The more liberal churches allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and giant fast growing alien squid.
I never said you had to accept my opinion. Though can you do the same (ie, I don’t have to accept yours).
I saw it that way. Though she did call it a ceasarian.
Hilarious. The whole infertility angle was so ham-fisted and unnecessary.
I appreciate your responding with substantive criticism.
I agree that this is potentially major enough to qualify as a plot hole, since the plot is about the alien organism and it could have been detected by technology we’ve already seen used. I think that it’s adequately explained by the fact that Ash is the guy who would have done the scanning, and he’s not on the level with the crew. Yeah, we don’t see it on the screen, but I don’t know how you could show that without prematurely giving away the fact that Ash is a bad guy or that there’s an alien inside Kane. I guess you could have Ash explicitly say that he scanned Kane and he seems fine. I’d have to watch it again to see exactly what Ash says, but I believe he does actually make some positive statement about Kane being in fine health.
You’re misremembering it. They first go searching for the alien in two groups of three. They’ve got little nets and they’re looking in small compartments. Remember, they think it’s tiny at this point. One group finds the cat, and a guy goes off to get it, and gets taken. They then regroup, get flamethrowers, and Dallas tries to seal it off in the ventilation shaft, but is grabbed. He’s alone there because it’s too small for a group to move around in the shafts. They’d just get in the way. Then Ash goes crazy and the remaining 3 subdue him. Then they decide to blow the ship, but the other two are killed (even though they have flamethrowers and are together, they’re frightened and don’t have a clean shot). At no point is there a cliched horror-movie “let’s split up” for no good reason.
Here’s a deleted scene which addresses the issue of Kane’s infection. We can see that the writers did consider it, but I guess they made an artistic/editing decision to remove it. I don’t believe it’s removal makes a plothole, for reasons that you note.
holmes, thank you for your thoughtful input. As to the merits of Prometheus, we shall have to agree to disagree, I suppose.
To summarize, then:
Elderly billionaire industrialist Weyland, despite being seriously ill and near death, accompanies his hand-picked team of specialists on a lengthy voyage to a desolate, lifeless location where they discover an ancient pyramid built by aliens who visited Earth in the distant past. The explorers soon get out of their depth, ancient mechanisms are reactivated, and team members begin to die horribly, until only one young woman remains, only surviving through an unlikely and uneasy partnership with an inhuman ally. The ending, of course, is pure sequel bait.
As I understand it, though, Ridley Scott has never seen fellow Tyneside director Paul W. S. Anderson’s 2004 movie Alien vs Predator, so the resemblances must be pure coincidence.
A) I think that was an excellent, well-thought out post.
B) i don’t think it will be a classic like Alien 1 or 2.
Just saying, I would totally watch an entire movie featuring robot Fassbender’s head…
It was amazing to watch him show more emotion as an emotionless robot than the rest of cast combined. Easily the most captivating character.
And was it ever explained why they needed a gender-specific surgery machine on board? Because when Shaw found out it was for males only, I totally disengaged from the movie for a few minutes to shake my head profusely.
I would assume it was for Weyland.
I can believe that a machine might be more or less optimized for sex. Certainly it might not be cleared to deliver a baby, which is what she asked for initially.
Oh, geez, an SF movies violates logic on occasion. Alert the media!
Many movies violate logic on occasion. This isn’t special to SF movies. But as long as they’re generally internally consistent and have good characterization and a well-constructed plot and the other elements of a good film, it’s okay, you can forgive some logical leaps and errors here and there.
Some people feel that there were simply too many of those in Prometheus, and therefore it didn’t work for them as a good film. You are clearly not one of those people. That’s OK, man. Not everybody has to like the same things.
Personally, after having thought about it for a few days, I think I’d assign it maybe 6 stars out of 10. Maybe as high as 7. The acting was first-rate, the set design and the visuals were stunning, and the basic story was pretty good. The script was just not good, though. Flawed characterization, leaps of logic, inconsistencies, etc. It’s too bad, too, because this project had massive potential. (Why in the hell did they hire Damon freaking Lindelof as the screenwriter?!)
This story seems oddly relevant to a discussion of Prometheus.
And the Oldboy thread.
But seriously, ick.
+1
I’ve read a number of reviews of Prometheus, and even the positive ones seem to have the same criticisms people are posting here: the plot is full of holes, and the characters behave in ways that don’t make sense. For example, The New York Times’s AO Scott wrote:
Again, these are from largely favorable reviews. It looks to me like most people who loved this movie see the same strengths and weaknesses as people who were less enthusiastic: good visuals, some good acting (particularly by Fassbender), but a weak script. Whether this is enough to outweigh the things about the movie that were done well is a matter of opinion, but this movie has flaws that aren’t merely “nits”.
Re the Guy Pearce makeup:
This article gives an explanation.
Well, whatever the hidden goon squad was, it would’ve made more sense than surprise non-dead Weyland. I suspect Spaihts’ script was better before Lindelof became involved.