Prometheus

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byZk...ature=youtu.be

[FullMetalJacket]

Been following this one for a while. Pretty exciting!

[Nihilanth]

That's the only movie I'm looking forward to.

[Kalki]

Not particularly eager for this but have to admit, it looks amazing.

[Kit]

Looks really well put together from the trailer. Can't wait.

[Kit]

Caught an extended preview before The Avengers was shown. It'll be interesting to see how they tie in the Space Jockey story to the original Alien. I always assumed he/it was routed to the spot but in the preview you see one running away from something. Very excited about this one.

[MrFlibble]

Watched the trailer and it looks really pretty (I've read someone mention this film in a different forum earlier today). I've been "into" the Alien/Predator franchise(s) some time ago, and my impression is that Ridley Scott has taken the right approach here: the film obviously echoes previous instalments but at the same time isn't shy of introducing something new to the story.

[Crosma]

This looks exactly like what I've been waiting for Ridley to make for decades. You bet I'm pumped. Pumped right up the wazoo to the rafters, I is.

My expectations are set to joygasm++.

[FullMetalJacket]

Saw it, and loved it!! Michael Fassbender continues to blow me away with his performances. The film is coherent but the pacing was a bit too quick in a few scenes, which makes me think there was a lot of deleted footage. Ridley Scott, after all, pretty much invented the director's cut for home video, so we'll see in a few months.

It's important to recognize coming into it that this film is an "indirect" prequel to Alien, although it most definitely takes place in the same universe.

[Kalki]

The visuals were incredible and it had a few tense moments but I didn't find much else to recommend it. The plot was cliched and never seemed to go anyplace interesting. Fassbender was good but I wish they'd explored his character more.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I enjoyed the movie.

If there is a directors cut / extended edition I intend to buy it.

[Damien_Azreal]

Ridley Scott has already said the Blu-Ray will be an extended director's cut with footage added back into the film.

[Thief]

Them relics still watching and buying DVDs (me) will no doubt get the ol' scroogie for that extended Director's cut.

[NutWrench]

I still haven't gotten around to seeing this.

[Damien_Azreal]

I'll grab it on Blu-Ray.
As much as I love Alien, Ridley Scott is such a hit and miss director... I couldn't bring myself to blindly having faith in his work to just run out to the theaters.

Other then Alien... and Black Hawk Down...
I can't think of anything else he's done that I absolutely love.

[Thief]

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Other then Alien... and Black Hawk Down...
I can't think of anything else he's done that I absolutely love.

Only those two, eh?
Blade Runner, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut), American Gangster...no? Although you may not "love" them, you must at least acknowledge that those are some quality films. Still though, one of my top 3 Ridley Scott films will always be Black Rain. One of my favourite cop movies of all time.

[Damien_Azreal]

Honestly... even though people always call me an idiot for saying so... I hate Blade Runner.
The movie bores the living shit out of me. Yes, at times, it can look incredible... but the story and characters do nothing to keep me interested in it.

I also think Gladiator is ungodly overrated. Rented it because everyone went on and on about it, still don't understand why. Same with Kingdom of Heaven.

American Gangster is okay, but nothing that makes me think Scott is such a talented director or anything. To me, the movie is okay because Denzel is such a fantastic actor. The rest... meh.

[X-Vector]

Apart from his blasphemous opinion of Blade Runner, I agree with D_A.
Scott had an amazing two-hit streak with Alien and BR, but that ended thirty years ago and since then he's never come close to these masterpieces.
I like Black Rain, but that's mostly because of the "Blade Runner lite" aspects of that film.
The rest of his output strikes me as professionally done with high production values, but nothing that's truly memorable.

As far as Prometheus goes, the trailers show a dash of interesting imagery, but overall it strikes me as antiseptic an experience (at least on the visual side) as almost anything else released in the last ten to fifteen years.

[ZuljinRaynor]

I hate Blade Runner too.

I do like Kingdom of Heaven though. Gladiator is kinda boring for me.

[crunchy superman]

Gotta say I agree with most here. Didn't hate BR, but didn't view it as the masterpiece that many do. Gladiator had it's moments, but kinda the same with it as well. I did really enjoy the Director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, and maybe such a version of Prometheus will fare better, but the theatrical release was very disappointing.

[Kit]

Things I thought made little sense:

Spoiler:

show spoiler

The guy they bring along to map the alien ship/temple/war factory gets lost in a matter of minutes. Come on, we see him throw those laser mapping orbs as soon as they enter the place.

The dates: 2092? that isn't really that far off. I doubt we'll have mastered interstellar travel by then. I know you've got to suspend disbelief, but in my book the best sci-fi films have an element of truth to them.

The whole 'Chariots of the Gods' plotline about aliens seeding earth with life is such a load of longwinded bollocks and puts me off any film that uses it.

Still found the film enjoyable but it definitely didn't contain the tight, well thought out plot I was expecting.

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by Kit

The dates: 2092? that isn't really that far off. I doubt we'll have mastered interstellar travel by then. I know you've got to suspend disbelief, but in my book the best sci-fi films have an element of truth to them.

Thats 80 years in the future.
Go back 80 years in the past, and look at the present :P .

I mean .. 1932 . Talk about the internet, handheld computing, gene-manipulation aso.

And if you look at the "scifi" from that area they were optimistic in certain aspects aswell

[Kit]

Space travel has barely moved on since the 70's though. I mean, the height of space travel is still the space shuttle and that was built in what, the late 70's? to go from that to full on interstellar travel in 80 years is a hell of a leap.

[NutWrench]

Originally Posted by Kit

Things I thought made little sense:

Red Letter Media covers every single question I had about Prometheus.
(And there were a lot of them.)

[Kit]

He he. Lot of valid points there, NutWrench.

I like the one regarding the two female actors running away from the spaceship as it falls.

[Kalki]

Originally Posted by Kit

I like the one regarding the two female actors running away from the spaceship as it falls.

That always bugged me in cartoons, even when I was a kid.

[Crosma]

Originally Posted by Kalki

That always bugged me in cartoons, even when I was a kid.

If you run sideways, you'll be crushed because the ship will roll over you before you've escaped. If you run diagonally, you still won't reach the edge before being crushed.

Pythagoras anyone?

Meanwhile, the rolling will slow down due to thermodynamics (unless you're rolling down a hill). So trying to outrun it is your best option.

[Kalki]

Originally Posted by Crosma

If you run sideways, you'll be crushed because the ship will roll over you before you've escaped. If you run diagonally, you still won't reach the edge before being crushed.

Pythagoras anyone?

Meanwhile, the rolling will slow down due to thermodynamics (unless you're rolling down a hill). So trying to outrun it is your best option.

Don't remember the scene exactly but it looked like running with some diagonal deviation should have worked.

[pjVgt]

Originally Posted by Kit

Space travel has barely moved on since the 70's though. I mean, the height of space travel is still the space shuttle and that was built in what, the late 70's? to go from that to full on interstellar travel in 80 years is a hell of a leap.

Regarding interstellar travel there is actually only one rule that we can apply regardless of our tech level:

Nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.

How they just travelled in two years into a star that isnt closer than Alpha Centauri? By exeeding the speed of light. And You can't do that regardless what engine and what fuel You hahe - sorry in terms of sci-fi the movie is bull. Ion engines acutally working and giving thrust in atmosphere putting the ship on fire? Whoa this is too much crap for my brain to comprehend. Degree sciencetist acting like retarded kids - why not? Alien with 100% similarity in DNA albeit much different? Alien biological weapons deadly for the users and that don't make any tactical or strategic sense all? Reviving 2000 year old mummy with electrodes (man we should revive Ramzes II and ask him if he was black or white)?

I could give at least 50 valid reasons why this movie is retarded - the worst is its sloppy kindergarten level writing similar to crapfest series LOST, where viewers had to make up what is happening on their own because writers didn't had a clue and were just spamming crap out of their ass.

The only thing about this movie was that my girlfriend was amused - she told me that this huge albino guy would have at least 10inch long wang and she would totally bone him. I told there that I wouldnt bet on that becuase unused organs deteriorate and after 2000 years of not getting laid it would shrink into a peanut. Well she had her fantasies anyway.

[Kit]

Originally Posted by pjVgt

Regarding interstellar travel there is actually only one rule that we can apply regardless of our tech level:

Nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.

How they just travelled in two years into a star that isnt closer than Alpha Centauri? By exeeding the speed of light. And You can't do that regardless what engine and what fuel You hahe - sorry in terms of sci-fi the movie is bull.

Can't speak for the engineers penis having shrunk, but I agree, had the film been more grounded it would have been far better.

[pjVgt]

Originally Posted by Kit

Can't speak for the engineers penis having shrunk, but I agree, had the film been more grounded it would have been far better.

Not going to happen - the audience is so stupid that they would never ever appreciate it. I miss the days when SF was more about science than fiction - we are basically now below the level of 1890s science in SF more like shit-fantasy.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Bitter much?

Might as well sh*t on every space based science fiction movie or every science fiction movie....

I enjoyed Prometheus.

[pjVgt]

Originally Posted by Inanimate Carbon Rod

Bitter much?

Might as well sh*t on every space based science fiction movie or every science fiction movie....

I enjoyed Prometheus.

Good for You and... nope.

Science fiction needs to have even a small touch in science - this why it is called (otherwise it would be just fantasy). Science fiction is basically taking what we know at the moment and expanding those ideas. If You want to break the laws of physics You need a good reason to do so and good explaination (like sometimes they do that ex. Dune universe or Ringworld). Lets get the idea of farting a spaceship out of Your ass...

a) good SF - would deal with the invention of nanites capable of constructing small ships inside Your stomach from biological matter (or by special paste You need to eat that contains materials suitable for such contruction) and ship must be small and smart enough (with something like optical processor) to independently leave Your ass, must have realiable powersource (maybe nano flywhell batteries) to gyrate on itself into atmosphere on its tiny wings and fly to Mars or something with its internal magnetoelectric drive

b) bad SF - poof You just farted spaceship out of Your ass Prometheus style! and You made more dumbasses happy

[crunchy superman]

I'll go along with anything in scifi, no matter how ridiculous, so long as the storytellers don't break their own rules of the universe they've created. Prometheus failed this simple criteria.

[Thief]

Originally Posted by pjVgt

Science fiction needs to have even a small touch in science - this why it is called (otherwise it would be just fantasy). Science fiction is basically taking what we know at the moment and expanding those ideas. If You want to break the laws of physics You need a good reason to do so and good explaination (like sometimes they do that ex. Dune universe or Ringworld). Lets get the idea of farting a spaceship out of Your ass...

a) good SF - would deal with the invention of nanites capable of constructing small ships inside Your stomach from biological matter...

Do you really think your average movie-goer would go for hard sci-fi, such as the Revelation Space series by Alastair Reynolds? Hollywood doesn't care about what individuals want, they only care about what will seem appealing to Joe Audience and box-office ballots, and you'll most likely need a Hollywood budget in bringing any grand sci-fi to life. Yeah, you might be able to whip up a trailer and get people interested in the movie, but hard sci-fi, I mean real hard sci-fi, sometimes written by scientists are hard reads for most people. If Joe Audience can't wrap their head around what's going on, they'll need spectacle to remain entertained, and not all sci-fi is spectacle.

Prometheus at least has less-explored themes. The movie "Moon" is an example of a great sci-fi movie, but is hardly hard sci-fi, and yet it was poorly marketed probably due to its lack of spectacle and the requirement to use your brain to fully enjoy the movie, not to mention the brilliant soundtrack. Hmm, I think I'm going to watch that again tonight.

[pjVgt]

Originally Posted by Thief

Do you really think your average movie-goer would go for hard sci-fi, such as the Revelation Space series by Alastair Reynolds? Hollywood doesn't care about what individuals want, they only care about what will seem appealing to Joe Audience and box-office ballots, and you'll most likely need a Hollywood budget in bringing any grand sci-fi to life. Yeah, you might be able to whip up a trailer and get people interested in the movie, but hard sci-fi, I mean real hard sci-fi, sometimes written by scientists are hard reads for most people. If Joe Audience can't wrap their head around what's going on, they'll need spectacle to remain entertained, and not all sci-fi is spectacle.

Prometheus at least has less-explored themes. The movie "Moon" is an example of a great sci-fi movie, but is hardly hard sci-fi, and yet it was poorly marketed probably due to its lack of spectacle and the requirement to use your brain to fully enjoy the movie, not to mention the brilliant soundtrack. Hmm, I think I'm going to watch that again tonight.

I can agree onto that. There is almost no way (sadly) that any studio would realize anything more ambitious than Prometheus (which I think right now is something like the upper limit - and without tags like aliens and ridley scott added it would bomb). At least not under hollywood-system we have today.

Moon was very good - I actually liked this movie (which is rare). There are lots of movies like it - but never in cinemas. And they won't be - as long as the "urban market" is what studios aim at.

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by pjVgt

Not going to happen - the audience is so stupid that they would never ever appreciate it. I miss the days when SF was more about science than fiction - we are basically now below the level of 1890s science in SF more like shit-fantasy.

See, my personal point is that if "the audience" doesn't notice it, that doesn't mean you shouldn't put it in there for those that do.

Sure, you can't get over the head of the audience and thus antagonise them, but in many cases it would make NO difference for those who don't notice it.

Would the audience notice if the Biologist gets lost, and the "mapper" plays with the obviously hostile creature instead of the other way round? Maybe not. But I would notice.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

Originally Posted by pjVgt

Good for You and... nope.

Science fiction needs to have even a small touch in science - this why it is called (otherwise it would be just fantasy). Science fiction is basically taking what we know at the moment and expanding those ideas. If You want to break the laws of physics You need a good reason to do so and good explaination (like sometimes they do that ex. Dune universe or Ringworld). Lets get the idea of farting a spaceship out of Your ass...

Actually I disagree somewhat.
Scifi works just aswell if you DON'T explain things. And there are MANY hard scifi books that really don't deal with loads of parts of their setup at all.

What imho DOESN'T work is adding technobable that clearly makes no sense, and CAN'T work at all.

Just take a look at Assimov. There are tons of things the books DON'T deal with like basically the whole "positron brain" setup. But it doesn't matter, because it's just a device that works as intended.

Take "hollow man" as negative example, where they spout so much nonsense, which would have actually worked if they HADN'T talked about it.

[Kit]

Will you be picking up the extended cut, Pansa? I've read a few reviews (Total Film) and it sounds like it doesn't answer the questions the normal cut raised. Sure a sequel is on the cards.

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by Kit

Will you be picking up the extended cut, Pansa? I've read a few reviews (Total Film) and it sounds like it doesn't answer the questions the normal cut raised. Sure a sequel is on the cards.

Probably not.
What annoyed me wasn't what was missing, but specifically what was there.
Wouldn't really know how extending would fix those things.

[Kalki]

Honest Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBaKqOMGPWc