Prometheus was worth watching in 3D, and even on fake IMAX. I didn't get really attached to any characters, which was fine. The movie felt like it was just telling a story of shit happening to people.
Michael Fassbender is starting to be one of my favorite actors.
In response to your Spoiler:
I think it was most likely Earth, but it could have been any "seeded" planet. Looked like the giant was sacrificing himself to put his (human) DNA into the ecosystem.
Also notice that the ship looked different. It was a large disc. Maybe that is their large, exploration class ship, as opposed to the much smaller "croissant" type ship, as seen at the end.
Prometheus was fucking awesome. I don't understand the "two different movies" critique - I highly suspect some people are bad at following complex plot threads.
Also, Kung Fu Panda 2 is the pinnacle of animated cinema. The only thing that could ever hope to be better than it is Kung Fu Panda 3.
Kung Fu Panda 1 and 2 (and "How to Train Your Dragon") are really the best offerings from Dreamworks (I love them), but I still don't think they come close in writing and animation to stuff like Ratatouille. That may be my personal preference, but I stand by my assertion that Pixar is still the reigning king of the 3D feature.
Am I the only one who finds Kung Fu Panda (one at least, I haven't seen two) just as trite as things like Shark Tale -- perhaps more so because Will Smiths voice has an ability to make you hate anything less. All the characters were archetypes, the plot was more basic than the most usual greek myths, and the jokes were terribly uninspired. If you ask me, Dreamworks should have stopped making movies after Shrek 2 (keeping in mind that I didn't see How to Train Your Dragon).
Am I the only one who finds Kung Fu Panda (one at least, I haven't seen two) just as trite as things like Shark Tale -- perhaps more so because Will Smiths voice has an ability to make you hate anything less. All the characters were archetypes, the plot was more basic than the most usual greek myths, and the jokes were terribly uninspired. If you ask me, Dreamworks should have stopped making movies after Shrek 2 (keeping in mind that I didn't see How to Train Your Dragon).
You are forgetting about Shark Tale's horrid character design and blatant racism. It's the epitome of "We don't have to work hard, and we'll pull you in because we have all these celebrities that you LOVE!" The plot is tired, the references are painfully obvious, and EVERYONE is blatant stereotype. I mean, I'm astounded Madagascar 3 manages to be the best one, considering how awful that first movie was.
Kung Fu Panda at least has elements of heart, a likable protagonist, and has supportive messages about the diversity and using your own special talents. It comes off as homage towards Martial Arts Films, unlike Shark Tales obnoxious spoofing of gangster films. I won't say that KFP isn't without it's flaws, but it's certainly better than most of the other Dreamworks Films. I would also say 2 is better, not necessarily because of the jokes, but it actually has really great fight choreography, the story-villain is told much better, and it's far more emotional.
Prometheus was fucking awesome. I don't understand the "two different movies" critique - I highly suspect some people are bad at following complex plot threads.
I understood what was going on perfectly. What was going on just didn't make any sense from narrative or logical perspective.
I'd never try to argue that Kung Fu Panda was original, but it was a well executed homage to the Kung Fu movie genre, and basically followed the formula of the unlikely hero becoming strong and defending the town. The animation was quite good and for what felt like the first time ever, Dreamworks did not throw in a ton of pop culture gags, and do the whole "knowing wink at the audience." It had a lot of goofy humor aimed at little kids (Oh look! Po is fat! He ate too many noodles!) but it felt a lot more sincere than previous Dreamworks 3D films. I think the characters were generally likeable and the emotional arc of Tigress was actually pretty complex. The fact that Shifu would not grow close to his adopted daughter and kept her at arms length because his adopted son betrayed him, and the way she hid her yearning for his approval, was actually a very sad and compelling side plot. I also liked that she was nice and tough, and they did not make her too feminine.
Prometheus was fucking awesome. I don't understand the "two different movies" critique - I highly suspect some people are bad at following complex plot threads.
I understood what was going on perfectly. What was going on just didn't make any sense from narrative or logical perspective.
Um, yeah it did. I'm pretty sure it didn't make sense to you. Meaning you didn't get it.
The other way the comparison holds up is with the characters: the characters with the most depth in that movie were the wise black dude and a fucking robot.
Half the film deals with the humanity of our creations, bro. There's a reason David had so much depth.
It's not just that the movie deals with the humanity of our creations. It deals with 1) our arrogance in our approach to our creations and 2) the consequences of under-respecting those creations.
David should have had the most depth and the least accessibility because he was the maligned creation - he was the most important character in addressing the theme of irresponsible creation.
Prometheus was the best film adaptation of Frankenstein ever made.
Prometheus was fucking awesome. I don't understand the "two different movies" critique - I highly suspect some people are bad at following complex plot threads.
I understood what was going on perfectly. What was going on just didn't make any sense from narrative or logical perspective.
Um, yeah it did. I'm pretty sure it didn't make sense to you. Meaning you didn't get it.
Seriously, what didn't make sense?
For one, on what basis did the scientists conclude that
Prometheus was fucking awesome. I don't understand the "two different movies" critique - I highly suspect some people are bad at following complex plot threads.
I understood what was going on perfectly. What was going on just didn't make any sense from narrative or logical perspective.
Um, yeah it did. I'm pretty sure it didn't make sense to you. Meaning you didn't get it.
Seriously, what didn't make sense?
For one, on what basis did the scientists conclude that
Human Beings were created by Aliens?
Well,
on a hunch and on faith. They stated that repeatedly, in fact. She was a "true believer." And as TVH mentions, the entire project was funded by one man's mad quest for immortality.
No, there was no solid scientific basis for that conclusion. It was a hunch. They told you it was a hunch. You're confusing "this doesn't make sense" with "this wasn't done with scientific rigor." And believe it or not, us real scientists work on hunches very often.
The movie also explored themes of human discovery and investigation, as well as the inadequacy of human understanding to answer some questions. That's why the biologist and geologist were at a loss in the movie - their knowledge and abilities were woefully inadequate for the situation they discovered.
And all of that makes perfect sense. It was quite clear in the movie.
So, saw Prometheus. It was pretty okay, but now I just want to re-watch Alien. I gotta say I still like the first two movies best, because none of the characters here were half as good as Ripley. She was brave and level headed, and at least had some good common sense! Dang, those characters all did some stupid stuff.
I knew Bro-husband was going to get it from the get go, because he was a dick, he was arrogant and a jerk to David. AND THEY ALL TOOK OFF THEIR HELMETS! Gosh, you are supposed to be scientists! You sure did not act like proper scientists when encountering a possible biological threat from another planet! I am reading Rendezvous with Rama, and that is a far better depiction of scientists exploring an unknown extraterrestrial environment. More careful, fools!
I liked David, thought he was the most interesting character. I liked the scene in the beginning where he was alone, studying things. The captain was pretty good too, because he was funny and brave.
Why did David infect what's-his-name with the nanobots? Was he just experimenting, trying to see what would happen? I didn't know why he did that, but I feel like he had an interesting view of the creators vs. humans thing as it mirrored his struggle with his own creators in some ways. He made for decent secondary antagonist. Also, seriously, I feel kind of bleh about the fact that the aliens were humanoid, yet were non-empathetic douchebags who wanted to bio-nuke Earth. I liked the man versus nature of the original xenomorphs in Alien. Also, gotta say, the auto-surgery scene was terrifying and really well done. Can anyone explain what the scene in the beginning meant? I feel like the whole movie kind of hinged on the meaning there, of the creator willfully dying and getting his DNA re-formed.
John also commented on the lack of proper scientific conduct, and I have some obervations to share on that point:
1) The two main characters were archaeologists, not scientists. And they were thick-headed idealists to boot - remember that whole bit about needing a "true believer?" Also, they DID call bro-husband crazy while he was doing it. And then when he didn't die, followed suit.
2) Scientists have done really really dumb and dangerous things throughout history. Sometimes you have to for the sake of understanding.
3) The scientists doing dumb things was, I think, intentional. It was a commentary on our inability to truly grasp the questions they were asking. In the movie, they are essentially asking the question, "Why are we here?" They say repeatedly that they want to ask the Engineers why they made us. The rest of the movie is a statement about the dangers of exploration and on our limited ability to grasp the ramifications of investigating to that level.
As for David:
He was Frankenstein's creation, almost straight-up. He infected bro-husband, I think, as an act of rebellion - though to be fair, his motivations are intentionally obscure. But notice throughout the movie that the humans are dismissive of David, and generally under-respect and under-utilize him. They treat him like a tool that they made and nothing more. Meanwhile, David displays all the capability of a human while allegedly lacking a "soul."
David is a commentary on how we are not as special as we think, and that we need to respect our ability to create. Remember the scene where bro-husband said, "We created you because we could," and David responded with, "Imagine the disappointment you'd feel when your creators said the same thing."
David only lacked an intangible concept that humans use to differentiate themselves from the world, but that was enough for us to treat him like crap. The movie cast the humans as being arrogant with regard to their ability to create life. This parallels the Engineers - allegedly our creators - who created their bio-weapon with the arrogant assumption that it could never turn on them. And look what happened there.
So basically, the movie was telling you that David had motivations, but the humans never respected him enough to pay attention to that. And it implies that we will pay for that, as the Engineers paid for their arrogance.
The opening scene:
I don't know if that was supposed to be seeding Earth, or seeding some other planet, but it was pretty obviously 1) seeding a planet with life and 2) a depiction of the cycle of creating and destroying (a theme which continues throughout the movie). So it was really setting the theme and tone of the movie - I don't think the actual action had any particular impact. And really, I don't think the nuts and bolts of that one matter - it's really there to kick off the theme, and to draw parallels between the Engineers and the humans.
On the Engineers:
They had to be douchebags, because it's really the only thing that makes sense. What, did we expect anyone to ACTUALLY answer the question "Why are we here" or "Why did you make us?" In fact, I love the scene where they're asking questions, and David gets to ask his in a foreign tongue. We don't know what David asked, and we don't know why the creature responded the way it did.
And that's one of the most important themes in the entire investigation: we don't know. Or perhaps "we can't know" is a stronger statement. As I pointed out above, the movie is calling into question our capacity to reason and investigate at that level. Our faculties fail us.
And it makes the ending scene more powerful: "I'm still searching." No matter what we encounter in our quest for understanding, no matter how difficult it is, we still must always search. It's the human drive to question and investigate.
Comments
I really enjoyed Kung Fu Panda. I'm not sure how much that has to with me not having to watch Jack Black "act" in it though.
Also, Kung Fu Panda 2 is the pinnacle of animated cinema. The only thing that could ever hope to be better than it is Kung Fu Panda 3.
I think it was most likely Earth, but it could have been any "seeded" planet. Looked like the giant was sacrificing himself to put his (human) DNA into the ecosystem.
Also notice that the ship looked different. It was a large disc. Maybe that is their large, exploration class ship, as opposed to the much smaller "croissant" type ship, as seen at the end.
Kung Fu Panda at least has elements of heart, a likable protagonist, and has supportive messages about the diversity and using your own special talents. It comes off as homage towards Martial Arts Films, unlike Shark Tales obnoxious spoofing of gangster films. I won't say that KFP isn't without it's flaws, but it's certainly better than most of the other Dreamworks Films. I would also say 2 is better, not necessarily because of the jokes, but it actually has really great fight choreography, the story-villain is told much better, and it's far more emotional.
Seriously, what didn't make sense?
David should have had the most depth and the least accessibility because he was the maligned creation - he was the most important character in addressing the theme of irresponsible creation.
Prometheus was the best film adaptation of Frankenstein ever made.
For one, on what basis did the scientists conclude that
No, there was no solid scientific basis for that conclusion. It was a hunch. They told you it was a hunch. You're confusing "this doesn't make sense" with "this wasn't done with scientific rigor." And believe it or not, us real scientists work on hunches very often.
The movie also explored themes of human discovery and investigation, as well as the inadequacy of human understanding to answer some questions. That's why the biologist and geologist were at a loss in the movie - their knowledge and abilities were woefully inadequate for the situation they discovered.
And all of that makes perfect sense. It was quite clear in the movie.
1) The two main characters were archaeologists, not scientists. And they were thick-headed idealists to boot - remember that whole bit about needing a "true believer?" Also, they DID call bro-husband crazy while he was doing it. And then when he didn't die, followed suit.
2) Scientists have done really really dumb and dangerous things throughout history. Sometimes you have to for the sake of understanding.
3) The scientists doing dumb things was, I think, intentional. It was a commentary on our inability to truly grasp the questions they were asking. In the movie, they are essentially asking the question, "Why are we here?" They say repeatedly that they want to ask the Engineers why they made us. The rest of the movie is a statement about the dangers of exploration and on our limited ability to grasp the ramifications of investigating to that level.
As for David:
He was Frankenstein's creation, almost straight-up. He infected bro-husband, I think, as an act of rebellion - though to be fair, his motivations are intentionally obscure. But notice throughout the movie that the humans are dismissive of David, and generally under-respect and under-utilize him. They treat him like a tool that they made and nothing more. Meanwhile, David displays all the capability of a human while allegedly lacking a "soul."
David is a commentary on how we are not as special as we think, and that we need to respect our ability to create. Remember the scene where bro-husband said, "We created you because we could," and David responded with, "Imagine the disappointment you'd feel when your creators said the same thing."
David only lacked an intangible concept that humans use to differentiate themselves from the world, but that was enough for us to treat him like crap. The movie cast the humans as being arrogant with regard to their ability to create life. This parallels the Engineers - allegedly our creators - who created their bio-weapon with the arrogant assumption that it could never turn on them. And look what happened there.
So basically, the movie was telling you that David had motivations, but the humans never respected him enough to pay attention to that. And it implies that we will pay for that, as the Engineers paid for their arrogance.
The opening scene:
I don't know if that was supposed to be seeding Earth, or seeding some other planet, but it was pretty obviously 1) seeding a planet with life and 2) a depiction of the cycle of creating and destroying (a theme which continues throughout the movie). So it was really setting the theme and tone of the movie - I don't think the actual action had any particular impact. And really, I don't think the nuts and bolts of that one matter - it's really there to kick off the theme, and to draw parallels between the Engineers and the humans.
On the Engineers:
They had to be douchebags, because it's really the only thing that makes sense. What, did we expect anyone to ACTUALLY answer the question "Why are we here" or "Why did you make us?" In fact, I love the scene where they're asking questions, and David gets to ask his in a foreign tongue. We don't know what David asked, and we don't know why the creature responded the way it did.
And that's one of the most important themes in the entire investigation: we don't know. Or perhaps "we can't know" is a stronger statement. As I pointed out above, the movie is calling into question our capacity to reason and investigate at that level. Our faculties fail us.
And it makes the ending scene more powerful: "I'm still searching." No matter what we encounter in our quest for understanding, no matter how difficult it is, we still must always search. It's the human drive to question and investigate.
http://i.imgur.com/KCnSM.jpg