Previous Entry | Next Entry

Ellen Ripley 2
Grey and chilly here in Providence today. Maybe a high of 71˚F, and there might be rain. April in June. And today is the sixth anniversary of Sophie's death. And five years ago yesterday I finished "The Steam Dancer (1896)." And on the 24th, Spooky will have been on this planet another year, and birthday presents are not unwelcome. She has an Amazon wishlist (and it's a good one, too).

---

Yesterday, because I was determined to see Prometheus on a halfway decent screen, we drove to the North Attleboro Showcase (which really isn't that much farther from us than is Warwick, even if Attleboro is in a different state). And yes, we saw it in 2-D again, on a considerably larger screen. I can now say that I have, at least, fucked Natalie Portman in my own bed. So, back to my enumerated review, which, I fear will now be in three parts. Indeed, I could possibly spend the whole summer writing about this film. Indeed, people are saying such stupid things about the film, and I feel such a strong need to respond, I may not even get to the "this-is-why-I-love-it" review part today. But I'm putting this behind a cut because there are SPOILERS, so, read at your own risk. Where were we?



4) I'm beginning to see people online whining about the movie being "triggery," filled with "body horror" and "traumatic pregnancy scenes," and etcetera and etcetera. To which I can only reply, did you go in having no bloody idea what the basic concept of the alien in the previous four films was? Did you really do that, and then have the gall to whine? Did you not at least do a little research, if you are so sensitive you're fragile psyche can be this bruised by films (and books) meant to unnerve us? As innumerable critics and film scholars have noted since 1979, as the filmmakers involved with the original film made clear, as H. R. Giger's original designs make clear, these have always been "body horror" stories. A species with a complicated life cycle that waits in a vagina-like egg, then, after inserting a phallic object down a host's throat, gestates inside another organism (Stage One), then violently emerges from the abdomen of the host in an ultimate nightmare of auto-cessarian birth (Stage Two), only to quickly grow into a creature that, to our eyes, is a monstrous beast with a grotesquely phallic head. Hell, in Alien, these themes are so explicit that, for example, we know that the alien probably rapes Lambert (though the act mostly occurs off screen), and the android Ash attempts a bizarre rape of Ripley in imitation of the creature, which he has come to admire.

And, lest charges of sexism arise, Kane is the first of the crew "raped" – a man – then Brett – also male – and then the ship's captain, Dallas – also male. Now, turning to charges of sexism in Prometheus (which I am seeing) as regards "rape" by the alien: What? The first person infected is Holloway, who unintentionally impregnates Shaw through consensual sex. Then we see Milburn mouth-fucked by a proto-facehugger. That's two men impregnated (though you might argue Holloway is, rather, infected) to one woman (the presumably male "engineers" not included). So, charges of a sexual bias towards women are simply baseless.

5) A small thing: Guys, the science in this film is full of holes, just like the science in the four other Alien films (in fact, it's been worse than it is in Prometheus). That said, some of what people are kvetching over may not be actual problems. An example: Vickers' comment – "....but then, it wouldn't make sense why I would fly myself a half a billion miles away from every man on Earth, if I wanted to get laid...would it?" [italics mine]. Now, by saying "on," isn't it possible, maybe, that she means "from"? After all, by this point in human history, interstellar travel seems to have clearly become moderately routine (if extraordinarily expensive). Ergo, though the Prometheus has traveled ~34.5 light years from Earth, we can easily imagine there being terran men half a billion miles from LV-233. The gaffe may or may not be a screenwriter gaffe. It may be a character gaffe (Vickers is clearly indifferent to science). But, this whole matter is, obviously, a tempest in a teapot. It's nitpicking. If we nitpick science fiction, both literary and cinematic, most of it fails.

6) Why is this film R-rated? I've seen it twice, and this baffles me. Scott actually fought for the R-rating, to avoid cuts he didn't want to make. Okay, I know that. But, Prometheus is almost devoid of anything that would warrant an R-rating. It's entirely devoid of nudity. You see more nudity on pretty much any beach, anywhere, any summer. There's virtually no profanity. Here's a breakdown of cursing in the film (in the IMDb "parent's guide," which is user-created content):

1) Two fucks, one obscured by static.
2) Eleven shits.
3) One ass.
4) Twelve hell or damn.

Still, lots of of PG-13 films are filled with profanity. So, it wasn't the profanity and it wasn't nudity (or sex). At IMDb, we can read that it was rated R for "Sci-fi violence, including some intense images and brief language." The language thing is bullshit. As for violence and intense images, yeah, I have to give it that one, so, I suppose that's the source. This is only relevant because there has been a lot of speculation that the rating could hurt the box-office tallies. Regardless, I applaud Scott for insisting on this cut.

6) Okay. Here's something I adored about the film, finally heading in that (non-defensive) direction. Michael Fassbender. His performance as the AI/android David is absolutely brilliant. He deserve a goddamn Oscar nomination, it's that brilliant. Unlike his predecessors (though, if we consider this a straightforward prequel, which it isn't, they aren't) Ash, Bishop, and Annalee Call, who could all pass for human, David can't. Fassbender wisely avoided watching the performances of Ian Holm, Lance Henrickson, and Winona Ryder, instead studying the Hal 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Sean Young in Blade Runner (1982), David Bowie in The Man Fell to Earth (1976), and Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia (1962). That last is especially important, as David, in his attempts to fashion himself, create an identity that is him, carefully scrutinizes T. E. Lawrence. Fassbender fuses all these performances into something wonderfully almost human, possessing subtle mechanical quirks, and yet often conveying a being on the threshold of achieving "humanity." Just in the character of David, this film presents so much rich opportunity for consideration. Bravo.

7) Lots of people are bitching about the themes of religion and faith in the film. Kittens, I'm a goddamn atheist, and it didn't bother me. Here I wish to quote what handful_ofdust (Gemma Files) – who probably knows more about film than I – has to say on the subject. I do hope she does't mind:

"A) All you people acting like you're amazed the premise turned out to be Chariots of the Gods? Please STFU. This has been obvious since Trailer #2*, so if it offends you so much, you probably shouldn't've gone to the movie in the first place. It's like complaining that you went to see Star Wars and the science wasn't NASA-compliant.

B) In a way, I think that faith--ie, 'choosing to believe particular shit with no immediate proof because REASONS' motivates not only most characters in the movie, but (if we're being honest with ourselves) most human beings, and therefore probably most Engineers, too. Shaw wants a good God who can be reasoned with, so she does what she does. Janek thinks most things boil down to governments/corporations doing sketchy shit, so that's what he goes with (and in the Alienverse, hate to say, that idea usually turns out to be true). Holloway thinks he can act like Steve-O in space and get away with it, so he does, and doesn't. Vickers thinks she can control everything because she's used to being able to control everything. Weyland wants to think he can convince the Engineers to cure him of age because he's so awesome and a living god like them, while the Space Jockey's just all: 'Man, I have a fuckin' job to do. Also, did you build a robot that looks like you?! Heresy' And David is convinced all children wish their parents would die because all parents devalue their children by not understanding them; the only potential refutation he's ever seen of this is in Shaw's dreams, but you know, she might just be fooling herself. Like humans do."

8) Frankly, a lot of the negative criticism of this film is coming from people who haven't seen it. Currently, it's the hip film to hate. It's the too-cool-for-school crowd's target. And many of those who do see it, go in determined to hate it. I'll never understand this attitude. It's fucked up, to say the least.

*Actually, it's been obvious since Scott's early interviews regarding the film.



So, there you go. More to come. Now, I'm off to begin line-editing the ms. of Blood Oranges (this is my typescript, and not the CEM, which I'll likely be editing in a month or so).

Wordy,
Aunt Beast

Comments

( 45 comments — Have your say! )
firebirdgrrl
Jun. 12th, 2012 06:52 pm (UTC)
This is the best discussion of_Prometheus I have read and I have read lots. I thought it was stunning.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:33 pm (UTC)

Thank you.
handful_ofdust
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:22 pm (UTC)
You quoting me is the nicest thing that's happened to me all day.

Even as we speak, Tor.com is hosting an article/essay asking whether or not Prometheus is less science fiction than "religious fiction". In the comments, some guy takes issue with the author's statement "while Prometheus is by no means a bad film..." by saying, briskly: "But of course it's a bad film, it's a fucking awful film, that's been established." To which I can only say, not that I'm going to: By whom, sir? You? No, I think I'll just form my own opinions, thank you, and state them afterwards, too. Carry on!

Then grin like David, offer him some infected booze, and shoot him the finger behind his back. Humans, man.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:34 pm (UTC)

Then grin like David, offer him some infected booze, and shoot him the finger behind his back. Humans, man.

I'm having a really bad day. Thank you for making me laugh.
robyn_ma
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:22 pm (UTC)
I've been wondering myself why it was rated R. If you were to sit and look at every act of violence, you could probably find something similar in a PG-13 film. (Not to mention what used to get PG ratings. Jaws and Raiders: automatic R rating today if it wasn't Spielberg, I guarantee you.) Anyway, it probably reflects, as you say, the intensity of the violent acts. There were some nasty-ass ways to die in this film. And though the self-surgery scene wasn't terribly gory, that alone probably ensured the R rating. You've seen it twice now: don't we see some of Shaw's innards briefly? I'm not saying 'innards = protect the children,' I'm just trying to divine why the rating.

Edited at 2012-06-12 07:22 pm (UTC)
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:38 pm (UTC)

There were some nasty-ass ways to die in this film. And though the self-surgery scene wasn't terribly gory, that alone probably ensured the R rating. You've seen it twice now: don't we see some of Shaw's innards briefly? I'm not saying 'innards = protect the children,' I'm just trying to divine why the rating.

This is the film you do not want to die in, yes.

What I remember, is we see a cross-section with Shaw's skin, fascia, fat, and abdominal muscles, maybe an inch thick. We do see that placenta like thing hold the alien offspring, and the umbilical cord. In fact, what made me flinch was Shaw tearing the umbilicus.
stsisyphus
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:51 pm (UTC)
In fact, what made me flinch was Shaw tearing the umbilicus.

That was some hard core shit there. Ellen Ripley would be proud.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:15 pm (UTC)

Fuckin' A.
robyn_ma
Jun. 12th, 2012 08:29 pm (UTC)
Also, I did not know until now that Michael Fassbender is in 300 somewhere, though damned if I can remember who he was (damned if I can remember anything else about it either), and also in that British series Hex that I used to half-watch on BBC America.

I don't think you've mentioned Noomi yet, have you? You kind of got to see yourself in a Ridley Scott Alien-related film. (I am clearly still sticking with the Noomi-looks-like-Cait thing, which probably alternately amuses and annoys you.) You got to be in the film's most memorably icky scene and survive till the end to hang out with Michael Fassbender's head. (My new punk band name is now Michael Fassbender's Head.) I admit the Noomi/Cait thing made Shaw's scenes that much more entertaining for me. I was all like 'Go, Cait, go! Dodge that rolling ship by moving to the side, unlike the dumb-ass blonde who runs in a straight line and gets smooshed.'
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:14 pm (UTC)

Okay...if I new about you thinking I resemble Noomi, I'd forgotten. Gotta admit, I don't see it at all, but I'm still flattered. And next time I see the film, I will see myself in that medpod.

Dodge that rolling ship by moving to the side, unlike the dumb-ass blonde who runs in a straight line and gets smooched.'

That was such a cool moment. And so telling. How hard is it to have the presence of mind to sidestep maybe fifteen feet? I think it might be meant to say something about the flexibility of Shaw's thinking to the rigidity of Vickers' mind. But I might be making too much out of it. I had some idiot on Twitter try to convince me that Vickers was a transwoman....
robyn_ma
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:12 pm (UTC)
Incidentally, here's cleolinda's Prometheus in 15 Minutes. She writes as one who saw it twice, loved it, and pokes affectionate fun at it, as she usually does with her 15 Minutes pieces. You may get a kick out of it, especially Vickers' line 'Fucks I give: zero.'
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:22 pm (UTC)

I'll look!
whiskeychick
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:10 pm (UTC)
That made me flinch, too.
David Szydloski
Jun. 12th, 2012 08:27 pm (UTC)
It seems that Scott was told that it would have been given a PG-13 rating if he would only take out the scene with Shaw and the surgery machine.

I don't know how to post an html link here but I came across that nugget at Alyssa Rosenberg's blog under the title: "‘Prometheus’ Got Asked to Cut a Key Scene for Ratings"
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:16 pm (UTC)

I haven't seen this, but it makes more sense than anything else.
lilith_333
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:38 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen it yet but my partner liked it so I will probably go see it soon. Thanks for the great review!

Incidentally, even as a former physicist, I've gotten inured to the bad science in sci-fi films - I think the breaking point for me was the black hole contained in a vanity mirror in "Event Horizon."
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:40 pm (UTC)

Thanks for the great review!

You're most welcome.
stsisyphus
Jun. 12th, 2012 07:50 pm (UTC)
It's an R because penis enters the (male) mouth. And by penis I mean something vaguely tube-like and organic and the men don't look pleased by it (if they did look pleased, this would probably be courting NC-17).

And as I said, I really do see Prometheus as a "re-vision" of the original Alien (or at least it's mythos), rather than prequel. The more and more I hear of people being upset/angry/disappointed that the film was not more literally a prequel to 1979's Alien the more I wonder where we got that idea? Did Ridley Scott say it was a prequel? Not for several years he hasn't. Which means that the people who are pushing this are the advertising/marketing people and the hype machine media that pushed the film before it was released. So people who are railing against the heavens that this isn't meeting their expectations really only have themselves to blame for buying the hype peddled forward by other people who had no interest in watering down their marketing power by telling the truth (if they ever knew it). "It's a prequel to Alien," is a pitch that you give to studios. While it has some greasy rime of truth to it, it isn't much and smears when you rub it between your fingers.

As for religious fiction, well... I did kinda see this as a kind of horror-film meditation on intelligent design (which is pretty much exactly what Shaw's character is selling to Weyland and the others). Of course Scott couldn't come out and used that term without riling all sorts of hell with the Fundies, but that's what it is. They are looking for the "Engineers", who will tell them... STUFF. Whatever. And surprise, surprise, the Intelligent Design doesn't really give a damn what they want. So Intelligent Design meets Cosmic "Horror".

Of course, I think you could also call it a classic formula slasher horror flick in space. It's got plenty of the classic tropes and character archetypes. It's a very pretty looking one, but you could argue that it's really not much different than all the movies that Cabin in the Woods was deconstructing.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:08 pm (UTC)
And as I said, I really do see Prometheus as a "re-vision" of the original Alien (or at least it's mythos), rather than prequel. The more and more I hear of people being upset/angry/disappointed that the film was not more literally a prequel to 1979's Alien the more I wonder where we got that idea? Did Ridley Scott say it was a prequel? Not for several years he hasn't. Which means that the people who are pushing this are the advertising/marketing people and the hype machine media that pushed the film before it was released. So people who are railing against the heavens that this isn't meeting their expectations really only have themselves to blame for buying the hype peddled forward by other people who had no interest in watering down their marketing power by telling the truth (if they ever knew it). "It's a prequel to Alien," is a pitch that you give to studios. While it has some greasy rime of truth to it, it isn't much and smears when you rub it between your fingers.

We are agreed on this, and it's pretty much exactly what Scott has said, as I've noted.

I did kinda see this as a kind of horror-film meditation on intelligent design

I think there's an important, and not semantic, distinction here. The film is examining panspermia, a theory that life may have originated on another planet, and one that has gained a sup rising amount of credibility in the last decade. Now, not on the silly Erik von Daniken level, but still. Panspermia is testable, fasifiable science. When someone in our culture says "intelligent design," what they mean is divine creation. The phrase is just a new catch phrase for creationism, and this film isn't about creationism. The "gods" are mortal (even if that may not have been Shaw's expectation or hope). They're scientists, technicians.

Of course, I think you could also call it a classic formula slasher horror flick in space. It's got plenty of the classic tropes and character archetypes. It's a very pretty looking one, but you could argue that it's really not much different than all the movies that Cabin in the Woods was deconstructing.

This I have to flat out disagree with you on. This is true of Alien, perhaps, but not Prometheus.

Edited at 2012-06-12 10:08 pm (UTC)
stsisyphus
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:08 pm (UTC)
When someone in our culture says "intelligent design," what they mean is divine creation. The phrase is just a new catch phrase for creationism, and this film isn't about creationism. The "gods" are mortal (even if that may not have been Shaw's expectation or hope).

Whether or not the gods are mortal seems to be beyond any of the characters' actual logical frameworks (except perhaps David, who is well aware of the inherent imperfection of his creators). When I mention intelligent design, I am more referring to the character's expectations that the Engineers represent omnipotent and omniscient mythical beings that will solve their respective problems (Holloway's lack of fame or scholarly acclaim, Shaw's fervent [if battered] faith, a certain other figure's mortality, David's destructive contempt for humanity) simply for the asking. That's a kind of desperate self-deception that basically might as well be analogous to an unhealthy, self-centered, religious furvor which refuses to consider the possibility of variant spiritual truths (or even objective, scientific reality).

My point being that I don't think Scott was trying to make a case for intelligent design, but rather show that embracing that kind of logical fallacy can lead to disaster.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:22 pm (UTC)

My point being that I don't think Scott was trying to make a case for intelligent design, but rather show that embracing that kind of logical fallacy can lead to disaster.

Okay. Got it now. Yes.
stsisyphus
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:10 pm (UTC)
This I have to flat out disagree with you on. This is true of Alien, perhaps, but not Prometheus.

I think I could formulate a symbolic reading of the film with that idea in mind, but I certainly won't junk up your LJ with it. It's an unbalanced idea, in any regard.
stillsostrange
Jun. 12th, 2012 08:39 pm (UTC)
Thank you.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:09 pm (UTC)

You're welcome.
quennessa
Jun. 12th, 2012 09:28 pm (UTC)
Just...thank you for this. I have been so frustrated by people's reaction to this film. I really feel like they went in with a whole set of whacked out expectation and paid no attention whatsoever to what Ridley said he was doing with this film.

I also feel like they were paying zero attention and observed *nothing*. Everything is up there on the screen. But you have to pay the fuck attention. It's not for the lazy. If you *blink*, you will miss important shit.

So. Yes. Thank you. I loved it too. It was fantastic.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:10 pm (UTC)

I really feel like they went in with a whole set of whacked out expectation and paid no attention whatsoever to what Ridley said he was doing with this film.

Bingo.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]


<i>I really feel like they went in with a whole set of whacked out expectation and paid no attention whatsoever to what Ridley said he was doing with this film.</i>

Bingo.

<I.I also feel like they were paying zero attention and observed *nothing*. Everything is up there on the screen. But you have to pay the fuck attention. It's not for the lazy. If you *blink*, you will miss important shit.</i>

Yes. I missed important stuff I didn't see until the second viewing. I'm sure a third would reveal still more.
lois2037
Jun. 12th, 2012 09:41 pm (UTC)
Yes! Yes it's a great film, yes Fassbender deserves an Oscar, and yes, it is so lovely to see an intelligent discussion about this movie! Thank you! I'm now more determined than ever to see it again, and soon.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:11 pm (UTC)

You're welcome.
whiskeychick
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:17 pm (UTC)
My set of lenses brings about some irritations with the "world" and the "story," and I want to see the film a second time before I publish any "review" or "response" on PROMETHEUS.

That said, I loved the film and I've not thought about much else since I saw it Saturday afternoon (three days plus and counting). More importantly, I'm sick to death of the "hate this film" bandwagon so many seem to have jumped on. I'm especially irritated that some of this is coming from people I think should know better.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:21 pm (UTC)

My set of lenses brings about some irritations with the "world" and the "story," and I want to see the film a second time before I publish any "review" or "response" on PROMETHEUS.

Not a bad idea. Just remember, the science is about as reliable as the science in any SF film, it's not the same moon from Alien, every little detail is important, and this is NOT a genuine prequel, despite marketing (which is not Ridley Scott's fault).

More importantly, I'm sick to death of the "hate this film" bandwagon so many seem to have jumped on. I'm especially irritated that some of this is coming from people I think should know better.

YES! Thank you!

Edited at 2012-06-12 10:21 pm (UTC)
Olivia Nishkian
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:40 pm (UTC)
I enjoyed it very much. There's this textbook hipster that works at a another school here who gleefully spouted how "horrible" the film was when my friend and I mentioned we enjoyed it. So I just said "that's because you're a hipster" right to his face.

The weird part is, he didn't deny it. I asked for specific criticisms, but he had somewhere to be.

So yeah, whatever. No film is perfect, but I can't remember the last time I actually enjoyed myself so thoroughly in a theater. It wasn't even as scary or gruesome as I'd thought it would be. People need to buck up - and I'm generally a wuss!
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 10:43 pm (UTC)

Given our conversations, I'm surprised and pleased you enjoyed it. Cool.

There's this textbook hipster that works at a another school here who gleefully spouted how "horrible" the film was when my friend and I mentioned we enjoyed it. So I just said "that's because you're a hipster" right to his face.

The weird part is, he didn't deny it. I asked for specific criticisms, but he had somewhere to be.


This would be hilarious, were it not so stupid, and the font from which so much dumb criticism is currently flowing.
Olivia Nishkian
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:42 pm (UTC)
I like dark stuff. It just has to have a point. I felt Prometheus had a point. The nihilistic undertones weren't entirely to my taste, but I still enjoyed it and can appreciate it - it left enough of itself mysterious for it to not be an issue, I never felt like some kind of moral philosophy was being clubbed upside my head.

I felt that the Engineer they awoke seemed to have some pangs of affection for his wayward progeny, until he realized one of them was synthetic, so he flipped out and killed it. They seemed to worship the biological as a species, so it made sense. We can't really know their true feelings or purpose behind the creation of humanity.

Leaving it open was a good move. Why did he want to destroy us? For our own good? For giggles? Who knows.

And yes, said hipster adamantly sticks by his assertion that "typewriters are better and computer software is soulless for writing and doesn't have the same feeling." Which I sort of get, but, once I started using scrivener to write, I couldn't go back. It's like they're anachronistic and contrarian for the mere sake of it...

He also likes to preen about the few articles he's had published, never stops talking about himself, and wears thick-framed glasses and has a scraggly beard.

Anyways. Prometheus. Great film. Deserving of any praise it gets. A few scenes seemed tacked on, but they weren't the worst or anything.



Edited at 2012-06-12 11:43 pm (UTC)
Shannon W. Hennessy
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:00 pm (UTC)
I still haven't decided whether or not to consider David 8 a protagonist or an antagonist.

I have this "hunch" that David 8 knew pretty much EXACTLY what was going to happen when Prometheus landed. If he didn't know details, I'm fairly certain he had a pretty solid hypothesis as to what would happen.

SIDENOTE - I also believe that Vickers knows what the potential is for absolute jackassery and mortal chaos upon landing. I think she is afraid of it - because she can't hope to stop it or control it in any way, shape or form and Meredith Vickers is NO ONE'S victim... except daddy's, of course - but I think that her fear is what lends to some of the on-screen adversarial cha-cha betwixt her and David 8.

Because David 8 IS NOT afraid - it's going to be a LONG, LONG time before Synthetic People get emotional subroutines - and in fact, he welcomes what's coming because, in the end, it is logical.

I can almost HEAR Fassbender's voice and inflection while the crew is in cryosleep talking to himself, explaining to his mind's eye "view" of Sir Peter that "You're getting exactly what you deserve for the heresy that you've shown your creators, Father."

David 8 is creepy because he looks so much like "us," but is so very different in all the ways that count.
stsisyphus
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:14 pm (UTC)
I was certainly of the opinion that he would have gladly let the Engineer wipe out humanity from the Earth. I was very much expecting that turn at the end.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:20 pm (UTC)

Because, after all, that would have certainly been fascinating.

And, he knows his god/gods are douchebags.
stsisyphus
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:32 pm (UTC)
The final scenes with David really perplex me. I can come up with a few different reasons for why what happened, but... nothing conclusive.

Which I suppose is a good story and a good character.
greygirlbeast
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:18 pm (UTC)

I still haven't decided whether or not to consider David 8 a protagonist or an antagonist.

Maybe both. Or neither. He sort of exists outside human concepts of morality.

I have this "hunch" that David 8 knew pretty much EXACTLY what was going to happen when Prometheus landed. If he didn't know details, I'm fairly certain he had a pretty solid hypothesis as to what would happen.

Probably, yes. Not the details, but maybe the broad strokes.

but I think that her fear is what lends to some of the on-screen adversarial cha-cha betwixt her and David 8.

The scene when she shoves him against the wall and threatens to "pull the plug." Wow.

Because David 8 IS NOT afraid - it's going to be a LONG, LONG time before Synthetic People get emotional subroutines - and in fact, he welcomes what's coming because, in the end, it is logical.

More importantly, because he's a learning machine, it simply fascinates him. This is so evident when he's in the cockpit and activates the astronavigational system of the engineers' ship. He is filled with wonder.

David 8 is creepy because he looks so much like "us," but is so very different in all the ways that count.

Yes.
Steven Barritz
Jun. 12th, 2012 11:40 pm (UTC)
I just hope that there is a sequel. It had a solid opening weekend, but I've seen films get that and take a nose-dive. (Ang Lee's Hulk comes to mind.) I will do my small part, will definitely see the movie again (even at the price of $18.50 for 3D IMAX--which by the way was tasteful, the composition felt organic, and didn't "pop" out and call attention to itself like in other 3D movies I've seen); I've already pre-ordered the Blu-ray. Actually, it's here that I learned the importance of the pre-order.

greygirlbeast
Jun. 13th, 2012 12:00 am (UTC)

I just hope that there is a sequel.

I'd love to see one, but, too, it stands alone.

Actually, it's here that I learned the importance of the pre-order.

It's an unfortunate fact, but a fact all the same.
rexallen
Jun. 13th, 2012 03:22 pm (UTC)
Prometheus
All the humans in the movie seem to have personality/mental disorders.

Here's my interpretation:

The Engineers seed yet another planet with proto-colonists who, following their bio-programming, should eventually develop into a race of full-fledged Engineers themselves - at which point they will join the galactic community.

But something goes wrong on Earth and instead of Engineers a race of hairy, irrational, hyper-aggressive dwarfs is produced.

The Engineers notice that the program has gotten off track and decide to wipe the planet clean and start over, before the dwarfs develop space travel and spread like interstellar vermin.

The Acid-Monsters are way overkill for a primitive species of dwarfs, but that's the Standard Operating Procedure, so Acid-Monsters it is.

In a freak accident, the Acid-Monsters get loose early and the cleansing mission is derailed. BUT, the Engineer galactic empire is huge and a SNAFU involving one tiny planet can easily go unnoticed for a few thousand years.

Until the star vermin begin spreading...


lady_tigerfish
Jun. 13th, 2012 05:23 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen the film yet, but I join you in sheer bafflement that anybody would be surprised by body horror in a movie set in the Alien universe.
kendare_blake
Jun. 13th, 2012 06:03 pm (UTC)
Happy upcoming birthday to Spooky!!
from_ashes
Jun. 13th, 2012 11:49 pm (UTC)
Thank you! I happened to have loved the film and was thoroughly entertained. As far as the R rating, I read that the C-section scene was the nail in that particular coffin. I'll admit that scene had me squirming, but I was loving every single horrific moment of it.

Also, in case you haven't yet seen this, it's quite an interesting read about the film's symbology to one viewer:

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html
frankp74
Oct. 17th, 2012 06:07 pm (UTC)
Hi, I enjoyed reading your report very much. I have watched Prometheus three times and enjoyed every moment of it. I have a question for you, if you don't mind, how did the Engineer know that David is an android? Or did he/she simply attempted to break David's neck and got angrier when realized it is an android?
( 45 comments — Have your say! )