Prometheus Explained... BR

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10 October 2012   #46
After watching Alien, it seems like the Prometheus script makers had a simple job of making a believable prequel to Alien, assuming that was part of what they wanted to do. The makers of the recent version of The Thing set a good example of how to do this, and on the face of it Prometheus should have been as easy to tie in as a prequel to Alien.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #47
is the blu ray version 3hrs. I am looking forward to this release.
__________________
"This is the moment. History could be made...or nothing at all."
 
Old 10 October 2012   #48
Thumbs down What a shame...

I don't know about the contents of the DVD-BLU-RAY-BONUS-3D-EXTENDED-DIRECTOR'S CUT-COLLECTOR'S EDITION, all I know is I'm disappointed. Let's face it, the theatrical version didn't deliver a believable plot, nor characters. The Hollywood standards ruined the magic of cinema.
I miss the intensity of the first Alien and Bladerunner. Critical scenes like the engineer waking up after thousands of years, could have been much more memorable IMHO than just thrown away like that.
Not to mention the lack of elements to keep comprehensive cohesion and logical sequence of events.
A lot is missing, and I don't buy a DVD or whatever to get the rest of it. That's deceiving people's expectations. An insult to audience intelligence.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #49
Originally Posted by luisRiera: I dont consider anything a wast of time unless I dont gain anything from it. And even in that case, you gain something truly important by watching a piece of crap: What NOT to do in movies. Sometimes movies doesnt work, and we can all learn a lot from movies that fail, because thats the only way you can realize what the audience likes. Remember: there is no magical formula for making good movies.


Much better way to learn about movies is to watch what to DO, not what NOT to do. The NOT to do list is endless.
Who cares what the audience like? You can NEVER satisfy all the people. So this aproach is wrong.
Make a good movie you will want to watch and everyone will watch it.
Have fun while making it, care about it and nurture it, and every one will see it.
Good movies are pure chemistry. What you put in it, will be seen on screen, no matter what.
So closest thing to magical formula for making good movies is to make good movie. When you are making movie to make a buck, then it's a flop.
What studio execs know about making movies? Nothing. They are only chacing money. There is know magical formula, and every time they make a hit, they think they got it.
Make something new and original. Make something exciting. Something honest. Something provokative. Something from the heart. Those all always work.
Due to the so called excuse of making something so audience will like it, is just an a excuse to dumb down the population, using common things people always want to see. Population watching slashers, explosions, violence and boobs is a happy, no trouble making audience. Bread and Circus for the masses. Sex always sells (see commercials and advertising section).

Originally Posted by luisRiera: By reading the script only, "Jaws" for example was a movie that should have tanked. No exposition of the 'monster', long scenes, etc, yet once everything was assembled, edited and proyected turned out to be a classic, and not showing the creature was what drive the suspense. Same as Blade Runner (poor box office performance) or even The Matrix. So, saying something like "my script was better", really means little.


Making a good script is a the most important thing. But ALL aspects of film making have to be satisfied as well. Specially acting, camera, music and most important in my view - editing.
But without story, film could be just popcorn fodder for bored audience.
No, I'm not going to mention Pixar, and their great story telling.
It's like a music sheet. Even if you have all the "right" notes, if you don't play the music in right tempo, right length, with skilled use of instrument, putting your heart in it, no one will listen.
But audience wants content, and if there isn't any of a good quality, they will take anything which is closest. Audience also likes to spoon fed, and it does loose the test. They want stories, and in absence of good ones they will take crap.
The worst thing for the movie industry are those film tests, which are just the most stupid way of testing film.
Blade Runner is just the case to prove this point. It's an amazing movie, which test audience didn't understand.
And if you advertise film to death, or brainwash people to see it, a lot of people will go and see it.

Originally Posted by luisRiera: Calling it the worst movie in years only mean that "The Legend of Chun-Li" or "Blair Witch 2" are masterpieces and even those movies can teach us something like I said in the second paragraph.


Watching someone how to make pancakes, without knowing anything about it and failing every time will never teach you how to make them.
Watching experienced cook making them, will maybe not get you all the way, since he knows what to do at every point, but at least you might get closer every time.
But even the most skilful cook will make crap without fresh ingredients.


Al
__________________
"No Bucks, NO Buck Rogers!"

VFX rule no. 387
# Just redo it!

 
Old 10 October 2012   #50
I loved the movie and I can't wait to see the blue ray version. It seems to be doing OK on imdb rating btw (7.3 for now). Any film rated above 7 by a significant number of people is, I think, at least worth watching, in my book, and definitely not 'crap'. The problem here is that the first 2 Alien films are landmarks in the history of filmmaking and it's pretty damn hard to repeat such a success.
To compare, the Kung Fu Panda movies are rated 7.6 and 7.3 on imdb, and they happen to be among my favorite films of all times.
__________________
VM
 
Old 10 October 2012   #51
Originally Posted by gjpetch: The director isn't the sole author of a movie, film is a collaborative medium. This was a good director and a bad script.
It's difficult to think of a single director who hasn't made a stinker at some point, Kubrick and eyes wide shut, Spielberg and 1941, Lucas and the prequels, Matrix sequels and the Wachowskis, Peter Jackson and Lovely Bones, Gilliam and Tideland, etc.....


Kubricks "Eyes wide shut" is an excellent movie, advertised wrongly. It's like film "Cabare". You need to see it, now only watch it.
Sometimes you need to close your eyes to see.
1941 is a great comedy and satire and story needed to be told.
But not the film people want to see.


Als
__________________
"No Bucks, NO Buck Rogers!"

VFX rule no. 387
# Just redo it!

 
Old 10 October 2012   #52
As for "explaining Prometheus" - I find this honest trailer (warning, contains spoilers!) particularly relevant.

I'm kind of shocked nobody posted it yet..

Last edited by squizzz : 10 October 2012 at 10:08 AM.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #53
Originally Posted by Als: Kubricks "Eyes wide shut" is an excellent movie


To me also one of the best movies ever.
__________________
www.inbitwin.com
 
Old 10 October 2012   #54
Originally Posted by squizzz: As for "explaining Prometheus" - I find this honest trailer (warning, contains spoilers!) particularly relevant.


Very funny, and sort of true. But it's judging mostly story logic issues, and characters. I agree with the logic issues. But what makes an interesting or believable character is subjective. I kind of like the characters of Prometheus, especially when they do stupid things (like taking off their helmets on an alien planet). People do stupid things in reality and it's very entertaining to watch. :}
Also, I liked the nature-documentary opening a lot. To make a parallel here, there are SF books like 'Dune', and books like 'Rendezvous with Rama'. In 'Rama'... you have a crew of humans aboard this alien spaceship, exploring it... it's all about the 'wow' behind meeting, for the first time, a [huge] alien spaceship.
__________________
VM
 
Old 10 October 2012   #55
Originally Posted by VM: it's all about the 'wow' behind meeting, for the first time, a [huge] alien spaceship.


I felt that was also missing, though. 5 minutes after finding what should be the most amazing discovery in human history, everyone was just tooling around like they were bored and tired of it all already. I understand the whole "space workman" aspect they were trying to do from the other movies, but these people in this particular time and place should have been completely blown away, and they just shrugged it all off.

That's just one of a raft of character problems I had with this..and that I felt the other movies didn't have..everyone in those movies (specifically 1 and 2) had their own reactions and motivations and felt like real people in a real situation.

The realest person in Prometheus, for me at least, was the android. Everyone else acted like idiots not because they were supposed to be idiots, or were described as idiots, but because the movie required it in order to set up some pat scenes and make tons of references to the other films.

Anyway, blah blah blah. I think I just expect more from it because of the heritage and the director and people involved. If this had been some crap remake of an obscure 80's horror movie with a bunch of no-name teenagers running around a warehouse showing their tits and getting picked off by a psycho, all those contrivances and plot conveniences would be fine. But in an across-the-board A-list event, I just wasn't willing to accept it. It was lazy writing and bad storytelling.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #56
About stupid things like the helmet, human curiosity is what makes us do those stupid things (see "27 hours" or "The Descent" for a real life example of going somewhere whithout telling anyone), and besides that.. lets not forget the most important thing.. If everyone were using their helmets, how does the audience are suppose to tell who is who? Isnt better to lose some bit of reality in order to give more importance to the storytelling?

Even in Saving Private Ryan the soldiers lose their helmets by the end for dramatic purposes. And in "The Descent", the filmmakers color-coded the characters and the situations to help us see what was going on.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #57
Originally Posted by luisRiera: About stupid things like the helmet, human curiosity is what makes us do those stupid things

I'd think that anyone sent many light years away on a trillion dollar mission would be trained day and night for years to avoid exactly these type of stupid things. Considering the investment in the mission you'd think they would pick the best and the brightest scientists to go on it.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #58
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: I'd think that anyone sent many light years away on a trillion dollar mission would be trained day and night for years to avoid exactly these type of stupid things. Considering the investment in the mission you'd think they would pick the best and the brightest scientists to go on it.


The old man got everything together last minute and trusted the evidence based purely on the fact that he has little time left to live, which explains the terrible crew and questionable choices to risk everyone's life to gain a small chance in hell at eternal life.


Anyways...after a massive derail, has anyone seen the extras in the bluray and care to explain any of the plot holes?
__________________
LEIF3D.com

Last edited by leif3d : 10 October 2012 at 10:02 PM.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #59
Originally Posted by leif3d: Anyways...after a massive derail, has anyone seen the extras in the bluray and care to explain any of the plot holes?


I think only one of the extra scenes has any significance, the expanded scene where they talk to the engineer when he wakes up, and we are all expected some great revelations from him. But even that they failed to expand on, all you see is the old man asking the engineer how to live forever. That first (and only) conversation with the engineer is so important to the mission (probably the main point of it) and the movie that they should have got it right.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 10 October 2012   #60
Yeah ... so people were surprised that a movie re-written by a co-writer/creator of Lost had a lack of structural cohesiveness in the plot and that nothing made sense at the end?

Hmmm.
__________________
Critcal feedback example #62: "Well instead of the Stalinist purges and the divorce and the investigation ... it could be about losing a balloon."
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.