 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 13, 2012 - 8:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
I watched 2011's THE THING again recently -- as prequels go it's a masterpiece compared to PROMETHEUS.
It's intriguing because the two movies take a part of the original/predecessor as starting point for a prequel; "The Thing" focuses on the Norwegian camp and the original discovery site, whereas "Prometheus" focuses on the space jockey and its vessel.
Of the two movies I do have to say that "The Thing", despite its new surroundings and characters, is too close to the Carpenter in terms of story and scares, it adds very little to the universe. This was for me the biggest letdown of "The Thing", aside from the American involvement which makes no sense given the American camp nearby isn't brought in. It also had to stick close to the exposition in the Carpenter version, which meant that the outcome was known.
Prometheus has a lot more free range and imagination IMO, allowing for a different type of story to be told, while still staying true to the alien universe. It tries to show possibilities instead of known 'franchise' facts and with "The Thing", most scenes involving "the thing" I just sat there and went "oh yeah, I remember this from the Carpenter". Also there was a clash in special effects on "the thing", practical vs cgi whereas everything worked on Prometheus (I didn't catch the clunky chair) 
I also think that as a director, Matthijs Van Heyningen can't hold a candle to Ridley Scott, but again IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The role of serving the existing expositional demands of another film is important in this case. I know one of the things -- one of the many things -- that does bother me about PROMETHEUS is... (SPOILER) the fact that even though apparently this is meant to be a different planet, the events of the film lead to a situation that ends up being very very similar to what happened on that other moon before the Nostromo crew showed up. There's a crashed Space Jockey ship, there's a dead space jockey with an alien that emerged from its chest, (the dead space jockey isn't in the chair mind you), there's a distress message warning people to stay away ... but... the whole film still felt to me, and I'm sure this is my fault, like it was meant to be an explanation of what ended up happening on that other planet that we weren't on. I felt like the events should not have led to something as close to the ALIEN moon as it was. Or it should have been the same planet. Either way, it was a frustration, and the pressure of the earlier film was cramping this one's style. (END SPOILER)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 13, 2012 - 6:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ubik
(Member)
|
I thought it was one of the most poorly written major films I've ever seen.
Not because it's mystifying and doesn't answer questions and sets itself up blatantly for a sequel. But because it's festooned with plot holes, unconvincing characters, clunky dialogue, eruptive "drama", irrational behaviour, non sequiturs, and L. Ron Hubbard-level sci-fi. Which still wouldn't necessarily prevent it from being deliriously enjoyable if it wasn't so flat and witless.
Looks great, though.
Well said. I don't go to the movies much these days because most of what I see "looks great" but is otherwise a waste of two hours. PROMETHEUS is no exception. And this is a movie that doesn't seem to realize, because of a thin patina of bogus "intellectual curiousity," just how dumb it is. Don't we want more from our entertainment that to simply be distracted with these special effects circuses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 13, 2012 - 11:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Heath
(Member)
|
Back to the raison d'etre of this thread.
I saw the movie tonight. I dare say that cynics will attribute the use of the theme to Scott merely pleasing the hardcore fans. Who knows, maybe there is a small element of that at work. But so what? Not exactly a crime, surely?
Knowing how much Scott admired Goldsmith, and has gone out of his way on many occasions to praise his work, I think it was more likely to have been a genuine "tip of the hat" to a "friend from the past". That's how it seemed to me.
BUT...
(Of course, there HAD to be a drawback!)
BUT... the only slight problem might be that the theme's placement infers that it's become Weyland's theme. That wouldn't quite work for me, and in fact I doubt if that was part of the intention anyway. After all, it's not repeated in any other scenes featuring the character. Well, whatever. It's not a big deal.
Another quibble: it's played on high (very high) strings. Personally, I'd have pitched it lower... in fact I would have stuck to the original soft solo trumpet orchestration. Why not? It's gorgeous and would have worked under dialogue, no problem.
What's Ridley's beef with the solo trumpet version? He even got Goldsmith to bump it out of the "Hypersleep" cue, leaving just the string harmony.... although I have to say (swallowing hard here) that it was probably for the best on that occasion. Take a look at the alternate iso score track on the original DVD and you might see what I mean. It looks like John Hurt is actually listening in rapture to this gorgeous solo trumpet melody coming out of nowhere. Not quite right.
God, I feel like such a traitor saying that. Ah well.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a curious place for the Goldsmith theme to appear, because Weyland has no connection to the original ALIEN.
I agree, and wonder if the filmakers were just doing it for themselves, knowing that only us geeks would catch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
discovered their plot to destroy mankind (with the newly created Alien species), and putting a stop to it.
Actually, I thought that the Engineers created the WMD (or WHD? ), which was the cylinders with the disease that David released, not the alien creatures. The aliens appeared still to be an alien presence, on the planet, and who wiped out the Engineers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
