or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Ridley Scott has lost his damn mind
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ridley Scott has lost his damn mind - Page 3  

post #61 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

It's odd considering that in the original 'Alien', the crew did stupid things because they weren't scientists, more like intergalactic Teamsters. That made their actions more believable.
Agreed.

Quote:
It's seems a big script goof that the supposedly well-vetted and qualified scientists in Prometheus would act so recklessly and dumb. Ridley (and Lindelof) really shouldn't have made this kind of error.
In spite of what I said earlier about Weyland's apparent motivation for the voyage, I have to agree most of the audience (which represents the most important measurement wink.gif) considered it a "goof."
IF it wasn't, then RS should have made it clearer for the mob in the grandstands.
post #62 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

No, I think I understood the question, as did the original poster.
So what you are saying is that you think you and OP understood but not certain?
Quote:
He cited the cost, duration, and significance of the mission (all detailed in the movie)
All detailed in the movie, you mean this? "These people were being sent on a multi-billion dollar expedition to a foreign planet to potentially interact with the beings that supposedly created mankind."
He cited something alright but is that the actual content of the movie or his interpretation of it? I'm asking because in the movie, the number mentioned was trillion, the vessel Prometheus was built for scientific exploratory purpose and the destination was undisclosed.

If you weren't talking about the above quoted citing by OP, would you (not just you but others who are referring to someone's words or the content of the movie) mind quoting what you were referring to please? It can't be that hard, is it?
Quote:
as reasons to think they would have recruited capable participants - pretty solid reasoning IMO.
Vickers called it "this mission" but didn't say what kind of mission. The two navigators were speculating what the mission was because it wasn't disclosed before embarking on it.
Quote:
You've correctly identified that there wasn't actually a lot of background information given about the crew members. Therefore, as with many aspects of the movie, we are left to interpret for ourselves based on the plot, context, etc. My point remains valid that some of us ended up with interpretations that led to unfavorable views of the movie.
You or anyone can interpret all day. All I'm asking (multiple times now) is to cite the source. Is it too much to ask?
Quote:
*Others interpreted things differently and ended up liking it - my bone isn't with that but rather the implication that one set of interpretations is wrong. People defend this movie by saying things like "at least it makes you think" and then argue against what other people thought about it.
Again, would you mind quoting those posts?
Quote:
* frankly any interpretation of this subject doesn't reflect well on the movie - either they were top scientists who behave ridiculously, or the were lousy scientists who inexplicably get brought along on this mission (to window dress in order to conceal the true purpose? I guess that plausible...) and behave as we'd expect a bunch of dumb dumbs to.
In response to the real issue of this thread (RS has lost his damn mind, or not), those who are critical of Millburn & Fifield (biologist & geologist but if you want to lump them into scientists then go ahead, I wouldn't) actions, need to compare Lindelof's scrip to the the movie itself. There is a difference. Again, it's all in the threads I linked.
Edited by bcruiser - 7/8/13 at 12:11pm
post #63 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

then RS should have made it clearer for the mob in the grandstands.
Perhaps multiple viewing would make it clearer for them. wink.gif
post #64 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Perhaps multiple viewing would make it clearer for them. wink.gif
True.
Maybe he will make more sense of it in the sequel?wink.gif
post #65 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Perhaps multiple viewing would make it clearer for them. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

True.
Maybe he will make more sense of it in the sequel?wink.gif

I agree. I enjoyed Prometheus far more when I saw it the second time than I had when I first watched it in the theater. Part of that was Scott's fault by trying to tell a story in only two hours that was simply too complex to be made clear in the time allotted. Not sure I would have been crazy about a three hour movie, though.
post #66 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

All detailed in the movie, you mean this? "These people were being sent on a multi-billion dollar expedition to a foreign planet to potentially interact with the beings that supposedly created mankind."
He cited something alright but is that the actual content of the movie or his interpretation of it? I'm asking because in the movie, the number mentioned was trillion, the vessel Prometheus was built for scientific exploratory purpose and the destination was undisclosed.
Yes, precisely that. I believe Vickers said something about the ship costing a trillion dollars (a trillion is a thousand billion so "multi-billion" is quite accurate if perhaps an understatement tongue.gif), and while the mission may have been mysterious to the crew it certainly wasn't to Weyland, Vickers, and the android, ie the people who presumably (there I go again wink.gif) selected the crew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

In response to the real issue of this thread (RS has lost his damn mind, or not), those who are critical of Millburn & Fifield (biologist & geologist but if you want to lump them into scientists then go ahead, I wouldn't) actions, need to compare Lindelof's scrip to the the movie itself. There is a difference. Again, it's all in the threads I linked.
Not sure why biologists and geologists aren't scientists but I suspect that's a topic for another forum. But this is precisely what I was talking about in my first post - you (a defender of the movie) are having to cite a difference between the script and the actual movie in order to defend it. That doesn't fly with me, the movie needs to stand on it's own.
And more to the point of the thread, the exclusion of something in the script that would have taken care of probably the biggest single criticism of the movie was presumably (he he) Ridley Scott's choice so yeah I think maybe he has lost his damn mind biggrin.gif

jeff
Edited by greenjp - 7/8/13 at 3:01pm
post #67 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

Yes, precisely that. I believe Vickers said something about the ship costing a trillion dollars (a trillion is a thousand billion so "multi-billion" is quite accurate if perhaps an understatement tongue.gif), and while the mission may have been mysterious to the crew it certainly wasn't to Weyland, Vickers, and the android, ie the people who presumably (there I go again wink.gif) selected the crew.
Not sure why biologists and geologists aren't scientists but I suspect that's a topic for another forum. But this is precisely what I was talking about in my first post - you (a defender of the movie) are having to cite a difference between the script and the actual movie in order to defend it. That doesn't fly with me, the movie needs to stand on it's own.
And more to the point of the thread, the exclusion of something in the script that would have taken care of probably the biggest single criticism of the movie was presumably (he he) Ridley Scott's choice so yeah I think maybe he has lost his damn mind biggrin.gif


jeff

IIRC, the script was more nuanced in the Fiefield snake scene. From Fiefields perspective he first encounters harmless worms or centipedes and then comes across what, at first glance, seems to be a bigger version. Due to this comfort factor he goes to pick it up, is distracted, and then realizes his mistake after he is holding the now menacing serpent. So, alot more believable. I think RS either bungled the scene on accident or was going for the sterotypical horror scene where a character does something really stupid as the audience yells not to - which I would find odd as he brought Lindelof in and deleted most of the horror element from Spaight's draft. Either way, the scene was RS decision.
post #68 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post


I agree. I enjoyed Prometheus far more when I saw it the second time than I had when I first watched it in the theater. Part of that was Scott's fault by trying to tell a story in only two hours that was simply too complex to be made clear in the time allotted. Not sure I would have been crazy about a three hour movie, though.
I agree the complex story needed more screen time.
I had hoped we would get an Extended or D.C. or whatever version for the original BD release.
Maybe someday.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

IIRC, the script was more nuanced in the Fiefield snake scene. From Fiefields perspective he first encounters harmless worms or centipedes and then comes across what, at first glance, seems to be a bigger version. Due to this comfort factor he goes to pick it up, is distracted, and then realizes his mistake after he is holding the now menacing serpent. So, alot more believable. I think RS either bungled the scene on accident or was going for the sterotypical horror scene where a character does something really stupid as the audience yells not to - which I would find odd as he brought Lindelof in and deleted most of the horror element from Spaight's draft. Either way, the scene was RS decision.
+1
post #69 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

Yes, precisely that. I believe Vickers said something about the ship costing a trillion dollars (a trillion is a thousand billion so "multi-billion" is quite accurate if perhaps an understatement tongue.gif), and while the mission may have been mysterious to the crew it certainly wasn't to Weyland, Vickers, and the android, ie the people who presumably (there I go again wink.gif) selected the crew.
Someone in the movie said the ship cost a trillion dollars? Why don't you watch the movie again and get the facts straight if you want credibility.
You see, OP made posts about Prometheus but he didn't know what he was talking about. That's not that big of a deal. What's sad is that you are in support of him. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Not sure why biologists and geologists aren't scientists but I suspect that's a topic for another forum.
Double standard I see...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

As for A, I also assume a futuristic biologist (discounting entirely the possibility that futuristic biologists wouldn't be smart and well trained) would know that just because this thing sorta resembles snakes at home that since he's on another planet,
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

We've been given no information about what the biologist has or hasn't seen, just that he's a biologist. He acts with an incredible lack of discretion in a situation of tremendous uncertainty and clear signs of danger.

Quote:
But this is precisely what I was talking about in my first post - you (a defender of the movie) are having to cite a difference between the script and the actual movie in order to defend it. That doesn't fly with me, the movie needs to stand on it's own.
And more to the point of the thread, the exclusion of something in the script that would have taken care of probably the biggest single criticism of the movie was presumably (he he) Ridley Scott's choice so yeah I think maybe he has lost his damn mind biggrin.gif
Did you read the script?
Quote:
you (a defender of the movie)
On this thread, I'm trying to defend the skill of debating. It's a dying skill especially on internet forums.
post #70 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

IIRC, the script was more nuanced in the Fiefield snake scene. From Fiefields perspective he first encounters harmless worms or centipedes and then comes across what, at first glance, seems to be a bigger version. Due to this comfort factor he goes to pick it up, is distracted, and then realizes his mistake after he is holding the now menacing serpent. So, alot more believable. I think RS either bungled the scene on accident or was going for the sterotypical horror scene where a character does something really stupid as the audience yells not to - which I would find odd as he brought Lindelof in and deleted most of the horror element from Spaight's draft. Either way, the scene was RS decision.
Don't forget the involvement of a joint. It may have been a political pressure to change it to just smoking (cigaret).
post #71 of 132
one of the tests i use to try and quantify whether a film is a quality cinematic effort is the amount of debate/controversy it generates.


prometheus is an unmitigated success in this regards;.. we're still arguing its merits more than a year after its release.

my take is simple, rs had an inspired idea for the film, great thought provoking plot that suffers from inexplicable flaws
post #72 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

suffers from
Suffering would be indicated in $$ numbers, critics' reactions, future project potentials or... confused.gif
post #73 of 132
RS has lost much of his mojo, to the point that people are, and should be worried about the BR sequel. He royally messed up with Prometheus. whether you liked the movie, loved it, hated it, or don't care, it's obvious that he had a monumental opportunity and missed the mark. Is it thought provoking and argument inducing? Yes. But not in a good way. The movie is SEVERELY flawed.

I love RS. He is one of my favorite directors. Alien is one of the few movies I feel are almost flawless. As is BR. But he has lost whatever it is that allowed him to make those movies as beautiful as they are. I even love Legend. I think it is one of the most beautiful movies there has ever been. But anything he's made after those, are seriously lacking in the areas of emotional content and beauty. Areas he previously lived in and ruled over. The dialogue free opening shots of Alien alone, are simply brilliance in film making.
post #74 of 132
Meredith Vickers: My company paid a trillion dollars to find this place and to bring you here. Had you raised the monies yourself, Mr. Holloway, we'd happily be pursuing your agenda. But you didn't. And that makes you an employee.

This is why I love AVS - people will actually argue about whether this means the ship cost a trillion or not. Ah-ha - "find this place" - see? What I see is it cost a trillion to get there. How much was spent on which part of the project is something only a politician would care about, so they could deflect notice of that trillion in the corner.
post #75 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

RS has lost much of his mojo, to the point that people are, and should be worried about the BR sequel. He royally messed up with Prometheus. whether you liked the movie, loved it, hated it, or don't care, it's obvious that he had a monumental opportunity and missed the mark. Is it thought provoking and argument inducing? Yes. But not in a good way. The movie is SEVERELY flawed.
I don't agree RS has "lost much of his mojo."
But I do agree Prometheus is flawed when it really shouldn't have been.frown.gif

Quote:
I love RS. He is one of my favorite directors. Alien is one of the few movies I feel are almost flawless. As is BR. But he has lost whatever it is that allowed him to make those movies as beautiful as they are. I even love Legend. I think it is one of the most beautiful movies there has ever been. But anything he's made after those, are seriously lacking in the areas of emotional content and beauty. Areas he previously lived in and ruled over. The dialogue free opening shots of Alien alone, are simply brilliance in film making.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

Meredith Vickers: My company paid a trillion dollars to find this place and to bring you here. Had you raised the monies yourself, Mr. Holloway, we'd happily be pursuing your agenda. But you didn't. And that makes you an employee.

This is why I love AVS - people will actually argue about whether this means the ship cost a trillion or not. Ah-ha - "find this place" - see? What I see is it cost a trillion to get there. How much was spent on which part of the project is something only a politician would care about, so they could deflect notice of that trillion in the corner.
Please stop quoting the actual script!
Otherwise, we won't have anything to argue over.tongue.gif
post #76 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Please stop quoting the actual script!
Otherwise, we won't have anything to argue over.tongue.gif
biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
post #77 of 132
Well bcruiser you have resorted to making snarky comments while not actually contesting my points or making any of your own so I'm not sure you're doing a very good job on that last point. The quote from the movie in fjames' post makes it quite clear that the substance of mine and the other guys' comments are correct even if we've misallocated the budget - it's irrelevant what portions of the cost the ship, the salaries of the crew, or the food their eating constituted - it all added up to multi-billions so the point remains. A project of this scale and cost would logically be staffed by competent people.

No, I didn't read the script. The movie didn't warrant a second viewing let alone sitting down for a reading session with the source material biggrin.gif. And as I said, if the movie requires referring to unincluded or modified content from the script to mount a defense then it's indefensible.

Your double standard quip doesn't make any sense, especially in the context of those old quotes of mine you dug up. You suggested in this thread that biologists and geologists aren't scientists which to me is a strange opinion. I am not sure how my earlier comments, which are entirely consistent with everything I've said here including that biologists are scientists, shows some sort of double standard.

All this said I thought Gladiator was awesome tongue.gif

jeff
post #78 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

Well bcruiser you have resorted to making snarky comments while not actually contesting my points or making any of your own so I'm not sure you're doing a very good job on that last point. The quote from the movie in fjames' post makes it quite clear that the substance of mine and the other guys' comments are correct even if we've misallocated the budget - it's irrelevant what portions of the cost the ship, the salaries of the crew, or the food their eating constituted - it all added up to multi-billions so the point remains. A project of this scale and cost would logically be staffed by competent people.
Once again, you are missing the point. The cost isn't really the subject of discussion. It's how familiar you are with the actual content of the movie. So far, you've shown that you aren't.
Quote:
No, I didn't read the script. The movie didn't warrant a second viewing let alone sitting down for a reading session with the source material biggrin.gif.
But you continue to join in on the talk. You are one of those who just can't let it go.
Quote:
And as I said, if the movie requires referring to unincluded or modified content from the script to mount a defense then it's indefensible.
You aren't equipped with the source material and yet you continue to say things about it. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Your double standard quip doesn't make any sense, especially in the context of those old quotes of mine you dug up. You suggested in this thread that biologists and geologists aren't scientists which to me is a strange opinion.
I ask you again, please quote the sentences you are referring to.
Quote:
I am not sure how my earlier comments, which are entirely consistent with everything I've said here including that biologists are scientists, shows some sort of double standard.
You didn't before but if you want to call Millburn and Fifield scientists from today and on, go ahead. I will continue to call them biologist and geologist as described in the movie.
post #79 of 132
Here's a question:

What kind of world renowned, top of their field scientists sign up for 4 year deep space tour without being told where they're going or why? Is Hawking just going to saddle up without any idea of what he's being requested to do?

And with that said, how many "scientists" did they have? I'm counting 5, and that's if you count the two Archaeologists, who seemed more paleo-Anthropologists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

For those of you who have seen Prometheus, Meredith Vickers in this scene, what did she say?

Prometheus_13-535x325.jpg

Exactly what she needed to say to complete Weylands mission. But It perplexes me that people still think the movie was about a "scientific mission". That it was nothing of the sort couldn't be more clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

IIRC, the script was more nuanced in the Fiefield snake scene. From Fiefields perspective he first encounters harmless worms or centipedes and then comes across what, at first glance, seems to be a bigger version. Due to this comfort factor he goes to pick it up, is distracted, and then realizes his mistake after he is holding the now menacing serpent. So, alot more believable. I think RS either bungled the scene on accident or was going for the sterotypical horror scene where a character does something really stupid as the audience yells not to - which I would find odd as he brought Lindelof in and deleted most of the horror element from Spaight's draft. Either way, the scene was RS decision.

Here's the thing. He never actually touches the thing, contrary to how it's portrayed on the net. He's rather startled around it and cautious, he stumbles back a few times, but at no point does he touch it before it strikes him.

I do agree it should have been cut or reworked; but it's pretty obvious Scott wanted something homing back to the facehugger scene in ALIEN. The problem wasn't any of the tonedef arguments like he "petted it!" or "herp-derp the stupid biologist got too close", but that it was so damn generic by now that it's been done a thousand times over in this movie and that. The problem is that Scott, once a innovator in the (space) horror genre, had nothing left but to copy whats now a common trope.
Edited by TyrantII - 7/8/13 at 8:34pm
post #80 of 132
It's a shame that some people resort to profanities when they can't debate.

Deckard757, I'll respond to now deleted post of yours, just the portion that's relevant to the topic. As I mentioned in the last sentence of post #69, on this thread I'm trying to defend the debate skills, not the movie itself.
post #81 of 132
Has the group think on this one changed? Back when it was first out, I posted in the big thread on it that I thought it was very flat and that I had trouble even feeling anything for anyone in the movie, and I was sort of beaten up over that a fair bit.
post #82 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Has the group think on this one changed? Back when it was first out, I posted in the big thread on it that I thought it was very flat and that I had trouble even feeling anything for anyone in the movie, and I was sort of beaten up over that a fair bit.
There are few of us here who consider Prometheus top tier RS.
It was a bold attempt, however the execution wasn't what it should have been.
FWIW, I believe it is better than most recent sci-fis.

IMO, everything rests on RS's shoulders.
He had the power to change the story any way he wished.
He made some poor decisions with the film.....it's as simple as that.
post #83 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Once again, you are missing the point. The cost isn't really the subject of discussion. It's how familiar you are with the actual content of the movie. So far, you've shown that you aren't.
But you continue to join in on the talk. You are one of those who just can't let it go.
Ah so I haven't met the bcruiser standard of knowledge on this one? I watched the movie once without distraction so I feel I'm qualified to comment on it even if I haven't read the script. As for your last point, we'd have to say the same about you so I guess we have something in common tongue.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

You aren't equipped with the source material and yet you continue to say things about it. rolleyes.gif
But I'm not saying anything about the source material, aside from what of it made it onto film. And that's my whole point - if some scene or dialogue was omitted that would have helped this movie make sense you can't just say "well read the script", RS left it out. oink and I are saying much the same thing here, he just has a more favorable overall view of the movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

I ask you again, please quote the sentences you are referring to....
You didn't before but if you want to call Millburn and Fifield scientists from today and on, go ahead. I will continue to call them biologist and geologist as described in the movie.
Sure:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser 
In response to the real issue of this thread (RS has lost his damn mind, or not), those who are critical of Millburn & Fifield (biologist & geologist but if you want to lump them into scientists then go ahead, I wouldn't) actions, need to compare Lindelof's scrip to the the movie itself.
You like to play this little semantics game. It's quicker to generically refer to them as scientists than to type out their specific disciplines (they do both show up under the "natural sciences" portion of wiki's "List of academic disciplines" page FWIW) on . In the parenthetical you say you wouldn't lump biologists and geologists into scientists. I'm not sure how else we're supposed to interpret that - if I need debate lessons than sure you need to work on rhetoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII 
But It perplexes me that people still think the movie was about a "scientific mission". That it was nothing of the sort couldn't be more clear.
The characters, aside from Weyland, Vickers, and the android, thought they were on one. That was the cover story if you will. The real point was to get Weyland up there because for some reason he thought the engineers would be able to extend his life - making his choice to bring a bunch of dunderheads along all the more inexplicable! If they weren't needed he wouldn't have brought them and if they were needed he sure did a terrible job vetting them. Just another aspect of the movie that didn't add up, hurting it in the end.

Dean - may I hazard a guess as to who beat you up? biggrin.gif

jeff
post #84 of 132
Any conversation dealing with "Prometheus" is like driving by the scene of an accident. You can't help but slow down, stare at the carnage, and then speed back up after saying to yourself, "Whew, glad I wasn't involved in that!" eek.gif
post #85 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

I watched the movie once without distraction so I feel I'm qualified to comment on it even if I haven't read the script.
Ah, so you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. You may feel whatever you want. What you posted so far reveals much more (see last quote below).
Quote:
And that's my whole point - if some scene or dialogue was omitted that would have helped this movie make sense you can't just say "well read the script", RS left it out.
Did I say something was omitted? Did I say it would have helped this movie? I don't remember posting such. Would you mind quoting those?
Quote:
But I'm not saying anything about the source material,
It's beginning to look like your habit which is unfortunate for you because you are making a fool out of yourself.
Quote:
aside from what of it made it onto film.
What of it did and didn't make it onto film?
Quote:
You like to play this little semantics game. It's quicker to generically refer to them as scientists than to type out their specific disciplines (they do both show up under the "natural sciences" portion of wiki's "List of academic disciplines" page FWIW) on . In the parenthetical you say you wouldn't lump biologists and geologists into scientists. I'm not sure how else we're supposed to interpret that - if I need debate lessons than sure you need to work on rhetoric.
Sadly, you continue to miss the point even after I pointed out "In response to the real issue of this thread" at the beginning of the sentence. rolleyes.gif
Quote:
The characters, aside from Weyland, Vickers, and the android, thought they were on one.
Really? Who was it and what was the dialogue?
Quote:
That was the cover story if you will. The real point was to get Weyland up there because for some reason he thought the engineers would be able to extend his life - making his choice to bring a bunch of dunderheads along all the more inexplicable! If they weren't needed he wouldn't have brought them and if they were needed he sure did a terrible job vetting them. Just another aspect of the movie that didn't add up, hurting it in the end.
Peter Weyland did that? May be you should watch it again just to dust up your memory. If not enclined to, may be you should ask for clarification instead of making stuff up.
post #86 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I don't agree RS has "lost much of his mojo."
But I do agree Prometheus is flawed when it really shouldn't have been.frown.gif

I almost always cast a vote on IMDb for any film I have seen two or more times. I didn't do that with Prometheus,though. There is so much in it that is wonderful and so much that is impenetrably vague, I couldn't decide on a score to give it. Here I am still talking about it, however. Make of that what you will.smile.gif
post #87 of 132
Good Lord you are dense. You love to quibble with minutiae and play semantics. You said the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser 
...those who are critical of Millburn & Fifield (biologist & geologist but if you want to lump them into scientists then go ahead, I wouldn't) actions, need to compare Lindelof's scrip to the the movie itself. There is a difference."
So you're telling people who are critical of these characters that we need to compare the script to the movie to find the differences. If that is not a suggestion that something was omitted that would have helped the movie I don't know what is.

re. what the crew thought of the mission:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser 
...Really? Who was it and what was the dialogue?
This is your favorite device. I recall some of them (don't recall exactly if it was the captain, pilots, nameless background guys, etc) speculating about terraforming or some similar activity, and scientists like a biologist and geologist would probably assume they're being brought along to practice their profession. The geologist did bring along his little subterraining mapping gizmos afterall. What else are we to conclude?

You love to ask people to quote specific bits of the movie in order to justify their assumptions and interpretations, and yet that's the whole problem with the movie. So much is left out that in order for it to make any damned bit of sense we have to make assumptions and interpretations. As gswat says here the movie is impenetrably vague to it's serious detriment.

The ironic thing is that you seem to think those of us who don't like the film are too uninformed or something to comment on it, yet you who presumably are deeply knowledgable about it, are unable to mount a compelling defense.

jeff
post #88 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

So you're telling people who are critical of these characters that we need to compare the script to the movie to find the differences.
Finally, you've got it! Whew... rolleyes.gif
Quote:
If that is not a suggestion that something was omitted that would have helped the movie I don't know what is.
I don't remember implying that if something was omitted that would have helped the movie. Of course, you are drawing such conclusion based on the scrip that you didn't read.
Quote:
I recall some of them (don't recall exactly
That's your problem all along and I've been trying to tell you but you reject it. Wanna talk about "dense"?
Quote:
You love to ask people to quote specific bits of the movie in order to justify their assumptions and interpretations, and yet that's the whole problem with the movie. So much is left out that in order for it to make any damned bit of sense we have to make assumptions and interpretations.
What you assumed and interpreted was based on inaccurate memory of yours. As I said, ask if you don't recall exactly.
Quote:
The ironic thing is that you seem to think those of us who don't like the film are too uninformed or something to comment on it, yet you who presumably are deeply knowledgable about it, are unable to mount a compelling defense.
Where's the quote?
Let me guess, you don't recall exactly.



Let me ask you again, did Peter Weyland do what you said he did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

That was the cover story if you will. The real point was to get Weyland up there because for some reason he thought the engineers would be able to extend his life - making his choice to bring a bunch of dunderheads along all the more inexplicable! If they weren't needed he wouldn't have brought them and if they were needed he sure did a terrible job vetting them. Just another aspect of the movie that didn't add up, hurting it in the end.
post #89 of 132
I don't like gangsta rap music. So I don't buy gangsta rap music. Why should it be different with movies? Unless you're a movie producer, what you would like to be produced is irrelevant.
post #90 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I almost always cast a vote on IMDb for any film I have seen two or more times. I didn't do that with Prometheus,though. There is so much in it that is wonderful and so much that is impenetrably vague, I couldn't decide on a score to give it. Here I am still talking about it, however. Make of that what you will.smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

As gswat says here the movie is impenetrably vague to it's serious detriment.
Just wondering, does anybody notice something about greenjp?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Ridley Scott has lost his damn mind