Prometheus

[Cranky Old Man]

Yes, you have a degree in film, but you might need a degree in science to understand the lack of it, and see the plot holes in this movie. I don't understand how nobody involved with this movie had even a basic understanding of scientific concepts.

If every movie was scientifically correct, we would have a lot of boring films. Explain Avatar to me... Scientifically, it had a lot of plausible aspects, but the entirety of the film begs scientific fact. There's a reason why Prometheus is in the category of Science Fiction and not Science Non-Fiction (Documentary). The "plot-holes" you talk about are, via film and story telling, not plot holes.

The characters, I never said they were good actors. They were decent at best, but they made for memorable characters. The relativity of the philosophy in the movie was golden, otherwise, people wouldn't have debated on it. You can't doubt that. Do I agree with the philosophy, not really.


AVP and AVPR were redundant due to the fact that they weren't made by the same general people, thus they didn't follow the story-line of that specific Universe. It'd be like if Pandemic made a game about Batman (yes, I know Warner Brothers made the game series), and put Batman in San Francisco as a person with a mental disability and guns. It doesn't follow the same plot, it doesn't reveal the official back-story, it's completely off the wall, it's NOT part of the series; however, it might be fun to play, even if it's controversial. That's why it's redundant, the story is not applicable and irrelevant.



Whether or not we agree that the science was bad in the movie and that the actors did a good job of their parts, but had shitty characters, is beside the point. The story, itself, and the entirety of it's videography/filmography was a success. They had stunning visuals, they provided a unique story (I'm referring to Avatar, which was just Pocahontas), the characters were unique and are stuck in your head no matter how much you want to get their idiotic personalities out, the way it was filmed was very intellectually done so, as well. It's not Trolls 2, it's not Avatar, it's not (THANK GOD) Avatar the Last Airbender the movie. YES, it's actually part of the Alien series; YES, it's acting was not good at times (every movie has that); YES, the science was not correct (IT'S BLOODY SCIENCE FICTION, you could complain about every other movie/game/ book that uses shitty science, but you are complaining about a movie that has fricken ALIENS in it. ALIENS ARE NOT REAL ANYWAYS).

The movie was good in it's own way, it was not a piece of shit, it was innovative in a lot of ways, and, yes, it's not the best movie ever. But so many people worked hard on it, they deserved what they were paid. It also produced jobs for people. If you think I'm wrong about any of this, talk to my degree and then look at yours (if you have one).

[EDIT]: Sorry, I don't mean to sound angry, it's just rolling off that way right now cause I'm starving and my lunch break is consisting of me replying to you.

Also, I'm a huge HG Giger fan if you can't tell. I'm obsessed with the Alien series as I am with James Bond. Resurrection was the worst movie of the bunch due to... well.. that ending. They didn't use HR Gigers art/ concepts/ influences. They just... did this...

------------------------------------------------

good movie inspired by Gigers work, PLOP PIECE OF SHIT, YAY NOW MARKET, ???, Profit??? Nope :[

Come on - you have a film degree, yet you don't understand science fiction. Science fiction isn't a handwave that you can use to explain anything whenever you feel like it. It's a plausible extrapolation from current science. The more that you can root the science in realism, the better science fiction it is. You have FTL drives because they're absolutely necessary to go anywhere in the solar system at a reasonable speed, and you have cryostasis because people think that it's plausible, and both concepts are also very popular. When you write fiction, you try to do as much as possible, with as small changes as possible, otherwise people will not take a movie seriously.

For science fiction, the alien series is made to look realistic. We have FTL, cryosleep, autodocs, cyborgs, and maybe even aliens (other than xenomorphs), but this tech is described in as realistic of a fashion as possible. It is rooted in current science, and that's what made people relate to it and like it. Nostromo wasn't a space yacht for transdimensional tourists, but a boring ore cargo ship, because that's the most realistic thing that we'd be doing with FTL.

In contrast, Prometheus had advanced GPS mapping systems that didn't work at all, and Frankenstein medicine. It botched every chance that it got in dealing with basic scientific concepts of *today*, and most basic procedures, because the writers had absolutely no clue whatsoever, how science has worked during the recent century. That website that they made, I bet they wrote/edited that just to cover their asses after the movie flopped, and it still cannot patch all the holes. In fact, the patches are so strained, that they just present new holes: If they can scan the air inside every sealed cervice of a base for alien contaminants, then how come they don't pick up the black goo? "Because... ...science!"?

You say that this movie created jobs, like it's some kind of a feat. Digging a hole is a job, and so is making a successful movie. If these guys would just have hired an actual scientist - even a freaking average nerd - they would have made a successful movie, whose sequel most people won't pirate to see.