Just Not Very Good

I am so proud and happy and intellectually gratified to completely disagree with your post! Sorry, No Disrespect intended, It's More like contempt in equal amounts to that hurled at Ridley over all this that I feel for every person who has face facts...NEVER made a film in their LIFE... to even THINK this one was bad when what it was by FAR the best film to be released in Hollywood in at least 15 years!!!

Odd how two people can have similar understandings of a films shortcomings, but view the complete picture very differently. I agree with most of your criticisms (bar the careening existential discussions - I actually didn't think they took this aspect far enough), but I can't help but like the film. Love. Love the film.

@Spartacus. At least you are passionate about the movie.

Overall, I had serious problems with the basic premise of the plot, not just how muddled and confused/incoherent it was. Namely: All life on Earth from single-celled to modern humans shares a common ancestral DNA. If the engineers seeded life on earth as in the panspermia theory, they would have done so approximately 4 billion years ago. This means the opening scene with the Dr. Manhattan/Voldemort-looking alien took place 2-4.5 billion years in the past in order for his DNA to have seeded all life on Earth. Fast forward to when the engineers all died or went into stasis a mere 2,000 years ago. Why does their species appear EXACTLY THE SAME? They haven't evolved at all, while humans meanwhile have evolved from simple life forms into mammals, higher mammals, apes, primitive humans, modern humans and now have advanced technology and are capable of space travel. Meanwhile, the "engineers" haven't aged a day and their technology is roughly the same as it was thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. Also, when Dr. Shaw analyzes the DNA of the dead engineer, the computer says the DNA is a "match." If the engineers only visited Earth much more recently (tens of thousands of years ago in the cave paintings) and created humanity with DNA identical to their own, then modern humans would look identical to the Dr. Manhattan/Voldemort aliens. If the DNA matched completely, humans would HAVE TO look just like the aliens. And no, Spartacus, I am not a filmmaker. I just walked into this film with high hopes and some basic scientific knowledge (and have watched all the other Alien films) and none of this made sense to me as a humble moviegoer with a functioning brain.

@Spartacus '[i]...it was by FAR the best film to be released in Hollywood in at least 15 years!!![/i]' Are you really saying that movies like There Will be Blood, The Dark Knight, Inception, are far less coherent and constructed than Prometheus? I don't see how, but i'm interested to know what you think. Also; you have no [i]idea[/i] if any of the people here have never made a film. If you're a professional in the industry you don't go to a message board, shout out who you are, what you do...and then slam a film. It's beyond unprofessional, and you'd more than likely become a professional pariah. Chances are though: you're right, and there is no one here with film-making talent. But still... Also, because you've never made a film surely you don't have the capacity to say it's 'good' either? How can you understand what a 'good' film is? You've never made a film! All respect intended, and hopefully taken!

@PlotHolePuncher I was being generous with the entertainment value of the film, but scientifically it falls short on all fronts and I agree with you. There are too many problems with the DNA match, the "seeding of the planet: as it were and the other scientific holes in the plot. I read an article a few weeks back that harkens to the book from 40 years ago called "Chariots of the Gods", by Eric Von Daniken. In a way, this movie pays homage to that book and it's poorly conceived theories. I remember how the scientific community lambasted that book and the subsequent TV documentary. This movie is not based on a good science foundation, but it does make for entertaining Science Fiction. I just thought it was a poor story, too.

Surely there were some MUCH BETTER movies in the last 15 years... But we dont want to count years... I may watch prometheus several times as i am still "hot" for this universe, but i am not sure if it will interest me in 5 years anymore, or even in 20. Aliens, Matrix, BladeRunner, DarkCity, Brazil i can watch over and over again and i still have a great time. Prometheus gives me headache on to many points and i find myself RAPING MY BRAIN when i watch it to be able to enjoy lil bit... But as i still spend much time on this forum, i am not sure if it is my fascination for that ridley/alien universe and the excitement to "have been there personally when prometheus was released", or if it is simply some kind of "requiem", a place where i can meet other "sad, disappointed" people who expected so much more on prometheus. Haha.

@spacyfreak We all expected so much more and were very disappointed. Blade Runner is a classic and endures to this day. Roy Batty's death scene after he saves Deckard's life. The dove released as Batty dies. Classic.

[b]All life on Earth from single-celled to modern humans shares a common ancestral DNA. If the engineers seeded life on earth as in the panspermia theory, they would have done so approximately 4 billion years ago. [/b] That's correct and there is a teaser clue in there if you know anything about the primordial atmosphere. [b]Fast forward to when the engineers all died or went into stasis a mere 2,000 years ago. Why does their species appear EXACTLY THE SAME? [/b] There are slight differences, around the neck. But how could they evolve? They do not produce offspring. They are clones, made in the image of the Engineer. They lack anything superfluous to their roles - such as any body hair, skin pigments, (a developed sense of free will and purpose ) [b]Also, when Dr. Shaw analyzes the DNA of the dead engineer, the computer says the DNA is a "match." If the engineers only visited Earth much more recently (tens of thousands of years ago in the cave paintings) and created humanity with DNA identical to their own, then modern humans would look identical to the Dr. Manhattan/Voldemort aliens. If the DNA matched completely, humans would HAVE TO look just like the aliens. [/b] No. Genes can be present but in activate or inactive states. consider that, aside from sperm cells and egg cells, every cell in your body has the same DNA. But some of it is hair, some of it is heart muscle, some of it is brain. Gene therapy even in our time can [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8337-gene-turnoff-makes-meek-mice-fearless.html]activate and deactivate some genes in lab mice.[/url] (they are not removed... merely 'switched off') [b]And no, Spartacus, I am not a filmmaker. I just walked into this film with high hopes and some basic scientific knowledge (and have watched all the other Alien films) and none of this made sense to me as a humble moviegoer with a functioning brain.[/b] Actually I am a film maker. I'm no Ridley Scott, but I've been in enough audiences to know that if you bamboozle them you lose them. It's one thing to tell people "it's not an Alien prequel but it kind of is" but to let them go in expecting an adventure sci fi (perhaps minus the xenomorph) and then hand them an enigma, (which at the level of the suface narrative seems very flawed) is going to lose the audience. It's all well and good saying if they don't understand the art, then screw them, but this movie needs to make money, which means wide audience, and no matter how much Ridley Scott says 'don't expect it ti be another "Alien" ' that baggage will still come into the cinema. Very hard to leave it outside when the film keeps putting into little echoes of it. I recall wondering, if they'd just put more effort into the surface narrative to remove plotholes, then it would go over fine, but I on reconsidering the story, I saw that the way the selected various mythologies threw up demands on the surface narrative that meant certain people couldn't be in certain rooms before others, and the reason driving the characters seemed contrived and lacking in credibility. It doesn't help to simply assert that people who don't get it have some personality issues. How condescending is that? . How about a subtle hint that the film works on three levels, (I don't think most people were prepared for that.) The surface narrative is sometimes made maddeningly confusing in order to reflect what the writer wishes to reflect out of the philosophical narrative or the mythological layer.

@brightonrock Right on mate. If you complain about your mobile phone you don't need to produce evidence of shipping a major handset to market before you are allowed an opinion. If you complain about the train being late you don't need to justify to the world that you are a master train driver with 10 years experience. So why on earth would you need to have directed a movie to have an opinion on wether you liked it or not.

@Spartacus. I very much disagree that this was hollywood's best movie in 15 years. Either you are a true fanatic of the film or you dont watch movies much.

"I am so proud and happy and intellectually gratified to completely disagree with your post!" What gratification is there to be had when the only argument you can muster up is "you cant do any better" Spartacus? I expect this is another drive by posting like the thread where you got basic facts about events in the film totally wrong. As others have pointed out repeatedly, you do not need to be an expert on invisible tailoring to point out that the emperor is, in fact, stark bollock fucking naked. This isn't even in the top 100 films made in the last 15 years, let alone the best.

Nothing wrong with the film. End transmission

Sorry Spartacus, but best film by far in the last 15 years? Really? Have you been living under a sound-proof rock? Nothing wrong with the film? So then what are people so upset about?

Don't worry, just watch it 56 times, then it gets better, I promise ; - )