Are you willing to give honest opinion of Scott and Prometheus if you HATE IT?

nope.

As much as I am looking forward to Prometheus, and screw any other movie this summer.....I will maintain a neutral stance about it. It's only mature to be neutral about things, instead of being biased and one-sided. Of course, it's hard for me to hate a movie. I'm a guy who appreciates a lot of things; one may think I'm "too appreciative". I just keep an open mind about things and try to look at things from both sides and then reach my own conclusion. In the case of Prometheus, I'm sure we can expect some hardcore Scott enthusiasts who will denounce this movie as being "not as good as his original work".....but that's their opinion. You get the same kind of people concerning different things in media as well. Personally I think they may be just biased because of the era when Sir Ridley released his work, kind of like how everyone says the original Grinch Who Stole Christmas cartoon was better than the Grinch Who Stole Christmas movie in 2000 because "Well, it's the original.".......okay, bad comparison. ._.

Ugh, PLEASE don't ever mention the "Grinch" remake in public again, CrazyDave...40 lashes for you...

I will be truthful, sure, and I am biased in favor of Scott... but Matchstick Men? I consider Kubrick to be near to up in the xeno murals, but The Shining? No on both accounts. Anyone can lose sight.

By...Honest opinion if the movie ends up being bad, you mean...? Lighting my house on fire and putting a bullet in my brain? Then yeah, why...YES, i WILL! HAH! Take THAT Ridley Scott. Nah...can't be bad... *Cocks shotgun*

I have a duty to be intellectually honest. I will praise what is praiseworthy about it and criticize what I felt was a disappointing. Given what I have seen so far, however, the balance is tipping in the direction of more praise than criticism. If after the movie is seen this changes, I vow to be honest in my review of the film. -abordoli (staff)

@[b]Otto[/b] But the movie was good. And I'm not saying the original cartoon was shit; it's an eternal classic. The shitty Dr. Seuss movie was Cat in the Hat in 2003; Mike Myers needs to, uh, I'll stop....no more lashes. Ow. T~T

I hope it's a good movie, but hell...it's not MY movie. If it sucks, I'd say so. Wouldn't be any skin off of my butt.

doing an alien prequel is one thing.... but he better not fool with bladerunner and make a sequel. that movie is perfect. you dont mess with perfection.

No worries here. I think Scott is almost always brilliant visually. And almost always crap when it comes to content, post Legend. Sure, maybe I am biased towards the earlier era that Scott comes in at the tail end of. Correction: I am most definitely biased to the 60s to early 80s era, to my eyes, with good reason. So I will definitely label crap what is crap. But this does look good. Even if there are a few too many People's 50 most beautiful people in the cast. It still looks really, really good.

What a great question for a kindergarten class

@Alpha, Bad news then, it's just been reported on Mania.com that it is going to be a sequel to Blade Runner that Scott will be working on.

And recent reports have surfaced that Scott has recently signed a contract with Marvel to begin work on an Avengers-Prometheus tie-in.

I wonder if it will be canon?

Yeah, honestly. Look at RSs work. Box-CutterRunner, Alien, Gladiator... All amazing movies, although Alien....Eerrr..I respect it for what it did for the history of film, but...As a movie, on it's own. I didn't think it was anything special. That's why the whole Alien series just doesn't work. Like i've said about a hundred times by now. You can't just base a movie on something as simple and uncomplex as some mindless creatures... The latter Alien movies are PAINFULLY obvious proof.

Yeah, honestly. Look at RSs work. Box-CutterRunner, Alien, Gladiator... All amazing movies, although Alien....Eerrr..I respect it for what it did for the history of film, but...As a movie, on it's own. I didn't think it was anything special. That's why the whole Alien series just doesn't work. Like i've said about a hundred times by now. You can't just base a movie on something as simple and uncomplex as some mindless creatures... The latter Alien movies are PAINFULLY obvious proof. *Waits for angry Alien fans*

I'd be willing to tell him. Because God knows someone should've told M. Night Shyamalan ages ago. His first was his best.

Some great responses here. : ) I feel so at home on this website. Only folks that are interested in cinema here. It's been a while since I've been integrated into a family of film-watchers since I studied film for three years up North. Sorry for the exposition. I really look forward to this film since RS is making it. Alien 3 was a bigger disappointment to me than the others made around Alien, Alien 2 was grand, and Resurrection took on a whole new angle. Thanks to Junet (Great filmmaker). That response to the Alien films should give you an angle on how I will respond to things. I don't ever like bashing cinematic work, and generally focus on the constructive things. It's what makes better cinema. The truth is that most people aren't literate in watching cinema, so most feedback can be frustrating and uneducated. Everyone here seems well-versed. Thank you all! ;D

I will be rigorously dispassionate and frank in my assessment, come what may. @Prenihility What you say seems a gross misinterpretation as Alien does not seem to support what you have said? Virtually nothing about the creature in Alien was [i]explained[/i] - which was part of the strength of the film: but, I don't think that is the same thing, at all, as declaring that the creature was mindless? It quite clearly had purpose, we just didn't [i]know[/i] exactly what that purpose was, nor did we know, exactly, how intelligent or complex it was - which was also why it was so threatening. [In the backstory, it was never supposed to be dumb, it was supposed to be at least as intelligent as we are - just different]. There are clues: it doesn't behave like an animal - it just behaves like something that has little to fear from humans, has it's own objectives for them and itself - and isn't even that much interested in us apart from in terms of fulfilling those objectives? It certainly doesn't behave as if it would want to explain itself or want to communicate anymore than we would want to explain ourselves to, or communicate with, a mouse, or a pig....it treats humans with pitiless contempt, if not complete indifference. The [i]subsequent[/i] films took those interesting voids in our understanding and filled them with a jumping and squealing insect-thing that lived mostly to serve the interest of a Big Queen, which, however well executed it was, it was really a Big Excuse, Big Idea to then give a much devalued entity some value, drama and milage - the creature in Alien didn't need any Queen. It was conferred that it had it's own ideas. We just weren't told what they were. So, you may condemn [i]those[/i] films on that basis but, (I would have thought, obviously), you cannot condemn Alien by the same terms.

My take on your question: yes I would and I always be truthful to my own. It is quite simple to me. Though Scott did 2 great Scifi movies, there is still one that is unbeatable IMHO and that is 2001.