ALIEN / PROMETHEUS / COVENANT / ROMULUS - SPOILERS INBOUND!!

  On 6/2/2012 at 1:42 AM, tauboo said:

i want to know two things:

 

is it quite talky (like, tech sci-fi star trek bollocks and plot explaining)?

 

is there any genuinely funny banter shit (robo-fassbender being roboty doesn't count)?

Didn't feel it was too talky, although it was sort of a slow burn in the first two acts before all goes crazy. Not much technobabble. There was some blatant exposition, one scene that was pretty out of nowhere and I'm not sure if that aspect could have been picked up by the audience without it.

Some of the banter got some chuckles and Fassbender had a funny quip or two. Nothing close to what Aliens had if you are asking that. There was also smoking inside a space helmet, no pipe though. So if there is a writer of Prometheus on WATMM, fess up now and explain yourself!

hmmm, enough

Good point on the smoking inside a space helmet. There is no 20 foot guy tossing people about. There is no good sci-fi dialogue. There is a lot of nonsense inspired by ancient aliens.

at this point, i'll pay to see a film with smoking in it.. if it's in a space helmet, i'll happily pay to see it

The whole premise of this movie and how it's depicted in it is ripe for some serious 'sperging if you are so inclined. It just doesn't add up to scrutiny, need a lot of suspension of disbelief.

Someone I considered to be hugely mentally deficient said it was amazing, and a cinema spectacle that only comes around once every couple of decades or some shit.

Colour me put off

so iain c likes it ??

Now don't you try and start some trouble!

I'll just sum up outside of the spoiler tags; I really liked it but as a film it completely bypasses some of the Alien traditions which mean it feels like a very different film and has some different underlying themes. The story is a bit muddled and it doesn't have any of the minimalist focus of the first one; there the threat was extremely clear and was the only thing you needed to understand, while here it is more about unvealing the threat and its motives, with (almost) none of the relentlessness or claustrophobia. Fassbender is excellent. Visuals and set design and 3D were also excellent. It's in a tricky situation because it acknowledges Alien constantly but is also actively diverging from it; I wonder how someone who doesn't know Alien off by heart will appreciate it.

Theres plenty more stuff but I've spoilered it

Knowing there are some retards getting out and about and having joyful times is nice to hear. Good for him.

  On 6/2/2012 at 12:52 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

And then there are a few things that I couldn't really figure out what was happening;

 

1) I swear they went to LV-233 or something rather than LV-426? So this doesn't set up Alien. Also in Alien the space jockey is in the pilots seat with a chestburster, but the space jockey guy left the ship at the end and was killed in Vickers's pod. This is an interesting gap to leave in the story because it implies something else has been written to bridge it.

 

2) The alien at the end. I mean, what is going on? The black oil infects the guy, who spunks it into his girlfriend, who aborts an octopus alien thing, which grows into a huge vagina with small vaginas all around it, which shoves a big cock down the space jockey's throat, which puts a chestburster in him, which then produces a sort of almost Alien alien. I just don't really get how each time a new type of creature is coming out, why is it an Alien alien at the end?

 

3) What was their plan? to send a bunch of that black oil to earth and have a load of huge tentacle vagina aliens grow in humans and the explode out and shove cocks down human's throats and make Alien aliens come out?

Or whatever happened to Fifield and the other guy that made their head all puffy and sent them crazy? What happened to Fifield anyway, his helmet melted onto his face and then he turns up with a bloated head and he's all violent?

 

 

 

Regarding the 3 points in your spoiler

first of all will say i enjoyed watching it just so some of the uptight people on this dont get upset.

but

the film started off okay, ended REALLY bad the stuff in between was pretty entertaining which was pretty much most of the movie, so as long as you can suspend your disbelief for how dumb the people in this film are its pretty good . and to be honest didnt even understand what the space jockey guys plan even was, was that even explained ? what did the cave paintings even mean in the end anyways. seemed like a bunch of random ideas that didnt have much to do with each other or something. can just imagine ridly scott reeling off a bunch of random ideas to some bum licker writer guy going "woo thats gold, ridley! youre a genius" and not like trying to make it a good story or anything so as not to upset the boss. also didnt buy into the supposed philosophical/religious stuff (the android stuff was ok) dunno how you make spoiler tags.

WTF was the point of guy pearce as c. montgomery burns every time he apeared couldnt help laughing at him. way too many pointless people just there for crappy death scenes. some of the acting + dialogue is like daytime soap opera type shit . dont get the praise for fassbender really either thought he was pretty average + a bit cheesy (especially towards the end) or any of the other actors really they were all pretty bland. the music was horrible sounded like the sort of shit they would play on a discovery channel documentary about glaciers or something . also the people in it seemed to do almost everything they could to get killed, why were they all so dumb. the scene with the snake thing was so dumb it was pretty shocking.

but overall did enjoy it for most of it despite all this + it does look quite nice (3d was pointless tho) . if the ending hadnt been so lame + just setting up for a sequel would have ended up liking it a lot better, the whole last 20 mins or whenever guy pierce appeared really ruined it .still was worth watching + it probably is one of ridley scotts better films (which really isnt saying much ) but probably wouldnt watch it again. still would watch a blade runner prequel tho , just dont expect it to be all that great

  On 6/1/2012 at 11:08 PM, compson said:

See this is what I don't understand. Has anyone here changed their mind about seeing the film? If not, then why are you still claiming it's gonna be shit? It's like whats the point again? Do you have some sort of build up in your brain of like anger and hate and when something doesn't go your way entirely you must release it like a river of diarrhea onto masses, so that they know how upset you are gonna be when you watch the film?

 

I just don't understand.

uhh are you just meant to just say blandly nice things about everything even if you thought it sucked ? slagging stuff off is fun its not that serious + if they expect us to pay to watch/listen to their shit then at the very least we should be allowed to have opinions about it, right ? Living in some P.C fantasy world where nobody can say or think anything "negative" about anything is my idea of hell personally + if negativity is not allowed, positivity has no real meaning anyway does it ?

dragging my girl to this tonight. she never saw Alien. don't even care.

i dunno if the guy who wrote "Lost" (that i never watched) is kinda famous or respected as a writer, but Prometheus's screenplay is a complete piece of crap.

yup i think it was written by some guy who wrote the lost show didnt watch any of that tho . thought the prometheus thing was like ridley scotts ideas + he just got some dude to write it for him or something but might be wrong . whoever came up with half that shit was pretty stoooopid tho

  On 6/2/2012 at 4:41 PM, Shit Attack said:

as long as you can suspend your disbelief for how dumb the people in this film are its pretty good

this, just enjoy the fucking movie, it is a visual treat

  On 6/2/2012 at 6:08 PM, Shit Attack said:

yup i think it was written by some guy who wrote the lost show didnt watch any of that tho . thought the prometheus thing was like ridley scotts ideas + he just got some dude to write it for him or something but might be wrong . whoever came up with half that shit was pretty stoooopid tho

The first draft was written by the same guy that wrote that dumb movie about some invisible aliens killing Americans in Moscow, The Darkest Hour.

Did anyone else think about Pandorum a little bit while watching Prometheus? White angry humanoids with big black pupils, terraforming, advanced evolution etc?

PS thanks for your thoughts Azatoth, pretty much agree with you on those theories.

  On 6/2/2012 at 5:02 PM, Shit Attack said:

  On 6/1/2012 at 11:08 PM, compson said:

See this is what I don't understand. Has anyone here changed their mind about seeing the film? If not, then why are you still claiming it's gonna be shit? It's like whats the point again? Do you have some sort of build up in your brain of like anger and hate and when something doesn't go your way entirely you must release it like a river of diarrhea onto masses, so that they know how upset you are gonna be when you watch the film?

 

I just don't understand.

 

uhh are you just meant to just say blandly nice things about everything even if you thought it sucked ? slagging stuff off is fun its not that serious + if they expect us to pay to watch/listen to their shit then at the very least we should be allowed to have opinions about it, right ? Living in some P.C fantasy world where nobody can say or think anything "negative" about anything is my idea of hell personally + if negativity is not allowed, positivity has no real meaning anyway does it ?

There are degrees of negativity, my point is basically, if something is clearly shit, why it is shit should be apparent to you and anyone else with similar tastes. But if something shows potential or has bits that impressed you but lacked consistency then critical analysis is good because it helps you discover more about why that's the case. I have no problem with your review of the film or anyone else in this thread, my main confusion is towards the premature who proclaim something as good or bad before they even see it. Regardless of how accurate they may be with determining that, its a bit of a waste of time. Either the aesthetic, substance, and/or atmosphere is appealing enough that you would like to see more, or its just not your style and you won't give it another glance. Getting all fussed with other peoples opinions about it before you can contrast them with yours is just like, idk, ridiculous?

i think it's far more ridiculous to be arguing this point into the ground, when frankly you have no real point, you've spent a lot of time trying to prove it with no results whatsoever

An argument right, it must contain a point to be an argument, otherwise there can't be an opposing view. And how can you prove something with no real point? You're saying I have no point, but if you are reading through my posts and establishing I lack evidence to prove whatever it is I'm posting then it must contain a point...?

  On 6/2/2012 at 10:37 PM, compson said:

An argument right, it must contain a point to be an argument, otherwise there can't be an opposing view. And how can you prove something with no real point? Your saying I have no point, but if you are reading through my posts and establishing I lack evidence to prove whatever it is I'm posting then it must contain a point...?

Some people will respond with criticism any time. Just like there are people who can get angry at just about anything, or can be positive about anything. It's the type of glasses they're wearing. Just accept it. There just happens to be an awful lot of 'critical people by nature' in this place. (I'm trying to bring this as neutral as possible.)

The fact that you have Karl Pilkington as your avatar suggests to me that, not unsuccessfully, you're just trolling the shit out of everyone.

  On 6/2/2012 at 10:41 PM, goDel said:

  On 6/2/2012 at 10:37 PM, compson said:

An argument right, it must contain a point to be an argument, otherwise there can't be an opposing view. And how can you prove something with no real point? Your saying I have no point, but if you are reading through my posts and establishing I lack evidence to prove whatever it is I'm posting then it must contain a point...?

 

Some people will respond with criticism any time. Just like there are people who can get angry at just about anything, or can be positive about anything. It's the type of glasses they're wearing. Just accept it. There just happens to be an awful lot of 'critical people by nature' in this place. (I'm trying to bring this as neutral as possible.)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's that black and white. Like no ones just critical all the time and no ones positive all the time either... however I think with like the internets and such, theres just more people getting involved with things that they never be chuffed about. So now like we got all these people saying stuff about everything, when like in the past you'd just have your room, or like your stuffs some place and you'd have some friends over and you'd talk stuff and whatnot but itd be through a filter of understanding of the context of the situation. So like, if my friend Joe or whoever doesn't like country music, I'm not gonna bring up this new country musician I heard about next time I talk cause its just not something I know he's gonna wanna hear about. But now its like, theres a filter on things but theres just too much celebration and attention given to things that clearly aren't meant for the community or whoever generally contributes... its like instead looking deeper for more things and researching, we're all just too comfy and entertained with spreading our hate onto anything that passes through the filter, cause of like anonymously and stuff.