MSU Red Cedar Message Board

So the message of the movie is pro-Christianity? What about that scene from Rapace's dream? Was the message supposed to be "Fuck those savages who don't believe in JC?"

A-the-fuck-MEN.

Such incredible potential with the story arc idea, but simply horrid execution. I sat there wondering 'when did Sir Scott die and get replaced with such a hack?!?'

Visually, absolutely stunning. Acting, hard to say - the writing and directing was *that bad*

"oh look!!! An android! Of course he's going to sneak one f these things back inside a chick!"

That was so bad.

So why was Weyland talking about Prometheus before they even found the hieroglyph in the Scottish cave?

this is pretty damned funny...

It seems that a lot of the bickering on this topic is due to the story being incomplete.
Theres a lot of speculation that there is going to be a second movie, if not a third.
In that interview- Scott alludes to a more involved story line.

They made humans. Okay.
Now they want to destroy us. There has to be some reason in that.

and thats what I think we have to wait to get the answer to.

Maybe they made us as a sacrifice to THEIR god. after all who made them- "keep searching" right.
Maybe a part of that population didnt want to see us sacrificed- and wanted to protect us, while half didnt.
Maybe, originally, they wanted to meet us, until, maybe some of the people saw us as a threat- because "what child doesnt want to kill their parents"- so they started coming to kill us, and some fought back.
Maybe they want to kill us because they see us as food, and the only remaining possible way for the aliens to breed.

Point is- the storyline took us somewhere. Introduced us to a conflict - resolved the immediate conflict "Shaw wins!" yet also makes us aware of a larger conflict. To that end you dont want to give too much away.
Its not as tight as "the matrix" was - but I think thats because the matrix didnt know if there was going to be a Matrix 2 or 3. And this movie seems to have that in mind.

Who's side is David on. It seems pretty interesting - that he understands them and can interact with the language- and never reveals any of the writing. Holloway says, I hope you can read that- and David says maybe. but never verbally speaks it out.

There's a lot of themes, that allow all of the "holes" to be filled. You just have to wonder and hope that whatever is next is more fulfilling.

I choose to demand excellence, instead of blowing sunshine on an poorly executed story.

Game over man.

I'm with you. I only reject the fanboys making into more than it was. I'm a big fan of the first two "Alien" movies, the original is one of my favorite movies ever. But don't make excuses for Scott when he delivered a movie shot off a half-baked script. I gave the movie a strong 7.5, based mainly on the visuals and Fassbender's performance. But it could've been so much more.

Agree once again. It was a solid good - that's about it. But it wasn't John carter or battleship. Seeing it in 3d in the posh theater helped make it an entertaining evening.

Solid good, but it needed a jive talking alien bunny and a precocious little kid to identify with. Also, I hear that the jars were filled with Midichlorians.

Saw it last night in IMAX 3D, came away very entertained.

And no internet tough guy is going to convince me that I didn't enjoy myself.

I think the crux of the matter here is the difference between well-formed ambiguity and lazy ambiguity.

David Lynch films are an example of well-formed ambiguity. His movies are incredibly weird and difficult to discern, but they are self-contained. Whatever your interpretation may be, you can find elements in the film to support it. Another good example is Inception. The story is resolved, and the ambiguous aspect of whether the end is a dream or not doesn't affect the main point of the ending - Cobb doesn't care if the top is spinning or not. You can use certain elements of the movie to support claims that it's all a dream (e.g. the chase in Mombasa where Cobb runs through the alley with the walls narrowing is a manifestation of dream anxiety). You can use other elements to claim its real (e.g. Cobb only wears his wedding ring in the dream world). Either way everything you need is in the movie itself. No wikipedia research necessary.

On the other hand, lazy ambiguity stems from poor scripting and half-baked ideas. Lindelof tries to argue that ambiguity is a good thing and that he audience doesn't need to know everything, but he's just covering up his lazy writing and inability to resolve the big ideas with which he likes to entertain himself. People tortured themselves trying to figure out what Lost meant, when all along it didn't mean anything because it was lazy mishmash of uninformed scientific concepts and religious superstition.

I'm trying to avoid thinking about Prometheus because I'm not going to fall into the trap of wasting my time thinking about what the movie means. I enjoyed it as a Ridley Scott film, but as I contemplate the story and plot elements I find strong correlations to the same writing weaknesses that plagued Lost. I hope that if Sir Ridley does a sequel, he finds a better writer. The basic plot elements are there, but the details tasked to Lindelof and Spaihts are poorly executed.

Example of bad writing - that botanist guy says he's afraid of alien fossils, then wants to pet the snake creature. It's just little things like that which scream bad writing. But if Ridley didn't think these things were a problem, he shares some of the blame.

Again, solid, enjoyable movie (7/10), but surface flaws indicate much deeper problems with the script.

edit - damn, Forbes lays it down

"a thoroughly vacuous prequel to the series he kicked off, masquerading as a film about the cosmic origins of humanity."

An interesting take here, although from the looks of it this review is going to be changing no one's mind.