No..not anal..a very valid point. The movie was somewhat entertaining but I was disappointed with the story line...I expected more from director Ridley Scott given his previous works.
yes, that was exactly what i thought as well (glad some felt it was good though)...
looked spectacular, but in all honesty its probably the first time i would agree with the critics on a SF movie (which i generally love, having said that i had seen a run of duds leading up to it, the nazis on the other side of the moon thing, etc).
i am hoping they might eventually do some more PK Dick...
radio free albemuth, valis, etc... at least they will start with a good scifi story
(i think their remaking total recall, i saw a poster for it somewhere recently)...
i'll see it again on dvd in the future, maybe it will "click" then
yes, that was exactly what i thought as well (glad some felt it was good though)...
looked spectacular, but in all honesty its probably the first time i would agree with the critics on a SF movie (which i generally love, having said that i had seen a run of duds leading up to it, the nazis on the other side of the moon thing, etc).
Yes Colin, there has been some duds lately, but then I personally think that films like Avatar (which I saw 5 times at the theatre) has raised the bar in terms of good sci-fi.
The worst duds for me are:
Battle for Los Angeles (this was just dreadful movie).
Skyline (too a much lesser extent, it was fair but below par).
I didn't see Battleship, as I thought that it would be fairly bad, judging from the storyline. However, I think that the biggest surprise in sci-fi movies in recent years was District 9. Strange movie but it turned out to be a great flick, I loved it.
Battle for Los Angeles (this was just dreadful movie).
Skyline (too a much lesser extent, it was fair but below par).
Prometheus, raised the bar again.
didn't mind skyline, one thing though i thought prometheus had an element of "melancholia" (an artsy abstraction thing) which was new in horror Scifi. That worked really well in Gattaca and Solaris with those breathtakingly poignant phillip glass soundtracks.
anyway i'll watch it again in the future, sometimes its a mood thing on the day you see it.
Maybe its just im older now, but back in the day sci fi's were of a generally higher callibre. Storyline wise. Dare I mention the star wars trilogy. I dont think ive met anyone yet that didn't love the originals.
2001, 2010.. Two of the greats in my opinion. Both had a 'vibe' throughout. helped by very accurate technical aspects, no sound in space etc.
But a huge thing, and I believe one of the major differences to later sci fi's, was the depth in the characters. All the characters in the original Alien and Aliens, had a real sense of ' realness' about them. The audience could relate easily to them and their plights. This is IMHO one of the reasons why Avatar was so successful, sure the visuals were mind blowing and certainly changed things forever, but the main characters certainly had depth.
These days and certainly in Prometheus, I can pretty much pick who is going to be alien fodder within the first few minutes. It seems they try to add depth to the characters but dont quite seem to get there, at least with the sacrificial characters.
Still struggling to raise any enthusiasm for this one. Ridley Scott misses way more than he hits, and the reviews by professionals and public alike are pretty ambivalent, for the most part. Mind you, I thought Avatar was a sick joke...
Still struggling to raise any enthusiasm for this one. Ridley Scott misses way more than he hits, and the reviews by professionals and public alike are pretty ambivalent, for the most part. Mind you, I thought Avatar was a sick joke...
You're right Colin, sometimes it is a mood thing. Also, sometimes a movie can be much better second time around. I remember seeing the remake of "Hitchhikers" and I didn't like it, but then I saw it again as an in-flight movie, and loved it and subsequently added it to my Sci-Fi collection. I suspect Skyline may be like that, as it was just ok the first time round. But, nothing will redeem Battle for Los Angeles....it was dreadful; it is certainly the worst sci-fi film I have seen for a long time.
You're right Colin, sometimes it is a mood thing. Also, sometimes a movie can be much better second time around..But, nothing will redeem Battle for Los Angeles....it was dreadful; it is certainly the worst sci-fi film I have seen for a long time.
i think battleship was much the same, takes more out of you than it puts in (although points for rihanna for giving it a go).
.monsters was a bit of an odd one, if anyone saw it, i like those mellow atmospheric probally more than the blast them (getting a bit overcooked perhaps), maybe thats an age thing too?
Prometheus was probably one of the worst movies I have seen, it was a joke.. The only thing that kept me watching was the shred of hope that there may be a good twist in the ending..
That may be a little unfair coming from a trained scientist, but I do generally enjoy sci-fi and fantasy (I am a huge fan of Stargate and Star Wars). Without going into too much detail, I'll name 4 major gripes I had with this movie:
- 'Creme of the crop' scientist are complete idiots
- Severely lacking internal consistency
- Scientific aspects and jargon plain wrong
- Thinly hidden Christian agenda
I thought it to be more philosophical than dogmatic, so I wouldn't call it an "agenda".
[spoiler]
As for science (and apart from the fact that even "good" sci-fi has warp/FTL drive and many other things that are utterly implausible), the film suffered from the familiar "small space" syndrome. After 2 years in cryosleep using ion drive (sub-light speed) the Prometheus couldn't have reached another star system from Earth. Still, it's not as bad as Serenity - a fun film, but one that must have been set in a really, really small universe.
Well at least people are talking about - it would be worse for them if it were just ignored. One wonders whether it was rushed out a bit hoping to capitalise on the 3D Avatar success.
I will see it at the local theater on a cheap Tuesday and go for visuals not the story line
Still, it's not as bad as Serenity - a fun film, but one that must have been set in a really, really small universe.
It is great that we have differing opinions, it would be a dull world otherwise.
I actually thought Serenity was a fantastic movie, but then I loved Firefly anyway. In fact, I thought Firefly (yippeee, Cowboys in Space) was the best Sci-Fi series ever, absolutely loved it, and it was so underrated. Hmmm, now that I think of it, might go watch Firefly / Serenity..........again!!! Haven't watched it in a least six months, shame on me!
I think Sci-Fi is meant for pure entertainment, for those with a vivid imagination, and is not meant for science education anyway. Science documentaries are made for that.
I mostly switch my brain off and just enjoy the ride. Takes me on an imaginary trip away from the mundane troubles of this world, at least for a couple of hours.
I thought it to be more philosophical than dogmatic, so I wouldn't call it an "agenda".
[spoiler]
As for science (and apart from the fact that even "good" sci-fi has warp/FTL drive and many other things that are utterly implausible), the film suffered from the familiar "small space" syndrome. After 2 years in cryosleep using ion drive (sub-light speed) the Prometheus couldn't have reached another star system from Earth. Still, it's not as bad as Serenity - a fun film, but one that must have been set in a really, really small universe.
[/spoiler]
OK maybe agenda was a bit of a strong word, but no true scientist would use lines such as 'its what I choose to believe' when it comes to their work.. That said there was this crazy [spoiler] theory: http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html
Re Serenity, this is what I meant by internal consistency. The Firefly series and Serenity movie take place in a four star system nicknames 'the verse' http://www.fireflyshipworks.com/map-...-of-the-verse/ , while it is an implausible configuration, at least they tried to make a consistent world. In Prometheus they traveled 10^14km in 2 years (thousands of light years).. with sub-light tech, they didn't attempt to explain how this was possible.
Yes hyperdrives are implausible, but at least they can be used to construct a consistent universe for the story to take place in.
I know what you mean about consistency. I'm more likely to enjoy something if the writers/producers lay down the ground rules and then stick to them. I like James P. Hogan's books for that reason - quite fictional, but also quite believable with that "discovery is just around the corner" feel due to strong internal consistency and well constructed plot.
I'd not seen the map of The Verse before. Thanks for that. It is indeed a really, really small universe!
In thinking more about Prometheus, and after having read some more online material, perhaps some of the perceived problems in the film arise from the grandiose nature of the story being packed into a 2-hour format and "sexed-up" with action and horror to draw in audiences? Would an alternative version with the tone of 2001: A Space Odyssey have made any money at the box office? I don't know... it's just a thought.
Seeing this tonight. I've not seen the trailer or anything, but, will be leaving brain at home and just going to enjoy the eye candy. It's been a while since I saw a movie. I think Hugo was the last one I saw.
Saw it today and was entertained - visual effects are stunning. I won't comment on the story line but hope (and expect) there'll be a director's cut when the BlueRay version is released
