What to ignore in this movie..

Yeah what was the point of the storm, beside to do a shot of the outside that reminded me of the Nostromo on LV-426.

All scary moments in film can be made scarier with a good thunderstorm.

@Indy John: [i]"does it really advance..the plotline....or help understand the Engineers' life?"[/i] Of course it does. We now know who uses and flies these ships. We see the navigation system at work. We see two such ships in flight and a course mapped for Earth. These are pretty important facts that are key to the plot. I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you ignore the ship because you don't understand it? The shape is [i]very[/i] important, by the way. As well as being a major tie-in to the movie Alien, it's a major clue as to the disposition of the Engineers when it comes to building stuff.

I actually agree that the role of the Engineers' ship is important to the storyline in this movie and 'Alien'... What I want to ignore is the significance of the horseshoe shape of the ship.. and trying to figure out why that particular style.. To me any shape would serve the story's purpose...

It had to be that shape to link it more to the original and make us all think it was an actual Alien movie. When it really isn't, as far as I can tell. It also made me think that I was finally going to find out how the original ship ended up on LV-426.

Cinema is image so whatever you see in a movie is there on the screen to be seen. Why the xeno bursting in at the end of the movie? To me there are 2 reasons: (1) You’re reminded it’s still a link to the Alien story (2) The movie starts with an Engineer sacrificing his own very life to seed life itself and, to balance that image, it ends with the ironic death of an Engineer, hoist with his own petard: something he had created to destroy life took his own. The precise shape of the Juggernaut is very deliberate. Have a look at the second and third photographs at the link from MVMNT’s July 11 thread, ‘Steve Messing interview - inc/ concept Art with interesting annotations’. Staff spent time and effort and it cost money making it in its very particular shape and it carries another Mr Lindelof subliminal message. Look at its two ends. The left “hand” seems to be holding an urn and the “right” one resembles a hand holding a lid. Ouch! I’ve been bashed about this before but, really, folks, surely this is Mr Lindelof at work strongly hinting at the rest of the Promethean myth?

I wil gladly take the Juggernaut's shape off my 'ignore list' when something new develops.. Speaking of the various shapes of the ships,,,,by far the Juggernaut is moire memorlble than Prometheus..so in that sense the designers achieved their purpose. Now tell me again why the ship is horseshoe shaped? or even propelled..??

Hi Indy John.... not sure I understand the premise of this post. If you start a thread on a fan site about these things, that's the opposite of ignoring them. As far as the shape of the Jugg, it was a design for the first alien film 30 years ago! [img]http://application.denofgeek.com/images/m/75spaceships/main/derelict.jpg[/img] It's design is meant to be organic in nature compared to human technology and this is best expressed in a non-symmetrical shape(like a horeshoe with both ends completely different). It is probably inspired by Giger's horrifying fascination with worms and death. It's iconic shape is probably the biggest part of this movie that makes it a prequel for aliens, and if the shape of the ship was any different, the main link to Alien would be broken...

Think he is just asking for things that may have bothered a person on the first viewing but is put out of ones mind on subsequent viewing to not deter enjoyment. I don't think he meant he is ignoring them completely.

Interesting. This has confused me a little also.... You state, but do not specify, the root of all this as, "a rather noticeable error"? If you are referring to, "rather noticeable errors", then surely a suggestion that calls upon you to, "choose to ignore", these is just fundamentally flawed? I don't understand for what purpose you would be deliberately entering into that contract..... How many of those, "rather noticeable errors", has it been recommended that you ignore? How many of those, "rather noticeable errors", do there actually have to be before you are allowed to form an opinion that what you're watching is unacceptable to you to be taken in any way seriously - or, is the contract, in effect, that you are not allowed to form that independent opinion, based on the fact that you are sick of, "rather noticeable errors", no matter how many of them there are? That you agree to, "choose to ignore", every and any, "rather noticeable error", regardless of it's significance upon the film and regardless of the magnitude of the error, no matter what? Personally, I don't understand the purpose or need for this apparent absolution of responsibility. Surely there shouldn't be any question of an audience being encouraged to, "choose to ignore", "rather noticeable errors"? Shouldn't there only be a question of an Author having a responsibility not to produce a Work with, "rather noticeable errors", in it?!.... However I turn it, I can't make what it's been suggested that you do make any kind of actual sense. I do wish the person who has recommended this as a strategy for consuming Film to you could explain the ideas behind it a little more, because I can't seem to convince my brain into adopting a position where I am, "choosing to ignore", "rather noticeable errors" - [presumably, in order to convince myself that the, "rather noticeable errors", are either not really there, or not really significant] - when, "rather noticeable errors", in a Film, I can't help but think, actually [i]are[/i] quite significant... To me, it seems a similar strategy to, "choosing to ignore", that your house is on fire.

That read like a summons.

1 - If there are errors it is obvious the observer will notice them. 2 - If it has errors of continuity they will be noticed sooner or latter 3 - If there are oddities, they will be noticed 4 - If there are not only those above but also factual inacuracies; they will be noticed. And, as is, they were and still are noticed [because they are noticeble] Choosing to ignore them "just because of this or that" it's the kind of excuse I would expect from those who put his/her personal "adoration" above common sense. It is also the perfect excuse the Cinema Industry needs not to pay attention to details and sell people whatever they have to sell, even if faulty to an absurd extent.

Thanks for the pix I am not sure I have seen it before,,but it does bring out more details... My hope was just gather plot elements/scenes that occupy many post on the site that don't lead anywhere,, I sort of have a list of my own...and wass curious what other members ignore as not being critical to the storyline. Like the shape of the Juggernaut is important..but not critical in understanding the movie... I enjoy more posts on what is critical to the movie(and advance my understanging)..not what items are just important.. additional discussions just don't seem lead anywhere.. @Susano ..Thanks for your post..

I understand now, sort of like carving away the stuff that distracts to get to the core and heart of what is important. thank you for clarifying. here's one more picture of it, just cause i think it's one of the coolest designed shots of the movie, the first pic was from Alien, and this one is from Prometheus to compare and contrast: [img]http://www.prometheus-movie.com/media/prometheus_screencap54.jpg[/img]

@Indy John...Of course I don't go into every movie like that. I didn't go into this film or come directly out of it feeling this way either. It took me some time to notice that Shaw's character really mirrors the audience in the respect that it's what you choose to believe. I am an open minded person and maybe you misunderstood my statements or how I feel. I come to this site hoping and wishing that someone will say something that will make me see something differently and push me to change my mind about the way I look at things. In fact, right this second I think my wording for some things may have been a little off. A word that has kept popping up in my mind and in my posts is "path to discovery" and perhaps while the film is about what you choose to believe the long, ever changing path to discovery makes it that much more great. I can't remember exactly where I read or watched this, nor can I remember who said it, I believe that it was a video interview and that it was Spaihts that said it...Anyway, he said that Scott would come in everyday talking about 2001. Mainly the ending. He said that one day Scott would come in and say "I've got it all figured out" and go on to explain only to come in the next day saying "I didn' have it figured out at all yesterday. This is my new theory." and that it went on like that for the duration of time they spent working on the film. Does anyone REALLY know the meaning of the end of 2001 or why what happened happened? Did Kubrick even know? Did he have to make another film to answer all that? Someone else eventually did and Spaihts or whoever it was mentioned this and what he and Scott felt about the approach taken for 2010 The Year We Make Contact. I pretty much can't remember at all what was said about that I just know that he touched on how they felt about it and to my recollection they didn't like the way it was approached. This may shed light onto how a Prometheus sequel may go if Scott is indeed at the helm. My point is that I believe Prometheus to be a lot closer to 2001 than people will either admit or realize. In my opinion, even though there are endless facets and sublots and so forth, the main point of the film is that it's all about what you choose to believe just like Shaw and, much like Shaw started at the end of the film, the path taken to get there. As far as what I said earlier in regards to what to "ignore" in the film I should have said then that you shouldn't "ignore" anything. When I first read about the 36 hour "problem" i did theorize and wonder if there was some reasoning behind it. Now we know that it was not scripted and another mystery has surfaced. Still, like I said before, I doubt that the whatever the reason behind why it was said, it will not have that much impact on the overall story and quality of the film.

LMAO, hey this is a work of fiction and if Ridley wanted his juggernaut to roll like a giant donut, well let's roll the damn thing down the hill and squash every one in the process.

"..if Ridley wanted his juggernaut to roll like a giant donut,.." Maybe Ridley wanted the scene of Shaw/ Vickers being 'chased' by a spaceship and backward engineered his script to include aHorseshoe shaped space ship..(I don't recall the details,,but in Alien did the crashed Juggernaut show any traces of rolling? I always thought there would be a new model,,bridging the Circular ship at the beginning of the movie and the 'egg ship'.. Geez ..now I am thinking about an item I am trying to ignore!

@Cypher: About Milburn's reaction when he gets killed: Do you also notice that his eyes go white the MOMENT the hammerpede enters his mouth? Theat means he is dead in that instant, the thing ate his brain.

Engineering: "Does anyone REALLY know the meaning of the end of 2001 or why what happened happened?" No one does, but there are lots of sub-narratives inside the main narrative. "Did Kubrick even know? Did he have to make another film to answer all that? Kubrik knew exactly what he was doing. And no he did not had to make another movie because he didn't want to explain it. Has he himself said 2001 is a movie that is suposed to "work you in your subcoscient". Plus he always refused to explain any of his movies [because of the sub-narratives involved] such as The Shining, "Someone else eventually did and Spaihts or whoever it was mentioned this and what he and Scott felt about the approach taken for 2010 The Year We Make Contact. " See, here is the thing: 2001 is Kubrik + A. C. Clark thing. But to be honest it's Kubrik taking advantage from A. C. Clarks "the Sentinel". Clark droped down to his knees and begged to be involved in 2001. Kubrik said yes but he himself had all the controll over the flick, not Clark, Clark would be writting at the same time Kubrik was shooting. Kubrik never told Clark what was it all about and Clark had to make a guess. Fun fact: Kubrik also had writing rights to the 2001 book, so he sort of told Clark what he should write and what he should not; wich is also a great way of saying: don't mind reeding this cause you'll find no truth in it. 2010 is a A. C. Clark continuation [and 2061 and 3001] and none of them replies to what Kubrik made in 2001. they are all "best guesses" and that's it. On a final note: Prometheus is faar waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy from 2001. There is no movie with the same aestethics, mind bogling material, sound escaping, plot ambiguity ever done since 2001, and there will never be another one. 2001 is a Work of Art by itself. And the million attempts made to even trying to copy it have been failling miserabily.

@Indy John Ridley stated he wanted the Juggernaut to roll and so the designer adjusted his concept accordingly. I love the movies, you can do anything!