Prometheus (2012)

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by FilmExpert

true but every movie becomes better with a better script

It's true but a good movie with a good script doesn't need a better script

I just can't get over the fact that the guy that was mapping the place... got lost and the pilots at the end just agreed and were joking about killing themselves, just like that.

I love Scott. The guy is a genius and his movies are gorgeous but he needs a good script for his movies to shine. Take "Exodus". Atrocious movie, beautifully shot.

[insomniac013]

I'm thinking of getting the blu ray for the extras. The movie itself was okay. Not bad, but not great.

[reason108]

Writers of horror films need a way to "off" everyone so they can get to the hero ending. Alien handled that process extremely well. On the other hand, I thought that Prometheus dropped the ball in that area; other than for a couple of the characters. There are some parts of Prometheus that I loved; but, overall, the movie missed the mark for me. I would not hold it in the same regard as I do Alien. However, if there ever is a sequel to Prometheus then I would surely go. And, I have no regrets buying the blu-ray.

[kristoffer]

Does anyone know if the sequel is still on? I haven't heard anything for a while.

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

Does anyone know if the sequel is still on? I haven't heard anything for a while.

June 2016

[kristoffer]

But they haven't started filming yet?!

[Batmon77]

Alien and Terminator are franchises they need to put to rest.

[Ray Jackson]

Good movie, which will get even better if it eventually becomes the first in a trilogy, but definitely has a few problems.

Biggest gripe with me was some of the casting decisions.

...felt they could've found better actors for some of the secondary roles.

And I loved Noomi Rapace in Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but I felt like she wasn't right for this part.

[Geoff D]

I'd love it if they did an extended cut with the deleted scenes put back in, it helps to make so much sense of the narrative, like Millburn's first encounter with the worms and Janek's speech about the weapons dump, and even the stalk 'n' slash between Shaw and the Engineer is so much more fun than what we ended up with. Her line to David about him being a "****ing robot" near the end is delivered with more antagonism and barely-concealed dislike than what ended up in the final movie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'd love it if they did an extended cut with the deleted scenes put back in, it helps to make so much sense of the narrative, like Millburn's first encounter with the worms and Janek's speech about the weapons dump, and even the stalk 'n' slash between Shaw and the Engineer is so much more fun than what we ended up with. Her line to David about him being a "****ing robot" near the end is delivered with so much more antagonism and barely-concealed dislike than what ended up in the final movie.

I thought I read somewhere where Scott originally had all of those scenes as part of the theatrical cut, but decided to get rid of them to keep the running time down. I agree with you though that it helps the development significantly. I particularly like the conversation between David and the Engineer because the first time I saw the theatrical cut I was wondering what ticked the Engineer off, which is better understood in the cut scene.

[Geoff D]

That too. I've long said that I prefer most theatrical editions for their faster pacing and lack of superfluous scenes, but this is one of those rare cases where the cinema cut has suffered too much for the sake of brevity (not unlike Scott's own Kingdom Of Heaven before it). It won't magically become a masterpiece but it'll reduce the amount of inexplicable silliness from the characters and won't dilute the God-fearing throughline one bit.

[FilmExpert]

Originally Posted by Eny-

It's true but a good movie with a good script doesn't need a better script

I just can't get over the fact that the guy that was mapping the place... got lost and the pilots at the end just agreed and were joking about killing themselves, just like that.

I love Scott. The guy is a genius and his movies are gorgeous but he needs a good script for his movies to shine. Take "Exodus". Atrocious movie, beautifully shot.

that is all true i guess

[Cook]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I thought I read somewhere where Scott originally had all of those scenes as part of the theatrical cut, but decided to get rid of them to keep the running time down. I agree with you though that it helps the development significantly. I particularly like the conversation between David and the Engineer because the first time I saw the theatrical cut I was wondering what ticked the Engineer off, which is better understood in the cut scene.

He seems to do that quite a bit no matter how much it hurts the film. It wouldn't be so bad if he would always do a director's cut, but he seems to be pretty random with those. He's left Prometheus in a weakened state, and left Exodus damn near broken.

[StingingVelvet]

Whenever he comments on cutting his movies down he always seems to just go along with studio logic that they need to be under 140 minutes for theatrical exhibition. I would guess that is drilled into every director's head by studio execs and you just go along with it because otherwise you don't have a job, or you get labeled a troublemaker like Gilliam.

My beef is, if you know 140 is the hard cap (which it seems to be 9 times out of 10) then why plot, write and shoot a movie with a lot more than 140 minutes of content in it? I mean, can't an experienced director like Scott look at a script and realize there is way more than 140 minutes there and he'll have to cut either a ton of character development or spectacle? Couldn't Whedon with Age of Ultron? I guess not.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Whenever he comments on cutting his movies down he always seems to just go along with studio logic that they need to be under 140 minutes for theatrical exhibition. I would guess that is drilled into every director's head by studio execs and you just go along with it because otherwise you don't have a job, or you get labeled a troublemaker like Gilliam.

My beef is, if you know 140 is the hard cap (which it seems to be 9 times out of 10) then why plot, write and shoot a movie with a lot more than 140 minutes of content in it? I mean, can't an experienced director like Scott look at a script and realize there is way more than 140 minutes there and he'll have to cut either a ton of character development or spectacle? Couldn't Whedon with Age of Ultron? I guess not.

Yeah, Scott said in the making of documentary for Kingdom of Heaven that he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds and because of his days as a producer he knows that some things are in the best interest for the studio and the ones who are fronting the cash. But like you say, if that's the case he shouldn't direct scripts that need more than 140 minute runtimes. Especially if he is going to not do an extended cut like he has done on Exodus which had a 4 hour runtime at one point and a 3 hour runtime not long before release.

I'm still furious about that. His editor said on the making of doc for that film that him and Ridley talked it over and agreed that the theatrical cut is the best cut and nothing was lost on the cutting room floor, and I just have to call BS on that. Nearly 2 hours of material and entire character motivations and arcs were chopped out. And to add insult to injury, before the editor made that statement, earlier in the doc Scott said that there was a 3 hour cut that was working really well, and the editor says that they cut over 30 minutes out of the first third of the film. All of that stuff was character beats.

It's just a slap to the face. Him and his editor must have their heads in the sand, cause even a quick glance at the reviews would tell them that the theatrical cut needs work.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

I just finished posting about this very thing. It's frustrating, and I don't know who to blame. Obviously the studios for requesting that he cut his films, but he does seem to acquiesce too easily. I think maybe he's simply gotten accustomed to the process; he knows the film sent to theatres will be a mess, but hey, at least the director's cut will see the light on home video. But even before director's cuts became a thing, Ridley still seemed too docile on these matters. In regards to Blade Runner, I would have fought the studio-imposed changes kicking and screaming, but on the Dangerous Days documentary, Ridley seemed totally cool with it all, and never insisted that the director's cut be released. He just thought it would be a cool thing to put out ten years later. Baffling.

I've never bothered watching Robin Hood because of all the middling reviews, but I'll have to pick up the extended cut some time on the back of your comments.

Man, I really hope Fox do an extended cut of Prometheus.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Cook

I'm still furious about that. His editor said on the making of doc for that film that him and Ridley talked it over and agreed that the theatrical cut is the best cut and nothing was lost on the cutting room floor, and I just have to call BS on that. Nearly 2 hours of material and entire character motivations and arcs were chopped out. And to add insult to injury, before the editor made that statement, earlier in the doc Scott said that there was a 3 hour cut that was working really well, and the editor says that they cut over 30 minutes out of the first third of the film. All of that stuff was character beats.

He kinds of says both though. He does say they agreed theatrical is best, but that was surely way back when the doc was being made, which was before the film really came out and got a reaction. Also earlier in the doc he said he has a 3.5 hour cut of the movie he really loved, but had to cut down. Hopefully we see that cut someday.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've never bothered watching Robin Hood because of all the middling reviews, but I'll have to pick up the extended cut some time on the back of your comments.

I'm not gonna get on here and say Robin Hood is good, because it's not really, but if you're a fan of Scott then it is very much worth the low price it now goes for. It has his style all over it, is visually compelling and has a lot of great moments. It's not bad plot or writing wise, it's just not great, and there is a very unfortunate plot development toward the end that is super cheesy and hurts the climax immeasurably.

Anyway, for Scott's style and the end credits animation alone it's worth the $7 I paid for it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

Aaaaanyway, back on topic to Prometheus, I like the film fine enough the way it is, but I certainly wouldn't mind a stronger cut. I have no idea why some of Scott's director's cuts get released and others don't. You'd think the studios would be eager to capitalize on them, putting a nice new Unrated Director's Cut double dip on the market. It makes them seem clueless as to what people want and how to make money off them. They'll crank out countless re-releases of titles nobody wants but won't put out what people do.

It's not like Fox haven't done any extended editions for Scott's movies, there was Alien and KoH. The latter took two attempts on Blu before we got the full-fat version with extras, how's that for a double dip? Given the pointed references in the Prometheus DVD/Blu-ray marketing materials to the included version of the movie being the theatrical cut (why wouldn't it be the theatrical cut unless it's announced otherwise?) I think it's safe to say there's another version lurking in the Fox vaults. They're probably sitting on it until such time as the sequel is released.

[Geoff D]

I think we all do, but then who would post on here?

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

But they haven't started filming yet?!

According to the last interview with Ridley, Prometheus 2 starts filming in January!