Turbo-top-secret Prometheus has landed! Love it or hate it, there’s a whole lot to say about it, and arguments to be made for why the empirical narrative of its failure, currently being written all over pop culture, is just… wrong.
To download this episode, use this URL: http://rowthree.com/audio/mamo/mamo257.mp3
Our ALIEN/PROMETHEUS coverage on The Substream, as mentioned in the episode:
Matt Price had a look at the career of Ridley Scott: http://www.thesubstream.com/video-the-vidadifh-show-sir-ridley-scott.html
Matt Brown looked back on the ALIEN franchise: http://www.thesubstream.com/search.php?mode=all&s=my+week+with+alien
And Matt Brown’s all spoiler review of PROMETHEUS is here: http://www.thesubstream.com/html-matt039s-review-prometheus.html
Episode title
This means there needs to a “Mamopolis” episode too.
I think you guys are confusing the movie geeks and the “general” audience. General audiences don’t post on movie sites and write reviews. MAMO’s beef is more towards the movie geek crowd that didn’t like it. The reasoning for the general audience not liking it, is simple. It’s not really entertaining.
In one of the reviews online that I read there was an Amazon ad on the bottom of the page advertising the Prometheus blu-ray. The title said “The Return of Ridley” which I first read as “The Return of Ripley”, in which I thought someone at Amazon had thought Ripley would be in this prequel.
Anyways, Amazon is already pre-selling the Prometheus DVD and blu-ray. Not only that, the movie #11 and #16 (the later being the copy that includes it in 3D) on Amazon’s top selling movies and tv shows on blu-ray. Number #1 and #10 being two different versions of Avengers.
I bring this up because I think this falls into the Mamo discussion of how movies are released. I completely understand that a DVD/blu-ray is produced at the same time the movie is being made. However, it feels strange for anyone to already be pre-selling the home releases at the same time it’s just released into the theatre. It makes total sense as after I’ve seen a movie, I generally determine if I want to buy the movie later depending on how I like it, but I didn’t expect studios to be behind that.
Is this film going to be shown in Muslim predominated countries?
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5er9kFRJy1qc91k6o1_500.jpg
That’s awesome!
I would say for me it was enlightening to hear you two as well as others converse about the film as it added to my own understanding. Like many others it has been on my mind since I saw it on Friday and I will be seeing it again tonight in 3D, but it was nice to get some clarity on some element of the film.
That said the issue I have with the film, which I think no amount of re-watching or explaining may ever clarify is in the second act.
*spoilers*
If you were to divide the film up into its constituent elements at that point you would have:
1) The Crew dealing with Fifield going bananas in the hold killing everyone.
2) David, and others waking Weyland to meet the Engineers.
3) Shaw giving herself a C-Section.
I think elaborating the discussion on ‘plot holes’ it feels very much like all three things could be happening on different ships. There are no real links between these elements and appears, on the surface at least, due to Ridley or Lindelof or someone throwing a lot of disparate interesting threads onto the screen without an established end game.
The question at this stage is, and by all means if I am wrong correct me, what is everyone doing at this time? The crew in the hold don’t seem too concerned to raise questions when Weyland, Shaw, David and others travel back to the alien site moments after Fifield had gone about killing the crew. On top of this, it seems Vickers has conveniently not returned to her quarters where a giant alien creature is locked in her surgery.
Additionally, has no one stopped to ask what happened to Shaw. Even the two crew members she assaulted in her escape seem to have forgotten it even happened when she runs into them later, they even seem to have forgotten about her seconds after she originally ran from them.
Also, given Shaw stands opposed to the goals Weyland has in mind, why is she allowed to travel with them to jeopardise their mission?
At this stage it is less about plot holes as it is plot strain, pushing the audience to believe all these disparate events could be conceivably happening at the same time.
After watching the film it took a while to really figure out why I had a problems with it, but I think I have narrowed it down to these core issues.
An very in-detailed analysis of Prometheus, putting together connections that I wouldn’t have even slightly had suspected (obviously lots of spoilers):
http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/uswn1/prometheus_everything_explained_and_analysed/
See, stuff like this is much more interesting to run through than “why did that guy take off his helmet” kind of nitpicks. I’m not saying all these ideas and layers people want to put onto the film are all valid, but it just reminds me of going through Lost week to week, checking out all the anagrams, philosophical namesakes, symbols. Reminds me of going through the Donnie Darko time travel booklets. The David Lynch Mulholland Drive checklist. The religious/zodiac allegories in Battlestar Galactica. The stuff going on in A.I., and so on…
To whatever degree these movies/shows are flawed, to whatever degree these things are tacked on to just get us talking, to me – it’s FUN. It’s more fun than zingers or pop culture references. I am happy to go through this stuff and pick and choose which symbols and ideas speak to me that enhance my viewing pleasure when I revisit these characters and ideas, it richens the viewing experience and pushes me to real history, philosophy and mythology I might not have otherwise exposed myself to.
Agreed. 99%. The 1% shitty character stuff is like a bitter bean making a cup of coffee. You can’t help but taste it, even if you really, really enjoy that cup of coffee, and it (of course) soothes your addiction to Cinem….er… Caffeine for a little while.
Expect a hella lot of Prometheus Talk on the cinecast this week.
Great analysis focusing mostly on religion. How about all of the Freudian goodness, too?
You got David, who’s roaming the ship for over two years like some type of uncontrolled id, doing whatever suits his fancy – from dyeing his hair to playing bicycle basketball. What else does he do? He steals their dreams! From a Freudian perspective, when you steal a person’s dreams, you steal their soul. He knows everything about them – all of their motivations, all of their memories, all of the things that they hide even from themselves. So, for a lot of the movie, he is a puppet master, pulling their strings. He knows that a drunk Holloway will probably have sex with his wife – so he infects him.
Then there’s the sibling rivalry / Oedipus complex between Weyland and the robot he calls his son (David) and his daughter – a triangle of hate.
The only reason Meredith (Charlize) comes on the trip is so that she can be there when her father dies, “that is the natural order of things” she says. She could care less about the mission – she never leaves the ship, and when her father dies, she says “Now we can go home.”
She also hates her brother. There is that awesome scene in the corridor where she practically chokes him and threatens to kill him. How does Idris Elba get her into bed? He compares her to her brother – “Are you a robot?”
David probably hates her as well. He cuts her off from any real information – he ends his video feed to her when he gets to the alien ship, and he has private conversations with his dad that she is not privy to. But he hates his father, too – he tells Liz (Noomi) that when his father dies, he will be free.
Then there are so many little moments of greatness:
- the Weyland corporation symbol on David’s fingerprint
- the 3D heads up display of the pyramid being built real time as the drones are mapping it
- the same duffle bag being used to carry both the engineer’s head at the beginning of the movie and David’s head at the end
- Liz’s c-section: This is definitely meant to be a least a comment on abortion rights. Liz is “impregnated” against her will, David refuses to end her “pregnancy”, Liz has to literally fight to get medical attention she wants, and the machine is only calibrated for male operations.
- Comedy of Fifeld / Milburn: These guys are nothing more than comic relief and cannon fodder – Laurel and Hardy, basically. At the first sign of trouble, they head back to the ship. They get lost and have to spend the night. Later on, Idris tells them that there is a glitch in a probe to their west. “Then we’re heading east”, they say. Then there is the stupid way they get killed. Of course it’s insane to play with a space cobra in a cave!
I’m on the record – I think this is an instant classic. I’ll be watching it a third time tonight.
oops – forgot to put a spoiler warning.
I would add to the moments of greatness the tiny detail of David’s saliva activating the computers of the ship, which I assume means that he possesses some degree of DNA. If androids have both DNA and artificial intelligence… are they really that non-human (or subhuman in Holloway’s case)?
My favorite bit of allegorical noodling at this point is this:
Leviticus 22:3: “Say to them: ‘For the generations to come, if any of your descendants is ceremonially unclean and yet comes near the sacred offerings that the Israelites consecrate to the LORD, that person must be cut off from my presence. I am the LORD.”
So many reasons that the engineer at the end could have been that upset. (I know they have said David’s question is translated but I don’t want to know the translation.)
Here’s an interview with Ridley Scott where the space Jesus bit seems to have come from:
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232
How cool and controversial would have been if they did not drop the Jesus Christ = an Engineer subplot?
The question is whether they cut out space Jesus because he didn’t fit the story or whether they didn’t want to risk a backlash.
That was really well said guys I especially like the early part about how people are discounting visual storytelling for what is said, which is sad to witness. I see the same attitude happening in comics where the ideas of the writer and the script trump the visual narrative that is more in charge of delivering a compelling story.
Good connection re: comics. Certainly this week while reading the [ahem] Before Watchmen issue, I was forcibly reminded of how far mainstream comics have come from the Moore/Gibbons realm of detailed visual storytelling.
Some remarks by Matt Price about the religious dogma of science/atheists are spot on. The irony is that the film is really about the nihilistic skepticism that most people who hate the film live by.
Seriously, this film has the density of Blade Runner (which is also a retelling of Frankenstein, the modern Prometheus) but the general interpretation of the film will simply sideline its nuances for a simple moral one-liner.
PROMETHEUS certainly leaves me far more interested in Scott’s BLADE RUNNER follow-up than I was previously. It’s an interesting, risky way for him to cap off a career – circling back to what will undoubtedly remain his two most significant touchstones in the history of film.
On the issues of evolution and Ellie’s speedy recovery,
Matt Price: “these complaints predicated on taking your tiny, refracted current knowledge of science and pushing it through a film that has science you clearly don’t understand”
EXACTLY. A-Fucking-Men. There is nitpicking and there is not being to get out of the way of your self-inflated conceit of knowing, and the science-minded are the worst at this, resistant to allowing the fiction a place to dream.
Also with the point about plot holes are not plot holes just because events have to occur that seem improbable but are diegetic to the story.
there is a lack of graciousness on the part of viewers lately, resistant to giving a story the benefit of the doubt… people are strung up on a sense of knowing how films ought to work, how the natural world ought to work, on how a particular character type ought to work, and they are all too willing to slam the brakes on anything that does not first ‘pander’ to their knowing, kiss their ring, before telling a story. It is the telltale sign of bad listeners, that only hear in the other’s speech that which satisfies their own bit.
If you actually, truly listen to what Scott and Lindeloff are saying in this film, it is not nearly as vague and illogical and poorly constructed as people are letting on. There is subtext to chew on for those that need it, for me, all I needed was the visceral horror, and I totally got it.
You mean like the Coen Brothers?
Also, let’s not beat around the bush – we all know the practical, real-world reason for the helmet shenanigans.
Spoilers
It’s because Ridley Scott didn’t want his actors acting from behind a plastic helmet. It’s better for the audience and better and more convenient for the actors. It’s the same reason that shit on Star Trek always seems to go down on an M-Class planet.
So, he can concoct some kind of long contrivance as to why they have to take their helmets off, or he can simply have one of the people stupidly take their helmet off and be done with it in 5 seconds, and then get back to telling the story.
And we the audience can choose to forgive him for that, or we can decide that its a bridge too far and dock him for it. I choose the path that its not a big deal, and I’m more concerned with the story he’s trying to tell.
I want to rewatch Black Hawk Down soon, and may thus take note of how often soldiers have their helments off when they should not, for this very reason. And especially note when they have them off when others around them do.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m59fbdvDVK1rvjfdxo5_500.jpg
That is the best response to the helmet debate I’ve seen thus far. By a lot.
Except that it is still a stupid decision. People’s faces and heads are still visible with the helmets on. Furthermore, even when the scientist were attack, they already put their helmets backs on.
It just a stupid and unnecessary digression.
My take on it was they didn’t take off their helmets until their computer diagnosed and said the air was breathable, so I kind of see it as the hubris of scientists to trust too literally in their own sense of knowledge. It was diagnosing the air, so maybe that means any perceivable air-born dangers were also screened, and it was said to be safe to take it off. it is Holloway who breaches protocol first and Ellie says he is crazy but it seems to fit with his character’s enthusiasm that he would want to get as close to this alien world as he could, and take the risk. Ellie takes her off because, well, if her boyfriend is going to die, so will she. And then, I don’t remember if everyone takes their helmets off?
Everyone takes their helmets off.
Spoiler
On top of informing Holloway’s character, the helmet on/off dilemma also reveals the circumstances of his death to Shaw later in the film.
I cannot listen to what sounds like a great MAMO-pod for fear of contaminating our own Discussion tomorrow…but I anxiously await my listening after Ripley lets me out of the Quarantine chamber.
This one’s wild: the 15 big ideas in PROMETHEUS.
http://www.slashfilm.com/15-big-ideas-prometheus/
Patrick and Jim over at the Director’s Club have an extreme hatred hard-on for Prometheus.
I would love the Matt’s to challenge them to a duel, which could get nasty but I think would be an easy win for our heroes.
this film is tearing the geek fabric to smithereens.
I love it.
I’ll say it bluntly: some people are behaving very dumb about this movie. They are a hair away from “raped my childhood” kind of comments and seem to care only about surface level problems or are angry that not everything is explained.
The next FilmJunk could be very interesting. Sean gave it 2/4 (and the comments are overwhelmingly against the movie) and Jay gave it 4/5. I have no clue where the others will land.
I find it very hard to understand how this film doesn’t work on a visceral level at least, and so I feel like why people are hard on it is that they are too pissed off at the cerebral aspects to properly enjoy the view. All I know is I have not felt so tense watching a film in a very long time, and just fully immersed, to the point that while I have been geeking off over the score in the trailer I did not even notice if it played in the movie.
If I understood I suppose I wouldn’t be disappointed in them
Either
- we’re all wrong (I don’t think so)
- they don’t get it
- they just don’t care about the ideas/things we care about or are right about
- some people just want to watch the world burn
add to that
- we just don’t care about the trivial movie cliche things they care about or are right about
Just read Sean’s review. I enjoyed the movie more than he did, but I pretty much agree with everything he wrote. I like this movie a whole helluva lot, but there were so many little pieces that just didn’t work. I respect your guys’ love of the movie, but the 5/5 stuff baffles me a little bit. It’s predictable, the characters lack depth – in fact most of the main characters are annoying to want to tag along with (or be anywhere near) – and there are lame B-movie tropes that occur all the time that just don’t work in a film trying to be cerebral.
Also, just because people are nitpicking things in the film, doesn’t mean there is a “hate-on” for it. Granted, I haven’t read much outside of our little circle and some Letterboxd stuff, but it seems to me most everyone is kind of on the same ship. They didn’t quite get that 5/5 experience they wanted, so instead of praising all the stuff that got them to the 4/5 level, they bash on the stuff that didn’t work and that they’re disappointed in. This would be me. It’s just easier and it’s natural. Maybe unfair, but way it goes I guess.
“just because people are nitpicking things in the film, doesn’t mean there is a “hate-on” for it”
From Sean’s review thread:
“Lindelof should have his arms lopped off, or at least be banned from writing anything. Ever. Even greetings cards” – Lucas
“Prometheus was horrendous. I felt like I was watching The Thing prequel, only it was even worse.” – Jim Laczkowsk
“just because people are nitpicking things in the film, doesn’t mean there is a “hate-on” for it”
From Sean’s review thread:
“Lindelof should have his arms lopped off, or at least be banned from writing anything. Ever. Even greetings cards” – Lucas
“Prometheus was horrendous. I felt like I was watching The Thing prequel, only it was even worse.” – Jim Laczkowski
Patrick Ripoll hate and bait-posted non-stop for several hours to the point I unsubscribed, as he has been taking up my entire feed as of late with so many status updates.
and Peter Kuplowsky is calling it the Showgirls of sci-fi
Peter didn’t stop there, it is apparently the Crystal Skull of Alien franchise.
Insanity.
I’m telling ya, when it comes to any major comic/sci fi franchise, consensus isn’t arrived upon or negotiated, it is BULLIED
Exactly. I feel that the Avengers has as many or more problems than Prometheus in terms of the script. Yet, Avengers is seen a universal, blockbuster masterpiece.
^ as much as I like Avengers now, again, bullied consensus. Question that movie at your peril.
MIB3 has way more script problems and holes, and it didn’t get this kind of scrutiny either.
Prometheus wishes it had as well realized a world as MIB 3.
One doesn’t nitpick Prometheus, one summarizes the film, moment by moment and one realizes that none of it makes any sense at all. There is not a single scene, which taken in the context of the film it is apart of, that occurs in any rationale universe.
Had Ridley been attempting to make a campy spaced-out dark comedy that would be one thing, but this film is po-faced hard sci-fi and is undeniably flaccid. I think the film can be enjoyed however, just not as it was intended.
I don’t really even understand the aesthetic appreciation. The film undeniably looks great, but there’s nothing remarkable about it. Its pretty standard space-movie aesthetics. Event Horizon has more interesting production design, so does Pandorum for that matter. Both better jaunts into this frequently bungled genre.
As a die-hard Speed Racer fan though, I know what its like to have people say you’re crazy for liking a movie, you have my sympathies.
Peter, you must surely remember the days upon Speed Racer’s release. It felt like the Wachowski’s were facing punishment for the Matrix sequels. The internet knew they were susceptible and they pounced on the chance to make the Wachowski’s pay for the crime of releasing inferior followups to a movie they loved.
This is what I mean by bullying concensus. It’s not mere disagreement. It’s the internet using its collective weight to try and teach a few authors and reviewers a lesson, or to prevent them from ever writing or reviewing again.
Agreement is awesome. This other stuff is not.
Yeah, except I haven’t felt like the entire Internet has jumped against Prometheus. And it hasn’t been like Speed Racer where most Internet criticism were from people who didn’t actually go see the film (SR was a bomb remember, Prome will most definitely not be one). SR received most of its bashing from the mainstream press (who has been relatively kind to Prome – 74% tomatometer).
Consensus seems a lot more divided in a Revenge of the Sith or Crystal Skull kind of way. If you recall, Crystal Skull had a lot of defenders (77% tomatometer), and to paraphrase a Crystal Skull review: many people who wrote positive reviews for this movie will regret in a year.
Peter:
And my opinion with Crystal Skull, Episode 3, and other movies that were well reviewed upon release, is that people were honest at the time, and it became the hand of the Internet that would not rest until it was at least perceived to be a much bigger failure. The positive reviews drove the horde nuts and it became their agenda to change the narrative. Look at the IMDB scores of that, X3, Spidey 3, etc, and the scores are actually still quite good. But perception has entirely shifted.
The goal has so often been to not convince but to harass and shame. And we’re all guilty sometimes and will offhand say “but you liked X”. Usually around here its among a larger argument, but still…
Lindelof has endured a lot of hate tweeting, and as you might guess from this thread, some of us have been going through a lot of various reddit and forum threads where people are writing up these long posts, only to get a lot of harassment and personal attacks back in place of substance. Its something we’re used to seeing, but the end result is the same: If you’re loud and a mob, the loudness and mobness can win over substance.
John Campea worked in reverse, and is still remembered around these parts for deleting posts and banning people from his board if you were to disagree with him, even politely. It’s easy to bully concensus when it’s your own site. In retrospect in an odd way I understand, I think he saw himself as a bully victim too. In my opinion it was a self-fulfiling prophecy. He started to be bullied back as this behavior increased.
When the goal becomes not to change how people think, but to harass them into never writing again, we have a problem. Remember the female Avengers reviewer who endured a mountain of misogyny over her middling review, and remember Sam Jackson siccing people on so-so reviews. It seemed like the goal was to prevent them from ever writing about comics ever again. That’s not cool.
What does the hate-tweeting of Lindelof seek to achieve? Do they think they are pushing him to do better next time? or more likely, trying to scare him away from franchise projects where he might try to bring his signature themes. “Your kind aint welcome around here. If you dont want public death wishes: Go away”
Diablo Cody has had to endure similar crap. Ironically, Joss Whedon went through this same shit after Alien 4. If twitter was around in 1997, the horde may have banded to publicly humiliate him, or scare his bosses. As a result, if they were as successful at setting the consensus as they are now, there may have never been an opportunity for Whedon’s Avengers.
“We are Anonymous. We are Legion. George Lucas better run.”
I think that is a large part of it though because of how much the mythology of the franchise has been elevated to a near divine level over the years.
So when this movie comes along and the answers are simple, base, and brutally nihilistic, people are turned off.
Prometheus is the Lee Harvey Oswald of the franchise and people want the grassy knoll.
Maybe. It might explain how selective people are about plot holes.
I mean, I think I’ve seen every little detail of Spiderman 3 scrutinized, and nobody ever mentioned or had a problem with stuff like how in Spidey 2 Doc Ock threatens Harry, who points him to Peter as knowing Spideys identity. And the first thing Doc Ock does is throw a car at Peter and Mary Jane, having no idea he is Spiderman. Dumb move by a world class scientist.
and ROTPOTA was the surprise hit of last summer, and it was openly embraced… but Franco’s scientist makes so many bad decisions and there’s some blatant holes there.. like how he’s with that girl for 5 years and for the full 5 years is never told how Cesar is super-intelligent… And how the scientists are directing the police operation. That would happen, right?
And I didn’t call it the Showgirls of sci-fi, I was quoting someone. I thought it was a funny comparison, because the film does have cult potential as a camp object.
I do however consider the film to be a Crystal Skull, a film whose similar postulations about alien gods are just as intelligent and well-explored.
“When it comes to [geek] franchises, consensus isn’t arrived upon or negotiated, it is BULLIED” – quite a good notion there. One great Mamo opportunity that I regret missing to this day is:
Back in 2008 when The Dark Knight was released, it was of course received overwhelmingly positively – but a friend of mine, who wrote a negative review of the film, asked to come onto the show a couple of weeks later to discuss what he found to be the disproportionately mean-spirited, and nearly cyber-bullying-ish, comments and feedback he received from fans of the film.
At the time I dismissed his claims and didn’t think it would make an interesting subject for the podcast, but as I said, to this day I regret that decision. What happened to my friend on TDK was actually a fairly accurate bellwether for the direction a lot of online argument has gone in the last four years, on “geek” movie properties particularly.
PROMETHEUS is different, to a degree, because the sides seem a lot more balanced, ratio-wise, than they were on DARK KNIGHT, or SPEED RACER for that matter. And I obviously have my strong biases, given how I feel about PROMETHEUS. But when I see comparisons like the ones Peter is making above, for example, I honestly can’t put the connections together in my mind. A camp object? Not a single scene that takes place in a rational universe? Everyone has their differing definitions of each, obviously, but those statements might as well be made in Mandarin for all the degree to which I can understand where they’re coming from.
Lets totally podcast about it sometime.
I think you are giving the Internet too much credit. Its not as large as it appears to be.
Its interesting you consider the early reviews honest, when they could also be written blindly in support of a auteurist filmmaker who is usually makes much better films. Critics, especially mainstream critics, will tend to be kinder to Speilberg then to W.S. Anderson, or lets even say Verhoeven, whose Starship Trooper was once considered pro-fascist. Honesty doesn’t mean much, because everyone is bringing baggage in to a film – i don’t think anyone is truly honest with a movie during its release. Time needs to pass.
I actually think the current perception for Prometheus from the mainstream is that its a flawed, but pretty good sci-fi film (which boggles my mind, until I remember Crystal Skull) and I definitely think the perception will shift further into the negative. However its not so much the bullying, as the fact that the film isn’t good, and can’t endure the bullying.
If the film was good and worthwhile, this bullying wouldn’t have any palpable effect. The Wachowskis were definitely bullied over Speed Racer sure… but I’ve noticed that most articles about their upcoming projects mention Speed Racer as a redeeming film for them. Speed Racer’s a good film, its enduring largely thanks to the Internet’s support ultimately.
Also, Alien 4′s reputation has remained pretty consistent. I don’t recall many people liking it then, and most don’t really like it today. In fact, I don’t think I have seen someone mention Alien 4 online and not seen it followed by a commenter proclaiming that it sucks. I don’t understand your point. His script for Resurrection is problematic, its still considered problematic, but he still got Avengers. The internet would have not changed things.
Do you honestly think Lindelof will have trouble working because of the Internet? This film is making money. You realize there is a critical consensus (especially on the Internet) that the Transformers writers are terrible, that Akiva Goldsman is terrible. The internet has not stopped them from becoming the most successful writers in Hollywood. Heck, I wish the Internet was powerful enough to keep them off projects.
This all being said. Yes. The internet can suck. There’s a lot of awful hate-talk out there, and its never good, and never productive. This doesn’t have much to do with why Prometheus is a bad movie.
And I think it will endure the bullying, because so many of Prometheus’ supporters have already rewatched it and for all I’ve seen are loving it more. But we’ll see. I think A.I. is a good model for how I think it will level off. This will be a 7 to 7.5 on the IMDB, and you can quote me on this and check in a few years if I’m correct.
The difference between this and Goldsman, is that they don’t care. Nobody ever wanted to be a Michael Bay spokesman, as he never spoke the geek language and pissed them off even as the first movie got kind of a free pass. The Franchise Police was never in full force with Transformers because they never got a true classic to defend in the first place.
Speed Racer was able to claw back because nobody saw it. The mob was about the Wachowskis rather than the movie. I think John Carter is in a position where it could claw back. I don’t think it will get the same degree of success in this regard, but the hate on JC and Tron Legacy was focused so much around the budget and being gleeful at a Disney fail, that even if disappointed, nobody was ever MAD about the film.
This was a comment on my Prometheus review:
“In a way internet culture has this masochistic need to be disappointed. Even when it’s not totally there we force it so we can expel our rage against whatever the ‘epic fail’ of the week is. Like you I can smell the nerd rage building up with Nolan and Dark Knight Rises, which I’m sure will carry over to increase the momentum of the Dark Knight is overrated movement. Personally I really enjoyed Prometheus, but didn’t love it. I honestly don’t understand some of the visceral hatred you see towards it. If anything I think its further proof that people’s reactions are often less about the product they are watching and more about feeding into their desires to destroy.”
Some men just want to watch the world burn
The other thing about Bay’s movies are they only ever work when the main is an automatic screen presence(Lawrence) / a weirdo(Cage) / or no one is talking because we are in city action mode.(TF3)
The script can’t even begin to get in the way of his direction, visual storytelling and all that.
I think among the comic book and movie geeks, Nolan can do no wrong, but there does seem to be a growing backlash to the Dark Knight Rises that it’s too dark. Perhaps it’s in contrast to the Avengers or just a sign of the times, but some feel based just on the trailers (which I haven’t seen) that the movie almost falls into parody. Perhaps it’s too many parodies like Toronto Batman and The Dark Knight Birthday ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFYrrCWVqWo ) that it’s hard to take the real version seriously.
“I think you are giving the Internet too much credit. Its not as large as it appears to be.”
It doesnt need to be, when the Internet is bullying the concensus of it’s own domain. That’s why we’re talking about this and Madagascar 3. The only people on the Internet who care about Madagascar 3 are the dozen people on 4chan probably making a link to Afro Circus the new Rickroll.
Hmm… that could work. TO 4CHAN!
” In fact, I don’t think I have seen someone mention Alien 4 online and not seen it followed by a commenter proclaiming that it sucks. His script for Resurrection is problematic, its still considered problematic, but he still got Avengers. The internet would have not changed things.”
Yet his script for Alien Resurrection gets a HUGE amount of praise and apparently why Whedon got quite a bit of work in Hollywood. Now I don’t know how different the final script if different from the movie, or if the script that gets praise is draft #1 rather than draft #15 or whatever. Still it seems to be well read among some people and brought up with praise.
“Joss Whedon went through this same shit after Alien 4. If twitter was around in 1997, the horde may have banded to publicly humiliate him, or scare his bosses.”
Whedon isn’t on Twitter, but Dollhouse was a pretty big miss fire. The show does have it’s fans, who felt it got better after the studio stopped messing around with what Whedon wanted to do. However, a large number of Whedon’s fans found Dollhouse boring and gave up on it very early on. Despite their disappointment, no one tried to publicly humiliate him. He still managed to get Avengers just months after Dollhouse was cancelled.
Alien 4′s script that Whedon was praised for is the same that was used for the film.
It might not be any desire to bully but a genuine perplexity to the opposite opinion on certain films like Prometheus that goads us on into rage zombies. Like Matt said, To me Peter is not even speaking English, and I assume this sentiment is reciprocal. It goes past negotiating points about a film to what film did you see, anyway? This rarely happens this acutely, It takes a movie prism to work this divisively. One could say Goon,the Matts, Ryan and I loved this film because we are Lost geeks, it is curious… But as I have been saying since the beginning, what I responded to was the horror, the visceral experience, and it was only after the film, mulling over things and reading the theories that I got to enjoy the secondary pleasure affiliated with Lost. If it was just the story I could see the divide but it is in the Wallace Stevens sense, INCONCEIVABLE how the visceral experience is not at least perceived by the other side as there.
We’re all clearly speaking greek to each other clearly. It is an odd phenomenon, esspecially because many people I’ve spoken too about that like it, will concede almost every point against the film, and yet still like it. A friend of mine literally said “I agree that everyone is an idiot, that the plot frequently doesn’t make sense, even that I don’t even really know what the film is ultimately driving too, but I dunno, I liked it a lot, I think its a great movie”. I’ve never seen someone react to a film like that without qualifying that they enjoy it as a guilty pleasure or through an ironic lens. It seems to be very intangible feeling that has some people liking this film.
I was rolling my eyes during the much lauded pregnancy scene. It was so telegraphed (“Chekov’s medipod” was a funny jab I saw online) and it was hard to find it that tense when I was distracted by the film conveniently having the crew give up the chase, so she could do it in private. I supose such a logic leap would have been ignored if I was worried for the surivial of our protagonist, but I wasn’t because she’s barely a character at all. I mean it was gross and everything, but there was no real horror.
The sandstorm scene was probably the only scene where I really got into the visceral nature of the action. But I mean Transformers has amazing visceral sequences, and that doesn’t mean the its a great movie.
I think what’s most frustrating to me is that Prometheus’ fans are projecting an underdog status to the film, when its a well reviewed movie, that’s making a lot of money at the box office, and cost a hundreds of millions to make. This film is a heavy-weight.
Can we all start talking about the light-years more interesting venture into Lovecraftian sci-fi horror that also came out this weekend: BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW?
This is what happens with nitpicking. There’s a perception that the movie wasn’t logical, and then your mind starts filling in the blanks of what happened with illogical things. Then you overstate the case, which causes people on the other side to complain even more. It’s a spiral.
There were 2 people who knew she escaped, and she knocked both of them out. Done.
It still feels awkward, because it feels like all the other characters are twiddling their thumbs elsewhere, waiting for the scene to end. But as I said, the reason my mind is even going there is because I’m completely uninvolved in the action. I don’t watch every movie like this, because not every movie asserts itself as being intelligent, thought-provoking sci-fi.
I suppose my problem was that I kept wanting the film to be smart, interesting and compelling.
If the people who liked this film admitted that its really, really dumb and they’re enjoying it in the same way they enjoy an Ed Wood picture (speaking only to the film’s plot/characterization/tone) , I’d 100% get it.
Outside the 3 guys in the cockpit everyone else was assisting Weyland from his cryo sleep and getting prepared for his journey.
words like “admitted” are going to get peoples backs up.
I am curious to know if you think Alien was an intelligent thought-provoking sci-fi movie? I think it is a masterpiece but I also see it as a fully realized horror film. Both Alien and Prometheus are haunted houses, they take the tropes of the genres and play them out, and they do them exceedingly well. Of the two I think Prometheus actually has far more to say, is more thought-provoking than the original.
So I admit nothing.
The Fallacy of Alien’s legacy is that it is often regarded as a SCIENCE FICTION movie first and a HORROR movie second, I believe it is the other way around, it is just that in the rare case, the Science (“molecular-acid” aside) in ALIEN is actually pretty damn good and people think that the film or the prequel (And I’m totally (sadly) guilty) of this, should be 2001: A Space Odyssey, and not Shivers.
It’s a classic case of reviewing what you wanted vs. reviewing what you got. (I’m certainly not immune to this…)
@rot Alien works much better because it doesn’t strive to be anything more than what it is. It has its ideas and tropes and plays them out exceedingly well. It isn’t trying to be really intelligent thought provoking stuff. It’s trying to be Texas Chainsaw Massacre in space. Prometheus has too many ideas running rampant and it feels a little messy. It seems to be going for this, that and the other thing and doesn’t really land on any of them very well.
@Kurt – really? People still watch Alien as hard sci-fi? I don’t think anyone in these circles do, do they?
Maybe I’m wrong on this. It is a genre mash, but I think expect more than just creepy crawlies due to emphasis on the Science Fiction over the Horror.
I find it interesting how diverse the very framing of Prometheus has become. You have got camp, hard sci-fi, Jay calls it a mood piece, I feel somewhat alone in my emphasis on saying it is a very successful horror film, and the ideas are just the cherry on top, something there if you want it. What the trailer promised was horror, what I got was horror. Suspense was there as a means of heightening the horror.
It feels more like Alien to me than any of the other films, because they are, first of all, not scary, and nor do they seem to be interested in that modest aim.
Yeah Rot, I loved filmjunk’s discussion of Prometheus. Even though there were a couple of factual errors, it was cool hearing the light go on for Frank and hearing Jay and Sean’s back and forth. Especially the spoiler part.
What I found interesting on the FJ podcast was that everyone’s take on what was going on with the plot was different. Sometimes they changed their mind about what happened and sometimes they said, “no I like the way I interpreted it better.”
Frank’s “light going on” was funny. I think that opening scene is so obvious as to what’s happening, it’s interesting that some people find it nonsensical and needless until it’s spelled out (then again, I’ve seen Mission to Mars so…).
And I agree with Jay’s take on the “black goo.” I love the link (somewhere else on this site) that someone left explaining the goo, but I’m with Jay on that one. I kind of look at it as a somewhat lazy device that kind of just does whatever the screenplay calls for it to do at any given time.
I grasped the basic story on one watch but the subtext and all the detailed ideas that people are extrapolating I obviously didn’t pick up on but afterwards find kind of great. Lindeloff, like with Lost, has created something that can get people discussing the minutiae, ambiguous enough to let the conversation take hold, and I love both Prometheus and Lost for doing that.
I think there are SOME who watched this movie and didn’t connect the dots of the story and loudly hated it on false premises. Now perhaps Lindeloff could have written it clearer in parts, but then if it was too clear we would say it was being to much exposition, show don’t tell. You can’t win.
To me, this movie is a lot like Sunshine, another movie which I unabashedly love. You have hard sci-fi and big concepts, but the movie also “devolves” (according to detractors) into horror cliches.
To me, this genre bending / genre mixing / genre non-sequitorism (?) is what makes these movies special. And just because the “form” of the movie changes, that doesn’t mean the “function” of the movie changes. There is more than one road that can lead to the truth, and more than one way to explore a theme.
@Jericho Sunshine works better than Prometheus for me too because all of the characters are fully realized, their motivations make perfect sense and it only tackles one problem at a time. Prometheus tries to discover several things at once, but doesn’t even really know what those things are. It isn’t exactly Southland Tales, but there’s enough confusion surrounding these unrealized, big ideas that I see why people are turned off.
Andrew, those are 2 arguments that many people that I read and listen to are making, so they are obviously valid.
Personally, my thinking is that the movie chooses to focus on 2 or 3 main characters, and the other characters aren’t fully fleshed out. I don’t fault a movie for concentrating on some characters at the expense of others. To me, this is not Avengers or 13 Assassins – everyone doesn’t have to have equal billing.
As for all of the big ideas, I would rather have them in the movie than not have them in the movie.
In essence, I see this as a space horror/adventure that is “elevated” to some degree by big ideas; whereas others see it as a grand, philosophical, sci-fi that is brought down by horror elements and lack of answers.
Sunshine > Prometheus. Agreed. But I’m kind of happy that they both exist. Sure Prometheus was NEVER going to live up to my expectations, but I’ve more or less made my piece with it, and I can enjoy it for what it is: An excuse for Ridley Scott to shoot some quite awesome images.
Prometheus >>>>>> Sunshine. Just for the record.
I like both Prometheus and Sunshine but I have to say this.
Moon > BOTH
I don’t fault a film for focusing on a few characters, but that’s not a pass to write minor characters poorly. At least have them be consistent from scene to scene.
I view and appreciate films like I do paintings — my verdict on whether I like the art work is based on my personal experience with the whole (“Gestalt) rather than the individual parts/components. I still judge and analyze the parts, but that is secondary analysis. It seems to most people, and critics, take the opposite approach.
Good to see we actually agree on some things
Prometheus is the third best film in its franchise, second best prequel made. ROTPOTA still holds the title of the best prequel.
Excellent podcast guys. Good to read all the intelligent comments here considering the level of discourse surrounding this movie has been so low. I think there’s also a pattern here that I see- people seem to have this kneejerk reaction to any movie/tv show/work of fiction that dares bring up spirituality and/or talk about the larger questions of life. I have seen this time and time again with shows like Battlestar Galactica, LOST, Prometheus, even Harry Potter got some hate for brief religious symbolism in the last book. It’s not even that these works of fiction somehow inequivically portray spirituality as the answer. It’s the fact that they DARE suggest something that does not fit with the status quo that pisses people off. I’m an agnostic myself so I have no horse in this race but it seems that these militant internet atheist are either so insecure in their beliefs or are so dogmatic that they can’t take something that even remotely differs from their worldview. What I find sad is that this kind of loud context that surrounds stories with a spiritual bent might discourage future filmakers from tackling these issues which would be a huge shame.
Back to Prometheus, Jason Bourne drives his car off a 10 story building and the only precaution he takes is grabbing the seatbelt before the car goes in a free fall. Yet 10 seconds after that incident he is running around like nothing happened. These same people who seem to have this world ending dislike for Elizabeth being active after the surgery have no problems with that scene (and numerous other scenes) from the Bourne movie, on the contrary lay mountains of praise on them. The kids in Chronicle, jump inside a glowing hole in the ground, but hey they got superpowers so that negates any stupidity complains. It’s like when I read anti Prometheus comments it’s like I’m having an LSD trip. I literally cannot understand how these people can enjoy any movie if they scrutinize it the same way this movie is being scrutinized.
Anyways lastly, I have to say the treatment of Lindelof by some of these so called “geeks” has been disgusting. Not that I’m surprised since there’s a culture of bullying anyone who doesn’t conform to their worldview among the intenet fanboys (see the attacks on Twilight fans whenever one of those movies comes out, not that I like Twilight but the way fans of that franchise are treated is symptomatic of the disease of shouting down dissenters that exists in internet fanboy clique) It is one thing to not be a fan of Damon’s work but level of nasty personal attacks are crossing the line. I just came across this gem on my twitter feed http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/06/an-open-letter-to-damon-lindelof.php ugghhhh… At some point one has to look themselves in the mirror and see that they are directing this level of nastiness at another HUMAN BEING just because he created something that did not appeal to them. Critisism is one thing but hoping someone gets raped or their arms chopped off or never gets to do something they love again is completely uncalled for.
“I literally cannot understand how these people can enjoy any movie if they scrutinize it the same way this movie is being scrutinized.” Heartily agree with you White Rose, and thanks for commenting. This sort of thing is where argument breaks down, because (and this is true of the debaters on both sides, I concede) if you really want to make a case for something with an object as inherently subjective as one’s own experience with a film, you can find “evidence” for pretty much anything, on either side. My own review of PROMETHEUS makes references and allusions that I have no objective way of proving were intentional, but I’m going to treat them as intentional because they are what occurred to me while watching the film – and because they support my argument.
The real trouble IMHO is that these discussions quickly become so hyperbolic that it’s hard to tell if your opponent actually believes what they’re saying, or if they’re just saying it out of resistance to you. I’ll pick on Peter again because of the genuine admiration I have for his opinions on film – to see him compare this to several of the most-reviled movies of all time (Phantom Menace, Crystal Skull, Showgirls) seems so out of step with the creative entity that I’m talking about that it basically shorts out my ability to see his point.
And hearty agreement on the Lindelof point. We have, obviously, seen the same thing with Lucas – though Lucas is not on twitter and does not have, as Lindelof evidently does, hundreds or thousands of people writing to him daily to say that he ruined something significant to them. Lucas tends to get it all second-hand, if he gets it at all (though the New Yorker article when RED TAILS came out suggests that he does).
These men have put themselves in the public sphere as creators of popular content and so to an extent are making themselves open to criticism. But criticism must to some extent involve analysis, and the “fuck you you fucking fuck” type commentary that men like Lindelof and Lucas sometimes receive instead is just baseless, useless, hurtful nonsense.
I’d like to extend an olive branch and say too Matt that I very much admire your opinions as well, and am experiencing the exact same brain fritz as you are with regards to seeing your point.
To actually discuss the film and not the audience polemics, here’s something a friend pointed out that really prevented me from identifying or caring for the films characters:
“The thing that bugs the fuck out of me is the characters constant insistence that they DESERVE to KNOW why they were CREATED. That they are SPECIAL. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news guys – but you don’t deserve shit. The one good actor in the film, Fassebender, says it best when he goes “Why did you create me?” and a character responds “Because we felt like it.” There’s your answer right there. The big white muscle roid rage flute players just got drunk, had a lark, and made the human race. ANSWER – ANSWERED. Stop whining like over privileged North Americans that have everything in the world but WANT MORE. Why can’t you guys be happy with what you have?”
Now, this is actually the most interesting aspect about the film (and definitely one of the movies points), and why David is the one character in the film that almost works. David raises this question of “why bother” to both to Holloaway and to Shaw, but it actively feels like the script at least willfully ignores the statement with its decision to sequel bait at the end. David’s entirely correct with his goding of the statement “because we felt like it”, out of Hollaway and he provides the most satisfying and only answer the characters need, and yet the characters refuse to accept it, even Shaw, at the end of her ordeal. She steadfastly goes on to keep asking the question. The film tells us she does this because thats what human’s do. Now that is actually very interesting if the film’s point is severe cynical criticism of humanity – but the ending reeks of optimism, not to mention it appears to support her decision to keep chasing her maker. The film frames her decision to keep searching as a personal victory, when its really more of her entering perpetual-denial. No sequel is necessary, her satisfaction will never be realized. However, the film clearly aims its scope at the continuing adventures of Shaw and David’s head – the film ends up as naive as Shaw. I’ll concede that maybe the film has a meta-agenda.
And I think I would respect the film more if I thought it truly was a meta-text; as Devin from Badass Digest wrote, a film intentionally disappointing to watch in order to mirror the disappointment of the characters. But the interviews with Scot and Lindelof convince me they lack the insincerity to be so cynical. They’re not dumb enough not to raise the this idea through David’s statements to Halloway and Shaw, but they fail to actually have the characters engage with the idea – its just ignored, which is frustrating to a human audience member who recognizes he has a valid and interesting point and has lost even further respect for the characters of the film.
At the end of the day, there are just too many contradictions for me to buy into accepting that the film actually knows what its doing. Occam’s razor suggests that its really just a collection of half-baked ideas from better sci-fi texts assembled together in order to make money off the cultural reverence of the Alien films.
Frankly, they really, really should have set this in the Blade Runner universe. The themes would fit much better there, and David’s eccentric behavior would gel better with the Nexus 6 crew. All the Alien connections are just distracting, and the film would be have been better to have dropped them entirely.
“The thing that bugs the fuck out of me is the characters constant insistence that they DESERVE to KNOW why they were CREATED. That they are SPECIAL.”
Um, is not the entire ambition of human space exploration born of this same desire, to know the big questions, to keep asking those questions, that is the hubris of our species, not particular to this movie.
Also I didn’t see the ending as clear-cut uplifting as you are making it out to me. With all of the nihilism in this film, I saw Ellie leaving as just a futile attempt to do something, everything she cared about was gone, at the very least she was going to aspire for some definitive answer. But it doesn’t seem victorious to me, it doesn’t give me a warm feeling about our species. If she is going to find the home planet, and the home planet wants humans dead, than she is just going to her certain death. Also with religion the idea is not to know definitively the truth but believe it on faith, so her acting this way shows a lacking in her that is far from ideal. There is a tension there she did not fully appreciate, again, a hubris, which also, incidentally, leads to creation of the ultimate destructive force, the Alien.
I don’t see the rah-rah you are seeing. The movie is bleak.
That is how I took it too, even if what the characters were saying was uplifting the visual narrative and story was a bleak one of everything going to shit. If anything her final hunt for questions will do nothing but make whoever she finds aware of the fact that there are still humans out there.
Or maybe she is going to find their home world and commit genocide on them with the payload of that ship. At this point it can not be said either way.
Yeah I have to (once again) agree with Mike on this. The movie is called PROMETHEUS. The human desire to attain/deserve higher knowledge is table stakes for a story like this. I believe that this desire is intrinsic to all humanity, and it is what PROMETHEUS says on a humanistic level that I ultimately take away from it.
BUT – if you basically believe that this entire line of human striving is inherently dumbassed, of course you’re going to hate this movie, and any movie like it. Why would you even go see it in the first place?
Wow, Peter, either you or I are living in Bizarro world.
The major theme of the film, if I had to give it one – is “What price knowledge?” It’s pretty clear that the film is questioning if not outright condemning the search for knowledge that these people are on.
1. The most headstrong and arrogant member of the crew that simply must find answers is Holloway. This is the guy who can’t even wait until the next day to explore – “I want to open my christmas present now”. Then the second he admits to David that’s he’s willing to do anything to get knowledge, David kills him by infecting him. Later, he gets burned alive.
2. Noomi almost dies when she runs back out of the ship to retrieve a big giant head. A big head. How much more obvious can you get? Knowledge is dangerous.
3. When they try to reanimate that big head to get answers, it explodes. Knowledge is dangerous.
4. The room where all the dangerous vases in it? Guess what – there’s a huge giant sculpture of a head in the center of it. Knowledge is dangerous.
5. The guy who engineered the whole trip, who wants answers to life and death. What happens when he gets what he wants – when he meets his maker? He dies. Knowledge is dangerous.
6. The crew member who can read the language, who knows more about the engineers than anyone else is David. They re-awaken the Alien and everyone is talking, the Alien just looks at them quizzically because he can’t understand. The moment that David talks to him in his own language, and the alien knows what he is saying, he rips his head off. Knowledge is dangerous.
8. Remember the scene between Noomi and Idris Elba. She says, “Don’t you want to know what they (the engineers) will say?” Idris says, “I don’t care.” This is from the guy who is the most heroic figure in the movie. Knowledge is dangerous.
There are more examples. How much more blatant can the movie be?
This is the exact same idea as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and it is made with same level of sophistication. I think what really weird me out is that people get offended when I compare the films.
Pursuit of knowledge is also the same idea as 2001, Frankenstein, Star Trek, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. etc.
You say it’s with the same level of sophistication, yet you didn’t realize it until I pointed it out. You thought the movie was encouraging pursuit of knowledge because of the optimistic ending.
It is not – the pursuit of knowledge is what causes the Alien to wake up and try to attack the earth.
I’m saying the film is confused as to what’s it about. It offers up both ideas to serve the purpose of isolated scenes without regard to rest of the film..
Elba suddenly cares and decides to become a hero when he attains knowledge of what his happening (really though, its only what he perceives to be happening). He could have stuck his fingers in his ear and said I’m not listening, I’m not listening – kind of like Theron – the one person who really, really doesn’t want to know.
So you think the end of the movie condemns Shaw’s decision to pursue knowledge? I really don’t think it does, though the audience might.
Its kind of like if Raiders of the Lost Ark ended with Indiana Jones going… “hmm lets go break into that warehouse and look in that ark one more time…”
And I never said the idea was bad, just the film’s employment of it.
“(see the attacks on Twilight fans whenever one of those movies comes out, not that I like Twilight but the way fans of that franchise are treated is symptomatic of the disease of shouting down dissenters that exists in internet fanboy clique)”
Also Sex in the City. When those movies came out the horde of misogyny was embarrassing. Think of the amount of wankery the ladies have to watch us sit through, and then that comes out and on the vast majority of sites there was non-stop “These fans are dumb sluts!”
I hate Twilight as much as the next guy but any defender was treated like a teen girl who had never seen another film, and it’s forced Robert Pattinson to have to trash Twilight on every junket in order to support Cosmopolis. “Sorry for being a poster on your girlfriends wall, we both know it’s a piece of shit, right? *Wink* cmon guy….”
…that Twitch post above is a shameful and completely insubstantial personal attack. If it were just a comment on a thread it would be annoying, as a featured post it’s shameful.
For the record, I thought Twitch’s piece was super lame. I hate the “open letter” format – its an unnecessarily arrogant and condescending style.
“I have seen this time and time again with shows like Battlestar Galactica, LOST, Prometheus, even Harry Potter got some hate for brief religious symbolism in the last book.”
I think for many it was more how the conclusion was reached in some of those stories rather than any religious symbolism.
With Battlestar Galactica, it was just a bit heavy handed in that final episode. Also the decisions that people were making came across as a bit stupid and hard to think that all of the population would agree. Basically enough jumps were made to break my suspension of disbelief that the story would continue that way. Falling back on religion seemed to be a bit of a crutch rather than good story telling. Also there were all sorts of lose plot points which people had spent so much time thinking of the possibilities, that they were just so disappointed with the results.
LOST I think people had issues with saying that half of the second season didn’t matter and how certain characters died. Some even came to the conclusion that the whole thing was just in limbo and they had all died in the crash. Similar to Battlestar Galactica, people were wrapped up in so many theories that the resulting answer was a huge disappointment. Once again, I don’t think it was religious symbolism that people had a problem with for most people.
The last Harry Potter book, I do think is the *right* way of doing it, at least in my opinion. I actually hadn’t seen hardly any criticism against the ending myself and this is the first time I heard of people being upset because of religious symbolism. The reason why I think this is the right way to do it, is that it worked for the story that analogies could be made without being too heavy handed.
People being upset with Prometheus doesn’t seem to be from any religious context. People are complaining about characters motivations, why certain things happened, whether or not they found things interesting, etc. rather than any religious subtext. Many didn’t pick up on the whole space Jesus theory and I’m not sure they would have gotten then without Ridley Scott pointing that out.
I loooove religious symbolism. I’m a Xenogears fanboy.
Excellent post, White Rose. I think Prometheus reaction is a classic journey vs destination dichotomy.
I loved the journey – the nuances, the ambiguity, the horror, the psychology, the questions, the seamless special effects, the details. I loved everything about this movie. The fact that David’s motives aren’t immediately evident is a plus for me, not a negative. The fact that there aren’t enough “answers” and that there isn’t a decisive resolution is something that the movie tells me over and over and over again, well before the final moments.
Others want a more decisive destination – they want resolution, specific motivations, unquestionable and water-tight internal logic, and decisive and strict following of genre rules. If this is a “Cerebral, hard sci-fi” movie, then there can’t be any illogical or even questionable actions. Or if there are, at least explain it to me so that I can close the loop. These are valid criticisms, and I really can’t fault anyone for feeling this way. I just feel it’s being taken to extreme lengths in order to make a point.
Also, I think sometimes people are primed by how much we know. Lindeloff’s name was all over the opening credits, so some people automatically have their antenna up for the problems (or positives) that they perceive in his previous works. Me, I don’t watch much tv and I don’t give two shits about Lindeloff (never seen Lost), or JJ Abrams (never seen Alias or Lost), or Whedon (never seen Buffy or Firefly). I just want to see a good movie – whether its The Avengers, or Prometheus, or Star Trek.
I think that is one of the biggest problems with advocates and detractors of Prometheus is that they are generally overthinking the film. The content of the ideas presented in the film are larks. They are designed to confound as well as excite the audience with their inability to cohesively become a rational whole. This disconnect and non-consistency is what gives modern (read: romantic) art its vitality. The hubris of the human characters, as well as the audience, comes from their inability to admit that life is kind meaningless and a-teleological—there is no point.
Those who see connections between the film and religion are actually on the same boat as those who are complaining about staples in Shaw’s stomach. They both want to petrify the film into complete stasis by divulging deeper into contents of the details (Jesus, stomach muscles). That is the nihilism that afflicts all the characters: the truth can’t be that stupid, there must be a better answer and I must do everything in my will to find it! However, profound truths are typically on the surface—the best philosophical questions are the most naive—that is why the cynical modern ‘average-joe’ finds it offensive. They are actually too experienced for their own well-being.
Drawing from Matt Price’s comments on Ridley Scott as a visual filmmaker: “the power of image can actually manufacture meaning”, I find it has parallel’s to McLuhan’s statement about “The medium is the message” which is also another way of saying “it is not what one does but how one does it”. It is kind of ironic that Prometheus is actually about how to deal with this very vacancy within all things.
I like this post.
I think Prometheus is a highly ironic text. This is actually why I can say that I enjoyed watching the film and plan to see it again. I think the film actually becomes more interesting and more illuminating when treated as camp or as someone somewhere on the internet wrote “pantomime”. I just don’t think that was the intention, but a fascinating result.
Prometheus rules really hard & I was scared as hell when protoman went Cold Berserko on droid & friends
It is kinda fitting that people are letting problems with the written text get in the way the physical world the film is showing. The Faith vs. Science bit extended to the discussion surrounding the film.
I think it was one of the Matts who was saying that this is Ridley’s movie, foremost, and that yeah, it is a piece of cinema with all that entails that this film operates, and only secondary as a script with ideas to mull over. The grandeur of Ridley’s world is what I love, what I respond to the strongest. The film as a perfectly realized ride for the senses.
You and a great deal of people in the thread will love this conversation especially the Prometheus section
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8040967/from-ridley-scott-original-prometheus-not-brief-conversation-alien-franchise
That link is AMAAAAAAAAAAZING.
I have been reading Sean’s writing for a while and if you want a REALLY great read
http://supervillain.wordpress.com/emma-peel-sessions/
Scroll down 47-53 where he talks about his top 100 at the time. It is no joke some of the best most evocative writing on film I have ever read.
This whole talk got me thinking: there is a common complaint that is often tossed around movie blogs and in particular, regarding science fiction that an idea is only as good as its novelty. That hard sci-fi must find new ideas and maybe new themes to extrapolate, and if a story like Prometheus tells a familiar story, irrespective of how it is told, there is something lesser to it. I remember when Inception came out there was even a debate on here about that idea not being so novel, and therefore, lesser.
I think this line of reasoning is bullshit. It is not the novelty of an idea that makes a movie, it is the vitality of the telling. I think the hubris of our species as a theme should be told over and over and over, and those old chestnuts, AI and God as aliens are perfectly fine foundations for a story about this theme. It is how richly you tell that story that matters. Novelty is an ingredient, but there is also the novelty of images, the power of cinema to articulate something with more than words, and then edit it in such a way as to stagger our minds, even if underlying it is the familiar story we know.
We have become too fucking literal, too much like archivists, too much like editors, too much like the Guardians of what is cool, that we are all too ready to close off anything transient in the experience of what the film is thinking and feeling.
I actually agree with this.
I just don’t think Prometheus is well told.
Boom. Thank you. Why care about the Big Questions if the storytelling is poor, sloppy and/or lazy?
Blade Runner vs. Prometheus
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/blade-runner-prometheus-comparisons/8261
I stand by my belief that Prometheus is an instatnt classic.
“I want more life……FATHER!”
(if Prometheus’ significance as a film is in its ability to generate conversation on the internet, then it is a VERY SIGNIFICANT film indeed.)
Just like The Phantom Menace and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I know people want to throw a brick at me for bringing these films up, but I’m just saying that geeks like us talk about geek properties a lot, regardless of whether the films are worth it. Without Prometheus’ legacy, I don’t think people would be generating this level of conversation.
And yeah again, Prometheus really should have been a Blade Runner sequel.
Good article. We obviously have no real way to prognosticate at this point but if I were going to offer a guess I’d say the major difference between the two, even if PROMETHEUS gets long-term status as a classic, is that BLADE RUNNER’s influence on the genre is nearly incalculable at this point (as is ALIEN’s), but PROMETHEUS doesn’t feel like it adds enough to the froth to have the same impact. Doesn’t really have anything to do with its quality as a piece of filmmaking, of course, just legacy.
agreed.
I agree with Mr. Brown. One of the things that made Blade Runner a classic movie was not only it’s influence but how ground breaking it was at the time. No matter whether you like or dislike Prometheus, I don’t think it is doing anything ground breaking like Blade Runner was doing.
Way late to the game (I’ve been away for the last two weeks) and I’m too tired to read all of the comments, but spotting Andrew’s initial reaction to the film it sounds like we’re vaguely on the same page.
I found the general premise and core narrative very interesting and the more cerebral sci-fi elements to be strong, but I thought all of the visceral popcorn elements were what let it down. They felt tacked on as though they were part of another film and had no effect on me in terms of excitement or fear (other than the C-section scene which was pretty intense). Most of the Alien tie-in aspects especially didn’t feel necessary and distracted from an otherwise interesting sci-fi film. The whole thing, although occasionally very strong, felt a bit too much like two films clumsily tied together.
I would have preferred them to just come across the pyramid and explore it like Rendezvous With Rama rather than get randomly attacked by monsters from time to time.
Why hasn’t someone made a Rendezvous With Rama movie already? So I looked that up and apparently Morgan Freeman has been trying to produce that movie with David Fincher since early 2000′s. David Fincher?! Damn, I really hope that movie comes together as that could be really quite interesting.
Yeah, someone had brought this up previously, which got me to read the book soon after and I really enjoyed it. I love the exploration aspects of it and those sections of Prometheus grabbed me too, but a lot of the overall execution let things down for me.
About once a year someone opens the bottle with that question inside. And I would like to amplify it!!! Would giving us the trilogy over the course of 6 or 7 years be too much to ask as well?
A sci-epic that will cost a ton to make and in which not much happens. I’m shocked Hollywood isn’t drooling at the prospect.
It is also a poorly written novel.
On the politics of PROMETHEUS (and ALIEN) (and BLADE RUNNER):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/06/13/the-politics-of-ridley-scotts-blockbuster-film-prometheus/
Gamble,
Prometheus in my local digital IMAX theater is shown in the IMAX ratio and not 2.35. I assume that’s just by cutting off the edges, more or less. Is there often a different IMAX “print”? Usually when I see “IMAX” at that theater, it’s still in 2.35.
For the next Mamo, can you guys talk about the production mess that Lone Ranger and World War Z are experiencing.
Mayyyyyybe. If you ask nicely. Oh wait: you already did!
Finally listening to this Mamo! I believe the word you are looking for with Lindelof and his endless barage of attacks on twitter is: “FANTRUM” (a portmanteau of Fanatic and Tantrum) – I came across this in a New Yorker article on George R.R. Martin (and George Lucas) and how they are loved and hated (often simultaneously) by their fans.
We live in both the golden age of Fan Culture and the most ugly, vulgar and period of Fan Culture. The internet is to blame for both!
link to article?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/11/110411fa_fact_miller
Good article. I’ve stopped reading fantasy series that don’t have an ending, including Game of Thrones (the first book was awesome). That’s why I don’t watch the series. When it’s all done (which will probably be never), then I’ll invest my time and money.
That seems odd to me, if something is good in the moment it was worth it.
Around the late 1990s, I got tired of the ‘milk-the-cash-cow’ mentality of Fantasy Novels with authors that forgot make their narratives be about SOMETHING, instead resorting to endless unfocused narratives. I’m looking at you Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind. (I’ve not read Partick Rothfuss or George R.R. Martin so I cannot comment.)
Those were the exact 2 names that I was going to mention, Kurt. It feels like I am being strung along. Stephen R Donaldson and Guy Gavriel Kay – and others – can put out compelling and interesting 3 or 4 book series that tell a good story.
Now, you are right, Rick, I should be able to enjoy the book, but I just can’t.
Jordan’s series is coming to an end next year, and I haven’t ruled out starting from the beginning.
Goodkind’s work apparently turned into right wing, Ayn Rand drivel at the end, so I will not read those.
Let it be said that G.G. Kay is my favourite fantasy novelist (and yea, that includes J.R.R. Tolkein), I’m currently re-reading LIONS OF AL-RASSAN at the moment (for the 5 or so time). In fact I’ve read almost all of Kay’s novels more than 3 times each.
If there is something that is calling for a Game of Thrones like treatment, it’s his two book series, THE SARANTINE MOSAIC which is basically ROME, but way further down the timeline, with the barest hints of magic (The Zubir) thrown in to make sure that human things are not the only things out there beyond the town walls.
Jordan and Goodkind both lost me early.
I read Bakker and Erikson for modern Fantasy and both of them are young guys so I can trust they will finish before dying.
I do have an unhealthy addiction to the simple quips of David Eddings writing which has burned me on multiple occasions.
Will be starting my umpteenth reading of Thomas Covenent soon.
I haven’t read Eddings in so long. I loved it when I read it, but thinking back I don’t know if I would like it now.
Is any of Feist’s recent stuff worth reading? Last I read was Serpentwar Saga years ago.
So there is a sequel to Prometheus coming. http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/08/prometheus-sequel-in-the-works.php
Will they be above to avoid all the griping the second time around? If so, then what will we talk about?