Prometheus (2012)

[raygendreau]

I hope members that didn't see the film in the theater and are watching it for the first time on blu-ray take the time to vote in the poll in this thread

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=108740

[phansson]

Originally Posted by tkbryant

As far as Prometheus's characters, David came off as kind of a dick but redeemed himself in the end a bit. I loved Shaw's character, she was flawed but aren't we all. Shaw went into this with the best intentions but she realized early on they've made a mistake and tried her best to correct it. I still don't trust David and where he is leading Shaw to and I don't think she fully trusts him either but they are both going to serve each other's purpose in the sequel so I'm very interested to see how their relationship changes now that it's just the two of them.

I didn't see David as "being a dick" or "redeeming" himself. David was "made" to serve humanity (probably more so Weyland). I also see him as having no regard for human life, no feelings of course (that is stated in the movie) and David knows he is superior to every human. It is amazing to me that you never see him take a breath in the entire movie! Notice that next time. David was played PERFECTLY by Fassbender IMHO and written perfectly by the writers.

Of course I am being a little bias, I really enjoyed Prometheus.

[Gremal]

Yeah, Shaw was a worthy survivor for sure, in the spirit of Ripley in Alien. Prometheus wasn't comparable to Inception. Very different films by two of the greatest directors currently working.

[LobsterPot]

LOL comparing Inception with Prometheus

Inception was an exposition filled mess.. Marion Cotillard was the only memorable character.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by tkbryant

Well I don't think it has a better story, it's unique for sure and there certainly a TON of plot holes in that movie as well if you wanna be analytical about it. I mean Leo's character wasn't the best guy leading his team down that far when he hadn't dealt with his personal issues just like some of the characters in Prometheus who don't have the best motives or share them with all.

As far as Prometheus's characters, David came off as kind of a dick but redeemed himself in the end a bit. I loved Shaw's character, she was flawed but aren't we all. Shaw went into this with the best intentions but she realized early on they've made a mistake and tried her best to correct it. I still don't trust David and where he is leading Shaw to and I don't think she fully trusts him either but they are both going to serve each other's purpose in the sequel so I'm very interested to see how their relationship changes now that it's just the two of them.

We will probably see more of the Deacon, as well. They already have him under contract.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Gremal

And the answer is because the entire narrative sets up faith to trump empiricism.

No it doesn't. It says you shouldn't dismiss either just because you side with one.

If you knew anything about Ridley Scott, you'd know that he considers religion to be one of the greatest evils of the human race.

[LobsterPot]

Originally Posted by phansson

no feelings of course

at the end he says his model is "emotional"

Prometheus Happy Birthday David Viral Clip # 2 - YouTube

after all he certainly enjoyed toying with Elizabeth

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

I hope members that didn't see the film in the theater and are watching it for the first time on blu-ray take the time to vote in the poll in this thread

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=108740

Two viewings on the big screen and now two on blu, and it still gets a strong 8/10 from me!

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by besi

yes it was confusing for some people but Inception was 100% better ,writing ,story,characters ...etc
actually I cared about the characters in Inception but in Prometheus I didn't give a flying f...about any of them. (David was okay,but that's all)

Your opinions aside, it was also completely forgettable. One-trick ponies are like that. To paraphrase The Prestige: "Once you show them how you did it then you're NOTHING to them."

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

No it doesn't. It says you shouldn't dismiss either just because you side with one.

If you knew anything about Ridley Scott, you'd know that he considers religion to be one of the greatest evils of the human race.

That's a horrible oversimplification of what Scott thinks. More to the point, the film clearly portrays scientists as self-serving twits, except for Shaw who has faith in a higher creator and it shows the engineers as being punished because of their meddling in the affairs of creation.

[mayday72]

Just finished it. What exactly are people are not getting about this movie? It is a rather simple story of man's basic and eternal questions about our existence. Where do I come from? Why am I here? What happens when I die? Unfortunately none of us will have these answers until the inevitable. But this was a rather cool mix of faith & science presented in a manner that suggest neither one is right on it's own. But perhaps the two combined may hold the answers. If God created man who created God? Most people that are disappointed expected a much closer connection with Alien I'm sure. I found the film quite mesmerizing. A flawed but not by much masterpiece.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Gremal

That's a horrible oversimplification of what Scott thinks.

That is literally how he has stated it. On several occasions. Passionately.

Sorry if you don't like it.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by phansson

I didn't see David as "being a dick" or "redeeming" himself. David was "made" to serve humanity (probably more so Weyland). I also see him as having no regard for human life, no feelings of course (that is stated in the movie) and David knows he is superior to every human. It is amazing to me that you never see him take a breath in the entire movie! Notice that next time. David was played PERFECTLY by Fassbender IMHO and written perfectly by the writers.

Of course I am being a little bias, I really enjoyed Prometheus.

Yes. Fassbender has been mentioned in a number of online articles as a strong possibility for an Oscar for his role in Prometheus.

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by scoogs

Overall I liked the movie, but The Deacon subplot is where it doesn't hold together for me. What's the purpose of including that shot? Is it to establish that particular Deacon as the source of the xenomorphs or is it just another (obvious) visual link to show us that the engineers created the xenomorphs as well?

If it's supposed to be the source, I see several problems.
Isn't the Deacon shown in the wall artwork earlier in the film when they first enter the chamber? That implies to me a creature that was previously created by the engineers. However, we then we have the relatively random/accidental breeding path of the black goo DNA producing the same creature at the end of the film? I don't buy that.

Another point contradicting or eliminating it as the source, according to the review on this site of the extras:

That would establish that the ship full of xenomorph eggs already exists, which completely eliminates the Deacon we see as the source.

Now if the Deacons as a species have been around for a long time, I could buy that the engineers eventually developed them into the xenomorphs. Problem there (for me) is the path the film takes for the creation of the Deacon doesn't work with that. The films creation of the Deacon is so "accidental" that it left me with a negative association to Anakin blowing up the control ship in The Phantom Menace.

Now keep in mind that I haven't seen Prometheus since opening day in the theater, so I may have missed or forgotten something. This is just something that's been bugging me about the movie all Summer.

It is implied and evidence supports, though not 100% confirmed, that the xenomorphs are in existence before the events in Prometheus. Whether the Engineers created the xenomorphs or they are a "naturally" existing species is also unconfirmed. The film implies that the black goo is capable of transforming lifeforms into xenomorph-like creatures, as evidenced by Fifield's transformation. If the black goo transforms lifeforms into xenomorph-like creatures, that could account for the mural on the wall for one of two hypothetical reasons.

The first hypothetical reason is that the xenomorphs are a naturally occuring species, complete with a lifecycle, and the Engineers are manipulating the DNA of the species to create a biological weapon that turns lifeforms into xenomorph-like monsters. The second hypoethical reason is that the xenomorphs are NOT a naturally occuring species nor do they have a complete lifecycle, at this point. Therefore, for this reason, the xenomorph depicted in the mural is a representation of what the black goo does to humanoid lifeforms.

These two hypothetical reasons have significance in how one chooses to interpret the Deacon birth at the end. If we are to believe that xenomorphs exist as a species with its own lifecycle, the Deacon at the end is a NEW species, a hybrid, with elements of xenomorph, human, and Engineer DNA. However, if we are to believe xenomorphs are an artificial creation of the Engineers, then the Deacon at the end symbolizes the creation of the future xenomorphs as a self-sustaining species, complete with its own unique reproductive cycle. Whichever way you interpret it, the Deacon is not the xenomorph in the traditional sense, and while its creation was accidental, it is no less cool because of it. In fact, I find it cooler for that reason.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by LobsterPot

LOL comparing Inception with Prometheus

Inception was an exposition filled mess.. Marion Cotillard was the only memorable character.

[DeanCorso]

Originally Posted by DCW

No advice on this anyone?

I have the same problem playing it on my Sony BDP S350 and the firmware is up to date and i can tell you im almost 100% sure its not a problem with the disc because i've tried on another blu-ray player (Sony BDP BX1) and i didnt have any problem with the picture.

So i guess this comes from some blu-ray players having problem with reading the movie....maybe with a lot of feedback of this problem they will make a new firmware update.

[IlGialloMondadori]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

That is literally how he has stated it. On several occasions. Passionately.

Sorry if you don't like it.

He really has said that. Which makes Prometheus all the more puzzling to me, because it's so largely about faith, which is the root of religion.

[Show spoiler]Yes, Shaw's faith was misguided, and everyone died, but the end makes it seem like it's triumphant, rather than just really dumb. I mean, going to visit the Engineer planet? How does that seem like a good idea, given you've just discovered the Engineers hate humans, wish they'd never been created, and the last one alive on the planet tried to kill all the humans he encountered and pilot a ship to Earth to destroy it.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

That is literally how he has stated it. On several occasions. Passionately.

Link? Proof? I found some of his quotes on the subject and they seemed similar but the context around them proves he has a broader view of religion and faith.

Originally Posted by mayday72

Just finished it. What exactly are people are not getting about this movie? It is a rather simple story of man's basic and eternal questions about our existence. Where do I come from? Why am I here? What happens when I die? Unfortunately none of us will have these answers until the inevitable. But this was a rather cool mix of faith & science presented in a manner that suggest neither one is right on it's own. But perhaps the two combined may hold the answers. If God created man who created God? Most people that are disappointed expected a much closer connection with Alien I'm sure. I found the film quite mesmerizing. A flawed but not by much masterpiece.

I agree with most of that but take exception with the "cool mix of faith and science presented in a manner that suggested neither one is right on its own." Did we watch the same movie? The scientific capability of the engineers had caused them nothing but disaster. The film clearly showed the scientists and those having faith in technology as self-serving and rapidly succumbing to the horrors of the black goop. The only survivor had faith in God. That's not a mix. It's a very clear statement about faith.

[IlGialloMondadori]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Link? Proof? I found some of his quotes on the subject and they seemed similar but the context around them proves he has a broader view of religion and faith.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ri...of-evil-76176/

""And the biggest source of evil is of course religion," Scott said."

[IlGialloMondadori]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I agree with most of that but take exception with the "cool mix of faith and science presented in a manner that suggested neither one is right on its own." Did we watch the same movie? The scientific capability of the engineers had caused them nothing but disaster. The film clearly showed the scientists and those having faith in technology as self-serving and rapidly succumbing to the horrors of the black goop. The only survivor had faith in God. That's not a mix. It's a very clear statement about faith.

Absolutely agree.