Problems with the landing

I think you're making too big of a deal out of a landing. If the captain and crew was capable of getting the ship that far, call me crazy but I'd imagine that something a simple as a landing would be a 'walk in the park." Also, I'm quite sure the Prometheus had plenty of sensors and other electronic means of finding the best landing spot.

Wouldn't be much of a Pilot if he couldn't right? haha...zing! Sorry I loved that line in the movie, and it felt like Scott was poking fun at Dallas from ALIEN cause he landed the ship and everything goes freaking NUTS on board for no apparent reason.

Well, I guess I was expecting something like the Alien and Aliens landings.

How much footage of them flying around enjoying the scenery should Scott have included in the movie? Would five minutes be enough?......cuz ya know, realistically, it [i]could[/i] have taken [i]hours[/i]. Can you imagine audience members turning around to each other, going WTF?!? after just a minute of two of that?

@Artyoh - HAHAHA I was actually thinking that in the theater the first time I watched it. I was like, "Wait...there's no homing beacon this time around, WTF?" But "screen time" and "real time" are two different things, so those establishing shots of them flying in could've been a truncated version of their flybys. Cause Janek says they only had 6 hours of daylight left when they land, even though most of the flight we did see was in mid-day by sun-placement.

Err..isn't he obviously talking about the fact that after having identified a planet with an atmosphere, they managed - without any other indication and apparently by sheer co-incidence - to drop practically straight on top of the place they wanted to get to? An entire planet surface area with no clue and all they had to do was drop, (why would they jump without looking anyway?) But, having jumped without a clear idea of where they were going and without doing any kind of survey from altitude first, at all - all they actually had to do was literally drop, turn right and then bingo?.. Call [i]me[/i] crazy, but isn't something like that yet [i]another[/i] total nonsense in this story? But, no -let me guess: anyone who points something like that out is, "making a big deal", right? It's actually, literally, hysterical what's happening here, now.

The Landing was probably smoother and needed less people because the ship its self is way more sophisticated then the previous ships, yes it might be in the past compared to the Nostramo and the Suvlaco, but firstly the Nostramo could have been made at the same time, but its a comercial vessel - a truck in space, and the Suvlaco was like a Humvee, the Prometheus is like a Ferrari, most of its systems are auotmated, hence why the Nostramo cost $86 million "in adjusted dollars - minus Payload" and the Promethues cost just under a Trillion dollars, dont ask me what the Suvlaco cost - its government issue, so tax payers paid for that beast.

@allinamberclad - you make a good point, but yes, it's also not something that is really all that big of a deal. We get almost a full 3 minutes worth of establishing shots of the ship flying over the planet's surface, and as I stated above "screen time" and "real time" are two different things. Point is, we get them to LV223, they find the pyramid, bad shit happens. It's not, they leave Earth, travel through space, and then spend a half hour of film running spectrographs of the surface looking for anything out of the ordinary. Granted, they coulda thrown in a line like, Janek - "Long range scanners picked up a patch of terrain that appears...different. Revel, Chance, gimmie a sweep of that area." Ship finds its way there, while other crew members have their dialogue. Revel - "Something's popping up just beyond that ridge." Janek - "We're heading through that gate" Rest of scene happens. And since we know studios cut film to smooth out pacing and shorten run times, there could've been something like this filmed and then edited out later. We are getting 20+ minutes of footage come Oct. 9 when it comes out.

It didn't bother me in the slightest, for reasons already mentioned. It also didn't bother me that the "Prometheus" is an FTL ship which can apparently generate an artificial gravity field, or that there was a fully functioing "synthetic" human on board, all of this, a generation before the end of this century.......but maybe I should get worked up about that, too.

Landing looked ok to me. I wanted to see what was in the structure.

@JesperJotun I don't know how you determine what I consider a, "big deal"? All I say is that the action doesn't work by virtue of it being poorly scripted - and, as evident by your rewriting of it with the addition of one or two lines at 1.5 seconds of run-time - as the [i]writer[/i] should have to done, to make it credible: you agree. You just appear to accept it. Good for you. I, however, on the balance of, literally, an avalanche of other such issues of astonishingly poor structure - do not. Stating that "real time", and, "screen time", are different things again is just stating the stupendously obvious again - and all the more reason why screen time needs account for and why issue exists. "Truncated", "pacing", "run tim" - I'm aware of how film works: I'm saying the rules that prevail to ensure film works, weren't followed. If the scene was truncated, where is the support for it? Where is the disolve, for example? Where is the fade? Where is the smash cut? Passage of time as you suggest wasn't accounted for, neither in the cut that was shown, nor in the script as shot - therefore an issue exists, that shouldn't and needn't have. And it is a long, long way from being the only example....I find that unacceptable.

If they only would have spent a minute to launch some satellites just to get some rough topological features. They can fit twenty plus people on that ship but no satellites!? They had the 'Pups' and the floating cameras during the TED talks, and they were a little larger than a soft ball. Maybe the director's fan-cut will fix it...

@allinamberclad - Which is fine. I said you made a good point. However, I also said there could've been an extended sequence that was left on the editing floor. And my "rewrite" was only a guess as to how it either could've happened or did and was cut. So the action didn't work for you because of a possible editing choice which is what I was trying to articulate. And what I meant by a "big deal" was referencing your post's end regarding people mentioning a plothole and other people saying you're making a big deal out of it, where instead they should accept the other person's opinion first and then present their own. Maybe I should've written that sentence better and I apologize.

@JesperJotun OK, yes. But all I'm saying is coulda woulda and should is all well and good - but it amounts to a failure. A functioning film is not manufactured from coulda, woulda, shoulda, it is manufactured from what is edited into a Feature. All I say is, where it amounts to a failure, it's fair - and in fact, it is right, as I see it - to call it that: and certainly not pretend that it isn't so, no matter how much I might wish it was not, nor excuse it. Then the whole endeavour becomes a joke - there ceases to be an obligation for film that functions as film. A rather hopeful crock that the [i]audience[/i], rather than the Authors, are supposed to fix the deficiencies in, is what we are left with.

Think about it objectively...does it really matter if we see a blip on the screen telling them where to land? Is the story less coherent because we don't see how or why they chose to land where they did? I say no. It's a fictional story taking place in a fictional universe with fictional characters. In other words...Don't take it so seriously. It's just a movie :)

Understood, However by your logic I could say the same thing about The Avengers, which I did not like, and come up with the same theories for why things didn't work, plotholes, poor scripting et cetera, yet it was ludicrously well-received, and people would probably turn a deaf ear to my points of the issues. Which I try not to do here. It all boils down to opinion, which you have stated and I have stated. We just disagree based on what we both consider our own logic. Simple as that. I think the movie works based on what I know of movie production, time constraints, Studio and Producer requirements and concessions and more importantly, what I got out of it as a viewer. I won't say the script is flawless because it isn't NO script is flawless. Hell Casablanca is considered to be the best film ever made (I would agree) and THAT script was written on set, during shooting where the cast had no clue what was gonna happen from day-to-day, yet the movie owns! lol. Anyway, enough soap-boxing. There's no reason for bad-blood, afterall, it's still a fricken movie haha

@Jedikooter Oh, OK. Of course - I could have guessed that expression of simplicity was coming. Let me ask [i]you[/i] to, "think about something", "objectively" - what does any single frame of this film, "matter"? If it doesn't "matter", then why wouldn't you just sit in front of flickering candle for 2 hours and save your money for something that does, "matter"? Ridiculous.

allinamberclad: It's just a movie. I never said anyone was right or wrong. You, however, seem to take it as a personal insult, if the movie doesn't fit 100%, nice and neat into your expectations of how things should have played out or if someone doesn't share your same opinion. Maybe my simple mind is just not on par with your superior internet intellect and I just don't understand why in the world that a director of Ridley Scott's aptitude would leave such a glaring fault in this movie? Congratulations, you win 20 free 'Goofs' entries on IMDB for any movies of your choice. You asked me the same question I asked (though you didn't bother to answer it yourself) and being the nice guy that I am, I'll indulge you...It's called 'exposition'. Too much will drag the story down. Same with unneseccary exposition. The story still got to where it needed to get to without us seeing or knowing why they landed where they did. We didn't need an explanation as to how it is possible to have faster than light travel. We didn't need an explanation on how the hyper sleep pods work. Yet, the story still moved along fine without us knowing. Why? Because those things don't matter in the overall telling of the story. Hey, maybe you want to see two hours of a ship flying around looking for a parking spot at christmas time. Or what color socks Shaw decides to wear on her first outing on an alien world. As long as it doesn't drag the story down, that could be a entertaining movie. And not to be rude...I'll answer your other question regarding the candle. The story of "The Flickering Candle" (aka "The Strawman Argument") could be a flop or it could be a hit depending on how entertaining the story is. However, I probably won't get caught up in nagging little details like, how did the person know that the candle would be there on the table to get lit, since we didn't see any indication that a candle was there to begin with?

@ Jedikooter, I will leave this debate in your capable hands sir haha. Continue. Just don't allow someone else's sarcasm to derail your logic and theories.

@Jedikooter Your unnecessary and patronising lecture on exposition nothwithstanding: exactly. But the distinction between what is exposed and what is not as relates to it's impact on the function of the narrative is what you appear to illustrate but not actually understand, nor the fact that choices there determine whether that narrative functions, well, poorly, or not at all - and then [i]you[/i] want to prattle on about socks and parking spots and then talk [i]me[/i] about straw man arguments"? That's hysterical. It isn't rude to answer the question, just yet more irrelevance - as the question was quite obviously rhetorical, by way of device to highlight the absurdity of your declaration that, "it doesn't matter", and, with that, you seem to have decided the question was a straw man argument - [which it [i]isn't[/i]] - and parlayed that into a discussion about an imaginary film called "The Flickering Candle", that no-one mentioned - what the Hell are you even talking about? Look, returning to something like actual sanity: if the film functions for you - long may you be satisfied. Meanwhile, if you direct your attention to the OP's observation, to which I was replying, you'll either have the wits see that he actually has a valid observation - even by your [i]own[/i] terms - and that, furthermore, it is valid in the context of being yet more compounding evidence of further quite serious systematic failure in the film, overall - or you do not. And that is all.