Puppy Love

"..Here's hoping at least 500 of the 1000 or so questions are answered..."... What happens at the end of the trilogy..there are more questions than answers? To the fisrt release Srar Wars movies had a good balance,,of story telling..ending and unanswered questions,,,preparing you for the next installment.. You could discuss any of the middle three episodes and,,on their own were good movie experiences.. With Prometheus,,,it doesn't have completness at the end. Yes Shaw and David(I originally put David's name first,,showing how his robotic role,,doiminated the storytelling) are now off to the next world,,,,but the movie we discuss here,,didn't have that stand alone storytelling...that Ihave expereince in other multiple part movies.. Many more questions...maybe too many..than answers.

@Red Wolf Precisely. It is far from a matter of being,"spoon-fed", or simplistically requiring that every single stone is turned over - not every question needs to be answered. However, it is a matter of storytelling and it is not unreasonable to expect a story to be told well, if you are actually paying for it. Regardless of genre, budget or writer - either that job is done well, or it is not - and, if it is not, it is not unreasonable, as an audience, to raise your hand: or not pay for any more of it. I really cannot accept justifications based on a premise that we, as audiences, need to get used to films that are parts of sequences and that we should only expect them to function as a whole?! It seems a ridiculous and awful precedent that would doom us to progressively degenerate quality of storytelling as a result of us issuing some kind of 'Licence to Any Nonsense'. Many other trilogies or sequences have functioned perfectly well, while remaining functioning, intelligible films in their own right, without that kind of very peculiar allowance being made...

Y'know, what EXACTLY did we learn from Prometheus? A. We were introduced to the Engineers, which explains just what the SJ on Juggernaut is. Other than that we learned little, if anything, about them. B. We were introduced to black goo, which reacts different ways at different times to different recipients, including but not limited to making heads explode and total tear-down of DNA (only to immediately re-build as well). C. We re-learned that Weyland is a coniving bast*rd who puts himself above all others. D. Learned that Lindelof takes himself WAAAAAY too seriously or is attempting to impress a college co-ed somewhere. Unless I'm forgetting something of significance, everything else is an apparent set-up for Part 2. Can you imagine how POed we all be if there ISN'T a Part 2???? D.

Ok I have a question for u guys... 1. When the Engineer gets into the gunner chair to head to Earth he puts on the Exoskeleton Mask and when Fifield and Milburn saw the pile of dead Engineers they have the Exoskeleton Mask on them as well when they aren't in the Gunner Chair? Why?

Q: Why didn't they detect the worms? A: The signal from the hydrogen bond resonance decoupling sensor was attenuated by the damp soil in the chamber. Isn't that completely obvious? Or perhaps instead the worms are simply immune to our probing. Do you remember the phrase "maybe they don't show up on infrared at all" from a certain popular film? I mean, honestly, if you are trying to turn this into a plot hole to justify your opinion that it was a bad film, you should perhaps learn a bit more about science fiction first.

mandroid- Fifield released the probes (I don't remember how many) upon entering the structure. When the Big Head/Ampule room was opened by David, at least one of the probes was hanging around nearby and went into the room first.

Consistent inconsistency may work in liberal politics, but makes for poor Tier-1 sci-fi, my friend.

When Charlie finds the last painting in the caves and they match it up why would they think that thats where their ''Masters'' come from and where they live?

zzplural- "The signal from the hydrogen bond resonance decoupling sensor was attenuated by the damp soil in the chamber." Where was that bit stated or even mentioned in the film?! First I thought that perhaps the anechromatic particle phase inducer wasn't calibrated. Then I remembered that the omochronic annular confinement beam generator's tetrion emitter only works in a vacuum.

@ Red - Dude, why do you have to bring your political leanings into [i]every[/i] one of your posts? You're not impressing anyone.

[quote=Red Wolf][i][u]Consistent inconsistency may work in liberal politics[/u], but makes for poor Tier-1 sci-fi, my friend.[/i][/quote] Do you REALLY want to go there? R E A L L Y ? I sincerely suggest that you go chat about that with the folks over at FOX News. This DIVERSE community is much more in the ballpark of FOX [u]Pictures[/u] (who love EVERYONE's money)... In response to the original wormy question: [i]"It's a movie, not a science lesson."[/i] — Ridley Scott Oh, and "over-analization" is my newest most favoritest word in the universe.

Be sure to give me credit for the term (and "most favoritest" is mine). And the fun-loving political poking was designed to illustrate how upset one can get when one takes close-to-the-heart matters too seriously, like sci-fi movies. A lack of a sense of humor amongst left-leaning sci-fi fans was a purely unintended consequence, like trusting a nefarious android to translate for you.

@aircraftfixer: "Where was that bit stated or even mentioned in the film?" It wasn't, of course. And didn't need to be. It really was not important. I find it a little sad that people go to the trouble of dreaming up inconsistencies that don't exist in order to diss a movie. I don't particularly want to know how or why a life form detector actually 'works'. I wouldn't understand it, and I wouldn't want to spend the time in a movie finding out how it works. The fact that it doesn't spot a few worms when it is able to hear the heartbeat of a giant humanoid creature through a couple of doors is neither here nor there and is not at all relevant to the story. It's certainly not an inconsistency, and is not part of a larger set of inconsistent inconsistencies. To say that is simply to troll.

@zzplural- Ouch! Please define what it means "To Troll", as I am unfamiliar with this term beyond Dungeons & Dragons. Sounds like I may have exaggerated a negative perception, or multiplied a detail out-of-proportion. Or just maybe FUBARed what the writers point of view might have been. Please help? Yeah, it isn't important at all. The story went on without need for an explanation. The point I observed is that there IS a glaring inconsistency- and I didn't dream it up. You put my lengthy dissertation into much fewer words: "The fact that it (the anomalous probe) doesn't spot a few worms when it is able to hear the heartbeat of a giant humanoid creature through a couple of doors" Add to this allinamberclad's paraphrased remark: "How does a technology that can detect life through walls miss something in the same room?" However, I wouldn't count this as a contradiction at all. Merely a detail. Details... I love details! I love learning how and why a thing works. I appreciate understanding what someone else has created. And it wouldn't have hurt this film a bit if someone had spent the time to clarify some of it. Please be advised that I'm not a sarcastic person, as sarcasm is actually mockery. This being said, my use of treknobabble in response to your post was in fact a compliment. I was very pleased to see someone else employ it, and wanted to join the fun.

@aircraftfixer - Sorry if I gave the impression that [i]you[/i] were trolling: you weren't, you were just asking a question. (An internet troll, by the way, is someone who doesn't have any friends and likes to spend his time bugging people on the internet simply to get some kind of response to cheer up his dull life). There are quite a few trolls lurking on this forum though! Anyway, OK I will entertain your curiosity with regard to the Pups and give you a theory... Vickers hired a highly competent and cash-strapped geologist for the mission (who happened to have Asperger's syndrome - something that isn't that uncommon in technically minded people). He had some fantastic devices he called Pups that are great at mapping out 3D structures. Vickers asked him to ensure that said devices could also detect possible sentient creatures who were large and humanoid. She didn't go into any further details because the true nature of the mission was hush hush. The prime directive for the mission was on Weyland's orders: Find the Engineers. Not find worms. Not find amoeba or grasshoppers. The biologist could do that kind of stuff if he wanted to. So, Fifield duly obliged, and brought along devices that could detect in some way very tall humanoid beings. For such devices to continually announce the presence of worms or slugs or bats would be one hell of a distraction. Not in the spec. So they didn't. An inconsistency or not?

@zzplural- Whew! I though I was dead meat. Thanks for putting away the big guns! Your theory is an excellent supposition to the unnecessary, but very much liked amount of detail. It makes sense, is corroborated by other elements of both the character using the technology and the mission they are used on. I particularly like your theory because it acknowledges that even high-tech stuff is often limited in capability & scope. That part makes the "inconsistency" go away. Mouse traps, flashlights and tooth picks will always be what they are, even if they are expensive and high tech. I know about Asperger's Syndrome, as well as other Autism related afflictions. Its a dull but cool world out there for people like Fifield. Kinda my take on his character too, which is why I don't find myself part of the discussions about the Fifield & Milburn bashing. And going back- Where did you pick up Treknobabble?

@aircraftfixer I was wrong ! I was soooo wrong :-D