race) leave celestial maps with humans (way back at the beginning of human civilization mind you) showing them where the world that contained biological weapons that were going to be used to destroy the human race was located.

I was OK with this. The idiots jumped to this conclusion by assessing the danger of a single facility on an entire planet, which makes about as much sense as aliens landing on Fort Lewis and concluding all of Earth was built for war. And about the time they jumped to this conclusion they had already been firmly established as idiots. My own interpretation was that the planet wasn't their homeworld, but not a bioweapon testing ground, either. Rather, it was an isolated terraforming planet used for biological research both good AND bad. It's plausible that both humans and the instruments to destroy them came from the same planet; from an R&D perspective it's efficient to keep all relevant knowledge and equipment in the same place.

If I had an issue with the engineers at all, it's that they seemed to have no motivation other than to be mean to the Crystal Lake party. You wake them up and they can't "kill all humans" fast enough even though the Human Annihilation Project was, like, thousands of years behind schedule. This is where I most hoped for a cerebral movie, only to be disappointed by a glorified monster mash.

relcec: why would the engineers want to destroy the nascent human race anyway?

That was mentioned more than once as an open question, unresolved at the end of the movie.

relcec: why didn't more engineers come to clean up the mess when things went bad on the bioweapons world.

Because there was no threat to the homeworld. It's an isolated planet. Sucks to be there, but why bother sending more engineers to die -- or worse, come back and spread plague -- when the planet itself is one giant quarantine?

relcec: how could the engineers have failed at destroying the human race.

Because their experiment lost control? Kind of contrived, but we don't know the details and I'm OK with leaving it a mystery. Records from a FUBAR situation thousands of years ago will be a bit spotty.

relcec: why was the space jockey in stasis.

Conceptually it's rather easy to run a spaceship on autopilot, and it's cheaper than feeding the guy if he's not needed. You need a pilot for an airplane because planes are always being boxed around by the air. In space, you really only need a pilot to take off and land. The New Horizons probe en route to Pluto goes into hibernation for months at a time, during which it's about as guided as a rifle bullet.


I'm not interested in knowing you think plot holes you can drive a truck through and another f*cking movie with ancient alien astronaut creators is all good.
 
2012-08-03 03:18:46 AM
unresolved at movie end.
open question.
no shiat Sherlock.
you have a problem with the engineers waking up and hating humans like jason from friday the 13th, but no problem with the plot that has them wanting to wipe out the human race and leaving a f*cking star map to alert humans to where the bioweapon world was back when we were in the stone age.
you think since autopilot exists it means it makes sense for a engineer space jockey to be just chilling in statis on a planet that is infected with giant flesh eating squid monsters so he can conveniently wake up and knock mr weylands head off.
you go with your own personal interpretation about the nature of the bioweapons world that is completely different from what scott told you with the characters voices what it was actually for.
seriously, you think you are helping?
why the fark was there a god damn massive temple structure built out of farking mud and sticks that had space ships under it?
 
2012-08-03 04:54:06 AM

relcec: unresolved at movie end.
open question.
no shiat Sherlock.
you have a problem with the engineers waking up and hating humans like jason from friday the 13th, but no problem with the plot that has them wanting to wipe out the human race and leaving a f*cking star map to alert humans to where the bioweapon world was back when we were in the stone age.
you think since autopilot exists it means it makes sense for a engineer space jockey to be just chilling in statis on a planet that is infected with giant flesh eating squid monsters so he can conveniently wake up and knock mr weylands head off.
you go with your own personal interpretation about the nature of the bioweapons world that is completely different from what scott told you with the characters voices what it was actually for.
seriously, you think you are helping?
why the fark was there a god damn massive temple structure built out of farking mud and sticks that had space ships under it?


who took you to an R movie?
 
2012-08-03 08:40:54 AM
natmar_76 [TotalFark] Smartest Funniest
2012-08-01 11:17:22 PM

Dear Ridley,

Prometheus was... not horrible, but also not very good (aside from the Rapace scenes). Maybe, you know, try not sucking this time, you know with the sh*tty big name Hollywood stars shoehorned in to appease the PR people, and the horrible "hip" dialogue, and a preponderance of fan service. Please also don't ruin the Blade Runner prequel. It's my favorite movie of all time.

He's doing a b.r. prequel? Gawd, first Aliens now he's trashing B.R.


/// I haz a sad.
 
2012-08-03 09:45:16 AM
I wonder how many people here catch the irony that some of you are posting on Fark, a site that exists only because humans do really stupid stuff on a regular basis, complaining that characters in a movie are doing stupid things. If you want realism in your movies, then the characters will act in irrational ways, do stupid things, and generally behave like human animals do. When you throw in the fact that they're in terrifying situations, the level of stupidity and irrationality will increase considerably, just like it does in real life. Expecting that these people would consistently act in calm, rational, and intelligent ways at all times shows that some of you have some really weird ideas of what's realistic.
 
2012-08-03 09:56:25 AM

I created this alt just for this thread: I wonder how many people here catch the irony that some of you are posting on Fark, a site that exists only because humans do really stupid stuff on a regular basis, complaining that characters in a movie are doing stupid things. If you want realism in your movies, then the characters will act in irrational ways, do stupid things, and generally behave like human animals do. When you throw in the fact that they're in terrifying situations, the level of stupidity and irrationality will increase considerably, just like it does in real life. Expecting that these people would consistently act in calm, rational, and intelligent ways at all times shows that some of you have some really weird ideas of what's realistic.


Not remotely ironic. The complaint is valid

The idea that a person spends trillions of $$$ on his last shot at extending his life but skimps out and hires the cheapest, dumbest, most incompetent scientists on earth is beyond stupid. It was just lazy screenwriting to allow things to go wrong on the mission.

A competent screenwriter is able to have the plot move along without cheap devices like this. It is the equivalent of having the characters walk backwards into dark rooms in all the bad horror movies.
 
2012-08-03 10:36:29 AM

Farking Canuck: I created this alt just for this thread: I wonder how many people here catch the irony that some of you are posting on Fark, a site that exists only because humans do really stupid stuff on a regular basis, complaining that characters in a movie are doing stupid things. If you want realism in your movies, then the characters will act in irrational ways, do stupid things, and generally behave like human animals do. When you throw in the fact that they're in terrifying situations, the level of stupidity and irrationality will increase considerably, just like it does in real life. Expecting that these people would consistently act in calm, rational, and intelligent ways at all times shows that some of you have some really weird ideas of what's realistic.

Not remotely ironic. The complaint is valid

The idea that a person spends trillions of $$$ on his last shot at extending his life but skimps out and hires the cheapest, dumbest, most incompetent scientists on earth is beyond stupid. It was just lazy screenwriting to allow things to go wrong on the mission.

A competent screenwriter is able to have the plot move along without cheap devices like this. It is the equivalent of having the characters walk backwards into dark rooms in all the bad horror movies.


The only people on that ship that Weyland gives a rat's ass about are his daughter and David. As long as he has those two and a pilot that won't fly them into a star, every other crewmember on the ship could be an incontinent howler monkey for all he cares. The competence of the scientists on that ship mean nothing to him. All he cares about is extending his life with the aid of the Engineers or their tech. That's it, and whether or not their resident geologist or biologist or whatever can count to potato is irrelevant to that goal. It wasn't lazy writing, it was a way of showing just how utterly self-centered Weyland was.

"But," you may ask, "why would he have a ship full of these lesser beings if he didn't need them?" Maybe it's company policy. Maybe there are laws requiring a certain minimum crew level before a ship is allowed to leave Earth. Maybe he wanted to have a few guinea pigs along to test things on before using them on himself. It's not something they answer in the film because it really doesn't matter to the story.
 
2012-08-03 10:49:36 AM

DoctorRock: where are those 2 dudes that come into every prometheus thread and say we are all retards for not "getting" it?


in the Chick-Fil-A thread?
 
2012-08-03 11:07:09 AM

I created this alt just for this thread:
"But," you may ask, "why would he have a ship full of these lesser beings if he didn't need them?" Maybe it's company policy. Maybe there are laws requiring a certain minimum crew level before a ship is allowed to leave Earth. Maybe he wanted to have a few guinea pigs along to test things on before using them on himself. It's not something they answer in the film because it really doesn't matter to the story.


Yeah ... that must have been what the writer was thinking. That Weyland intentionally took incredibly stupid people into space with him. It's not like the whole mission is about extending his life and bringing stupid people with you into extraordinarily dangerous places, like outer space and alien planets, is a really good way to get yourself killed (as the movie demonstrates).

Or maybe it is just that, as demonstrated in so many other places in the movie, the writer(s) sucked and always went for the easy way out. Like the whole "No weapons! This is a scientific mission." Or how about having your geologist who controls the mapping drones getting lost ... if only he had a map.

The fact that you insist on defending this weak writing is sad.
 
2012-08-03 11:26:24 AM

Farking Canuck: I created this alt just for this thread:
"But," you may ask, "why would he have a ship full of these lesser beings if he didn't need them?" Maybe it's company policy. Maybe there are laws requiring a certain minimum crew level before a ship is allowed to leave Earth. Maybe he wanted to have a few guinea pigs along to test things on before using them on himself. It's not something they answer in the film because it really doesn't matter to the story.

Yeah ... that must have been what the writer was thinking. That Weyland intentionally took incredibly stupid people into space with him. It's not like the whole mission is about extending his life and bringing stupid people with you into extraordinarily dangerous places, like outer space and alien planets, is a really good way to get yourself killed (as the movie demonstrates).

Or maybe it is just that, as demonstrated in so many other places in the movie, the writer(s) sucked and always went for the easy way out. Like the whole "No weapons! This is a scientific mission." Or how about having your geologist who controls the mapping drones getting lost ... if only he had a map.

The fact that you insist on defending this weak writing is sad.


Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. I never said that Weyland deliberately brought stupid people with him. I said that he didn't care if they were stupid or not. There's a difference there. And, if you were paying attention during the movie, you would have noticed that the actions of the stupid people had absolutely zero impact on Weyland's mission and his subsequent death. So, the fact that he had a stupid crew with him did not affect him or what he was doing. *GASP* Why, it's almost as if Weyland's plan had nothing to do with the rest of the crew. Imagine that.

Yes, there are plot holes and examples of bad/lazy writing in Prometheus. Unfortunately for you, you're picking things that aren't and calling them that because you couldn't figure out what they were trying to say, even though they were presented to the audience with all the subtlety of getting smacked in the face with a cinder block.

"HURRR...I missed the painfully obvious message of hubris being the downfall of humanity Weyland , but I'm gonna call that 'lazy writing' so I feel better about myself!"
 
2012-08-03 11:32:53 AM

I created this alt just for this thread: "HURRR...I missed the painfully obvious message of hubris being the downfall of humanity Weyland , but I'm gonna call that 'lazy writing' so I feel better about myself!"


I didn't miss the philosophical portion of the film. That and the visuals were the only redeeming features of the film. The rest was cheap plot mechanisms and science-less fiction.

I still feel your overly intricate excuses for the lame writing are sad.

Hurr! Durr!!! [am I doing it right??]
 
2012-08-03 11:37:03 AM

Farking Canuck: I created this alt just for this thread: "HURRR...I missed the painfully obvious message of hubris being the downfall of humanity Weyland , but I'm gonna call that 'lazy writing' so I feel better about myself!"

I didn't miss the philosophical portion of the film. That and the visuals were the only redeeming features of the film. The rest was cheap plot mechanisms and science-less fiction.

I still feel your overly intricate excuses for the lame writing are sad.

Hurr! Durr!!! [am I doing it right??]


Weyland is arrogance personified, so he can't be bothered to care about anyone other than those that can directly help him in his plans. That's it. The end. That's "overly intricate" to you?
 
2012-08-03 11:49:11 AM
Mentalpatient87: Teufelaffe: My point was that scientists are still people, and even highly educated people can do really stupid shiat. So the whole, "OMG a scientist would never do anything that stupid" argument is not based in reality.

It's not just "a scientist wouldn't do that," it's a matter of "a biologist isn't going to ignore every red flag nature throws up that says 'get the hell away from me.'" I'm sure even Steve Irwin might hesitate for a minute before trying to poke a mysterious alien dick-cobra in the eye...


Your mental remembrance of the scene seems to be very different then the literal showing. My guess is you've incorporated an internet telling of events into your memory

Milburn never was trying to pet it. He was jumpy and cautious, but excited. Seemed he though it was interested in him, and it showed no fangs or worrisome parts. He was several feet away when it lunged at him, and that was the first contact.

You'd think from the trolling going on he walked up and grabbed a cobra by the tail to pet it. That's about as far away from the scene as you can get.
 
2012-08-03 11:52:08 AM
Trocadero: The thing that bugged me the most were too many "too dumb to live" moments. In Alien, the deaths came from being genuinely overwhelmed, under prepared, and sabotaged by that goddamn robot. Yeah, it's probably not smart to go poking your face near some strange alien egg thing in a derelict alien spacecraft, but compared to the morons in Prometheus, Kane, Dallas and Lambert were Nobel Laureates. In Aliens, the marines were overconfident and also under prepared. None of them did anything incredibly stupid in order to make the plot move forward (other than using live ammo under a fusion reactor's primary heat exchanger). The dorks in Prometheus were Too Dumb to Live, and that's b/c the script was too weak. Hopefully cutting out Damn Lindelof improves things. The only Lindelof flourishes I actually liked was the philosophical heart of the mission; what if we could go find God, humanity's creator on an alien planet? What if He wasn't what you expected Him to be? Add in the android's point of view, there's a lot of cool stuff to work w/. You just need some characters worth a damn to make the audience care about it all.

You mean like worrying about catching a cat when a small, extremely fats and aggressive thing with teeth and acid blood just ripped your first office in half?

Meh. It comes down to expectations being higher and an unfair (fair) critique. ALIEN objectively, isn't much better. But it's got the benefit of years of cult subjective opinion.
 
2012-08-03 11:53:49 AM
I created this alt just for this thread: I wonder how many people here catch the irony that some of you are posting on Fark, a site that exists only because humans do really stupid stuff on a regular basis, complaining that characters in a movie are doing stupid things. If you want realism in your movies, then the characters will act in irrational ways, do stupid things, and generally behave like human animals do. When you throw in the fact that they're in terrifying situations, the level of stupidity and irrationality will increase considerably, just like it does in real life. Expecting that these people would consistently act in calm, rational, and intelligent ways at all times shows that some of you have some really weird ideas of what's realistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP-PSpSRzPM

/Bonus Points: Biologist
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report