Quote:
Originally Posted by
42041 
I appreciate thoughtful, insightful criticism, but let's face it: that ain't 99% of what you read on the internet. It does get very tiresome reading the same whining about certain films regurgitated in every single freakin' discussion that comes up about them from people who just can't
move on. (This also applies to pretty much any fanboy-sensitive subject matter, like video games, music, Apple products, etc) It isn't productive/constructive/interesting/enlightening and I really wish that sort of thing would stop polluting internet forums.
As far as I can tell there is a concentrated, but amorphous hate campaign against Damon Lindelof, due to how Lost wrapped. I think a good amount of the faux outrage is simply slander to tie up him in the worst parts of the movie and magnify them. Twitter and social media really, really magnify people's ability to create static; especially in entertainment. Doubly so when you realize the internet is where people go to vent and complain, not praise or commend. There was a similar push again JJ Trek 09, with an allied push from the Lost butthurt crowd and the super trekkies so worried their memorized canon was suddenly wiped out with a pen stroke. Then there's the autistic and manic element to some of the trollings; worrying about slightly ajar doors, where folded up ladders came from and how the technology functions in that world, ect et al. EVERYTHING MUST BE SPELLED OUT AND PUT ON SCREEN OR IT IS JUST ASSUMPTION. Personally a movie that tells and doesn't show is sub-par and fails at using the medium for what it's best at. Isn't that the problem with George Lucas's new films, or do we now want to be told it's a damn poison dart?
People seem to forget a lot of the same knee jerk reactions and complaint were levied at both ALIEN and Blade Runner, but by print media at a time before the tubes. Critics didn't like them at all, while they made money silently from a small band of fans, and went on to really shine years later in retrospect, and in home markets. It especially took Cameron's ALIENS to allow people to revisit ALIEN and appreciate it more for what it was, then what they wanted. I sort of feel Prometheus has the seeds to do the same, even if not to the same level. Sure the plot used quite a few cliche Macguffins to move forward the characters, but many seem to forget Scott pioneered some of them in terms of use in scifi. Some of the worst offenders that put people off as flaws, I tend to see as homages or allusions to his previous work or work elsewhere. They work less now because everyone and their mothers have given their take on what he did first in ALIEN, but that doesn't make the reference any less worthy. It just means it is what it is, entertainment, homage and some interesting concepts.
I really think a lot of people went into the movie expecting ALIEN 0.5 or a concrete telling of the history that lead to the alien franchise. Instead they got a character study that followed two individuals through a rabbit-hole and into an unexplained wonderland. When you realize the point of the plot is that it isn't the movie, but the device to move the characters along, the movie seems to fall more into perspective. It's makes for interesting debate and reflection, but ultimately this was Shaw and Davids story. Who they are, what happens to them, how they change and where they're headed.
Likewise, I'm looking forward to following Dante and Virgil further into the abyss in a sequel, should on be greenlit. If this movie can scrap together another 35 million or so it'll have matched ALIEN adjusted ticket sales for highest grossing film in the franchise (already #1 unadjusted).
Not a bad feat for a load of crap movie...
Edit: I'd also say this is a film that gets better with a second viewing. A lot of information can and is garnered for the sets, the actors and actresses performances, and subtle dialogue. One instance I completely missed a very important conversation between Shaw and Janek which involved a promise and understanding, just because I was still comprehending the significance of scenes directly prior. There's information to be had simply by looking at murals on the set walls, and comparing the character designs of the prologue and later changes Scott made to the engineers. I missed quite a bit and even felt the pacing was cut too fast first viewing. Paying attention more the second to each performance, and understanding how key almost all scenes were, it felt much more cohesive. The biggest flaw was Fifield IMO, and not the normal complaints, but that his involvement in the third act seems to have completely changed and confused a ton of people to what he really was, and exactly what the goo did. Going with a more human looking mutation, in the age of the pop culture zombie apocalypse, was a very poor choice at giving viewers information. His role was butchered, but it appears to been done to save the 117 min runtime.
Edited by TyrantII - 7/10/12 at 4:59pm
