Prometheus - Spoilery thread of Spoilers

KingGorilla wrote:

So you blame Damon Lindeloff? When I saw that in the credits I had some trepidation.

Honestly, minus Super 8 and the new Star Trek movie there are very few projects the Lost gang work on where I don't worry about the final product. I never loved Lost and I haven't loved most of the post-Lost work they've done.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I mentioned this on Twitter, but I really feel like this film was held back a bit by its connection to Alien. Working within the established mythos of the Alien movies inevitably leads to a lot of very basic questions that the movie can't answer but that also aren't relevant to the story being told. How the black goo interacts with the life cycle of the xenomorphs, and how the space jockeys of this movie tie into the space jockey of Alien, aren't really important questions. Likewise, David's motivations and nature are confused by the viewer's knowledge of Ash and Bishop from the later movies.

And really, the movie's weakest links are its ties back to Alien. The scenes with the mutant snakes and the berserker crew member not only confuse the nature of the black goo, they don't really add much to the storyline. They could have easily been cut, but they seemed to have been included for the sake of tying things back to the biomechanical horror of the Alien movies. Likewise, the reveal of the xenomorph at the end was just hilariously tacked-on, an obviously meaningless shot just for fans. But isn't it a little disappointing to find out that the xenomorphs we know and love started out as the result of an unholy union between Cthulu and Voldemort?

Cutting all that out wouldn't make the movie better (it still has some pretty deep structural flaws), but it could have at least helped keep it more focused. As it is, it feels like an independent story that was shoehorned into the Alien universe for marketing purposes with predictable results.

Well the thing about all this is that all the side effects and the overall purpose of the black goo is unknown, well relatively unknown. And I believe that was the overall purpose of the story. To explain and introduce the engineers but also add this element that is still up in the air. Since we have no solid grasp on the nature of the goo, who's to say that the scenes with snakes and the berserker don't make sense in the overall picture? I believe that the Xenomorph like theme that is thrown out throughout the movie has a purpose and was handled the way it was intended (Look at my previous theory on the goo).

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/...

This interview elaborates on my point. They intentionally shrouded this whole plot in mystery and questions to get the viewer to sit and discuss the possible origin or use for the "Goo". I think many people here simply disregard most things in this movie as poorly put together, or just stupid, when we don't even have the whole story yet.

Clearly the point of the movie is this: you don't get the answers in life. And if you do, they damn well just lead to even more questions.

And if that is the over arching "point" of it all, than the opaque nature of the motivations, that so many deride are by design. The movie has clearly succeeded by driving us into conversation, attempting to do as a group socially to do what Shaw was doing literally. Find the answers.

I think the movies fantastic. Flaws and all.

The Conformist wrote:

I think many people here simply disregard most things in this movie as poorly put together, or just stupid, when we don't even have the whole story yet.

I don't think we'll ever get the whole story if Scott has his way. Which I'm fine with.

Atomicvideohead wrote:

Clearly the point of the movie is this: you don't get the answers in life. And if you do, they damn well just lead to even more questions.

And if that is the over arching "point" of it all, than the opaque nature of the motivations, that so many deride are by design. The movie has clearly succeeded by driving us into conversation, attempting to do as a group socially to do what Shaw was doing literally. Find the answers.

I think the movies fantastic. Flaws and all.

The Conformist wrote:

I think many people here simply disregard most things in this movie as poorly put together, or just stupid, when we don't even have the whole story yet.

I don't think we'll ever get the whole story if Scott has his way. Which I'm fine with.

Eh, there's creating an opaque narrative that doesn't give you all the answers, and then there's a narrative that's simply poorly structured. Prometheus is both.

When I criticize the movie for having poor character development, here's what I mean. I don't mean that David's motivations and actions aren't clearly detailed. I actually really like David's character and think he's genuinely brilliantly written. He's a character that makes no sense when viewed as the characters do (i.e., as a character obeying orders) but whose actions make perfect sense when viewed otherwise (as an autonomous actor); the way that plays into the overall storyline and themes with the Engineers is really impressive.

But there is some poor character development in there. For example, after the crewmember attack, the captain goes directly to Shaw, and they have an intimate, personal conversation about the nature of the planet, why they're there, and what happens next. It's a neat scene, and it's played by Rapace and Elba with a real sense of familiarity between the characters, but I'm not sure we've seen these two characters even speak to one another up to that point. The tone and approach of the scene doesn't quite match up with the movie up to that point. (Vickers likewise has some scenes where her emotional response doesn't quite line up with her character's development to that point.)

That's not something a sequel will fix; it's not a missing piece of information in the mythos. Another movie could tidy up the xenomorphs and the space jockeys and the black goo and all of it, but it won't fix some of the really basic structural problems with the story itself.

Between the lovers, haters and questioners, I would say that this film has evoked a greater collective (GWJ) response than most other films. My views:

1. Michael Fassbender - awesome! Didn't much like the fact that yet another android went off the rails in Alien film though. I knew he was gonna do that as soon as I saw the scene where he dyed his hair blonde, presumably to mimic his idol, Lawrence of Arabia.

2. The crew in general was really, really stupid. Considering they went on a 2-year trip, deep in uncharted space and whatnot, I found it annoying just how classic-horror-film stupid most of them were. I expected more in that regard.

3. The black goo reminded me of the same plot device used in the X-Files. And by that I mean a cheap cop-out used a crutch to prop up certain parts of the story. As others have noted here, it is just too ambiguous.

Oh, everybody's looking at mythic prometheus, but ....(and I may be biased) ...I think the gothic prometheus, the MODERN prometheus has a lot more in common with this story. Superior artificial life, misunderstood, mistreated, with a perhaps righteous hatred toward mankind? Yes please Herr Doctor Frankenstein. It's Mary Shelley doubled over on it's in space.

As for story structure complaints. I think the contents, and over structure are sound and good --but the connective tissue has issues. It like a fantastic building with a great design, and good building material. But the plumbing and the wiring is done lazily. The builder was just not interested in the mundane, but essential parts. Hence the quotidian "I'm not here to be your friend, Im just here for the money exchange."

I think a lot of people speculating about the Engineers' motivations are falling into the same trap as the movie characters did, by attributing far too much importance to humanity. Do the Engineers really need a reason to destroy us? This is a race that uses bioengineering for everything from seeding planets to building space suits. In that context, why would they think us special in any way? We're just another experiment. Wiping out all life on Earth could be the equivalent of cleaning a petri dish once you're done with it.

For all we know, their entire experiment could have been to see if they could create a sentient spacefaring civilization capable of deciphering their clues and travelling to LV-223. Once we get there, the experiment's over and it's time to clean up and start the next project.

muttonchop wrote:

I think a lot of people speculating about the Engineers' motivations are falling into the same trap as the movie characters did, by attributing far too much importance to humanity. Do the Engineers really need a reason to destroy us? This is a race that uses bioengineering for everything from seeding planets to building space suits. In that context, why would they think us special in any way? We're just another experiment. Wiping out all life on Earth could be the equivalent of cleaning a petri dish once you're done with it.

For all we know, their entire experiment could have been to see if they could create a sentient spacefaring civilization capable of deciphering their clues and travelling to LV-223. Once we get there, the experiment's over and it's time to clean up and start the next project.

The only thing that make me question that is the opening scene in the movie. Why did the Engineer have to die in order to seed the planet? That makes it seem more than a routine experiment.

Heretk wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I think a lot of people speculating about the Engineers' motivations are falling into the same trap as the movie characters did, by attributing far too much importance to humanity. Do the Engineers really need a reason to destroy us? This is a race that uses bioengineering for everything from seeding planets to building space suits. In that context, why would they think us special in any way? We're just another experiment. Wiping out all life on Earth could be the equivalent of cleaning a petri dish once you're done with it.

For all we know, their entire experiment could have been to see if they could create a sentient spacefaring civilization capable of deciphering their clues and travelling to LV-223. Once we get there, the experiment's over and it's time to clean up and start the next project.

The only thing that make me question that is the opening scene in the movie. Why did the Engineer have to die in order to seed the planet? That makes it seem more than a routine experiment.

The Engineer didn't look happy to be dying - there was a very 'why me?' look in his face, as he glanced at the ship, and took his medicine.

The title of the movie certainly moves me to particular hypothesis. Perhaps the Engineers as species did not create us, but a specific rebelling "Prometheus" did. And perhaps that sacrafice is what makes us abhorrent.

Tanglebones wrote:
Heretk wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I think a lot of people speculating about the Engineers' motivations are falling into the same trap as the movie characters did, by attributing far too much importance to humanity. Do the Engineers really need a reason to destroy us? This is a race that uses bioengineering for everything from seeding planets to building space suits. In that context, why would they think us special in any way? We're just another experiment. Wiping out all life on Earth could be the equivalent of cleaning a petri dish once you're done with it.

For all we know, their entire experiment could have been to see if they could create a sentient spacefaring civilization capable of deciphering their clues and travelling to LV-223. Once we get there, the experiment's over and it's time to clean up and start the next project.

The only thing that make me question that is the opening scene in the movie. Why did the Engineer have to die in order to seed the planet? That makes it seem more than a routine experiment.

The Engineer didn't look happy to be dying - there was a very 'why me?' look in his face, as he glanced at the ship, and took his medicine.

Exactly. So what, internal strife amongst Engineers? The scene also seemed very ceremonial. He was clad in robes and a loin-cloth, not the bio-suits we saw on all of the others.

Again it's opaque. He is upset, but why? Is he upset at being forced to do this? Or is upset at choosing this?

Also worth adding to the discussion: the full title of Mary Shelley's Frankstein is "Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus"

Atomicvideohead wrote:

Oh, everybody's looking at mythic prometheus, but ....(and I may be biased) ...I think the gothic prometheus, the MODERN prometheus has a lot more in common with this story. Superhuman artificial life, misunderstood, mistreated, with a perhaps righteous hatred toward mankind? Yes please Herr Doctor Frankenstein. It's Mary Shelley doubled over on it's in space.

I guess I could have come out and just said the title instead of being damnably wordy.

Atomicvideohead wrote:
Atomicvideohead wrote:

Oh, everybody's looking at mythic prometheus, but ....(and I may be biased) ...I think the gothic prometheus, the MODERN prometheus has a lot more in common with this story. Superior artificial life, misunderstood, mistreated, with a perhaps righteous hatred toward mankind? Yes please Herr Doctor Frankenstein. It's Mary Shelley doubled over on it's in space.

I guess I could have come out and just said the title instead of being damnably wordy.

Exactly! Brevity is the soul of capturing the spirit of a discussion, and delivering a bon mot!

Fire bad.

huh, I just realized the irony of the monster being associated with hating fire from a book called "the Modern Prometheus."

The Conformist wrote:

This interview elaborates on my point. They intentionally shrouded this whole plot in mystery and questions to get the viewer to sit and discuss the possible origin or use for the "Goo". I think many people here simply disregard most things in this movie as poorly put together, or just stupid, when we don't even have the whole story yet.

Scott and Lindelof might have an entire ecology charted out, but you can only judge what's on screen. And what they presented of the goo/proto-xenomorphs has so much cut out, it's basically a rorschach test; it has no pattern save for what we imagine after staring at it for too long.

Also, mystery isn't drama. Mystery alone does not a story make. Sure, it can be fun looking at all those pieces and play a puzzle game with them, but it makes for a crap story. For mystery to be work, it there ought to be characters you empathize with who need to find out the answer to that mystery. Ideally, there should be an answer that resonates with the story and characters, but I think you could've made an effective movie about having answers denied out of Prometheus. That would've required a movie with real characters however, that respected their motiviations and took the time to create real relationships. Then I might have cared about them, and any frustration they felt. Instead, they get jerked around in order to service the plot and provide obligatory horror movie scares, while I mentally nominate them for Worst Scientists Ever award.

Heretk wrote:

2. The crew in general was really, really stupid. Considering they went on a 2-year trip, deep in uncharted space and whatnot, I found it annoying just how classic-horror-film stupid most of them were. I expected more in that regard.

Especially when you compare them to the crew in Alien. It's kind of shameful how much savvier and better scientists the space truckers piloting the Nostromo are. One of the reasons I wound liking Charlize Theron so much is that she makes one of the few sane judgment calls in the entire movie when she grabs the flamethrower and refuses to let Mr Petulant Creationist on board.

Heretk wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I think a lot of people speculating about the Engineers' motivations are falling into the same trap as the movie characters did, by attributing far too much importance to humanity. Do the Engineers really need a reason to destroy us? This is a race that uses bioengineering for everything from seeding planets to building space suits. In that context, why would they think us special in any way? We're just another experiment. Wiping out all life on Earth could be the equivalent of cleaning a petri dish once you're done with it.

For all we know, their entire experiment could have been to see if they could create a sentient spacefaring civilization capable of deciphering their clues and travelling to LV-223. Once we get there, the experiment's over and it's time to clean up and start the next project.

The only thing that make me question that is the opening scene in the movie. Why did the Engineer have to die in order to seed the planet? That makes it seem more than a routine experiment.

Sure, but we're looking for human motivations in a non-human entity, and we're also only looking at a single data point. Maybe they sacrifice themselves all the time in order to start their experiments. The sacrifice is only significant if the Engineers view death and individuality the same way we do, and we have no way of knowing that.

Atomicvideohead wrote:

The title of the movie certainly moves me to particular hypothesis. Perhaps the Engineers as species did not create us, but a specific rebelling "Prometheus" did. And perhaps that sacrafice is what makes us abhorrent.

One might also read it is a faction of/schism among the Engineers. Some wanting to create and spread life among the stars, to create peers or eventual superiors(which draws an interesting parallel to David). If we take a step back and look at the story of Blade Runner, it could be argued that the Engineers may have split along the same lines as the Tyrell Corporation and the Blade Runners/government. After discovering the seeds the creation faction had planted, the extermination faction started putting together tools to wipe out the new lives in a secluded place, perhaps indicating that the exterminators were a minority faction.

Another option is that the Engineers have been seeding life like them in a series of experiments to create some idealized version of themselves. What the factors they are looking for is debatable, but the assumption is that we have somehow failed. Much like the prototyping phase of development results in a number of failed experiments, humans are a "broken" product that is unsuitable for deployment. Cleansing Earth is just a way of ensuring that we never interfere in any other experiments.

On the subject of the black goo, I interpreted it as self-replicating biological machinery parasite that modifies the host or uses the host's tissue/resources to create new organisms based off of pre-programmed design characteristics. That's why the meal worms became simplified face-huggers, why the octo-baby had the second set of jaws and the face-hugger implantation, and why the geologist became the incredible zombified hulk(xenomorph agility and aggression). The creation-brew seen at the beginning of the movie looked like the same technology used in a different fashion(directed evolution, on a much longer time scale).

Note that none of this excuses the poor writing and character interactions, the constant introduction of new questions without providing any answers, the failure to promote any real feeling of dread/unseen threat, or the constant telegraphing of every plot twist.

The engineers may have also been seeding life in order to have large quantities of test populations for future goos, that won't require the sacrifice of engineers; allowing humans to do the dirty work, ala the humans having robots to do their dirty work.

Tanglebones wrote:

Also worth adding to the discussion: the full title of Mary Shelley's Frankstein is "Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus"

Follow some round-about-ness here, because I think it may also prove more fruitful than a laundry list of alleged holes. My book club recently read Frankenstein, which prompted me to re-watch one of my favorite X-Files--"The Post-Modern Prometheus," a genetic riff on Frankenstein, among other things. Anyway, in one fell swoop, Scully cuts off the character of Victor Frankenstein at the knees, when Mulder launches into a speech about the temptation to create life if one had the means blah blah blah, and Scully says, more or less "Duh, Mulder, it's called procreation."

Anyway, we have a similar sort of thing going on in Prometheus. Infertility is a handy, often used motive for the robot maker, but this movie seems to say the drive to create life doesn't stem from the sadness that one can't--Shaw shows no interest in anything like that. No, the drive is exhibited in Weyland, who has a child, and apparently finds her a grave disappointment.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Also worth adding to the discussion: the full title of Mary Shelley's Frankstein is "Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus"

Follow some round-about-ness here, because I think it may also prove more fruitful than a laundry list of alleged holes. My book club recently read Frankenstein, which prompted me to re-watch one of my favorite X-Files--"The Post-Modern Prometheus," a genetic riff on Frankenstein, among other things. Anyway, in one fell swoop, Scully cuts off the character of Victor Frankenstein at the knees, when Mulder launches into a speech about the temptation to create life if one had the means blah blah blah, and Scully says, more or less "Duh, Mulder, it's called procreation."

Anyway, we have a similar sort of thing going on in Prometheus. Infertility is a handy, often used motive for the robot maker, but this movie seems to say the drive to create life doesn't stem from the sadness that one can't--Shaw shows no interest in anything like that. No, the drive is exhibited in Weyland, who has a child, and apparently finds her a grave disappointment.

Again, the only one in the movie who seems to take any joy from the act of creation (not counting Holloway and Shaw shtupping) is David, when he gives Holloway the goo.

Tanglebones wrote:

Again, the only one in the movie who seems to take any joy from the act of creation (not counting Holloway and Shaw shtupping) is David, when he gives Holloway the goo.

Although it comes across as crass, Holloways statement that humans made Robots because they "could," one could see that as an act of joy as well. It perhaps doesnot have inherent meaning beyond that. Like sex. I believe Victor Frankenstein had similar motives -- the act of creation brought him a twisted joy, ultimately.

Any kid with legos can tell you. Making stuff is fun.

but then again, so is destroying what you made to an extent.

Regardless of whatever potential the backstories and/or symbolism of the Engineers, xenomorphs, humanity, etc. could be said to have, lines like "Maybe because I'm a human being...and you're a robot" are massively facepalm-inducing. I care so much less about fictional worlds when their dialogue is so painful.

Atomicvideohead wrote:

I believe Victor Frankenstein had similar motives -- the act of creation brought him a twisted joy, ultimately.

His motives are rather vague--a reaction I had this time through that I didn't when I read it 15 years ago is that Victor is a grade-A moron with almost no capacity for self-reflection. But what is quite clear is that he thinks the creature is beautiful when he's working on it, but once he gives it life, he instantly sees it has horrifying. So, something else to consider.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Atomicvideohead wrote:

I believe Victor Frankenstein had similar motives -- the act of creation brought him a twisted joy, ultimately.

His motives are rather vague--a reaction I had this time through that I didn't when I read it 15 years ago is that Victor is a grade-A moron with almost no capacity for self-reflection. But what is quite clear is that he thinks the creature is beautiful when he's working on it, but once he gives it life, he instantly sees it has horrifying. So, something else to consider.

I think his motives are vague because he can't really articulate (there's that lack of self -reflection) why he;s doing it. There's obviously pride, and vanity, and all that ...but ultimately he's driven to do it because it's fun. And only when he's finished, when the act of creation, the act of fun is over that he asks himself "why did I build an 8 foot tall man with semi-translucent skin?"

Also, doesn't that description seem to fit a bit with the last Engineer?

If this was facebook, I'd like you tangle.

Now I can't wait for the DVD so I can cut together an edit of puttin on the ritz with Prometheus.

Atomicvideohead wrote:

I think his motives are vague because he can't really articulate (there's that lack of self -reflection) why he;s doing it. There's obviously pride, and vanity, and all that ...but ultimately he's driven to do it because it's fun. And only when he's finished, when the act of creation, the act of fun is over that he asks himself "why did I build an 8 foot tall man with semi-translucent skin?"

Also, doesn't that description seem to fit a bit with the last Engineer?

Heh, indeed.

I said that reading Frankenstein reminded me most of reading Lolita, except that unlike Humbert Humbert, Victor doesn't realize he should be lying his ass off. But, yes, ultimately, he seems to just make the creature Because He Can. Which is also very familiar.

This discussion moves too fast for me to keep up dammit.

All I know is that IGN interview basically says "Lindelof ruined this". Somehow, I'm sure.

Though by ruined I mean "made less good", because I still like the movie.

How about some non-story complaints, eh? Like how Weyland looked like Future-Biff-Tannen.

I would also like to once more extend an invite to anyone that would be interested to guest on my Podcast recording this Wednesday evening if you'd like to be a part of a Prometheus discussion there.