Prometheus Review Thread (Spoilers)

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by Foggy

MPAA don't force anything.

Maybe not but if the MPAA gives a movie the NC-17, Harvey Weinstein will force them to make it an R.

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

That's the thing with the MPAA: A bit of violence, and gore is ok for kids to see, but God forbid there is a pair of tits on screen.



That is one thing I never understood. With ratings between theatrical release, and home video. You have the MPAA force directors to make cuts of the film, to get a PG-13. But, then we get the same film on home video, with a R or UR version. Makes 0 sense to me!

Videos arnt rated by the MPAA...they carry the movies rating. Only films made for public viewing have to be submitted. Sometimes they want a rating tho. Take Sucker Punch. The extended version is R- rated because that was the first version the studio submitted. Snyder then cut that back to get the PG-13. I guess they kept the R because they would have had to release it as Not Rated (NR) which has a more negative connotation.

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

I love that shower scene!
Why do they call it "tan your hide"? When it should be more like: "Cover your eyes before I give your ass a sun burn"

It's not tan like in sun tan. I believe it comes from tanning leather.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

It's not tan like in sun tan. I believe it comes from tanning leather.

I don't care about its origins, I just know its highly affective.

[formula_nebula]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

Videos arnt rated by the MPAA...they carry the movies rating. Only films made for public viewing have to be submitted. Sometimes they want a rating tho. Take Sucker Punch. The extended version is R- rated because that was the first version the studio submitted. Snyder then cut that back to get the PG-13. I guess they kept the R because they would have had to release it as Not Rated (NR) which has a more negative connotation.




It's not tan like in sun tan. I believe it comes from tanning leather.

I was just being silly, about the tan your hide remark.
The whole ratings thing is still messed up though. I understand what you're saying. But, it's like they are saying: it's not ok to see this much violence in a crowded theater, with complete strangers. So, you better cut those scenes out. But, the good news is, in 4 or so months, you can watch the same movie in the privacy of your home. It will even be the unrated version, with lots of blood and gore, and T & A. You say films made for public viewing have to be submitted. Well who the hell is buying all the dvd's and blu-rays if not the public? I call shenanigans on the MPAA.

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by formula_nebula

I was just being silly, about the tan your hide remark.
The whole ratings thing is still messed up though. I understand what you're saying. But, it's like they are saying: it's not ok to see this much violence in a crowded theater, with complete strangers. So, you better cut those scenes out. But, the good news is, in 4 or so months, you can watch the same movie in the privacy of your home. It will even be the unrated version, with lots of blood and gore, and T & A. You say films made for public viewing have to be submitted. Well who the hell is buying all the dvd's and blu-rays if not the public? I call shenanigans on the MPAA.

Which leads to the question of why they dont release two versions? Is there a really a big difference between having Prometheus on two screen at the theater or having Prometheus PG-13 on one screen and Prometheus R on the other?

[csdot]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

Which leads to the question of why they dont release two versions? Is there a really a big difference between having Prometheus on two screen at the theater or having Prometheus PG-13 on one screen and Prometheus R on the other?

because then Prometheus would potentially take up 4 screens?

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by csdot

because then Prometheus would potentially take up 4 screens?

Well here r the options. U make an Alien movie geared to 13 yo or u cut a huge chunk out of ur profits by releasing it as an R.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

Well here r the options. U make an Alien movie geared to 13 yo or u cut a huge chunk out of ur profits by releasing it as an R.

yes i understand why its rated PG13.

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by csdot

yes i understand why its rated PG13.

I dont...explain it to me. Considering the previous four movies were R why would they want this PG-13?

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

I dont...explain it to me. Considering the previous four movies were R why would they want this PG-13?

Maybe, it's because this isn't an Alien movie, and just happens to be in the same "universe". Therefore they plan on a different audience.

Either that, or the film needed more funding, and the studios want to make sure they get their return on investment?

[csdot]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

I dont...explain it to me. Considering the previous four movies were R why would they want this PG-13?

well clearly you do since your post that i quoted described it exactly.
no Alien movie had the budget Prometheus does, they stand to lose a lot of money by reducing their audience with an R rating.

[kernel_thai]

OK here's my problem. What I want is an artist like Ridley Scott to make the movie he wants. (He is one of my favorite directors) Then he submits that movie to MPAA and they rate it. That's his vision. Now Im not oblivious to the fact that the studio pays 100s of millions of dollars to make and promote these things and deserve to make a profit. Really, I'm not. But this concept of trying to pigeon hole a rating on the director is stupid. If RS believes Prometheus is an R-rated film and FOX doesnt want an R-rated film then dont get RS to make it. He is RS with a massive track record. Let him make the movie he wants to make.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

OK here's my problem. What I want is an artist like Ridley Scott to make the movie he wants. (He is one of my favorite directors) Then he submits that movie to MPAA and they rate it. That's his vision. Now Im not oblivious to the fact that the studio pays 100s of millions of dollars to make and promote these things and deserve to make a profit. Really, I'm not. But this concept of trying to pigeon hole a rating on the director is stupid. If RS believes Prometheus is an R-rated film and FOX doesnt want an R-rated film then dont get RS to make it. He is RS with a massive track record. Let him make the movie he wants to make.

yeah but if you listen to him talk about it he doesnt really seem to mind either way, and as its been mentioned before aside from language Alien could probably pass for PG13 nowadays anyway. a movie doesnt have to be R to be effectively scary. Alien is such an effective movie because of what it doesnt show, much like Jaws.
and again, he always gets his cut when the movie is released on dvd/bd.

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by csdot

well clearly you do since your post that i quoted described it exactly.
no Alien movie had the budget Prometheus does, they stand to lose a lot of money by reducing their audience with an R rating.

Well a good chunk of that budget I would guess is shooting it in 3D. A lot of that gets returned by the higher ticket prices. Aliens was made for $18 million in 1986. Try and make it today and see what the budget would be. They tried PG-13 with Alien vs Predator I recall.

[kernel_thai]

Originally Posted by csdot

yeah but if you listen to him talk about it he doesnt really seem to mind either way, and as its been mentioned before aside from language Alien could probably pass for PG13 nowadays anyway. a movie doesnt have to be R to be effectively scary. Alien is such an effective movie because of what it doesnt show, much like Jaws.
and again, he always gets his cut when the movie is released on dvd/bd.

Hey if he makes the movie he wants and it's PG-13 then I'm for it. Im not saying it needs to be excessively violent to make me happy. What I dont like is telling creative people to limit their vision to help the studio sell tickets. They did that with Sucker Punch and got a crappy movie. I see PG-13 movies all the time. Im not on the R-rated soapbox. I just want a master film maker like Ridley Scott to be able to make the film he wants.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

Hey if he makes the movie he wants and it's PG-13 then I'm for it. Im not saying it needs to be excessively violent to make me happy. What I dont like is telling creative people to limit their vision to help the studio sell tickets. They did that with Sucker Punch and got a crappy movie. I see PG-13 movies all the time. Im not on the R-rated soapbox. I just want a master film maker like Ridley Scott to be able to make the film he wants.

well obviously thats what every fan wants, but we live on planet earth and thats not how things work. the person who pays the bills gets the final say.
and this is all without even mentioning that none of us really know anything about the nature of the film, and it could be totally reasonable for it to be PG13 with what is in the script.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by kernel_thai

I just want a master film maker like Ridley Scott to be able to make the film he wants.

Wow, you sure are a big Ridley fan, I've never heard anybody say that before.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by WyldeMan45

Wow, you sure are a big Ridley fan, I've never heard anybody say that before.

Neither have I, but I don't think it's way off though. He's made quite a few critical and box office hits. He's made a few classics that'll live on forever. He could be considered a master filmmaker. I'd never tell him that though. The guy's head is bigger than a watermelon.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Neither have I, but I don't think it's way off though. He's made quite a few critical and box office hits. He's made a few classics that'll live on forever. He could be considered a master filmmaker. I'd never tell him that though. The guy's head is bigger than a watermelon.

For me looking through his career I can say I enjoyed Black Hawk Down, but that is it. I don't own a single Ridley movie on any format. I am a much bigger fan of his brother Tony. I LOVE True Romance, Man on Fire, Revenge, The Fan and Top Gun. I own all of those.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by WyldeMan45

For me looking through his career I can say I enjoyed Black Hawk Down, but that is it. I don't own a single Ridley movie on any format. I am a much bigger fan of his brother Tony. I LOVE True Romance, Man on Fire, Revenge, The Fan and Top Gun. I own all of those.

Oh yeah, I love Tony too. With the exception of his recent fascination with trains and shit, I own quite a few of his films. Ridley, on the other hand, I like the following:

2008Body of Lies (own)
2007American Gangster (own)
2003Matchstick Men (own)
2001Black Hawk Down (own)
2000Gladiator (own)
1991Thelma & Louise (own)
1982Blade Runner (own)
1979Alien (want to own, but don't yet)

The rest of his films, I either haven't seen, or don't like.