Awful, horrible, cliche filled claptrap

I respectfully disagree. I was NOT disappointed. If you have such passionate hate for the film, why not just forget about it? Leave this website and forget the movie? Simple. Or better yet, write an angry letter to Ridley Scott and friends explaining how angry you are.

xemu, can i suggest NON-fiction? I mean, it sounds like you wanted a documentary.

NineteenHundred, Might I remind you this is a DISCUSSION board. So discuss the film, don't tell people to leave. Freedom of speech is allowed. And ideas can be shared. Why don't you stop acting like a child and ask him some follow up questions to better understand him?

You're singling out a bit of dialogue without including the context (which was an exchange between an embittered child and a tyrannical egotistical power mad parent, btw..she was being caustic with her choice of words) And then calling the whole script a wash. That's pretty idiotic. The "plot holes" I bet you're alluding to have been well documented by the writers and Scott as left open intentionally...both to suggest a possible sequel, or to be left open for debate (such like many elements of 2001) I agree with some characters being bumbling, no debate there. But one could contend that only one, maybe two of the slightly central characters were the bumbling ones, and more were just a bit of cliche. Think about how you conduct yourself in everyday life for a moment...is every utterance you speak a well crafted, exacting idea, or is 80% of it small talk and drivel? I bet the latter. Though these characters are scientists or what have you, they are humans first. Not everything that came out of Sagan's mouth was cosmic truths. I think 90% of the script was fine and unfolded how real people actually talk.

I wanted a clever, unpredictable plot with deep, smart dialogue. Prometheus is no Alien or Blade Runner. Not even close. Millburn is jar jar binx.

yeah, but in star wars you don't get to see jar jar slowly die after arm is broken.

Prometheus was not meant to be an Alien...at all, it was stated many times by Scott. You cant make "Alien" twice, it was done already. Scott is not going to beat a dead horse over again as we saw with the sequels. I believe that is the problem, many people want to see a xeno, a queen, a remake of Alien but through Prometheus....not gonna happen... The story was meant to go into a different direction, rather than follow in the shadow of Alien.

#Sambo Ok, I'm sorry for being harsh. But I didn't ask any questions for discussion because no one is obviously going to change his mind about the film. His reasons are very subjective and you can't argue with subjective opinions.

Prometheus is not on the level of Alien, Blade Runner or 2001. What we have here is a Star Wars prequel. Its watchable, though a huge disappointment.

Xemu, there is a blindspot most fans have when comparing what they loved 30 years ago to what is brand new. The biggest thing that changed in those 30 years is probably you, not to mention you've had a long time for those movies to grow on you. This is often very hard to see, but taste and impressions and most importantly how impressionable you are change a lot in 30 years. Even for Ridley Scott. what recently would you say compares to this, because the movies you cited are 30 years ago

The IMDB user reviewers are overall negative. Here is one fine piece of copy that sums up my thoughts exactly: "So who do they send? A gaggle of fractious goons whose collective scientific nous is rivalled only by that of the Three Stooges. Within minutes of touching down (conveniently beside the only 'man-made' structures on the planet, a'la 1960s Star Trek) the 'scientists' are yanking off their helmets, on the basis of 'it seems fine to me', dipping their fingers into strange organic ooze, and lugging a severed alien head back to an unquarantined spaceship in a sandwich bag."

Well, compared to the expectations for a new sci-fi movie of sci-fi-godfather ridley scott ANY script or movie can only disappoint. But compared to the most other sci-fi plots, prometheus is a masterpiece. It "could" have been done much better by changing the screenplay here and there, smarter development of the characters and definitly another end, which would give the viewer a greater "satisfaction feeling". It lacks mostly of TO MANY open questions and as it is not a movie that is "closed in itself" you simply can not be satisfied with it. And thats exactly the "lindelofs strategy of writing screenplays", all the way down of the dumb blah-LOST-opera. Never come to the end, to the answer, and allways feed suspense....

@xemu I was also very disappointed after seeing this film. Great visuals can never make up for a bad story and horrendous acting. I just couldn't believe in the characters except David. Holloway, Fifield and Milburn would be better off in another AvP sequel, they're the most stupid scientists/geologists etc I've ever seen. Why build a trillion dollar ship only to let all these schmucks get along acting unprofessional? Seriously, why are they chosen for this mission? Out of billions of people, couldn't Weyland find any serious, disciplined scientists? The first hour of the film is great, it builds up the tension only to be brought down by a series of events that doesn't make any sense because everything is rushed like a Michael Bay film. Then add some ridiculous puppet monsters, a hyper zombie, and Prometheus just turned into a freak show that forgot It's own beginning.

@xemu That review snippet sounds like it was written by someone who wasn't paying attention to the movie. Or even worse, didn't even see it.

There was no movie to pay attention to. How about this, leave the mute button off, but have all of the dialogue in a language I don't understand. The movie as it is, would lose nothing. The OP is correct on all accounts. Promethus follows every pitfall of a bad movie from bad writing, to completely idiotic characters, to cheesy creatures. OMG the scientists are so dumb! OMG the creatures are fraking stupid and unimaginative!

I [i]WAS[/i] very disappointed too. Thankfully I quite like the film now though :) Sorry to hear you didnt like, it my friend.

Isn't IMDB *always* negative, especially about anticipated movies? On the "review" in question: "So who do they send? A gaggle of fractious goons whose collective scientific nous is rivalled only by that of the Three Stooges. Within minutes of touching down (conveniently beside the only 'man-made' structures on the planet, a'la 1960s Star Trek) the 'scientists' are yanking off their helmets, on the basis of 'it seems fine to me', dipping their fingers into strange organic ooze, and lugging a severed alien head back to an unquarantined spaceship in a sandwich bag." 1. The "man made" structure we watched them after searching the planet for some sign of the civilaztion they were hoping to locate, you mean? Would you have preferred they just land on the first bit of dirt they come to instead? Even on our own missions to the moon, the landing site was chosen after as careful a survey as we can manage... 2. Helmets were removed after analysis of the atmosphere, with note taken that this was not natural but rather 'man made' in the same manner as their own terraforming methodologies. In fact, it was even stated that the atmosphere was just like earth's - "only cleaner". And there was quite a bit an arguing over Holloway's choice to remove his helmet, besides. 3. The crew was explicitly told not to touch the goo. It was David who did so, because he was following the orders of Weyland. 4. The severed head was quarantined (twice, in point of fact) and placed through a decontamination process. Clearly, whoever wrote the review either didn't see the film or lacked the capacity to pay any sort of close attention (perhaps ADHD). And I wonder if that isn't the divisive line between people who able to enjoy the film versus those who can manage only vitriol for it. It was a film that did not hand its audience pat answers with an easy to follow plot that completed a 90 minute journey with a neat wrap up.

In terms of Storytelling, the execution is generally so very poor that the fact of it cannot simply be brushed aside as, "deliberate intrigue" - this is structural poverty.

I second 1900's original post 100%

It's still crappy screenwriting, and an embarrassment, in my opinion, for a master like Ridley Scott to present us with what happens with the Shaw character. Nobody could undergo the serious surgery trauma she went through and then run and jump and essentially turn into Sigourney Weaver. I can't remember if she ran in front of a slo-mo explosion, but she might as well have - by that point it was essentially Michael Bay. I expected this movie to be so much more sophisticated than that. That what you get when you settle for hipster tv writers, I suppose. I can forgive all the red herrings and Alien mythology that we're left guessing at, that's part of the fun, but worn-out cliches ? THAT was grosser than any of the slime 'n' creatures.

Seriously, I am so frickin tired of all the complaining fanboys. This movie alone is a pretty decent movie. If you think differently, you are irrational. Nothing was promised. There weren't Xenomorphs or chestbursters. Sorry for that. There were 3 pretty decent characters: David, Shaw and the captain. Halloway was crap, yes. There were unanswered questions, yes. Did you expect to be spoon fed? Even Alien and Aliens left unanswered questions. And this isn't a horror flick or action flick like its predecessors. It's taking on something different. Not necessarily better but different so you shouldn't have expected human murdering xenomorphs running rampant. And if you are a rational person, you understand that this movie had its good aspects and its bad aspects. JUST LIKE EVERY MOVIE.

The scene with the father/daughter was predictable and the dialog was horrible. That private scene should have been on the cutting room floor. As far as the cliche etc. 1. A trillion dollars sounds like alot, however predicting the economy and the value of a dollar in 2094 is impossible. I am guessing a trillion in 80+ years is probably a sneeze compared to today. 2. I found the stooges believable. There are companies worth almost a billions today that have stooges in middle management. It is all about who you know and to who you are related. The things that made Alien great was the common man being in the ship because space travel had become common. The crew were middle income, middle road joes with a few scientists. The ships were dirty, and common. It was what made it feel more believable.

[quote]A king has his reign, then he dies. Its inevitable. Ridley may now lay claim to the worst dialogue in a big budget sci-fi film ever. Lindelof and Spaihts are officially a couple of hacks, who somehow managed to pull a rug over the master of the genre. The crew, on a trillion dollar mission, are a shallow group of bumbling stooges. Swiss cheese resembles the incoherent plot. Without a good story, visuals are best enjoyed with the mute button on. You will be very disappointed.[/quote] ````````````````````````````````` I disagree completely and iMHO anyone of you guys who agrees with him... ...Well I am not going to start a fight you ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION... BUT LET'S JUST SAY i THINK YOU ARE ARE BEING NEAR SIGHTED! it's a movie after all..AND I would {If I were not such a nice guy} DEMAND FROM EVERYONE WHO DOES SAY THIS OR AGREE WITH IT SHOW ME THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE THAT IS ANY BETTER !!!

If you didn't like it, that's cool...it's your opinion and you are welcome to it. When Alien and Aliens came out, you saw it in a theater, talked about it, and if you liked it you bought the video. Today, there are internet forums where self-appointed gatekeepers of what is and what isn't acceptable vociferously exert their attempts at control over the perception of the film and its effect on other viewers. Never before has their been a public forum for people who incessantly complain just for the sake of complaining.

@Internecivus Raptus Thanks for posting that so I didn't have to. One point I'll make myself on the "stooges" bit though. They weren't stooges, they were scared to death. Remember only three people on the ship knew what the mission was. They were out of their element from the start and running smack dab into alien technology and life-forms made things worse.

Promknight, you say, it's not an Alien movie. Allright, I could live with that, as it was foretold, "no aliens in the movie", yet it's full of references of aliens, which is a bit strange in a no-aliens movie, and on top of that, in the end we see an actual alien. Allright, I understand, they had to think about the alien fanbase, tossed a bone to them, make them happy. This isn't the problem. I also can live with the questions left open - if they do it correctly, it elevates the story to the next level - personally I like to have some clues about important events in the story, not just vague pictures, but fine, they have to sell the sequel somehow, right? The problem is, the plot is just useless - it's illogical and unrealistic - you can't possibly imagine a "first encounter team" acting like teenagers discovering an old, creepy warehouse...

I completely agree with the OP, the film was just plain bad. The movie was a mix of terrible dialogue, poor pacing, weak science, and some of the poorest handling of big philosophical issues I've ever seen in a serious film. The whole thing felt like a movie video game adaptation not actually based on a video game. Did not expect it to be like Alien but never dreamed it would be on the same level as the movie version of Doom. Oh how the mighty have fallen. The good news is that Scott's next film is being written by Cormac McCarthy and stars Fassbender so he will surely redeem himself then. That said, everyone who disliked the film should probably post these types of discussions in the Prometheus Reviews (disliked) section. It might be leaving a bitter taste in the mouths of people who loved the film to see threads like this.

Hi guys, I just wanted to add my voice to things as someone who never actually saw the original Alien. I enjoyed the movie in the sense that I didn't think it was a waste of time - the visuals and cinematography were amazing and I will never regret having experienced them, but the actual movie (rather, the plot) annoyed me to no end. ArchEtech, earlier in this thread, put it rather succinctly: [quote]There was no movie to pay attention to.[/quote] Again, I enjoyed the visuals, but there wasn't much logic to anything and I ended up leaving the theater extremely frustrated and annoyed. After all, I registered in these forums just to point out some plot inconsistencies regarding plant life at the beginning of the movie - something as petty as that is not a good sign by any standard.

thefall, it takes a special kind of person to bother typing that, full of win!

I think a quick scan at the imdb ratings tells a story. Rated highest by under 18s and the older the person the lower the average rating. You see folks, the problem is that Prometheus may be a 7/10 on average, but for me this film loses -2 for the sheer contempt it shows for the audience. A weak story, awful script and an overall feeling that not only could it have been better, but that it wasn't better because they were determined to spin this out commercially. I get the feeling that there wasn't a story which needed telling, and what they did have should probably have made one excellent movie. Your can throw in established actors, wonderful special effects but at the end of the day if you care so little about your audience and the art of story telling, you will royally piss some of them off. Never mind the quality, feel the width.

I have to say I agree with the OP, though not as harshly. I went to see the movie in Imax the other day with four other friends. We all came to the same conclusion that the visuals were good but the pace was too quick and the dialogue/script were very poor in places. Will be watching it again though to give it another chance, maybe when the Blueray is out.

OK - I agree with the OP 100%. When multi millionaire filmakers/writers/producers are failing to get the basics correct that shows utter contempt to the audience. I can forgive so much in a movie but when you have sloppy basics it cant be overlooked. All the people that love this film so much must not have an understanding of how a successful screenplay is created. Protagonist/Antagonist - Character arcs, pacing, intelligent dialogue, flow, timing and above all a story with a beginning, middle and end (yes, I know its part of a trilogy - potentially but it still needs to stand alone) that concludes, and better still leaves much to be discussed and built on later. District 9 is a classic example of that if we are talking modern sci-fi (yes Frantz - I know you will hate that movie just like you hated the Star Trek re-boot - that to be honest has one of the most exciting openings to any film in history yet you dont see it, you think its shit -That says soooo much about you Frantz). So y'all think Prometheus ticks all the above criteria do ya? You think its got interesting characters? You think it has great pacing? You think it has intelligent dialogue? three simple words to you - EMPERORS NEW CLOTHES

I see that there are numerous posters saying that the caliber and expectations of the movie need to be realized because this movie is not a rehash of Alien. Ok, I understand that but from the director who made the original; I was expecting some sci-fi horror, a great story that makes sense and good acting. What he did is what he always does and that is create great visuals. Movie is doing decent thus far at the box office but lets see if it could make 250 million worldwide. I am still thinking it is going to take a big tank on the next weekend with only die hard fans viewing the movie again for a second/third or forth time. This movie will have a cult-following nevertheless but in my views; it does not meet what a cult-classic contains.

The film was so inane that it cemented my hunch that Scott's status as "visionary" is based on two films he made long, long ago that had already been in development by people of substance in the ideas and execution department. It really doesn't deserve a sequel. The closing scene of the 'Deacon' thing, so reminiscent of the baby-Godzilla at the end of the 1998 'Godzilla', was the final insult.

This just in: People have different opinions, cats fight dogs, grass is green. Weather at 10.

@xemu I absolutely agree with you. I´ve seen it twice now, because someone in here made the crazy claim that watching it again would magically turn this average sci-fi action flick into a brilliant movie - guess what?...it didn´t. I normally wouldn´t find it fair to compare sci-fi movies with "Alien" or "Blade Runner", but this time around it´s justified, because Ridley himself elevated this movie into the realm of sci-fi grandeur. After a lot of thinking and analyzing, I think that my biggest disappointment with this movie is, that it doesn´t take its own potential seriously. Instead of turning its brilliant premise into an intense, disturbing fabel of creation, it randomly throws its ideas around and settles for indifferent action spiced up with a Jurassic Park-esque score.

Is somebody out there going to try to say that this movie is in the same caliber as Alien, Blackhawk Down Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven?

completely agree 100% with xemu's comments. When "it's just a movie" is the best explanation that can be given for all the inept story telling it's pretty clear the story teller is inept. The buck stops with Ridley Scott, the guy seems like a fraud if this was his idea of a ground breaking science fiction film. It was FILLED with cliches. From taking their helmets off on a foreign planet to getting a precise location on a moon within a solar system in a star map who's stars are light years apart from each other,... I had hardly taken my jacket off in the theatre before I realized this was not a film to take seriously. Who picked these clowns to be on this "scientific journey"??

@xemu Agreed. Plot is swiss cheese at best and character development is non-existent.

Ridley Scott should be embarrassed. Has Hollywood forgtten how to tell a story. Conceptually it was epic the execution was rank amaturish. Ridley Scott has entered my hall of shame.