There was a weird dynamic between Weyland-David-Meredith. Weyland considered David a son and David called Meredith mother (which I thought was a nod to the Nostromo having a 'mother' for the crew in Alien) and then the father moment just left me confused. I am assuming when Janek asked Meredith point blank if she was a robot was just a nod about about her frigidity but the writing did not seem definitive about what she was doing there and why aside from her possible familial tie-in why she is in her position. I guess sex is the key to discovering who is and who is not an android because there was one deleted scene in Alien where Lambert and Ripley actually discussed whether or not sleeping with Ash was a clue. Even if Meredith was jealous of David, Weyland seems to be aware that David has his limitations.
**SPOILERS** When she got crushed, I was kinda hoping there was an android reveal if only because it actually would have made her character a lot more interesting.
LOL at Guy Pearce. It hadn't occurred to me because he was young in the viral video of his TED conference speech. But it does seem strange that they would have thought about then when casting.
And yes, I thought the scene where she confronts Weyland was out of some mega-cheesy melodrama. That whole "kings come and kings go" speech was just awful. And then the...."FATHER" reveal was just silly.
Ridley telegraphed that moment as if was going to be a twist that changes everything. It was ultimately inconsequential to the plot.
(This may have spoilers, obviously, but nothing too specific)
I... liked it. I really wanted to love it. It's easy to blame one element and not the other (ie the whole "well the book let down the score" argument with some musicals), but I did find I loved the direction and (mostly) the design, but not Lindelof's script. I actually had some of the same issues I had with the last era of Lost, so I wonder I may be projecting unfairly on him--and of course Scott had final say over what made it on screen...
I don't think I've seen a more beautiful sci fi movie since Avatar--and I did like it a whole lot more than Avatar. I also thought it was worth seeing in 3D--more so than the Avengers--even if none of the effects were too breathtaking. But I also can't remember a non teen horror film that I've seen in a long time that had so many characters doing blatantly *stupid* things. Wow, they made me all the more impressed with the behaviour of the crew in Alien. Every single character seemed to have a few stupid moments, from taking off their helmet to breathe alien air, to immediately touching weird looking things, etc. At least with David he had the excuse that he was an android...
As a fan I appreciated all the Alien nods (even some stuff from Alien 3 it seemed, like that triangle thingie), but I missed elements too. While I guess it would have been derivative, the super bright (and gorgeous) space ship made things a lot less tense than the dingy, clausterphobic vessel in Alien. However, the "c-section" scene was wonderfully intense.
As for the Lost similarities--I guess it was the whole thing about raising all these big questions that boil down to "what is life"--and then not only not coming up with any answers (how could they?), but not even really going anywhere or developing it. I love 2001, even if I don't think I remotely unerstand it, I really liked Tree of Life too. Maybe with those movies I just accepted that they would be that way, and I didn't expect it with this.
But seriously, while the audience seemed to more or less enjoy it, there were literally people shouting at the screen, like in a slasher movie "don't do that!" and loudly sighing at some of the actions. I get that humans do stupid things without thinking, particularly in alien environments (no pun intended), but... really? Funny to think that Alien itself is essentially a slasher movie in space (even using the odd slasher movie staple of having the survivor be a somewhat adrogynous woman who has an adrogynous name, ie "the final girl), yet, I never had the "stupid character actions" problem with it.
Off the top of my head things like... OK I get this is a peaceful mission, but not to bring ANY weapons on the planet? Yes they're scientists, they are also stupid scientists. Or the blip on the map showing a lifeform being chalked up as something that must be a malfunction--umm aren't they there looking for lifeforms?
That said, I'm glad I saw it. I really did get absorbed into the world and feel of the piece, and I think that was enough for me to recommend it, particularly in Imax 3D. I'm not sure if it's a film I'll go back to though, and I do feel some disappointment. On the other hand, knowing about these elements in advance, maybe re-watching it would make me appreciate it more.
Oh and I love Guy Pierce. But why give him makeup to look older, and not hire an older actor?
That is why I feel like there were scenes missing, like I am sure there is more to Guy Pearce as Weyland without prosthetics beyond the TED conference. Meredith and David being jealous could be akin to sibling jealousy and why Weyland talks to David (and why) but there would have to be greater subtext to full-out context for that to be understood.
They shoulda just hired Christopher Plummer for Guy's role. It does make sense though if his character had more to him (I assume something to do with him being younger) and it was cut.
How can David read dreams? And why doesn't Noomi dream subjectively? Isn't this just a bad writer's way of inserting a flashback? How do the two guys who decide to leave get so easily lost in the temple, when back on the Prometheus there's a hologram of the full temple showing everyone's position? And everyone else gets out so easily? Why does Noomi remove the squid fetus and then not kill it? Surely not because it just needs to be around at the ending? And how does it grow fifty times its size without any sustenance (an old ALIEN plothole, admittedly)? How does the captain suddenly and inexplicably come up with an explanation for the purpose of the planet? And where does his sudden kamikaze altruism come from, except from bad writing?
So many questions, but I admit the showing I went to was awful, very distracting and I may have missed some things.
I just spent about two hours with my father and my brother trying to make the many gaping plot holes make sense. I LOVED the first half of the movie. I loved the thoughtful tone and the slow, careful setup. I did not love that this member of a supposedly intelligent race woke up towards the end and immediately acted like an idiotic brute whose actions seemed just as primal as the mindless monsters and, eventually, the xenomorphs down the line.
What IS the goo, anyways? Idris Elba determines it's a weapon apparently based on the fact that one crew member got sick and killed before anyone could conclude what would eventually happen to him, and another one mutated and went crazy. He doesn't just determine, "Oh, there is something dangerous here." He determines, "This was probably a military installation and they were developing weapons to set upon other races, and it got loose and killed them." What the goo REALLY seems to do is make things evolve. The crazy killer worms seem to have evolved from the regular-looking worms once they stewed around in the goo. And the goo seems an AWFUL LOT like the goo in the very beginning that started the evolutionary chain to turn a space jockey into the human race. Evolution is what we see the goo ACTUALLY DO. The killer worm seems to be the thing that actually mutated the biologist and drove him crazy. So if it's not actually weapons development, maybe they're just going back to earth to kickstart their evolution some more?
I don't think the beginning scene was an accident. I thought it was a deliberate method of evolving DNA into something else.
What is the point of Charlize Theron's character? Her big "thing" is that she turns out to be Weyland's daughter, but what does she do with it? She wants him to die so she can take over, so why doesn't she do anything to help that along? Why not have her doing something to sabotage the mission? On the screen, her story has no narrative impact whatsoever.
Basically, we had a whole lot of questions. I think that our biggest disappointment is probably why the space jockey at the end acts like such a mindless violent THING. Like. Come on. And I felt strongly that the film should have either been further or closer to being an actual Alien prequel. As it stands, there's almost no reason the exact same movie couldn't have played out on the right planet with the alien eggs engineered by the space jockeys. It's like Ridley Scott said, "I'm making another Alien movie, but I'm pretending like I'm not, so I'm going to change a few minor things so it doesn't feed into a direct prequel."
We had a lot more issues we talked about, but I am having trouble thinking of them all.
Now to actually respond to something:
All we ever see is the hologram of the Engineers running from something, but we never see it.
My family actually had the idea that maybe they were running from the final engineer, who went crazy from goo or evolved worms or WHATEVER it was. The one who eventually fell (because his body is going nuts?) and then, BAM, the shut the door on his head to decapitate him. It's a possibility, anyways.
Yes! Why did the space jockey suddenly turn into Jason Voorhees?? just cuz someone decided the film needed some action??
Some plot holes I can accept--I mean as silly as it is, I can accept that, for the sake of the movie, you can be on your feet seconds after operating on yourself in a traumatic way, fine. But just SOOO many holes. I've read a few reviews since returning, and it makes me suspicious when people like Roger Ebert give it a full star review. Not suspicious that they liked it, I think there's a lot to admire in the film, and that's a personal reaction, but to act like the thing isn't riddled with holes?
Or Samuel Jackson. "These MOTHER*$#@!(^ ALIENS ARE GETTING OF MY SHIP NOW!"
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
I've read through this entire thread, so sorry if this was explained and I missed it, but my biggest question is WHY did David do what he did? Was he under orders, or did he do it from his "own" free will?
Also, did they ever show the results of the 1st alien attack (the guy that was lost in the ship)? I can not remember.
I've read through this entire thread, so sorry if this was explained and I missed it, but my biggest question is WHY did David do what he did? Was he under orders, or did he do it from his "own" free will?
He was under orders from Weyland. He was supposed to help him find the Engineers so they could give Weyland ETERNAL LIFE or something. Of course, infecting crew members does not seem to exactly fit, but people have smoothed this over by just saying that David is trying every means to explore the aliens in general.
Also, did they ever show the results of the 1st alien attack (the guy that was lost in the ship)? I can not remember.
Do you mean the biologist who was attacked by the uber-worm? He came back to the Prometheus later all mutated and aggressive and they had to kill him. Or do you mean someone else?
David's communication with Weyland seemed very close to the chest but Weyland seemed to care only about Weyland and not the crew. David seemed to really dislike Holloway on a personal level, unappreciative of what was happening and the first two remind David that he was different. There does seem to be a part of David who wants to be seen as human-like but is constantly reminded he is different be it from Weyland himself or by Holloway. So I think with Holloway he knows the effect of 'spiking' the drink will do Holloway's body while not effecting him. At first it seemed out of spite but then his treatment of Shaw really made me think it went deeper.
There are also certain child qualities of him not listening to anybody's orders and told 'Don't do it'. We see he has a real intellectual curiosity about both humans and alien life because he is neither though we see him drawn to and detesting both of them periodically. He hates his makers who find him to be disposable when he knows they are just as vulnerable if not more so than he is. I think I lean toward him doing it on his free will and that he personally telegraphed the whole thing (Holloway exposed, transmits it to Shaw, baby born) as a test of what he found could transform into. He had a thesis and he decided to use the couple of the ship as his experiment.
I also think since the humanoids and the human DNA are a match, the life-forms attacked the humanoids and made their bodies a gradual host from Shaw to the space jockey.
So I think with Holloway he knows the effect of 'spiking' the drink will do Holloway's body while not effecting him. At first it seemed out of spite but then his treatment of Shaw really made me think it went deeper.
There's no way David knows what will happen when he spikes Holloway's drink. I think likely he chose Holloway out of dislike, because likely it could have been bad. He may have had a hypothesis, but there is nothing to back it up before it happens. I think he's experimenting a little more generally.
I got the biologist and geologist mixed up for the last part. The uber-worm attacked the biologist, but it was the geologist who was mutated by the goo and came back to the ship to attack.
I think that the last space jockey in the flashback video is definitely who the others are running from, all infected and crazy and attacking. There's a bit of distance between them, and he's obviously infected by the goo, which is why stuff is still alive on the head and it eventually explodes.
And also, I don't know that it was discussed but what was that first scene with him competing suicide? Was that supposed to be here on earth and how life was created on this planet, by infecting the waters?
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
