Prometheus and ALL OTHER NEW ALIEN/PREDATOR SPOILERS

[Bobby Bear]

Absolutely. I don't think he could have delivered a film as thrilling as Alien in under 2 hours without knowing what he's about. I'm far from his biggest fan, but I totally see the logic in what you're saying, Ben.

Legend is truly style over substance, although it's probably the only (other) film of Scott's I really dislike despite the occasionally sumptuous visuals... and the presence of Tim Curry. It was so inconsistent I actually couldn't accept it was his, at first.

[Ben Thomas]

Scott is and will always be a visual director who has never quite mastered shooting a script.

Mmmmm, I hear what you're saying and I'm certainly not gonna outright defend the man's entire body of work, but three films disagree with you.

Alien

Blade Runner, and (I'll say it)

Gladiator

Those films are remembered for much more than just being pretty. Each has a good, if pulpy script, turned into something magnificent thanks to excellent casting and memorable performances. Any faults in these three films are wholly down to interference (Blade Runner), budget (Alien, Gladiator) or cast death (Olly Reed).

[Nathan]

And Fassbinder? deserves awards. So great.

[Anderson]

The visuals throughout plus the first 45 minutes of everything make what's lacking in the rest so disappointing.

It's a 50/50 blend and it's a weird thing to see in a movie that FOX was using as a summer tentpole. But, this is already turning into the Year of Giant Disappointment (Economically and Response-Wise).

I'll be really fascinated to see how the rest of year turns out.

[Nathan]

The visuals throughout plus the first 45 minutes of everything make what's lacking in the rest so disappointing.

[Anderson]

Also, a lot of the accusations thrown at Scott used to be thrown at David Lean (Dr. Zhivago to the last years).

He's an older director who is more obsessed with what's onscreen than what comes out of mouths. The difference is that Scott doesn't have a Robert Bolt to fall back on.

It's also why he's so obsessed with the Extended Cut and it's why FOX had one planned for Prometheus before the film hit theaters. He's not a man for brevity, but he's also not a fully developed director.

What does that mean for the fan? Well, it falls back on what you demand from a movie.

[Anderson]

What did you like about it? You said it was in your years top 10. Why?

It comes down to three reasons.

1) Scott is and will always be a visual director who has never quite mastered shooting a script.

2) Fassbender continues to expand upon what he's already shown and he's morphing into the one if not the greatest actor of this generation.

3) The pickings have been that slim this year.

[Matt]

It all depends upon the damned script for BLADE RUNNER 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO. If I find out that Damon Lindeloff had anything to fucking do with it, I'm writing it completely off.

[Bobby Bear]

Here's the thing with it. While I liked Prometheus, I would start a kickstarter to pay Ridley Scott not to revisit Blade Runner.

I think it was a day or two after seeing Prometheus when I started thinking: this film is the most compelling argument why he shouldn't ever do another Blade Runner.

[BMichaelKrol]

Here's the thing with it. While I liked Prometheus, I would start a kickstarter to pay Ridley Scott not to revisit Blade Runner.

What did you like about it? You said it was in your years top 10. Why?

[Anderson]

This is what I wanted to be clear about before. I don't care if you're Scott now or Spielbergo in '82, I'm not about to excuse missteps of that magnitude because of things unrelated to the movie itself. Probably sounds harsh, but that's how I feel. And in an era when it's becoming harder and harder for ambitious projects like this to get the go-ahead, I honestly think we owe it to ourselves as fans not to settle for less.



You're right; there were obviously big notions in the mix at some stage, but all that remains of them are crumbs, Lovecraft-lite shoehorned in so clumsily it's like someone realized "hey, this used to be about something" and just tossed those lines in thinking that would somehow elevate it. Those moments tend to play like something from a spoof:

"Hey, what's going on here? You guys are leaving!"

"You're dog-gone right we're leaving! We've done all we can here."

"What about the big questions? We came here for answers and you're just gonna run away... just like that?"

"What are you talking about? What questions?"

"The questions, man, the questions! The questions we all ask ourselves in vain, grasping desperately for the truth of our existence. C-Beams glittering at the Tannhauser Gate and other such profundity!"

"What does that have to do with us getting away from those things out there -- which your friend tried to pet despite the fact that they are clearly evil?"

"(oblivious) Who or what awaits us beyond the farthest reaches? What do they have to tell us? Could we even understand them? How did they get there? Where did they come from? The savageness of man, Cherry Coke, the unexplained mysteries of the universe!"

It's like the South Park spoof of Inception. "No, no... it's just too cool and complex for you! Let's go!" Only instead of running off blasting their guns, they run off screaming down a dark corridor.

Here's the thing with it. While I liked Prometheus, I would start a kickstarter to pay Ridley Scott not to revisit Blade Runner.

[Bobby Bear]

By the way, this isn't some sort of nerd rage over a beloved sci fi franchise...I'd direct these complaints agsint any film that displayed them. Lapses of logic and coherence are simply inexcusable in any film, especially when it's a serious film.

This is what I wanted to be clear about before. I don't care if you're Scott now or Spielbergo in '82, I'm not about to excuse missteps of that magnitude because of things unrelated to the movie itself. Probably sounds harsh, but that's how I feel. And in an era when it's becoming harder and harder for ambitious projects like this to get the go-ahead, I honestly think we owe it to ourselves as fans not to settle for less.

It's very easy to get angry at it and I tip-toed back and forth with the matter. But, I keep going back to my Cheyenne Autumn analogy. You have big ideas, aging director and a studio that stood back a little too far. I liked it, others like it. But, the problems with it are valid.

You're right; there were obviously big notions in the mix at some stage, but all that remains of them are crumbs, Lovecraft-lite shoehorned in so clumsily it's like someone realized "hey, this used to be about something" and just tossed those lines in thinking that would somehow elevate it. Those moments tend to play like something from a spoof:

"Hey, what's going on here? You guys are leaving!"

"You're dog-gone right we're leaving! We've done all we can here."

"What about the big questions? We came here for answers and you're just gonna run away... just like that?"

"What are you talking about? What questions?"

"The questions, man, the questions! The questions we all ask ourselves in vain, grasping desperately for the truth of our existence. C-Beams glittering at the Tannhauser Gate and other such profundity!"

"What does that have to do with us getting away from those things out there -- which your friend tried to pet despite the fact that they are clearly evil?"

"(oblivious) Who or what awaits us beyond the farthest reaches? What do they have to tell us? Could we even understand them? How did they get there? Where did they come from? The savageness of man, Cherry Coke, the unexplained mysteries of the universe!"

It's like the South Park spoof of Inception. "No, no... it's just too cool and complex for you! Let's go!" Only instead of running off blasting their guns, they run off screaming down a dark corridor.

[Matt]

The shit of it is that i still kinda liked the movie. I can't understand why considering all of my issues with it, but yeah...i still enjoyed the experience overall.

[Anderson]

I'm getting angrier and angrier at it. It's simply baffling that a movie that takes itself so seriously makes so many stupid mistakes in the basic plot details. OK, so you need two guys to get separated from the others...can you not fucking think of a way to do that that makes sense without insulting the audience? Is there honestly a person alive that would actually not shit their pants and run the fuck away from a giant alien worm? Good God...how did that not get rethought.

Also, how is it that the captain of the ship is the guy to figure out the nature of the facility? Don't we have brilliant scientists to figure this out?

How does any of the lifecycle presented to us honestly make any sense? In ALIEN a lifecycle is depicted that you can follow...it's expanded upon in ALIENS. It's logical and consistent. It's a three stage process: facehugger, larva, and adult. Here, it's a clusterfuck of events to get to the adult stage, none of which is coherently shown in such a way that you can honestly explain it to someone.

It's very easy to get angry at it and I tip-toed back and forth with the matter. But, I keep going back to my Cheyenne Autumn analogy. You have big ideas, aging director and a studio that stood back a little too far. I liked it, others like it. But, the problems with it are valid.

[Timothy225]

told you. At least the Hoff had fun with it.

Well, it looked like Hoff sort of did. I mean, yeah, Hoff gets props for making fun of himself, true, but he needed better writers to really let him go whole hog with the self-parody. Same with Busey - neat cameo, he had a moment with spitting out a piranha, but the film wound up sucking afterwards.

Kind of felt bad for both of 'em, really.

See it theatrically, in Imax if possible. It's a visual feast that is second to none...just be prepared to have your brain exit your head and start slapping you silly.

No IMAX in my neck of the woods, and I could honestly give two shits about the 3D. From what I saw in trailers and the viral stuff, yeah, it LOOKS amazing, and the visuals are a major factor in arousing my interest.

I'm getting angrier and angrier at it. It's simply baffling that a movie that takes itself so seriously makes so many stupid mistakes in the basic plot details. OK, so you need two guys to get separated from the others...can you not fucking think of a way to do that that makes sense without insulting the audience? Is there honestly a person alive that would actually not shit their pants and run the fuck away from a giant alien worm? Good God...how did that not get rethought.

Also, how is it that the captain of the ship is the guy to figure out the nature of the facility? Don't we have brilliant scientists to figure this out?

How does any of the lifecycle presented to us honestly make any sense? In ALIEN a lifecycle is depicted that you can follow...it's expanded upon in ALIENS. It's logical and consistent. It's a three stage process: facehugger, larva, and adult. Here, it's a clusterfuck of events to get to the adult stage, none of which is coherently shown in such a way that you can honestly explain it to someone.

This is what I was afraid of. Not 100% sure I want to drop any coin on seeing this in the theater if I'm going to want to scissor kick Scott for making me all disappoint.