Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Yakushima
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:42 am
Location: US

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#151 Post by Yakushima » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:12 am

Saw Prometheus yesterday. Could not believe it.
I made peace with this film later though, when I realized that it does not take place in the same world as other Alien films. This is not a prequel to "Alien". This is a sequel to the (wonderful) "Idiocracy". Imagine certain characters from "Idiocracy" sent to a distant planet. This sums it up pretty well.
For this Sir Riddly Scott deserves to be lounged into space where no one will hear his screams.

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#152 Post by jbeall » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:48 am

In case anybody needs further confirmation that Lindelof's a hack writer, this interview should launch a thousand facepalms. Logan Marshall-Green, who plays Holloway, provides this particular doozy:
Why is Holloway such a jerk to David?

Logan Marshall-Green: It's something that I wanted to implement and I really, really liked it. Michael and I had a blast with it. It's something I haven't seen in science fiction, which is a sense of racism or bigotry towards androids and synthetic life. I think synthetic life is inevitable, and along that line bigotry and racism (if you will) will be inevitable as well. Although I can't approach a role thinking of [my character] as a racist or a bigot. Certainly now I can look back and explain his disdain for Michael in that way. I kind of loved it... that social reflection on a future being, a synthetic android.
From this answer I can only conclude that Marshall-Green hasn't watched any science fiction, ever. He certainly hasn't seen I, Robot (can't really blame him for that), but has he not seen Aliens?!?!? Ripley wasn't exactly buddy-buddy with Bishop...

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#153 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:42 pm

greggster59 wrote:I found this essay yesterday and I think it does a good job of fleshing out some of the ideas.
http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'll second that. A very interesting and erudite fan post that makes the case for how Prometheus can be pretty smart and coherent in its themes/images/ideas at the level of myth, even if it doesn't all play out so elegantly within the context of the film.

I share pretty much everybody's reaction to the film -- the good and the bad.

Sure, the script could have used some paring down and focus, maybe another year or so of careful tinkering. Yes, there are too many characters, too many ideas and too many endings. Certainly the director's desire for a visual set piece or arresting image often trumps narrative logic and the overall flow of the film. Yes, zedz and others are right about the thin characterization, and some of the boring literalism and one-to-one correspondence between everyone's clunkily conveyed backstory and his/her reactions in the present moment. And it's obviously at times a bit of a convoluted mess.

But for the most part an interesting mess. I enjoyed the film and will probably see it again. I guess I managed my expectations better or I'm able to forgive the film for its ambitions so as to not be so put off by its shortcomings.

It's no 2001 or Solaris, but it's also no Sunshine either. And it's a cut above most of what usually passes for science fiction in mainstream movies. There's a groping toward and a grappling with serious ideas informed by a personal darkness, skepticism, and pessimism that you don't ever find in other summer blockbusters.

Btw, we saw it in IMAX 3D (after they finally fixed the broken projector) and it was totally worth it for the increased size and resolution of the image and the tasteful if not groundbreaking 3D. Not the biggest fan of IMAX or 3D but we know some people who worked on the VFX and they insisted that this was the only way to take it in and after the screening I definitely agree.

User avatar
reaky
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#154 Post by reaky » Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:50 pm

jbeall wrote:From this answer I can only conclude that Marshall-Green hasn't watched any science fiction, ever. He certainly hasn't seen I, Robot (can't really blame him for that), but has he not seen Aliens?!?!? Ripley wasn't exactly buddy-buddy with Bishop...
Not to mention Mr Scott's own Blade Runner. You'd think he'd look through his boss's own filmography...

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#155 Post by Brian C » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:08 pm

HistoryProf wrote:RE: The religion discussion, clearly there was intent to connect things with the advent of Christianity according to this interview with Scott. Very glad they didn't go as specific as the following snippet:
SpoilerShow
Movies.com: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

RS: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Lets’ send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it. Guess what? They crucified him.
Yeah, I'm glad he didn't use that, too. I wasn't terribly impressed with Prometheus to begin with, but I have to say that if this is what Scott is on about, the film is even more inane than I had originally thought. All he's doing here is adapting the most odious aspect of organized religion - the idea that there's a god upstairs just waiting to wipe us out when we step out of line - to a pseudo-scientific context. It's nothing more than a cheap rhetorical trick, basically saying, "you Christians think you have it all figured out, but now the tables are turned HA HA HA!"

For all the talk here and elsewhere about the movie's grand ideas, I thought they were rather hopelessly dull. I don't know why people who profess skepticism of religion seem to constantly turn to an alternate set of myths as a crutch, but that seems to be what's happening here. There's nothing radical or even all that interesting being contemplated here, just a slight revision of popular creation myths with a misanthropic spin put on top. It might have been more provocative in an era when those creation myths weren't already hopelessly outmoded, but the idea that we're subject to the whims of an angry creator is old as the hills and Scott is reinforcing that kind of silliness instead of attacking it, regardless of what he thinks.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#156 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:51 pm

Brian C wrote:For all the talk here and elsewhere about the movie's grand ideas, I thought they were rather hopelessly dull. I don't know why people who profess skepticism of religion seem to constantly turn to an alternate set of myths as a crutch, but that seems to be what's happening here. There's nothing radical or even all that interesting being contemplated here, just a slight revision of popular creation myths with a misanthropic spin put on top. It might have been more provocative in an era when those creation myths weren't already hopelessly outmoded, but the idea that we're subject to the whims of an angry creator is old as the hills and Scott is reinforcing that kind of silliness instead of attacking it, regardless of what he thinks.
Except that in the film as such there's no clear motive for wanting to end humanity, no indication of emotional anger or ethical condemnation (only the resultant aggression/violence that may come with it), no implication that it's the unified decision of an entire superior race or that such a race doesn't have it's own creators. The Engineers are inscrutable. Perhaps too much so, even if there's going to be a sequel. But just because the answers aren't all there doesn't mean we should opt to fill in the blanks with the most annoying possibilities and then blame the film for something it isn't necessarily doing.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#157 Post by Brian C » Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:58 pm

Be that as it may, the film is so ambiguous and so open-ended that I don't really see a way to discuss its alleged ideas without "opt[ing] to fill in the blanks." Without that, we're just conflating a willingness to ask a very basic question with actually having ideas about the answer.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#158 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:17 pm

Brian C wrote:Be that as it may, the film is so ambiguous and so open-ended that I don't really see a way to discuss its alleged ideas without "opt[ing] to fill in the blanks." Without that, we're just conflating a willingness to ask a very basic question with actually having ideas about the answer.
I agree that carefully considered ambiguity ought not to be confused with a convoluted lack of clarity. But I do think that simply asking the questions the film does about the origins of human life and framing them in this kind of alien (as in "unknowable and wholly other") context is a pretty radical and interesting gesture for a giant blockbuster spectacle.
SpoilerShow
The answer isn't definitively that our gods are angry. It's rather that they've apparently been planning to end our existence for centuries. Why? Within the context of the film, it's as mysterious a question as the reason they made us in the first place (the best answer for this in the film is spoken to the android David about his own creation: "Because we could.") And though the film is playing with the origin myths of many cultures, there's no comforting, easily digestable or reversible mythos to what we're given in Prometheus.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#159 Post by Brian C » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:30 pm

warren oates wrote:But I do think that simply asking the questions the film does about the origins of human life and framing them in this kind of alien (as in "unknowable and wholly other") context is a pretty radical and interesting gesture for a giant blockbuster spectacle.
Well then, is the "gesture" interesting, or are the ideas themselves interesting? Perhaps I'm mistaking what you're saying here, but you seem to be saying that the filmmakers' initiative in making the film is interesting on a meta level given its status as a Hollywood spectacle. But that's not really addressing the substance of the film itself.
SpoilerShow
Within the context of the film, it's as mysterious a question as the reason they made us in the first place (the best answer for this in the film is spoken to the android David about his own creation: "Because we could.") And though the film is playing with the origin myths of many cultures, there's no comforting, easily digestable or reversible mythos to what we're given in Prometheus.
Eh. I'm trying to figure out why this is more substantial than just saying,
SpoilerShow
"How'd we get here? Who knows?"

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#160 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:48 pm

Brian C wrote:
warren oates wrote:But I do think that simply asking the questions the film does about the origins of human life and framing them in this kind of alien (as in "unknowable and wholly other") context is a pretty radical and interesting gesture for a giant blockbuster spectacle.
Well then, is the "gesture" interesting, or are the ideas themselves interesting? Perhaps I'm mistaking what you're saying here, but you seem to be saying that the filmmakers' initiative in making the film is interesting on a meta level given its status as a Hollywood spectacle. But that's not really addressing the substance of the film itself.
SpoilerShow
Within the context of the film, it's as mysterious a question as the reason they made us in the first place (the best answer for this in the film is spoken to the android David about his own creation: "Because we could.") And though the film is playing with the origin myths of many cultures, there's no comforting, easily digestable or reversible mythos to what we're given in Prometheus.
Eh. I'm trying to figure out why this is more substantial than just saying,
SpoilerShow
"How'd we get here? Who knows?"
Well, on the first point, you're right. It's a choice that 99 other times out of 100 would have been beaten out of the script repeatedly and surely gotten the director kicked off a film of this budget. It's not really "who knows?" so much as "learning all this still doesn't begin to explain it" especially within the very limited frame of the characters' human understanding based on what was gleaned from one expedition plus a single fast and ugly close encounter. I'm not saying Prometheus is in any way as elegant as 2001 or Solaris but it does manage to preserve the otherness of the Engineers' alien intelligence in a related fashion. Part of the lovely and functional hubris of civilized humanity is the idea that there's always an answer out there to be had, one that we will understand, even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots. The boundaries between religion and science are precisely where this assumption breaks down.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#161 Post by Brian C » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:12 pm

warren oates wrote:I'm not saying Prometheus is in any way as elegant as 2001 or Solaris but it does manage to preserve the otherness of the Engineers' alien intelligence in a related fashion. Part of the lovely and functional hubris of civilized humanity is the idea that there's always an answer out there to be had, one that we will understand, even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots. The boundaries between religion and science are precisely where this assumption breaks down.
It seems highly contentious to suggest that the engineers were up to something that can't be explained or understood.
SpoilerShow
One way or the other, they had a concrete plan, and they had their reasons for doing it, and since they had the same DNA as us (whatever that's supposed to mean - I think it was a huge miscalculation to add this nonsensical detail, but anyway...), presumably their capacity for intelligence doesn't outstrip ours by very much. I don't think the film can have it both ways - it can't say that "we are them" while at the same time building a convincing sense of the "otherness" of their intelligence. The whole point, I thought, was that it's not "other" - it's just beyond the scope of our experience. That's not the same thing.

User avatar
gcgiles1dollarbin
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#162 Post by gcgiles1dollarbin » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:31 pm

david hare wrote:You've now basically put me off seeing this later today (and I was at least looking forward to the 3D, but not Imax out here in woopwoop.

Richard Brody loathes it
David, your link is busted, so I thought I would fix it: Richard Brody, indeed, loathes it. (Ya doubled the double-ya-double-ya-double-ya's.) While I can't speak to Brody's take on the film (having not seen the film), I do agree (more politely) with a commenter's point below it: that his Voltaire anecdote is a bit apropos of nothing, given that Voltaire's remarks seem more a mockery of Christian belief than any spiritually bereft individual's aspiration to found a new religion or mythology. I say this as a big fan of Brody, who rarely busts his erudition unnecessarily. Otherwise, I loved his remarks/objections and can't wait to see the film, in spite of his directive.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#163 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:42 pm

Brian C wrote:
warren oates wrote:I'm not saying Prometheus is in any way as elegant as 2001 or Solaris but it does manage to preserve the otherness of the Engineers' alien intelligence in a related fashion. Part of the lovely and functional hubris of civilized humanity is the idea that there's always an answer out there to be had, one that we will understand, even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots. The boundaries between religion and science are precisely where this assumption breaks down.
It seems highly contentious to suggest that the engineers were up to something that can't be explained or understood.
SpoilerShow
One way or the other, they had a concrete plan, and they had their reasons for doing it, and since they had the same DNA as us (whatever that's supposed to mean - I think it was a huge miscalculation to add this nonsensical detail, but anyway...), presumably their capacity for intelligence doesn't outstrip ours by very much. I don't think the film can have it both ways - it can't say that "we are them" while at the same time building a convincing sense of the "otherness" of their intelligence. The whole point, I thought, was that it's not "other" - it's just beyond the scope of our experience. That's not the same thing.
Then I guess it's time for me to be highly contentious again. The distinction I'm interested in is the magnitude of "beyond the scope of our experience." I see that you are a "just beyonder," whereas in this case I count myself more of a "way beyonder."
SpoilerShow
Suppose for a minute that David had perfectly understood his verbal exchange with the awakened Engineer (assuming it was anything meaningful at all) and managed to render those words into plain English for everyone in the room. What do you think was said? Would it have cleared up anything? Could anything have been said that would satisfy you? For me, the quickness of the exchange and the obvious result had a tone more akin to the sort of conversation you might have if your dog -- still with the same intelligence but now with the power of human speech -- woke you up and started speaking to you about what was for dinner, the sole focus of the dog's inner life and of piddling concern to yours. The human's and David's frame of reference here seems of a different level altogether from their godlike creators/erstwhile destroyers. Which is the very definition of what it means from our very limited current human understanding to be godlike. Still, what could the Engineer have said? "Because it is time to destroy you." "Because it is the next stage of interstellar evolution." "Because we know better." "Because you are a failed experiment." Anything that could have been explained would seem tautological from the human point of view. You know what, scratch that dog analogy. It's more like your Sea Monkeys asking you where they came from.
I also think the humanoid form of the Engineers and their shared DNA is muddying this issue. And I agree that a 100 percent DNA match is a hamfisted choice, one that's not even relevant on the level of metaphor/theme.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#164 Post by Brian C » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:03 pm

Well, I meant "just beyond" in the sense of "simply beyond", not in the sense of "incrementally beyond". I have no idea how far beyond - how could I? It's not knowable.
SpoilerShow
We don't even know, strictly speaking, that the engineers had anything to with inventing/creating the ooze, or that they were intent on destroying us. They could be interstellar buffoons who chanced upon the gooey black stuff and made a mess of it, not having the first clue what they were doing. The living engineer might have reacted the way he did because he was startled and delusional after coming out of stasis. Or he might have thought that the humans had come to destroy him.

But this is my problem; not that we don't know all the answers - I admire 2001 and Solaris as much as anyone - but that the film's treatment of its questions is so inane that we can't take anything out of it unless we fill in the blanks ourselves. I just didn't find anything to engage, and even your interpretation rests on completely disregarding the film's major "scientific" premise (that they have the same DNA as us) and deciding on your own that the engineers have an intelligence that far surpasses our capabilities.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#165 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:30 pm

SpoilerShow
Brian C wrote:But this is my problem; not that we don't know all the answers - I admire 2001 and Solaris as much as anyone - but that the film's treatment of its questions is so inane that we can't take anything out of it unless we fill in the blanks ourselves. I just didn't find anything to engage, and even your interpretation rests on completely disregarding the film's major "scientific" premise (that they have the same DNA as us) and deciding on your own that the engineers have an intelligence that far surpasses our capabilities.

I'll have to disagree. Even having the same DNA (don't we share all of it with at least some of our earliest ancestors? we certainly do share DNA with Earth humans from earlier millenia for whom technologies like nuclear power and the space shuttle would appear godlike!) doesn't speak to the vast gulf in intelligence that the film presupposes and that real humans would likely have meeting versions of their earliest selves. But you're also right that it doesn't preclude the possibility that the Engineers may be implementing plans that are not entirely of their own design. We simply can't know in this case from the interactions that the film presents. The Engineers may look more like us visually than the ocean in Solaris or the even 2001's Star Child, but I'll maintain that their motives are intentionally (as opposed to cop-out-ally) just as inscrutable and alien. And I'm definitely not arguing that the film is great. Just that it doesn't stink in the way you think. I'm not convinced by your thwarted expectation of specific answers that you seem to think should rightly be included in a better version of Prometheus.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#166 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:41 pm

SpoilerShow
My one complaint that I'm guessing has not been addressed skimming through the thread, is that at the end Shaw is basically on a ship that has no means of human sustenance or facilities. This would be less annoying if they didn't go to the trouble of showing the members of the crew throwing up as the wake up from their hyper-sleep towards the beginning of the movie.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#167 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:54 pm

Or to put it another way Brian C, even retarded children question their origins and purpose in life. Imagine a scientific genius trying to explain to a mentally challenged kid his/her place in the universe in the specialist terms of up to the minute cosmology. A vast gulf of understanding would persist between them. Yet, compared to the humans and the Engineers, my two people -- the scientist and the child -- would have considerably more in common than the same DNA.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#168 Post by warren oates » Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:58 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
SpoilerShow
My one complaint that I'm guessing has not been addressed skimming through the thread, is that at the end Shaw is basically on a ship that has no means of human sustenance or facilities. This would be less annoying if they didn't go to the trouble of showing the members of the crew throwing up as the wake up from their hyper-sleep towards the beginning of the movie.
SpoilerShow
Well, we know the Engineers have terraformed the inside of their structure/the ship to be breathable without helmets. And it seems like David understands enough to fly the ship so would presumably be able to suss out the Engineers' hypersleep controls. Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of how he's able to grok any of that, which all seems too easy and convenient to me.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#169 Post by HistoryProf » Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:00 pm

jbeall wrote:In case anybody needs further confirmation that Lindelof's a hack writer, this interview should launch a thousand facepalms. Logan Marshall-Green, who plays Holloway, provides this particular doozy:
Why is Holloway such a jerk to David?

Logan Marshall-Green: It's something that I wanted to implement and I really, really liked it. Michael and I had a blast with it. It's something I haven't seen in science fiction, which is a sense of racism or bigotry towards androids and synthetic life. I think synthetic life is inevitable, and along that line bigotry and racism (if you will) will be inevitable as well. Although I can't approach a role thinking of [my character] as a racist or a bigot. Certainly now I can look back and explain his disdain for Michael in that way. I kind of loved it... that social reflection on a future being, a synthetic android.
From this answer I can only conclude that Marshall-Green hasn't watched any science fiction, ever. He certainly hasn't seen I, Robot (can't really blame him for that), but has he not seen Aliens?!?!? Ripley wasn't exactly buddy-buddy with Bishop...
Holy crap. #-o

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#170 Post by Brian C » Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:41 am

warren oates wrote:Even having the same DNA (don't we share all of it with at least some of our earliest ancestors? we certainly do share DNA with Earth humans from earlier millenia for whom technologies like nuclear power and the space shuttle would appear godlike!) doesn't speak to the vast gulf in intelligence that the film presupposes and that real humans would likely have meeting versions of their earliest selves.
That's all good and well, but earlier you suggested that this might be a case where humans couldn't know the answers, "even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots." Here you're suggesting that it's just a case of the Engineer technology having evolved past ours.

So which of the two suggestions are you actually arguing, since they're in opposition to each other? Our technology today is not "alien" in relation to earlier human technologies - it's simply evolved and connected more dots. We know that primitive man can "evolve" (not a very precise use of the term, but you know what I mean) to understand our modern technologies, because it has indisputedly happened over the course of human history.

And I think this is the foundation of my disagreement with you; you're seeing an "otherness" in the Engineer intelligence that I just don't see. It's just a more advanced version of our own intelligence, given the passage of an undetermined length of time. And I think I'm on very firm ground in reaching this conclusion, since the film goes out of its way to point out the fundamental similarities between us and them. Again, for you to assume a fundamental "otherness" goes against the very premise of the film!
I'm not convinced by your thwarted expectation of specific answers that you seem to think should rightly be included in a better version of Prometheus.
Except, like I said in my last comment, I'm not bothered by the lack of specific answers as much as I'm bothered by the incoherence and inanity of the film's treatment of the questions. IMO it's true that these qualities manifest themselves in the withholding of key information, which I see as a copout for the reasons I've stated and you don't. Agree to disagree, I guess.

User avatar
eerik
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
Location: Estonia

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#171 Post by eerik » Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:55 am


User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#172 Post by jbeall » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:04 am

eerik wrote:What is 10.11.12?
Unless they get better writers for the next one, who cares?

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#173 Post by willoneill » Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:54 am

Ok, need some help here. Going to see this tonight with the fiancee, and we need some opinions: 2D, 3D, or IMAX 3D? Input is appreciated.

User avatar
bdsweeney
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#174 Post by bdsweeney » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:05 am

willoneill wrote:Ok, need some help here. Going to see this tonight with the fiancee, and we need some opinions: 2D, 3D, or IMAX 3D? Input is appreciated.
Ridley Scott has implied that he thinks 2-D is the best way to view the film.

Personally, I can't comment as I haven't seen it. Sorry :-"

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

#175 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:24 am

I saw it in 2D (4K projection) and was pretty fucking dazzled. If you have any reservations about 3D or just don't want to spend the extra coupla bucks: Skip it.

Post Reply