Re: Prometheus (2011)

[SJP]

Just a thought, concerning one of the big questions the film poses about searching for creation (sorry if this was brought up, but I just saw the movie this weekend and 11+ pages of material is a lot to sift through)...

So, uh, there's a lot of irony about the idea of creation in this, isn't there?  They spend the whole movie looking for their creators and wonder what they'll meet when they do, and why they exist.  Then, when Noomi Rapace is carrying the new squid thing...a brand new lifeform, a new creation, something that never existed before...her first instinct is to push the button to decontaminate it once it's out of her.

What is there, then, to question the reason why big Space Jockey wants to kill them all?  What if he sees humans the same way we see the squid monster?  Sometimes creation happens because we want it...sometimes it's not what we want at all, and because we fear what it is or what it's capable of, we want to destroy it.

The "Deacon" monster at the end sort of sums everything up very well...here we have a creation that, like David says, has fulfilled its urge to kill its parents by doing so before it is born (not that I agree with that sentiment, but for the purposes of the movie let's roll with it).  It is a mistake.  It was never meant to be.  But it exists.  And what happens when its offpsring, years from now, come back to meet THEIR creator?  It's not exactly a happy reunion when you think about the movie Alien from THAT perspective, is it?

Personally, I don't view this as much as the story of Prometheus word for word as much as Frankenstein, which Mary Shelley subtitled "The Modern Prometheus."  I mean, it's right there, the story of a creation, given life, who awakens to find its creator hates it and shuns it, enough to want to kill it.  And if you want to go the "shades of Rutger Hauer" Blade Runner route with the way Charlize Theron may or may not be a Replicant...er, android with the way she says "Father" to Weyland (and that her being crushed is mysterious enough to never reveal whether she bleeds or not), the same thing occurs with the way humans view the androids as well, as being sort of like them, but not, something that can be disposable when need be.  Just because you create something doesn't mean you treat it as an equal, even if you're not actively trying to destroy it.

No matter how you slice it, agree with it or not, hate it or not, the fact that much isn't explained but at the very least hinted at means they were actually thinking about stuff like this when making the movie, and I can overlook the goofy stuff like them running the wrong way from the spaceship or the two engineers getting lost in the tunnels when they should've known better.  Stupidity won't go extinct anytime soon, if slasher movies are an indication.


As for the stuff being better and less lived-in looking than the Nostromo, I go by Star Wars logic...in that, our special effects budgets and tech in 2012 are a lot different on a 1979 shoestring.  That's a caveat I've just learned to accept as par for the course when it comes to film prequel/spin-offs.

EDIT: One other quick point...
Notice we never find out exactly what it is David SAYS to the Space Jockey.  It could be what Weyland wanted to know, what Shaw wanted to know, or he could've just pissed him off, possible intentionally or through mistranslation.  I'd love to find out that David told the Jockey, "Your mother wears combat boots, you bald ninnyhammer."

[Tyrant]

As for the stuff being better and less lived-in looking than the Nostromo, I go by Star Wars logic...in that, our special effects budgets and tech in 2012 are a lot different on a 1979 shoestring.  That's a caveat I've just learned to accept as par for the course when it comes to film prequel/spin-offs.

Technically you're right. But in the context of the fictional universe of the franchise, I figured the Nostromo, being the commercial towing vehicle it is, as an antique not needing to be upgraded to full fill its function as those functions are so very basic in nature (it tows. That's it). Its crew would never be too many science-y types but always grimy, rag tag collections of humanity out for profit only. The company would probably recycle its fleet, especially its commercial classes, probably to death to save a buck or two and wouldn't prioritize fixing up older models. Prometheus was a cutting edge, exploration ship funded, it seems, exclusively for the mission in the movie. This means the science for it was available during the time of the Nostromo incident, just not present on that particular ship.

[Darth Geek]

As for the stuff being better and less lived-in looking than the Nostromo, I go by Star Wars logic...in that, our special effects budgets and tech in 2012 are a lot different on a 1979 shoestring.  That's a caveat I've just learned to accept as par for the course when it comes to film prequel/spin-offs.

Technically you're right. But in the context of the fictional universe of the franchise, I figured the Nostromo, being the commercial towing vehicle it is, as an antique not needing to be upgraded to full fill its function as those functions are so very basic in nature (it tows. That's it). Its crew would never be too many science-y types but always grimy, rag tag collections of humanity out for profit only. The company would probably recycle its fleet, especially its commercial classes, probably to death to save a buck or two and wouldn't prioritize fixing up older models. Prometheus was a cutting edge, exploration ship funded, it seems, exclusively for the mission in the movie. This means the science for it was available during the time of the Nostromo incident, just not present on that particular ship.

Eh, I get what you are saying. But I still think they just didn't bother trying to make the tech look like it was in the same universe. For Prometheus, the film makers just thought "Hey, you know what would look cool? Holograms. EVERYWHERE!" without any considerations that they were trying to make a prequel. The holograms were unnecesary, is all I'm saying. So their presence brings up a question that would have been easily avoidable.
And as for the ship being new and not lived in...I think it would have made more sense for the company to have repurposed one of their existing ships for this mission, than to build a new one just for it. A trillion dollars is a lot of money, but with the additional inflation, and god knows how much it actually costs to make a ship like that, it just doesn't sound like the cold calculating Weyland (without Yutani) company we have seen before. Having it look at least a LITTLE lived in would have gone a long way towards fitting in with the look of the other alien movies. Hell, even Alien Resurrection was on a ship more lived in than this!

[Pak-Man]

There were VIPs on board. They were flying first-class. If I were the head of a megacorporation in the future, I'd put holograms everywhere I could too. :^)

[lassieface]

There were VIPs on board. They were flying first-class. If I were the head of a megacorporation in the future, I'd put holograms everywhere I could too. :^)

It's CNN's version of the future.

[Russell]

I guess the anachronism sort of makes sense in that context.

Prometheus = Latest, greatest space shuttle
Nostromo = Edsel... (heh heh)

[Tyrant]

It also bears mentioning that a lot of the story in Alien takes place in the Nostromo's engine room, maintenance tunnels and other various locations that wouldn't look very clean and/or new anyhow, especially on a rig that old. The parts of the story that take place on the ship in Prometheus seem to take place in medical bays, VIP sections and what not.

Honestly, what mattered more to me was that the gothic, biomechanical design of the derelict from Alien could be carried over into the alien settings in Prometheus, which they capably (IMO) were. A lot of Giger's unused ideas for Alien, actually, were employed to this end. It was a trip to see some of these ideas which had existed for decades as paintings and sketches come to life on the big screen.

[Kete]

Spoiler

Okay, I will agree with that part, despite my overall like of the film.

That always bothered me in the G.I. Joe closing credits (at 18 seconds in).

[Russell]

Now I guess it's possible that the width of the ship was such that running left or right would have been pointless... but come on, you expect me to believe both Meredeth Vickers and Elizabeth Shaw couldn't think straight? ... no pun intended.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

I really liked this movie.  it felt like an Alien movie to me,it scared me a few times,and it had the feel of being a 70s Sci-Fi movie. Most Sci-Fi takes going to an alien planet for granted I love how this movie made it feel both exciting and dangerous.  Did the Prometheus look like a giant version of the ship from Firefly to anyone else.  Also am I the only one who laughed a little when the hero turned out to have the name Liz Shaw?

[Kete]

I'll chime in and say I also really liked it.  There were some plot holes, yes, but it didn't ruin my enjoyment.  I know that's a double standard.  If Michael Bay had made those same mistakes, I'd be violently opposed, but since it was Damon Lindelof, I cut him some slack.  Overall, it was beautiful, suspenseful, and terrifying.

[SJP]

Just remember, too, that the DVD/Blu-ray release has already been announced for October, and apparently will contains an Extended Cut (Ridley Scott?  Extended Cut?  Why, I never! ) with 20 minutes put back into the movie and about half an hour of deleted footage.

So, some of those plot holes might actually have been dealt with, but cut for pacing purposes.  Or not.  Right now, nobody knows for sure.

I'm still sticking with my theory, though, since I realized it actually explains the "head" scene, even if science doesn't.  Go back and look at that and see if you can't see...
Colin Clive or Gene Wilder off to one side screaming, "LIFE!  GIVE MY CREATION LIFE!" (well, before it explodes, anyway).  The Space Jockey itself even resembles the classic view of Frankenstein's monster, as a tall, well-proportioned and athletic, but still balls-out creepy-looking humanoid.

[Kete]

I was bothered that they cast Guy Pearce as Weyland, put him in horrible looking old makeup, and never showed him young (other than the "viral" trailer).  Perhaps there is a deleted scene.

[Relaxing Dragon]

I don't know what they were thinking with Pearce in that role. Are they not aware that Peter O'Toole is still alive?

[mattwnelson]

I don't know what they were thinking with Pearce in that role. Are they not aware that Peter O'Toole is still alive?

Yeah, that was one of my few complaints about the film. I couldn't help but think, "Surely there is some old guy in Hollywood who could use work?"