Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5942755" data-attributes="member: 32740">Sometimes viewers are just DENSE.  Sometimes FILMAKERS are just dense.  Shortly after my first post in this thread I realized that the Engineer on primordial Earth WAS supposed to be Prometheus - or close enough as makes no difference if you're going to approach half of your movie as undefined mysticism and the other half as Stupid People On Parade.  One - just one - of my complaints about this movie I can drop.  That is, that it makes no sense to populate the Earth with life and then come back later to wipe it all out without explanation.  The explanation is that Prometheus was found to have been a bad boy and the other Engineers considered his life-seeding to be a no-no, and THEIR intent was to undo all that he had done.  Just so happens they were going to do that with their Black Koolaid.   HOWEVER... Who was coming back to Earth repeatedly, to be in a position to have multiple cultures seperated by time and place paint the "map" on the wall?  And why then did the map point to the alien WMD factory/storehouse and NOT to somewhere that Prometheus would WANT Mankind to visit?  If it was Engineers who thought Prometheus erred why did they not drop the dime on him THEN?  And so on and so forth and such like.  It creates more writing and plotting problems than it solves. I can handle unexplained mysticism in a movie but not when it's MASQUERADING as horror/action/scifi drama and thus failing to be ANY of those things effectively.  Directors comments like, "It might be Earth - but it doesn't matter," and, "There was a specific plot point about the timing of past events but it's not actually IN the film..." don't sound like fascinating seeds of deep discussion to me - they strike me as inexcusably poor filmmaking.  If you want to use your movie to say something to people about your philosophy of life and theories of existence then do it.  If you want people to just fill-in-the-blanks in your movie with their own theories and guesswork you can actually do that too.  I don't see that you can do BOTH at the same time and have a worthwhile film.  Films that are INTENDED to require library research and post doctorate degrees in "Making Schtuff Up So Other Schtuff Makes Sense," should not come with popcorn and a soda but a STUDY GUIDE. And it STILL doesn't excuse all the idiotic character actions, bad plotting, etc.  This movie is a badly executed, pretentious MESS, with enough bright spots that only serve to highlight the dark recesses of its abysmal lows.  Scott's credibility in MY eyes at least has dropped to the level of "Has hit a few out of the park in the past, but is no longer to be trusted."  That puts him just slightly above George Lucas.  (I'll let that one speak volumes for itself.)</blockquote>

Verification