Do sci-fi movies really suck?

Posted by Gcrush 
Ken-A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, it's a crutch.

FTL falls into the same category as the inexplicable mass-physics in most monster movies. Where did their metabolisms go? They went the way of lazy writing…

Speaking of which, here’s a bunch of SPOILER-RIFFIC stuff given in the form of a STOP-START-CONTINUE critique:

STOP…
1. Referencing time/distance travelled; if they can travel faster than the speed of light, then Weyland doesn’t need to undertake the trip.
2. Mentioning DNA; there is no reason to suggest that Engineers would have melted themselves in order to create single-celled organisms to seed a planet with the hope that millions of years of evolution would eventually produce little copies of themselves.
3. Using virtual reality “dream machines”; because, like, what the fuck? You can travel faster than light, read peoples’ dreams/memories, build sentient androids, and you can’t do anything to make an old man live longer?
4. Having medical pods “for mens only”; because nothing says THE FUTURE like gender-segregated “universal” medical equipment.
5. Showing levitating technology alongside wheeled vehicles; because if you can make the little robot balls float around then why is everyone walking or driving?
6. Allowing people on a spaceship to smoke, drink alcohol, set up Xmas trees, or do anything else that doesn’t make the least bit of sense; if you can’t do it on an airplane, you can’t do it on a spaceship.
7. Showing people with bongs hidden in their spacesuits; do we really need to export the trope of DRUGS = MURDER-DEATH to another planet?
8. Letting highly unqualified biologists onboard the crew attempt to pet obviously hostile alien life forms; if you’re spending 3 trillion dollars on a space trip, try to check out the qualifications of any asshole crew that might do something that would make them a better fit for a Jackass! sequel than a scientific voyage.
9. Referencing vintage shit like Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young as if it were shockingly anachronistic; do space people really care about each other’s taste in pop culture?
10. Including superfluous characters just for the sake of lame familial drama; there’s no reason the space captain can’t be mean and unlikable instead of the inexplicably present tycoon’s daughter.

START…
1. Hiring qualified older actors instead of putting horrible old-man makeup on Guy Pearce; not since Reeve Alvin Valkenheiser’s wobbly dicknose has “old-face” been used to so little effect.
2. Remembering to pack the remote control vehicles or turn on the cameras on the little levitating balls; they’ll let you see safely outside the ship without exposing your crew to the psychotic zombie horde.
3. Keeping your characters emotionally balanced; an archaeologist who cries and gets stupid drunk when the first few hours of an excavation don’t go right isn’t much of a professional.
4. Putting more than one android in a crew; you know what’s more interesting than an effeminate Magneto-3PO android that bleaches its roots? An effeminate Magneto-3PO with freshly bleached roots and his suspiciously aggressive android sister who also has luscious blonde hair!
5. Bringing a qualified security team; like people who know when to open doors (and when to leave them closed) and perhaps use things like nets to safely trap wily beasties from a distance.
6. Having artificial intelligence control the ship; it’s not a new idea, but having an android brain to fly the plane means we could suffer through fewer union actors doing their best to impersonate lumber.

CONTINUE…
1. Using Geiger for all your creepy design needs; sure he sometimes tries to pull weird shit, but when he gets it right he really gets it right.
2. Using long still and unbroken tracking shots; nothing sucks worse than the rapid cuts and handi-cam bullshit that lots of directors favor for “keeping it real”.
3. Keeping us guessing about what was going on; because LESS > MORE.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 01:24AM by Gcrush.
MORE SPOILERS!

Aside from the visuals, I really liked how the film did NOT explain so much of what was going on.

Were the Engineers the bad guys or the good guys?

Did the Engineers create the Aliens, or do they serve the Aliens?

What were the penis worms, black jizz, and vaginapus?

Was the planet a weapons testing facility, a research outpost that got overrun with native fauna, or what?

Why were the Engineers trying to run into the black jizz room when the one got decapitated?

Why was there only one Engineer in stasis?

Were all the other caverns ships, too?

Which of the things in the film were ova and which were sperm?

Honorable mention for having the lady take off after the Engineers and not head back to Earth since that more closely follows the concept of time dilation anyway - why not head to an alien planet when Earth would be just as alien by the time you got back?



Those were all cases where the film followed the LESS > MORE concept. We wanted to know that shit, the film provided ample space for us to insert our own readings, and none of it was cluttered by pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Smooth.

But then we get all the totally superfluous shit about time traveling space ships, fundamental misunderstandings of what DNA is, old men with angry daughters, innuendo about interracial moon-porn, cry-baby archaeologists who can’t decide between “No, no, I’m fine,” and, “Oh God, kill me now”, ebola dreams, space marijuana, zombie geologists with mohawks, lightsaber training remotes, and misogynistic robot doctors. Taking out any of those elements would have improved the film immeasurably.

LESS > MORE!
SPOILER WARNING.

Random thoughts:

I have a feeling a lot of things were a setup for a sequel rather than just lazy writing (though I don't doubt there was some of that in there).

I don't think they really could do the suspenseful "monster around the corner" thing...people were expecting it. Showing all the creatures clearly I'm sure was done to distinguish them from the facehugger/Alien. I'm most interested in seeing the evolution of the creatures. I will say I'd be disappointed if the Alien evolved over a span of only a decade (or however long it is between Prometheus and Alien) rather than hundreds of years and if they cop out and fall back on "Earthlings being responsible for the creation of the Alien in the first place" thing.

I thought for a moment they were going to make THAT ship and THAT Engineer the ones from the Alien movie. I'm glad it didn't "fit perfectly" like that.

The captain alludes to it being a weapons facility. Maybe it was a throw away line, but probably not. Same thing with David's line about the Engineers wanting to destoy Earth. I like the idea that the Engineers themselves may be warring...maybe even a splinter faction that wants to destroy what the other faction created? The Eartlings just happened to stumble into the faction that wants them dead?

Wasn't it Predator 2 that showed an Alien skull in the trophy room? That's making a connection between the 2 franchises pretty early on.

---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
Oh, and I quite enjoyed the flick. I followed it up by watching Alien 3, then AvP:R (they were both on movie channels). Was reminded how terrible Alien 3 was. AvP:R I was seeing for the 1st time. Bad movie, but I liked it more than the 1st...it definitely upped the gore and shock factor.

---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
hillsy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and I quite enjoyed the flick. I followed it
> up by watching Alien 3, then AvP:R (they were both
> on movie channels). Was reminded how terrible
> Alien 3 was. AvP:R I was seeing for the 1st time.
> Bad movie, but I liked it more than the 1st...it
> definitely upped the gore and shock factor.


The AvP stuff has never really made sense to me, other thank as an action-packed fan-wank that doesn't really make sense. What appeals to be in Alien/s and even Resurrection (from what I remember) is the world-building and the discover, and the horror elements. The parts where a Xenomorph kills one of the Nostromo crew or a Marine aren't the important bits, but all the stuff in between. I thought Prometheus did a great job of following in that tradition, even if that does make it a bit derivative. Going for bright shots and visible monsters makes sense as well, since like someone else mentioned, the dark, hard to see horror movie has been played to death, and you already knew some kind of aliens were coming in this movie. Showing them and having some variety refreshes the scariness that another Xenomorph lunging from the dark wouldn't have had any more.


SPOILEREY BIT: I'm curious about the Space-Jockey Alien at the end as well. I'm not convinced there's supposed to be any evolutionary connection between it and Ripley's breed. I thought 3 or Res established pretty clearly that the Xenomorphs take on aspects of their host, so the one that popped out at the end was just the Engineer-morph variant, just as the black monster we all are most familiar with is the human-morph. I was also thinking the bug from the Engineer was a Queen larva, since it came from a giant facehugger, and it looked like it came out with an egg sac in one shot before it stood up.

Either way, while the bugs in all their variations are interesting, the biology and morphology behind them really aren't the point of the movie(s).

Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Footnote:

[blastr.com]

If this "theory" is correct, then there's even less going on in "Prometheus" than I thought. Shades of the nuBSG conclusion!

Best, Ken-A
Scopedog Wrote:
>
> Because of Leviticus 22:3. LV-223. Fuck sci-fi.

oh what the hell


gingaio Wrote:
>
> That prologue scene is pretty mysterious. We don't
> know if this Engineer was being forced to commit
> suicide (which is weird because he seemed so
> surprised by his death).

Well, I think you or I would be surprised by the physical sensation of our body dissolving while we're still alive, even if we were aware that it was about to happen.

> We don't know if he willingly or secretly sacrificed
> himself, or if it was part of a ritual sacrifice, to
> seed life on Earth. (Was it even Earth for sure?
> There's really no confirmation of that...)

EDIT-
Scott says:
"That is our planet, right?"
"No, it doesn’t have to be. That could be anywhere. That could be a planet anywhere. All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space."

In that interview he also seems to identify the Engineer who is sacrificed at the beginning with Frazer's sacrificial king from The Golden Bough. He also says some more stuff in there about religious elements which I am very glad he left out of the movie.

> The black stuff unraveled his DNA, and I think a lot
> of people are assuming that this is the Genesis story.
> Maybe, maybe not. We're not really given enough
> information, though.

Granted. I think the images and events of the movie often imply something different than what the scientists conclude from their observations. A difference between the film's narrative POV and what the characters can see from their closer but more limited POV. That could be interesting IF the viewers felt like they had a conclusion at the end that went beyond what the characters learned, but the film didn't really offer us enough for that.

> As to whether this black stuff is a scientific
> tool...I don't know. It destroys life, literally,
> at the cellular level. And are the worms a result
> of the goo or were they preexisting
> creatures/tools/weapons altered by the goo?

It doesn't appear to entirely destroy life. It made one human sick, it made another into a "zombie", it appeared to transform worms that resembled Earth fauna (seen in the dirt when they entered the urn chamber, then in the black goo) into the genitalia-worm, and it transformed one guy's sperm (or the combination of his sperm with the cells of the woman he inseminated) into a monster that mutated through several forms sequentially, from sperm-squid to vagina-dentata Starro to xenomorphish thing born from its last victim. I think the examples we're shown indicates transformation more than destruction.

> I think it was David who said that the ship was
> headed to Earth to destroy it. Certainly, he's an
> unreliable character, but what motive would he have
> to set the humans against the Engineers?

> David's interpretation of the Engineers' intent
> can be taken with a grain of salt, I suppose, but
> I don't see why it's an unacceptable
> interpretation compared to any other, given all
> the stuff we don't know and are forced to guess
> at.

The tough thing is that David never tells us exactly what he learned from the Engineers' ship computer. He may not have an agenda here. He may have read nothing more than "take this amount of the black liquid and go to Earth" - and based on his analysis of the black liquid, concluded (possibly erroneously) that they were going to destroy human life.

I don't think it's unacceptable - I just think it's a weak conclusion when we're given so many examples of the black liquid's transformative properties.


Ken-A Wrote:
>
> All of these movies feature FTL drives because the
> audience still needs to be able to relate to the
> characters in the story. A society that sent
> people with finite life spans on space voyages at
> relativistic speeds would be completely unlike
> ours, with the priorities of the voyagers
> themselves being the most different. So, it's a
> crutch.

I'm still waiting to see a movie where it's all about that - it's about the voyage, and internal conflicts between the crew, and the tasks they have to perform when they get there... where the point is to feel what life is like for this crew, and understand the tensions that they experience.

I'd also like to see a movie about a generation ship arriving at a new planet, and people who've always lived in an artificial environment adjusting to life as colonists. Either of these scenarios could be as action-packed as an Avatar or even a Die Hard... but all the conflict would arise out of human beings enduring this uniquely difficult situation.


Gcrush Wrote:
>
> STOP…
> Referencing vintage shit like Crosby, Stills, Nash,
> and Young as if it were shockingly anachronistic; do
> space people really care about each other’s taste in
> pop culture?

I saw that line as something like the hundred-years-later equivalent of a contemporary person bragging that their guitar belonged to Leadbelly, with the same reaction one might expect.

> START…
> Hiring qualified older actors instead of putting
> horrible old-man makeup on Guy Pearce; not since
> Reeve Alvin Valkenheiser’s wobbly dicknose has
> “old-face” been used to so little effect.

oh my god is that a reference to Nothing But Trouble

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 02:48PM by asterphage.
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > As to whether this black stuff is a scientific
> > tool...I don't know. It destroys life,
> literally,
> > at the cellular level. And are the worms a
> result
> > of the goo or were they preexisting
> > creatures/tools/weapons altered by the goo?
>
> It doesn't appear to entirely destroy life. It
> made one human sick, it made another into a
> "zombie", it appeared to transform worms that
> resembled Earth fauna (seen in the dirt when they
> entered the urn chamber, then in the black goo)
> into the genitalia-worm, and it transformed one
> guy's sperm (or the combination of his sperm with
> the cells of the woman he inseminated) into a
> monster that mutated through several forms
> sequentially, from sperm-squid to vagina-dentata
> Starro to xenomorphish thing born from its last
> victim. I think the examples we're shown indicates
> transformation more than destruction.
>
In practically all the examples you've cited, "transformation" requires the "destruction" of the original host's life/soul in order to propagate another organism whose sole function is to "transform" more lifeforms by essentially "killing" what they were in order to propagate more "killing machines" (and that's assuming the goo doesn't simply kill you).

This is sort of like saying that necrotizing fasciitis is not "destructive," just "transformative." Come on, Paul. :)

I mean, what's the point of "transformation" if ultimately, it's just leading to a soulless living weapon like a xenomorph?

If this species is sophisticated enough to create a species that mirrors itself on a genetic level, then it must be suffering a severe case of movie logical paradox to be incompetent enough to create a genetic "transformative" tool that is so "destructive" in so many different ways.

Which is why there's enough to suggest, to me at least, that this stuff is weaponized genetic material.

For all I know, though, you could be right. That could be another "twist" planned for the sequel, though if that's the case, this is really poor plotting.

[Edit] It occurred to me that one way this "genetic tool" idea would work would be if the black goo started out as a tool whose function was corrupted by the faction within the species that we meet in this movie. All to be explained in the sequel, of course.

Ah, fuck, why am I still thinking about this movie? It's much less rewarding than thinking about something like BSG.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 05:21PM by gingaio.
gingaio Wrote:
>
> In practically all the examples you've cited,
> "transformation" requires the "destruction" of the
> original host's life/soul in order to propagate
> another organism whose sole function is to
> "transform" more lifeforms by essentially
> "killing" what they were in order to propagate
> more "killing machines" (and that's assuming the
> goo doesn't simply kill you).

> I mean, what's the point of "transformation" if
> ultimately, it's just leading to a soulless living
> weapon like a xenomorph?

I think "killing machine" and "living weapon" are value judgments that are too extreme to make from the limited examples we see. We only see a few minutes of these creatures' life-cycles, and they're newly formed entities in a presumably unfamiliar environment. It is fair to assume that the cycle of destruction we observe could continue indefinitely, particularly when taken in light of what we've seen in the Alien films - but who knows whether that would hold true after the black-goo-induced creatures were let loose for hundreds or thousands of years? Who knows what new forms they might stabilize into?

EDIT: and that IS the end result of all this analysis of Promethus, isn't it? "Who knows?"

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 05:43PM by asterphage.
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gingaio Wrote:
> >
> > I mean, what's the point of "transformation" if
> > ultimately, it's just leading to a soulless
> living
> > weapon like a xenomorph?
>
> I think "killing machine" and "living weapon" are
> value judgments that are too extreme to make from
> the limited examples we see. We only see a few
> minutes of these creatures' life-cycles, and
> they're newly formed entities in a presumably
> unfamiliar environment. It is fair to assume that
> the cycle of destruction we observe could continue
> indefinitely, particularly when taken in light of
> what we've seen in the Alien films - but who knows
> whether that would hold true after the
> black-goo-induced creatures were let loose for
> hundreds or thousands of years? Who knows what new
> forms they might stabilize into?
>
Okay, just to make sure I'm following: It's "fair to assume," based on this movie and 30+ years of seeing xenomorphs mindlessly slaughtering anything in their path, that they are the crucial part of a "cycle of destruction" that "could continue indefinitely."

However, to say that these xenomorphs are "killing machines" and "living weapons" is too much of an "extreme value judgement."

I'm not being sarcastic, Paul, but that seems self-contradictory to me. I guess I would ask how you would characterize these xenomorphs, if not as destructive. Are they benign genetic tools?

> EDIT: and that IS the end result of all this
> analysis of Promethus, isn't it? "Who knows?"

I think there's a lot about the Engineers and their intent that, for the sake of the sequel, perhaps, is intentionally left blank in this movie. I'm not so sure the destructive nature of the xenomorphs is as mysterious.

As to the xenomorphs being newly formed creatures, weren't they depicted on the ceiling mural in the caves? Also, if we consider the Engineer from the original Alien movie, it seems like the xenomorph has been developed for quite some time.
gingaio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ah, fuck, why am I still thinking about this
> movie? It's much less rewarding than thinking
> about something like BSG.


"Prometheus" isn't even BSG. It's "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier."

Best, Ken-A
gingaio Wrote:
>
> I think there's a lot about the Engineers and
> their intent that, for the sake of the sequel,
> perhaps, is intentionally left blank in this
> movie. I'm not so sure the destructive nature of
> the xenomorphs is as mysterious.

I'm judging Prometheus on its own terms. I don't know whether we can (or should?) consider the history of the Alien franchise to be "canon" for Prometheus. It seems like Scott is trying to redefine his whole repertoire of elements in this film. I don't think I saw anything that definitively *is* a xenomorph, rather than just being visually reminiscent of one - the creature at the end is close, but it's just one step in a series of new creatures. I didn't get a good enough look at the ceiling murals - if those depict xenomorphs as we know them, then it's a much stronger indication that this isn't a whole new universe.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Ken-A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gingaio Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Ah, fuck, why am I still thinking about this
> > movie? It's much less rewarding than thinking
> > about something like BSG.
>
>
> "Prometheus" isn't even BSG. It's "Star Trek V:
> The Final Frontier."
>
> Best, Ken-A

Hilarious, Ken. And so painfully true.
<<As to the xenomorphs being newly formed creatures, weren't they depicted on the ceiling mural in the caves? Also, if we consider the Engineer from the original Alien movie, it seems like the xenomorph has been developed for quite some time.>>

Huh....I must have missed this. If true, that would make me feel better about the creature at the end being "something" and not "THE thing".

---------------------------------
[pgaijin.blogspot.com]
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gingaio Wrote:
> >
> > I think there's a lot about the Engineers and
> > their intent that, for the sake of the sequel,
> > perhaps, is intentionally left blank in this
> > movie. I'm not so sure the destructive nature
> of
> > the xenomorphs is as mysterious.
>
> I'm judging Prometheus on its own terms. I don't
> know whether we can (or should?) consider the
> history of the Alien franchise to be "canon" for
> Prometheus. It seems like Scott is trying to
> redefine his whole repertoire of elements in this
> film. I don't think I saw anything that
> definitively *is* a xenomorph, rather than just
> being visually reminiscent of one - the creature
> at the end is close, but it's just one step in a
> series of new creatures. I didn't get a good
> enough look at the ceiling murals - if those
> depict xenomorphs as we know them, then it's a
> much stronger indication that this isn't a whole
> new universe.

Here's what happened.

1) I made some comment about how the monsters and goo in this movie look like some kind of biological weapon.

2) Then you said that that's not a good assumption, that these creatures/black goo were merely genetic transformative tools, and you gave a bunch of examples that actually supported my point #1 above (multiple examples of these "transformative tools" actually destroying life throughout Prometheus).

3) Then you said we shouldn't base our assumptions about biological weapons on the Alien canon. (Fine, but see point #2...we were only talking about Prometheus at the beginning.)
But hey, you yourself said, "It is fair to assume that the cycle of destruction we observe could continue indefinitely, particularly when taken in light of what we've seen in the Alien films."

4) Finally, you said that the creatures in this movie aren't technically "xenomorphs" (the same creatures in the other Alien movies). Fine. But who cares?

I don't care if we call them xenomorphs, Aliens, tentacle creatures, or Murky Vaginas. Nomenclature, which you're now resorting to picking apart, is irrelevant to our original discussion (points 1 and 2).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 07:43PM by gingaio.
hillsy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <>
>
> Huh....I must have missed this. If true, that
> would make me feel better about the creature at
> the end being "something" and not "THE thing".





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 07:35PM by gingaio.
Attachments:
open | download - 2012-04-04-mural-533x305.jpg (23.1 KB)
gingaio Wrote:
>
> 2) Then you said that that's not a good
> assumption, that these creatures/black goo were
> merely genetic transformative tools, and you gave
> a bunch of examples that actually supported my
> point #1 above (multiple examples of these
> "transformative tools" actually destroying life
> throughout Prometheus).

It destroyed the individual life forms that it altered or replaced, but it didn't destroy life any more than any other parasitic life form does. Simply because something kills another life form in order to propagate itself doesn't mean it's generally destructive of life.

> 3) You're saying we shouldn't base our assumptions
> on the Alien canon. (Fine, but see point #2...I
> was only talking about Prometheus at the
> beginning.)
> But hey, you yourself said, "It is fair to assume
> that the cycle of destruction we observe could
> continue indefinitely, particularly when taken in
> light of what we've seen in the Alien films."
>
> 4) you're also saying that the creatures in this
> movie aren't technically "xenomorphs" (the same
> creatures in the other Alien movies). Fine. But do
> you not see how irrelevant that is to our original
> points 1 and 2?
>
> I don't care if we call them xenomorphs, Aliens,
> tentacle creatures, or Murky Vaginas.
> Nomenclature, which you're now resorting to
> picking apart, is irrelevant to our original
> discussion.

Right, I'm NOT taking it in light of the Alien films. That's why I think the idea that these mutations are indefinitely destructive isn't very well founded in Prometheus itself.

I think seeing the black goo / xenomorphs/ etc as purely a weapon is a reasonable conclusion when Prometheus is placed in the context of the Alien films. However, OUTSIDE of that context, as a story that stands alone, I think the effect the black goo has is more akin to the creation of life we see in the opening scene - destructive initially, but intended to yield creative results further down the line.

By the way, I agree with this article that that the Alien elements and horror tropes in Prometheus distract from the new stuff in the movie, and weigh down the ideas that are Prometheus' own.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gingaio Wrote:
> >
> > 2) Then you said that that's not a good
> > assumption, that these creatures/black goo were
> > merely genetic transformative tools, and you
> gave
> > a bunch of examples that actually supported my
> > point #1 above (multiple examples of these
> > "transformative tools" actually destroying life
> > throughout Prometheus).
>
> It destroyed the individual life forms that it
> altered or replaced, but it didn't destroy life
> any more than any other parasitic life form does.
> Simply because something kills another life form
> in order to propagate itself doesn't mean it's
> generally destructive of life.
>
A nice distinction, but tapeworms and malaria-carrying mosquitoes generally aren't stockpiled in arsenal-like fashion in the bellies of interstellar spaceships.

(Though there's a good chance the screenwriters are setting us up for a twist.)

[edit] Also, I should add that what you've described above can include many types of bacteria and viruses (parasitoids), which are destructive of life in both a general and an individual sense. Calling these monsters killing machines does not mean that they're not parasitic, too. In fact, what you've defined above fits more closely with parasitoids than parasites.

> I think seeing the black goo / xenomorphs/ etc as
> purely a weapon is a reasonable conclusion when
> Prometheus is placed in the context of the Alien
> films. However, OUTSIDE of that context, as a
> story that stands alone, I think the effect the
> black goo has is more akin to the creation of life
> we see in the opening scene - destructive
> initially, but intended to yield creative results
> further down the line.
>
If we're going to talk about (in)valid assumptions: While the black goo unraveled the Engineer's DNA, we don't know what it actually did, if anything, to produce life. All we saw was that it broke down the Engineer's body on a cellular level, and for all we know, it was just the combination of the river water and DNA from his remains that moved things along. In which case, he could have pissed into the river and (presumably) created us. I'm thinking his suicide was more ritualistic in nature than scientific.

> By the way, I agree with this article that that
> the Alien elements and horror tropes in Prometheus
> distract from the new stuff in the movie, and
> weigh down the ideas that are Prometheus' own.

An interesting read. Yeah, the problem with the Alien references is that it practically forces you into seeing the movie in certain ways.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2012 09:23PM by gingaio.
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I saw that line as something like the
> hundred-years-later equivalent of a contemporary
> person bragging that their guitar belonged to
> Leadbelly, with the same reaction one might
> expect.

Yeah. Which doesn't have any place in a Space Wizard Film About (Knot) Gawd. Also, interjecting irrelevant and anachronistic stuff into a film is a good way to get the audience to think about the parts of the film that are irrelevant and anachronistic.


> oh my god is that a reference to Nothing But
> Trouble

It is indeed, sir.
Handy dandy chart for Prometheus (spoilers?):

[thecuriousbrain.com]
No time to read&reply right now but here's a really cute Prometheus drawing my friend did:

[twitter.com]
"The ending of Prometheus tells me that the next film will most definately be a buddy comedy."

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Oh and here's another article I almost completely agree with:
[www.hitfix.com]
ok bye

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
[www.youtube.com]

--------------------------
I want YOU for Moé Sucks Army
This is a picture from a scene that was cut from the opening of Prometheus:

<IMG>[toyboxdx.com];

--------------------------
I want YOU for Moé Sucks Army



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 01:07PM by Scopedog.
Attachments:
open | download - Egineer3D.jpg (49.9 KB)
H-man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Handy dandy chart for Prometheus (spoilers?):
>
> [thecuriousbrain.com]


Awesome!

BTW, fans of the first "Alien" should pick up "The Book of Alien" if they didn't in 1979. It's just been reprinted:

[www.amazon.com]

In addition to being a great read on the making of the film, it goes into great depth discussing the abandoned first act. The cut first act is pretty much "Prometheus." Even the designs are similar, and the final form of the creature in the Prometheus' med-pod bears more than a passing resemblance to a pre-Giger design for the Alien.

Best, Ken-A
MattAlt (Admin)
I dealt with my frustrations about Prometheus by telling myself it was a surprisingly well done sequel to "Jason X: Jason in Space."
Ken-A Wrote:
>
> Awesome!
>
> BTW, fans of the first "Alien" should pick up "The
> Book of Alien" if they didn't in 1979. It's just
> been reprinted:
>
> [www.amazon.com]
> dp/1852864834/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coli
> id=I1LN779HFCLK53&colid=2R7BJX813XHV
>
> In addition to being a great read on the making of
> the film, it goes into great depth discussing the
> abandoned first act. The cut first act is pretty
> much "Prometheus." Even the designs are similar,
> and the final form of the creature in the
> Prometheus' med-pod bears more than a passing
> resemblance to a pre-Giger design for the Alien.
>
> Best, Ken-A

Hey, I remember flipping through that book at my local Waldenbooks or B Dalton's back in the day. There was also a cool comic book/graphic novel adaptation(art by Jim Steranko?).
[thebioscopist.com]
"We’re all going to have to wait for the Director’s cut to see if the conversation between the Engineer and David – and there was indeed originally a conversation, not merely an utterance from David – yields any fruit."

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
That was one of the biggest things missing from the movie - ANY motivation whatsoever for Big Naked Guy.

-Paul Segal

"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
I recently caught the Total Recall remake. The original, with all its three-tittied get-to-duh-chappa Quatto campiness, is great. But I'm going to blaspheme and say that the remake is better. There are too many lens flares. And it's still a dumb movie, though it was pretty good for a Blade Runner prequel fanfic with more thoroughly realized background sets.

But the technobabble was atrocious. The planet is flooded everywhere except Western Europe and Australia. And people take a tunnel through the center of the Earth to commute back and forth between the two. And it takes exactly 17 minutes to do this. And no one gets burned to death in the process. And there is zero gravity time near the Earth's core. Also, there is a scene that uses Magnemo cars in a highspeed chase on an electromagnetic highway and it ends in a spectacular demonstration of why we will never, ever have an electromagnetic highway with Magnemo cars on it in real life.

FUCKING SPACE WIZARDS!!!
I saw this at the video store last night and was tempted to rent it, but picked the far classier Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter instead. I needed something to wash out the taste of the sappy bag that was Lincoln.

Vampire Hunter is laughably stupid, but I had a better time watching it than Spielberg's ode to joyless, socially conscious pandering.

I will check out this fine prequel fanfiction next time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2012 03:02PM by gingaio.
Quote
gingaio
I saw this at the video store last night and was tempted to rent it, but picked the far classier Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter instead. I needed something to wash out the taste of the sappy bag that was Lincoln.

Vampire Hunter is laughably stupid, but I had a better time watching it than Spielberg's ode to joyless, socially conscious pandering.

I will check out this fine prequel fanfiction next time.

Watching ALVH made me feel really dumb because I couldn't understand what was happening half the time. It reminded me of an Uwe Boll film. And whether or not that's good or bad will probably remain undecided. Having said that, I have no desire to see Spielberg's Abraham Lincoln: Iconic Propaganda because it's surely worse than invisible vampires that forget that they can turn invisible.

Regarding Total Reekhell, it's every bit as dumb as ALVH and basically amounts to one very extended chase scene. It also takes itself very seriously and that's not so great. For example, watching Malcom in the Middle's dad get into a knife fight was weird-in-a-weird-way.

Still, it didn't make me feel as dumb as ALVH. Almost, but not quite.
mcfitch (Admin)
Quote

Regarding Total Reekhell

G,
Do you work for MAD Magazine? These renamings seem to really just flow out of you.
-Mason

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthewalt &quot;I actually kinda LIKE that approach! You know: let's make a TOY. Remember those? Products designed to be played with without breaking? DO YOU REMEMBER, LOVE?!&quot;
Just watched the new Total Recall and also started reading the Philip Dick story ("We Can Remember It for You Wholesale")...will comment on that when my thoughts are less jumbled, but overall, I really enjoyed the new TR and agree that it's better than the Ah-nowld version.

In the meantime, what do you think of this: [www.youtube.com]

I'm a fan of Del Toro and of the premise, and I have no reason to think that it won't turn out well, but I couldn't help thinking about Robot Jox while watching it.
Quote
mcfitch
G,
Do you work for MAD Magazine? These renamings seem to really just flow out of you.
-Mason

It's a special kind of verbal diarrhoea, butt tits all okay once I fingered out twat to doo-doo whiff it.

Also: poop, dick, pussy, ass, nipples.


Quote
gingaio
Just watched the new Total Recall and also started reading the Philip Dick story ("We Can Remember It for You Wholesale")...will comment on that when my thoughts are less jumbled, but overall, I really enjoyed the new TR and agree that it's better than the Ah-nowld version.

In the meantime, what do you think of this: [www.youtube.com]

I'm a fan of Del Toro and of the premise, and I have no reason to think that it won't turn out well, but I couldn't help thinking about Robot Jox while watching it.

I felt like the constant pursuit and elements of paranoia that characterized Dick's own life were well represented in the TR / Blade Runner pre-boot. If anything, they could have played up the mental instability a little bit more. Maybe thrown in some druggish nonsense, too. I forgot to mention earlier that I liked the Ahnowld references that were slipped into the film. Most of them made me laugh, whether that was intentional or not.

As for Pacific Rimmers, coincidentally also the name of my auto-erotic-biography, I have my doubts. I think El Espinazo del Diablo is one of the best films. Ever. It is so carefully woven that not a single element is superfluous or unresolved. It is utterly grand. Del Toro at his absolute best.

And then we have Hellboy. Which is the worst piece of unintentionally campy fanfiction I have ever seen. That movie, and the sequel, failed on every fucking level. Del Toro at his absolute worst.

PR looks more like HB than The Devil's Backbone. Actually, it looks like HALO Jox vs. Gomora. And it's the HALO Jox part that looks shitty. I'm guessing that the film will try to explain too much, make things looks gratuitously "cool", throw in some tremendously out of place goofball bits, and make every possible effort to take itself waaay to seriously by talking about how fucking serious that shit is.

Basically, Del Toro has made enough shitty films to erase the general goodwill I once held about his ability as a director. The trailer for PR does nothing to persuade me otherwise.
Sanjeev (Admin)
Damn you all to hell...despite all my buddies who've warned me about how horrendous the Total Recall remake was...you asshats are gonna make me piss away two hours of my life on it, aren't you???

Oh well. Not the first time this board has ruined my life! ;)

Anyway, that Specific Rung trailer looks awful to me. I got a real Bayformers-meets-Evangelion vibe from it. That's NOT a good thing. The robot designs are weak. The not-kaiju aren't that terrible...but mostly uninspired. And the emphasis on the pilots as military doods high-fiving each other is pretty atrocious--probably the worst part of what I just saw. I'm not hopeful.

Regarding Del Toro, himself....wha'??? You didn't like Mimic, G??? LOL But whatever. You look at almost any director, and you'll be sure to find a steaming pile of shit used to put food on his or her table. I didn't hate Hellboy...it was "average Hollywood schlock" in my mind...but then again, I was never a fan of the comics.
Quote
Sanjeev
Damn you all to hell...despite all my buddies who've warned me about how horrendous the Total Recall remake was...you asshats are gonna make me piss away two hours of my life on it, aren't you???

Oh well. Not the first time this board has ruined my life! ;)


Make no mistake. You will never get those two hours back. Budget your alcohol consumption accordingly.


Quote
Sanjeev
Anyway, that Specific Rung trailer looks awful to me. And the emphasis on the pilots as military doods high-fiving each other is pretty atrocious--probably the worst part of what I just saw. I'm not hopeful.

"Come at me, bro!"


Quote
Sanjeev
Regarding Del Toro, himself....wha'??? You didn't like Mimic, G??? LOL But whatever. You look at almost any director, and you'll be sure to find a steaming pile of shit used to put food on his or her table. I didn't hate Hellboy...it was "average Hollywood schlock" in my mind...but then again, I was never a fan of the comics.

Mimic was good, disposeable fun. Hellboy was so non-sensical it offended me.
Sanjeev (Admin)
I think "bro" is spelled "brah" in this context, but yes...that type of shit generally makes me wanna throw up on myself.
So we are talking Del Toro huh....
Looking over the list of movies that he has directed I can say that my least favorite was Blade II...but that has more to do with my dislike of the character than anything.

The Hellboy movies were good silly comic book fun and at the least had some cool monsters in them...
The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth were brilliant in every sense of the word. The DB is in my top 20 movies list....
Mimic also good movie theater fun...and a deep cable stop when I find it on...(which is hard these days what with my cancelation of cable...)

As for Pacific Rim...Like Real Steel before it I will take my 11 year old nephew, put on the stupid 3D glasses, eat a ton of popcorn and candy, drink the gallon of soda, and probably have a good ol' time watching monsters and giant robots...Which, after all, is I really expected from the movie...

As for the robot designs, then are better than the Transformers films, but to be honest I haven't really seen enough of them to make a judgement....

Oh and as for the trailer....One can never judge what is really going on in a movie from a trailer...It all depends on the footage that is provided by the studio to the company making the trailer...To be honest I am glad that we live in a day and age where a project like this is even made....and heck if this helps GdT get "At the mountains of madness" made then I don't really care....

On a side GdT note...I wonder what his version of the Hobbit would have looked like? Especially, now that Peter Jackson has realeased 3hours of bloated Tolkien. Maybe a GdT edit of the Hobbit would work seein as he is kind of known for his pacing...(for the best proof of this see the Devil's Backbone)

Now don't get me wrong...I'll see the Hobbit and I'll love it because I'm a Tolkien super geek, but I pity all of those poor souls who don't know what they are getting themselves into...
So the Philip Dick story was a quick read and had an interesting plot, definitely more imaginative and clever than either of the two shoot-run-evil-empire-ruled-by-crusty-old-white-doods plots. (You can read the synopsis on Wikipedia).

This is related what G wrote in the Walking Dead thread:
That's pretty much exactly what I mean about Burroughs. I recently read through large swaths of his Tarzan and Mars stuff. It's really hacky and easy to sport where one bit of a serial would end before the publication of the next bit. Dood was a master of contrivances and cliffhangers. I think that describes Kirkman as well.

For me, the reason something like the new TR movie would be 'good' pulp and the Walking Dead comics would be 'bad' pulp is that 'good' pulp at least does something well, like provide really cool CGI-rendered worlds or a well-paced plot. With the comic, I couldn't really find anything to like--the story, dialogue, characters, plot, art--all of it was pretty hackneyed to me.

As for Del Toro--and I think we've had this discussion before, actually--but I thought the HB movies were pretty silly, but entertaining. Pan's Labyrinth was fantastic, and I'm ashamed to say that Devil's Backbone is still in my Netflix queue, though I've just moved it to the #1 spot.
Quote
gingaio
This is related what G wrote in the Walking Dead thread:
That's pretty much exactly what I mean about Burroughs. I recently read through large swaths of his Tarzan and Mars stuff. It's really hacky and easy to sport where one bit of a serial would end before the publication of the next bit. Dood was a master of contrivances and cliffhangers. I think that describes Kirkman as well.

For me, the reason something like the new TR movie would be 'good' pulp and the Walking Dead comics would be 'bad' pulp is that 'good' pulp at least does something well, like provide really cool CGI-rendered worlds or a well-paced plot. With the comic, I couldn't really find anything to like--the story, dialogue, characters, plot, art--all of it was pretty hackneyed to me.

I should clarify what I mean about Burroughs so it'll be clearer what I mean about Kirkman. Tarzan is well known, and mostly well loved, internationally. The number of books Burroughs wrote featuring Tarzan is staggering. (Where did he find the time?) And, for the most part, the books suck pretty bad. The plots are trite, the dialog wooden, and the characters one-dimensional. Even Burrough's contemporaries called him out on the shit writing. But! Burroughs knew his audience and he knew how to write cliffhangers into every installment. (Which is true for almost all his work. Tarzan and John Carter are interchangable.) It's pretty likely that Burroughs had no illusions about what he was doing. People ate it up.

I think this fits Kirkman's Walking Dead, too. It's not good by almost any measure aside from commercial sales and popularity. It's bad. The plots are trite, the dialog wooden, and the characters are one-dimensional. But! Kirkman knows his audience and he knows how to write a cliffhanger into every installment. People eat it up.

I don't think either Tarzan or Rick Grimes are particularly innovative characters. They're cheap disposable fun. Pulp. Total Recall is the same thing, but just glossy.

The PKD story, on the other hand, was weird. "I can't remember I'm a seret agent. Except that I can! But I can't remember that I'm a secret agent that was molested by aliens. Except that I can! But now I don't." Ha, ha, ha. Classic PKD nonsense.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

footer