Prometheus

[ayall]

In fact, it makes less sense that all the stuff that happens in Prometheus.

LOL. I can see why you would say that.

Tarantino once critiqued PTA's TWBB's opening scene. He pointed out, that in that opening scene where Daniel Plainview broke his leg and had to crawl back to his tent in the middle of a baron the desert. That scene was followed by Daniel Plainview in town, laying down on the floor of a gold trading establishment. Tarantino said, "how did he get from his desert tent back to town? that's a movie within itself."

You see Cmonst, great screen plays and stories sprinkle great detail at certain places, and leave large gaps which force the viewer to fill the void, and the story progresses.

I know a lot of people who hated TWBB, and I know a lot of people who hate Ashley Simpson's singing.

As a great director, Ridley Scott knows and has proven he knows this technique.
This movie is a great example. I'll say again, I agree there are inconsistent parts.
But as a Sci-Fi fanatic I thought the detail presented was sufficient enough to adequately carry the story.
The detail I enjoyed (brought to screen by great CGI, btw) was that of the ship, of the planet, of the Alien race and of David.

I don't want to explain to you every detail of the movie, you should have a vivid enough imagination to be able to do this yourself, but i'll give you an example;
A lot of people complain that the scientist took the helmets off.
That video you linked said "why would Holloway assume that the air was ok to breathe inside the space shape just because they detected an oxygen atmosphere? what about diseases and microbes?"
My reply is this; So you believe they have technology to fly to deep space, create hibernation chambers and even a perfect A.I. machine, but they can't make an instrument that detects a breathable atmosphere, and as part of that detection system it would check for trillions of factors including diseases and microbes?
Or maybe the decision to do this was to develop the characters personality, and we can conclude that the character was willing to take a "gamble" or an "act of faith."

I know you would have liked this movie to be 100000000 hours long and spoon feed you every detail, but that's absurd.

The detail they present is ample to carry the story.
Ridley, as many great film makers do, did this on purpose to make you (and Red Letter Media) beg for more.

[CMonster]

Story detail and CGI detail are radically different things. I'm not saying that I wanted the movie to be a billion hours long, but honestly, there are some pretty glaring questions that majorly detract from the story. Lets contrast your example of TWBB to something from Prometheus. In TWBB we fill in the gap of Daniel making it to the town in our minds so that we can see the story that PTA wanted to tell, not the story of a man with a broken leg dragging himself through the desert. Even though we don't see that story, we still get valuable information from it. We learn that Daniel is tenacious, resourceful, and ultimately successful in his endeavors. The explanation you gave of why they felt safe taking off their helmets, what does that add to the film? Well it doesn't really add to how we feel about any character. It doesn't say much about the quality of technology they had since that is what we used to reach your conclusion. Or if we go with your other explanation about gambling or acts of faith, how does that add anything to what we saw? That character trait didn't add to the story because unlike TWBB, this was less about a character and more about the story. So does it add anything important story wise? Maybe that was why Holloway took the risk to raw dog it in space. But that was a nit pick question to begin with. The more serious questions surround why things are happening in this story. David ends up being the crux of a lot of things that happen in the plot of the film. His actions lead to death of multiple people, a squid abortion, and milk blood being spilled all over a holographic map table. Having next to no explanation as to why David does what he does and how he also seems to know what will happen even though none of this has ever happened before distracts from the potential of them film because instead of paying attention to what is happening in a plot driven film we are left pondering the motivations of a goddamned robot to no avail because there are so many blanks in the explanation of what is happening. There is a major difference between this and a great story that requires certain gaps filled in by the imagination of the viewer. Imagining Daniel Plainview crawling through the desert is reasonable. Imagining a whole backstory to David that provides adequate explanation for his actions and motivations is absolutely insane and probably an exercise in futility. And quite frankly comparing this screenplay to TWBB is pretty much an insult to TWBB. At no point in that film are you left sitting there thinking, "What this character is doing doesn't make any sense. There is no logical reason that character should be doing that."

It also has to be noted that the flaws I am talking about have little to do with Ridley Scott and whether or not he knows his technique. The problems are script based and have little and less to do with the visual flair and directorial decisions made by Scott. PTA directed the shit out of a great script with TWBB. Scott did a pretty dang good job (although I can't say it was as good as PTA) with a mediocre script that cared more about beating that nostalgia skin flute as much as possible rather than presenting a very well thought out story. Maybe you thought that plot holes the size of Vredefort crater we acceptable, but I didn't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[ayall]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

No worries man, we're just passing time.

We both enjoyed the movie, obviously differently.

I believe i'm justified to compare Prometheus to TWBB because i walked away thinking this movie was pretty damn deep honestly.
The beauty of this story was really that it was about David. The movie had little to do with Aliens from my Point of View. The movie had more to do with Weylands inability to accept his morality. I loved the line in the movie where Weyland says;
"There's a man sitting with you today. His name is David. And he is the closest thing to a son I will ever have. Unfortunately, he is not human. He will never grow old and he will never die. And yet he is unable to appreciate these remarkable gifts for that would require the one thing that David will never have. A soul."

I disagree with much of what you said about David. I thought the answer to the questions you ask are pretty obvious. David is a machine designed to do a job and present results. He saw the crew as guinea pigs, which they technically are. He didn't know what was going to happen, but he knew he had to put a bunch of things in motion to obtain the results Wayland was pushing him for.
I love the scene after her smushmortion when David turns to Shaw and says something to the effect of "you have remarkable survival instinct." This just proves my point, he's A.I. who's learning as he goes.

The last interaction between Wayland and David drives this point home (Weyland relieving David of his task/assignment);
"Peter Weyland: There's nothing to learn.
David: I understand, Mr. Weyland. Have a safe journey. "

The story detail was pretty damn good, lots of good stuff in there, and that was my original point.

[ShogunRua]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you can bring those objects up about practically any movie.

In the LOTR, why didn't they just have one of the big eagles fly them over mt. doom and drop the ring in? The movie would have been 5 minutes long.
In any of the Bond films, why doesn't the bad guy just put a bullet in Bond's head once he's captured; instead of explaining the scheme and leaving Bond alive to escape?

Not very valid analogies, since Bond and LOTR are ostensibly mindless action blockbusters.

Prometheus, meanwhile, presented itself as dead-serious, intellectual, heavy science fiction. It's the same reason why we forgive plot holes in "The Hangover" but not so much in a serious drama.

[ayall]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you can bring those objects up about practically any movie.

In the LOTR, why didn't they just have one of the big eagles fly them over mt. doom and drop the ring in? The movie would have been 5 minutes long.
In any of the Bond films, why doesn't the bad guy just put a bullet in Bond's head once he's captured; instead of explaining the scheme and leaving Bond alive to escape?

Not very valid analogies, since Bond and LOTR are ostensibly mindless action blockbusters.

Prometheus, meanwhile, presented itself as dead-serious, intellectual, heavy science fiction. It's the same reason why we forgive plot holes in "The Hangover" but not so much in a serious drama.

Fine, why in the Matrix, are the "search&destroy" machines that are roaming the "real world" not armed with nuclear weapons? Why don't they just self explode, taking themselves out with the found ship?
That simple concept/logic would have at-least stopped the creation of 2 shitty sequels.

My point is this, you can ask "why" about ANY movie, but you need to suspend some of your preconceived notions and fill in the plot holes with logic that allows the story to progress.

[ShogunRua]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but you can bring those objects up about practically any movie.

In the LOTR, why didn't they just have one of the big eagles fly them over mt. doom and drop the ring in? The movie would have been 5 minutes long.
In any of the Bond films, why doesn't the bad guy just put a bullet in Bond's head once he's captured; instead of explaining the scheme and leaving Bond alive to escape?

Not very valid analogies, since Bond and LOTR are ostensibly mindless action blockbusters.

Prometheus, meanwhile, presented itself as dead-serious, intellectual, heavy science fiction. It's the same reason why we forgive plot holes in "The Hangover" but not so much in a serious drama.

Fine, why in the Matrix, are the "search&destroy" machines that are roaming the "real world" not armed with nuclear weapons? Why don't they just self explode, taking themselves out with the found ship?
That simple concept/logic would have at-least stopped the creation of 2 shitty sequels.

My point is this, you can ask "why" about ANY movie, but you need to suspend some of your preconceived notions and fill in the plot holes with logic that allows the story to progress.

The Matrix is not a very serious film, either.

A more apt comparison would be Scott's earlier sci-film, the classic "Blade Runner". I challenge you to find even one-third of the general idiocy, plot holes, and complete lack of sense in that film as in "Prometheus".

[CMonster]

The Matrix is not a very serious film, either.

A more apt comparison would be Scott's earlier sci-film, the classic "Blade Runner". I challenge you to find even one-third of the general idiocy, plot holes, and complete lack of sense in that film as in "Prometheus".

I also think the original Alien would be a very valid comparison. There are some many images and situations that mirror the original Alien it makes one wonder about how Prometheus could be so bat shit crazy and Alien be a pretty simple, tight, and straight forward horror/thriller.

Also, how can you not take this seriously:

Keanu probably became the greatest actor of his generation with that line.

[Spunkie]

A more apt comparison would be Scott's earlier sci-film, the classic "Blade Runner". I challenge you to find even one-third of the general idiocy, plot holes, and complete lack of sense in that film as in "Prometheus".

I tried to judge Prometheus on it's own terms and enjoy it in this barren age for quality mainstream scifi. But I've gotta admit there simply is no comparison of this to Ridley's own BR or Alien.

[ayall]

The Matrix is not a very serious film, either.

You're still missing the point, but that's OK because...

A more apt comparison would be Scott's earlier sci-film, the classic "Blade Runner". I challenge you to find even one-third of the general idiocy, plot holes, and complete lack of sense in that film as in "Prometheus".

I tried to judge Prometheus on it's own terms and enjoy it in this barren age for quality mainstream scifi. But I've gotta admit there simply is no comparison of this to Ridley's own BR or Alien.

I agree with the above.

[martryn]

Are the clues in the movie, just not very obvious? Like, I saw one explanation with Christ being an alien and his crucifixion being the catalyst to all the events in Prometheus. Still doesn't explain the actions of a batshit insane android, but maybe you just have to chalk all that up to the android being batshit insane.

I'm hoping the sequel clears everything up, but I'm not holding my breath. I love movies that get you to think, but if you're thinking without ever possibly reaching an explanation, seems like a waste of time. I, too, enjoyed Prometheus, but I think it was a disappointing film, to say the least.