IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

529 Pages V  « < 517 518 519 520 521 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cinemexperience: part deux., Some more filums you saw.
dandan
post Jun 19 2012, 10:04 AM
Post #7771


Addict
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5,405
Joined: 22-July 05
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 4,256



QUOTE (Rebus @ Jun 17 2012, 11:00 PM) *
I kept up with what was going on quite well I thought, but thinking back on it, I have no clue what was going on at the very beginning during the prologue bit.

that was an engineer, drinking something which would break his dna down and infuse the lifelsss planet (earth) with the seeds to generate life accordingly. stupid, bullshit, non-science, crap.

QUOTE (logger @ Jun 18 2012, 03:11 PM) *
Ridley Scott is a rich and powerful man so why he decided to make this is a bit of a mystery. He shouldn't need the money, he should be able to do better and he should have more respect for himself, as it's his legacy he's fucking with.

a desperate, ego driven attempt to show that he can still make a good film?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Jun 19 2012, 01:01 PM
Post #7772





Guests






QUOTE (dandan @ Jun 19 2012, 11:04 AM) *
a desperate, ego driven attempt to show that he can still make a good film?

But he can't think that is a good film.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandan
post Jun 19 2012, 01:42 PM
Post #7773


Addict
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5,405
Joined: 22-July 05
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 4,256



QUOTE (logger @ Jun 19 2012, 02:01 PM) *
But he can't think that is a good film.


he's put his name to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julie
post Jun 19 2012, 03:49 PM
Post #7774


Hot Lips.
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 9,204
Joined: 6-February 05
From: Toronto
Member No.: 3,352



QUOTE (dandan @ Jun 19 2012, 05:04 AM) *
that was an engineer, drinking something which would break his dna down and infuse the lifelsss planet (earth) with the seeds to generate life accordingly. stupid, bullshit, non-science, crap.


Is that what that was?! Ridiculous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Jun 19 2012, 04:27 PM
Post #7775





Guests






QUOTE (dandan @ Jun 19 2012, 02:42 PM) *
he's put his name to it.

I suspect his thinking is that the unwashed masses won't understand it unless it follows what they already know, which seems to be the case with most things coming from Hollywood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Jun 19 2012, 07:18 PM
Post #7776


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



QUOTE (Julie @ Jun 19 2012, 04:49 PM) *
Is that what that was?! Ridiculous.


That's what I figured it was as well. I mean, there's nothing in the film to explain that because it mistakes leaving things out for ambiguity and therefore depth, but it explains why the Engineers share human DNA. I say 'explains'...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GundamGuy_UK
post Jun 19 2012, 09:05 PM
Post #7777


The Truth Who The Eyes Met Before!
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 6,453
Joined: 6-December 05
From: 1995
Member No.: 4,725



I'm not sure if that's what it was, or if we're just meant to assume it was. That Engineer looked pretty surprised to be falling apart, so I don't think he knew he was going to. It's also a bit of a weird way to seed a planet (if it even was Earth), but then again it could just be bad science.

That scene is the only real problem I had with the movie, because it felt so out of place and didn't make any sense both by itself or as part of the film. There are photos floating around online of him stood on that cliff with another guy nicknamed "The Elder", who is dressed in fancy clothes. Whether this will be on the DVD or not, or if it explains something to do with the sequel, we'll have to wait and see.

It reminds me a bit of the scene at the start of Superman with Zod's trial. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the movie itself, and makes no sense. But later when watched with Superman II, it all ties together.


It's been getting a lot of hate over the past couple of pages, but I really liked it and if anyone reading hasn't seen it yet then I urge you to do so and make up your own mind. It seems to be a very polarizing film.
Also, logger and dandan; you say it's his ego-driven attempt to make a good film again, but he's fucking with his own franchise? Wait until we see Blade Runner 2...

This post has been edited by GundamGuy_UK: Jun 19 2012, 09:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Jun 19 2012, 09:37 PM
Post #7778





Guests






I don't know why he made it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raven
post Jun 19 2012, 10:50 PM
Post #7779


Space Cowboy
******

Group: Blokes in Charge
Posts: 14,572
Joined: 1-October 04
From: Mercy
Member No.: 2,262



I had an evening of football avoidance in the cinema, watching:

Avengers Assemble

The tag line for this should have been borrowed from one of Whedon's other creations: Time for some thrilling heroics. Cracking stuff, and good to see a team movie where everyone got their turn without any one character dominating. Stoopid name for the film, though.

And:

Jaws

The first time I've ever seen it on the big screen and it works so very well for 98% of the time (the other 2% being let down by rubber shark failure). But Scheider, Shaw and Dreyfuss are all superb and I can only hope Close Encounters gets a similar release in a couple of years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rebus
post Jun 19 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #7780


ЯR
*****

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1,414
Joined: 7-August 06
From: The Tringlelimbohulehambala Express
Member No.: 5,395



I really don't get the hatred people have for Prometheus, and indeed for Ridley Scott. It seems to be more intense than the hatred I've seen for other films. It's a big budget science fiction film that he was at pains to say should not be compared to Alien as it only takes place in the same universe and is not a direct prequel to it, yet I've seen many people say it's the worst shit ever, simply because it wasn't the same as Alien. If people want to watch a film like Alien, watch Alien, it's awesome, and exactly like the film Alien.

I wasn't going in expecting a prequel, nor was I expecting some mind-blowingly deep look into the very nature of scientific advancement, or an essay on our own existence. I was expecting to see a spaceship crew get their shit fucked up by some extra terrestrial shenanigans as they track down clues about possible alien life, and maybe answer questions about the origins of humanity along the way.

I'm just trying to understand this heightened anger over the film that I'm seeing everywhere, as if people have been duped by Ridley Scott into watching something completely different from what they were expecting. Did people have a huge investment in a sweeping epic being solely about how life was given to humans by celestial gods, or did they simply want a kick-arse bug hunt?

I also don't really understand people getting angry at the film for being supposedly 'anti science' either. Surely the nature of Science Fiction films is that some element of the science on show is fictional, and therefore not in keeping with what is currently considered science. Science Fiction films showcase an alternate world where science has taken a different route not yet (or which could never be) a reality in our world. I didn't really look at the Engineer drinking black space goo, break apart and his DNA mix with water on some planet and think "Bollocks! That cannot possibly happen within the realm of science therefore I dislike what I am seeing." In the same way I didn't think "Bollocks" when I saw David Bowman travel through time, space and reality, die in a beautifully decorated room and be reborn as a giant star child, or when Marty McFly tried to bring about the continuation of his own existence by hooking his mum and dad up with each other, or countless other things that happen in Sci Fi that are just as plausible as space good breaking down the body of a hyper evolved human-type thing.

I must have missed it when people were talking about what kind of film they were expecting, so if anyone can answer these questions I'd appreciate it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Jun 20 2012, 03:12 AM
Post #7781


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



I didn't go in expecting Alien, certainly not a film as good as Alien since Ridley Scott hasn't made a film that good since, well, Alien (Blade Runner comes close), now was I expecting a film like Alien. I went in hoping to see a good film that was entertaining, and I felt that it failed at that, both from the point of view as horror, because I found it unscary, and as a film about creation, which is what it is on a thematic level.

Basically, I thought it was very poorly written, with characters that were impossible to take seriously because they acted in ways that made no sense within the context of the film, which meant that I didn't care about what happened to them, which meant that I was not scared or excited by anything that happened in the film. I had no idea why any of the characters were doing anything that they did, so I spent the whole running time of the film being annoyed at them. To steal the line from the Keith Phipps, the AV Club editor-in-chief, it seemed like the most expensive piece of fan-fic ever made, rather than a real film.

In terms of why people elsewhere have been so angry about the film, I can only assume that they found Ridley Scott's vocal and repeated assertions that the film had nothing to do with Alien, but was merely set in the same universe, then had a fucking xenomorph show up at the end more than a little disingenuous. Personally, I didn't care about that too much; it just seemed like a really dumb addition to a film that was fairly dumb to begin with.

Edit: Also, Joe, I wouldn't consider the Alien series to be "Scott's franchise", anymore than I would consider the Die Hard films to be John McTiernan's franchise. He directed the first film, but he didn't write it and wasn't involved with the subsequent entries. However, he is fucking with his legacy as a film-maker by revisiting a genre and universe that he had left behind and creating a, for my money, grossly inferior film.

This post has been edited by maian: Jun 20 2012, 03:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logger
post Jun 20 2012, 06:57 AM
Post #7782





Guests






I didn't hate Prometheus, I just didn't think it was very good. As for anger over it, I hadn't seen any until today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Llama
post Jun 20 2012, 07:26 AM
Post #7783


Learning to walk again
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5,569
Joined: 24-February 06
From: Where everybody knows your name
Member No.: 4,956



QUOTE (Rebus @ Jun 20 2012, 12:42 AM) *
I really don't get the hatred people have for Prometheus, and indeed for Ridley Scott.

I'm with you! It's taken a real beating.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GundamGuy_UK
post Jun 20 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #7784


The Truth Who The Eyes Met Before!
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 6,453
Joined: 6-December 05
From: 1995
Member No.: 4,725



QUOTE (maian @ Jun 20 2012, 04:12 AM) *
Also, Joe, I wouldn't consider the Alien series to be "Scott's franchise"


I meant to say legacy rather than franchise, I was talking about something logger and dandan had said.

Seeing as I said franchise though, it does bring up a point about where some of the problems with the movie may have come from: 20th Century Fox. They're hardly the most tactful studio ever, and Alien belongs to them and they're the ones signing the cheques. So I think stuff like the xenomorph at the end and over obvious fanservice moments might be down to them. "We're not paying for an Alien movie without Aliens in".

Most of the problems people have with script and so on are just 'problems' with the genre as a whole. True, in reality people wouldn't do some of the stuff they do in the movie - but then it wouldn't be an interesting movie. It's the old "Why did she open the door!?" argument from pretty much any horror/slasher movie ever made.

It's hardly Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, is it? All the Alien movies are very different to each-other, and this one isn't even an Alien movie.

Paul WS Anderson's movie Soldier is set in the same universe as Blade Runner. Do they have anything to do with each-other? No. Does that count as a negative to Soldier? No, of course not, they're completely different films. So why is Prometheus bad for not being a direct prequel to Alien (which people also don't want), but simply being a film set in the same universe as Alien and with a few of the same elements?

People seem to expect too much from cinema nowadays. Not every movie is a masterpiece; it's a film about people being killed by monsters.

You are of course more than entitled to dislike it. I just think people are being overly harsh on it, when really it's nothing more or less than it ever said it was going to be.

This post has been edited by GundamGuy_UK: Jun 20 2012, 12:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dandan
post Jun 20 2012, 01:38 PM
Post #7785


Addict
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5,405
Joined: 22-July 05
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 4,256



QUOTE (Rebus @ Jun 20 2012, 12:42 AM) *
I really don't get the hatred people have for Prometheus


i can't disagree with anything ed said.

as someone who spends next to no time reading news about upcoming films, watching trailers and reading publicity materials, i knew very little about the film except it was called 'prometheus', it was directed by ridley scott and it was set in the 'alien' universe and took place before 'alien'. oh, and i'd seen the image from the poster. i didn't even know who was in the film until i saw the opening credits.

as a result, i was expecting something vaguely 'alien' related, in terms of content and pacing (i.e. not 'aliens'), with a touch of prequel to it and a nod here and there to 'alien'. perhaps, you could say "I was expecting to see a spaceship crew get their shit fucked up by some extra terrestrial shenanigans", but i had no idea about the creation / engineer aspect.

and, not being someone who holds the work of ridley scott in very high esteem (i can only claim to be a fan of 'alien' and blade runner'), i had low expectations for the film...

as ed says, it is a poorly written piece, with a narrative that is weak and confused, given it appears to be constructed to facilitate a progression from one scene to the next, rather than being a considered whole. in fact, it even fails at this. after some base attempts to establish a mythology and character motivations, it loses track of what it is doing and gets to the point where they just seem to say 'fuck it': they throw in a handful of increasingly groan-worthy reveals, seemingly, stop trying to hold things together and just decide to finish things off by throwing in some dumb action, special effects and a xenomorph...

to be honest, i find it puzzling that people have come away from the film with a generally positive opinion of it. as for the hatred, as logger says, it's not about hating it, it's about pointing out that it was a shit film. i find the assertion that people are disappointed because it wasn't 'alien - the prequel' or 'alien' or that people expected too much from a film featuring a monster insulting. people are disappointed in the film because it was poor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

529 Pages V  « < 517 518 519 520 521 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 08:47 PM