Forum Topic

Alienpuzzle
MemberOvomorphJun-13-2012 12:26 PM"Prometheus" is a film born of an interesting idea but with an agenda so varied that it cannot possibly fulfill each and every one of its interests. Moreover, the coexistence of these very diverse themes results in some serious problems of tone which are very difficult to ignore. Let's just say that rather poignant musings on the creation of man and the nature of the soul does not get along very well with monsters straight out of "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."
And if we add an element of ambiguity that stems from sparing vital information for understanding some of the actions of the protagonists, in the absence of which it is easy to assume that these are a completely illogical acts, we have a sure shot for controversy , where some fans will complete the missing elements with theories lifted from the discussion forums and viral videos, and other will give up concluding that it's just the screenplay's expository problems.
I personally favor the latter: I do not think a film should retro-feed information from any other medium, or even from other entries in the "Alien" franchise. The film itself should contain all the clues to explain itself. In this regard, "Prometheus" wins some points for its first half, during which it sets itself apart from the universe of "Alien", putting enough distance from it, so it is actually able to stand on its own foundations.
Unfortunately, soon enough it starts losing these points, as it piles up the type of loose ends that only a sequel (or two) could mend. That is to say, "Prometheus" is not so much indebted to the past of "Alien" as it is to the future of a new saga. It is a sign of the times, where sequels and reboots dominate the market and its creators conceive narrative arcs that only close in a next installment (box office returns permit).
Not that "Prometheus" does not have its pleasures. In fact, as entertainment, it is a film that has very few flaws. As a spectator you can feel frustrated, but never bored. Obviously, it is a film built around a handful of very effective set pieces, except perhaps one involving a mutant attacking the crew, an episode whose sole function seems to have been to raise the body-count.
The decidedly retro look of the movie is another aspect that I enjoyed greatly, a style not necessarily inspired by the iconography of the original "Alien", but by cult films like Mario Bavas's "Planet of the Vampires" , Fred M. Wilcox's "Forbidden Planet", and of course Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", which opening sequence plays a similar role to that of "Prometheus"; Weyland's room also strongly reminds the aging astronaut's quarters in that film.
Equally outstanding is the conceptual art for the Engineers: their presence is more evocative than any description the writers could have come up with: their appearance is reminiscent of the archetypes of beauty and virile power, usually associated with the notion of a Creator, reflected in art from ancient times, suggesting that perhaps these were not just a sublimation of an ideal, but a reflection of a real model.
While watching "Prometheus," especially when a character was delivering a particularly bland line of dialogue, I could not help feeling that the crew from the Prometheus were in desperate need of a philosopher. Maybe a Dr. Spock type of character: someone who could make an erudite interpretation of the events; an intellect capable of drawing analogies; of weighing the significance and consequences of the encounter between Creator and creature as featured in the film. None of the characters lived up to the challenge. Shaw, the protagonist, was admittedly wrong throughout the whole film (not an example of clear mind for sure), and David, although might have been a good philosopher, hid his motivations so well that his contribution to this effect was limited to only a few sarcastic remarks. Pearls before swine, as they say...
My score: 7/10
5 Replies

Alienpuzzle
MemberOvomorphJun-13-2012 1:52 PM@FromNJ Well, apparently this is not the same moon and it is not the same derelict and engineer...

spacyfreak
MemberOvomorphJun-13-2012 12:42 PMNice review! Yo, a philosopher role would be a great idea.. i think i would have let out ms. fickers from the flick and add an "explainer" for the dumber audiences, like me.

FromNJ
MemberOvomorphJun-13-2012 12:44 PMI can only emphatically agree with all you wrote. I would just add that the plot holes and errant science distracted me so much that I could only give this a 5 of 10. It only gets a 5 for the outstanding special effects.
There were major and glaring inconsistencies between this film and Alien. You pointed some out, but another example is regarding the engineer pilot. Dallas and Kane found the pilot in his chair with his chest exploded. Yet, here we find the pilot left his ship to kill Shaw in the escape pod - where it turns out he was killed by the creature.

Pasidon
MemberOvomorphJun-13-2012 2:04 PMno prometheus lands on lv-223 i think it is and the moon/planet ripleys crew lands on in alien is lv-426, prometheus is just explaining what the engineer is or as its previously been known as "space jockey" is, its just one of the many spaceships that was most likley housing the black liquid aswell. Because if you remember there were many domes on lv-223 containign spaceships so the spaceship on lv-426 is just another vessel from the engineer home world. I do think though lv-223 and lv-426 are nearby each other due to having lv at the start so this may mean same galaxy or constalation so the alien that breaks out the engineers chest on lv-223 starts layin eggs and at somepoint someone must either pick up an egg or recieve a facehugger then go over to lv-426 where the aliens start to breed there.

Alienpuzzle
MemberOvomorphJun-13-2012 2:11 PMThe only problem is the fact that the remains of the Space Jockey on lv-426 seemed to be petrified...
Add A Reply