Promethius.....Prometheous.......Promethious....(e).

[peter]

Whichever way you spell it I saw it last night and can only say one thing.

"Ridley Scott R.I.P."

I had intended to go out for dinner after the film, but was so stuffed on turkey by the end that it's unlikely I will eat it again before thanksgiving. I knew when the guy ran his finger over the wall in some glyph covered subteranean cave and then did that slime thing between his thumb and forefinger that we were in trouble, and sure enough, by the end of the film we had had slithery grey worms plunging into and out of bodies, disembodied robotic heads with white stuff coming out of thier mouths, alien succubi growing in the wombs of unsuspecting surrogate mothers and long abandoned spacecraft with ebonite thrones leaning back at implausible angles. Sound familiar - well it shouldn't because it was about as far from the masterpiece of science fiction horror that was Alien as Dallas is from Dickens. The problem was I think that RS was just trying too hard. He wanted to press all the Alien buttons and boy did he try, but to no avail. You don't I'm afraid, produce two Alien's in a lifetime.

Appearence wise the film had promise, and at the start I thought we were in for a treat, but as time wore on the poor quality of the 3D and the shoddy nature of the sets and special effects began to show through. Couple this with some of the truly worst acting I have yet seen in a 'blockbuster' and charachters that had no 'charachter' and the stage was set for dissaster. At the end in a final death struggle between a couple of leathery white denizens of this alter-world the proceedings took on such a farcical aspect that I burst out laughing - a moment of true joy only previousely ever induced by Kenneth Brannagh's 'Frankenstein' (who wil ever forget De Niro's monster shaking his fist's at the sky and crying for 'Revenge, Revenge!') and the truly remarkable 'Island of Doctor Moreau' single handidly turned into one of the best comedy films of all time by Val Kilmer's antics.

Whatever happens this must not be the film for which RS is remembered. Alas all talent comes to an end, and what looked good thirty plus years ago does not always work it today. I hate to think of the feeling a director must get when after months of work, planning, filming - all the time looking at the rushes and thinking it is looking great - then they see it in full for the first time and say, sick to the stomoch "OMG! What have I done." It's a strange one - but in film making it happens. What should be brilliant, what sould be awe inspiring sometimes just doesn't happen. And no-one see's it coming from the director down.

[sgt.null]

so did you like it?

[peter]

so did you like it?

Yeah...pretty good.

[finn]

Probably worth waiting for at least the first director's cut (I'm sure he makes a few a sly "re-adjustments" to DVD releases too)...... his stuff tends to get better with each version.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

peter, you should read Roger Ebert's review. The contrast is truly comical.

[Rigel]

Just got back from this. While it's certainly not Scott's best, overall I liked it.

And there's one particular thing that makes me extremely happy... You see, the movie is so obviously an Alien prequel that, despite Scott's misgivings over calling it one, you really have to say that's what it is. At the same time, the nature of the creatures is so irrevocably altered that you can pretty much take everything after the original Alien and just chuck it out the window. All the fanboys, who read the books and comics and followed the AvP lore, must be sh*tting themselves right now D

Anyway, remember that scene in Blade Runner when Roy releases the dove and dies, just as the rain is stopping and the clouds are clearing up? That's what the first 40 minutes of Prometheus felt like. That heavy-handed. Things got better before the end, but Peter's right about the characters... the only one who actually has any character is the one who's least human (yes, the android). I think it's fair to say that Michael Fassbender stole the show with his performance.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Wow. I never knew that one of the most iconic and beloved scenes in the history of cinema was actively shit. Rigel you must be one jaded individual.

[Rigel]

Jaded? Perhaps. But I never said the scene was shit... I said it was heavy-handed. Hmm, reading over my post again, I should clarify: I don't think the whole scene feels that way, I specifically meant those few moments when he releases the dove, and stops raining and the sun comes out.

MovieBob has a decent review here. Apparently Scott reworked the story after production had already started, focusing more on the "big ideas" and less on the Alien ties. One point made in the review, which I agree with, is that the movie would have been stronger if the Alien ties had been exercised entirely, letting this movie breathe on its own.

[peter]

peter, you should read Roger Ebert's review. The contrast is truly comical.

Wow Ron! Did we even see the same film? re what Ebert says about 'seamless 3D' about 10 mins into the film my wife leant over to me and whispered 'Is the 3D looking "double image'd to you". It was but I had thought it just my eyes 'playing up' which they can do. Perhaps it was just our cinema got it wrong. The decapitated alien scene lifted straight from'Alien' was so clearly a man with his head poking through a hole in the floor and a cheap rubber 'cuff' stuck off to one side that it was no more realistic than one of those plastic false arms you can buy in joke shops. The distance shots of the planet surface with the 'rover' vehicles snaking along it's surface was to me palpably visible as a model ala Thunderbirds.

BUT.....for all that I'm not saying the film wasn't a fun way to spend an hour or two. But Alien it wasn't and I think I'm the schmick for thinking that it would be. You guys must judge for yourselves and I hope some of you do because I really want to hear your opinions.

[finn]

I liked it overall as a visual experience, tho' I can't say it was a particularly interesting movie, relying I think on the momentum of Alien to drag it (as a prequel) along behind.

Curiously the robots (and I have some questions about whether Charlize Theron was included as Robot), actually had more three dimensionality about them than their so called human counterparts. I mean the ending?

Spoiler

Three guys with a laugh, a joke and a shrug of their shoulders just up and do a kamikaze thing with no more gravity to their sacrifice or acknowledgement to their characters than a farewell because they are off to the shops!

Rapace was amazing in the Dragon movies, but really we knew nothing of her character in this film, just how she reacted, bouncing from one crisis to the next. There was no real engagement with any of the protagonists except the robots.

I'll throw this in...

Spoiler

I wonder if she was a robot too....another of Weyland's "children".....not unlike the Deckard question perhaps.

Anyway there's room for a spin off at the far end of the journey...

Spoiler

I wonder who it is that has stolen fire from the Gods: Man for coming forth from the DNA, or Rapace and her rubber head for pinching the ship?

[Rigel]

about 10 mins into the film my wife leant over to me and whispered 'Is the 3D looking "double image'd to you". It was but I had thought it just my eyes 'playing up' which they can do.

I had the same experience... I thought my eyes were just taking a bit to adjust to the 3D, as the previews before the film started had the same problem.

I'll throw this in...

Spoiler

I wonder if she was a robot too....another of Weyland's "children".....not unlike the Deckard question perhaps.

Spoiler

That would be an interested take, though I doubt it given she has actual bodily functions (sweating, eating, etc) and David did not.

Anyway there's room for a spin off at the far end of the journey...

Spoiler

I wonder who it is that has stolen fire from the Gods: Man for coming forth from the DNA, or Rapace and her rubber head for pinching the ship?

Spoiler

I kept wondering if the accident that killed all the aliens was a caused by some dissident individual or group, perhaps some who didn't want to wipe us out. Sadly that never played out.

[Zarathustra]

I suggest boycotting 3D movies. They are crap. Go watch the 2D version, save yourself a few bucks, and actually see what is on the screen.

Until they can get 3D that actually looks like reality, without having to put sunglasses on, I have no interest. Wearing the glasses doesn't bother me, but having a gorgeous movie unnaturally darkened does.

Maybe The Hobbit will be the first one to actually look real. Shot in 48 fps (first major movie in history to do so, I believe), it should have a lot less blur and judder.

[peter]

Maybe The Hobbit will be the first one to actually look real. Shot in 48 fps (first major movie in history to do so, I believe), it should have a lot less blur and judder.

Might be best not to hold your breath on this one Zarathustra. A friend of mine read a report that said the 'feel' of the fim resulting from the 48 fps was akin to watching a TV movie from the 1970's. I agree about the 3D 'killing' the color of most films it is used in. I bitterly regret not seeing Avatar in 2D as well as 3D - many reviews said it was a much superior veiwing experience with the awesome colors seen to thier full effect. The one and only film I have seen that truly seemed to benefit from the 3D was Herzog's 'Cave of Forgotten Dreams' where the contours of the Chauvet cave system and the paintings thereon were beautifully realised for the film viewer to see in all thier glory. The rest have all been less than glorious in comparison.

[Zarathustra]

I read the same criticisms of the Hobbit preview footage. Some said it looked like video, or a TV soap opera. I'm not concerned. I think these were probably film "purists" who are too attached to convention. They view "flaws" such as grain and judder as part of film's charm.

The 24 fps convention was adopted because film is expensive, not because it looked the best. And then people got used to it. People will get used to this, too. You might as well complain that reality doesn't have grain and "charming" judder. Reality doesn't look like a soap opera.

However, I haven't seen it yet. I might be disappointed. If it looks too real, it might be the difference between a photograph and a painting. Some of the "art" might feel like it's missing. We might get into an uncanny valley situation, where the realism is so close to reality that it becomes distracting and harder to suspend disbelief.

But given the beauty of HDTVs and Blu-rays, I tend to be skeptical of such concerns. The clearer the picture, the better, in my opinion. I think that a good director (like Jackson) could still make a clear, stable picture look fantastical, fanciful.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I suggest boycotting 3D movies. They are crap. Go watch the 2D version, save yourself a few bucks, and actually see what is on the screen.

Until they can get 3D that actually looks like reality, without having to put sunglasses on, I have no interest. Wearing the glasses doesn't bother me, but having a gorgeous movie unnaturally darkened does.

Maybe The Hobbit will be the first one to actually look real. Shot in 48 fps (first major movie in history to do so, I believe), it should have a lot less blur and judder.

Concur. I won't see another 3D movie that requires glasses. I want full-on holographic projections, dammit!

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I read the same criticisms of the Hobbit preview footage. Some said it looked like video, or a TV soap opera. I'm not concerned. I think these were probably film "purists" who are too attached to convention. They view "flaws" such as grain and judder as part of film's charm.

The 24 fps convention was adopted because film is expensive, not because it looked the best. And then people got used to it. People will get used to this, too. You might as well complain that reality doesn't have grain and "charming" judder. Reality doesn't look like a soap opera.

However, I haven't seen it yet. I might be disappointed. If it looks too real, it might be the difference between a photograph and a painting. Some of the "art" might feel like it's missing. We might get into an uncanny valley situation, where the realism is so close to reality that it becomes distracting and harder to suspend disbelief.

But given the beauty of HDTVs and Blu-rays, I tend to be skeptical of such concerns. The clearer the picture, the better, in my opinion. I think that a good director (like Jackson) could still make a clear, stable picture look fantastical, fanciful.

Seems I recall reading that over time people have associated 24FPS with the magic aura of the cinema that goes hand in hand with the suspension of disbelief. If Jackson is changing the FPS he is playing with fire, and I'm not being hyperbolic. Plus things need a kind of golden glow to give them that movie look. One of the hardest things to get used to about HD is so much fidelity that it becomes a distraction, and interrupts the dream the movie is weaving.

[Zarathustra]

Plus things need a kind of golden glow to give them that movie look.

I have no idea what that means. Every movie has a different color palette. Modern movies tend to exaggerate the blues. Older movies (especially in the 70s) tend to have a more natural spectrum. LOTR was digitally color graded so that every environment had its own color palette.

One of the hardest things to get used to about HD is so much fidelity that it becomes a distraction, and interrupts the dream the movie is weaving.

That's odd, because movies (yes, even film) have a much higher resolution than HDTVs and Blu-ray. People have been watching HD at the cinema since the beginning. It is only the home market, starting with VHS and then DVD that made people get used to lower resolution in their movies. But still, at the cinema, it's always much, much higher than today's home theater HD standards (1080p). If HD interrupts the dream that movies weave, then it would be impossible for movies to have ever woven any dream.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

You're just an argumentative type, aren't you.

Actually my info comes from a friend who went to film school and has served as DP and cinematographer for a few different independent films, as well as directing some of his own shorts. Not saying he's right, or anything. But it makes sense to me.

insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/12/the-hobbit-48-frames-peter-jackson/

much like a painting carries a different visual quality than a still photograph, the blurring effect of 24 frames-per-second is what gives movies their otherworldly, dream-like quality

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think the debate between 24 or 48 fps is meaningless. A film can be shot at the best viewing speed, clarity, lighting, etc--in fact, it could have Oscar-award winning cinematography--but if the script is flawed or pathetic then the movie itself will fail. A good film will be a good film regardless of its vivid reality (or lack thereof); in fact, a good film doesn't have to "look good" at all--to highlight this point I present Planet Terror, which was filmed and edited to look like an old, grainy 35 mm film from the 70s, including color bleeding, skips, and a missing reel.

The Hobbit will be an excellent movie and none of us should have problems suspending disbelief, even though we are seeing wizards, orcs, and trolls on the screen.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I am not speaking of conscious associations, Hashi. I guess we'll have to see.