"Big Things Have Small Beginnings." (Part Two)

[greygirlbeast]

Grey and chilly here in Providence today. Maybe a high of 71˚F, and there might be rain. April in June. And today is the sixth anniversary of Sophie's death. And five years ago yesterday I finished "The Steam Dancer (1896)." And on the 24th, Spooky will have been on this planet another year, and birthday presents are not unwelcome. She has an

Comments

[firebirdgrrl]

This is the best discussion of_Prometheus I have read and I have read lots. I thought it was stunning.

[greygirlbeast]

Thank you.

[handful_ofdust]

You quoting me is the nicest thing that's happened to me all day.

Even as we speak, Tor.com is hosting an article/essay asking whether or not Prometheus is less science fiction than "religious fiction". In the comments, some guy takes issue with the author's statement "while Prometheus is by no means a bad film..." by saying, briskly: "But of course it's a bad film, it's a fucking awful film, that's been established." To which I can only say, not that I'm going to: By whom, sir? You? No, I think I'll just form my own opinions, thank you, and state them afterwards, too. Carry on!

Then grin like David, offer him some infected booze, and shoot him the finger behind his back. Humans, man.

[greygirlbeast]

Then grin like David, offer him some infected booze, and shoot him the finger behind his back. Humans, man.

I'm having a really bad day. Thank you for making me laugh.

[robyn_ma]

I've been wondering myself why it was rated R. If you were to sit and look at every act of violence, you could probably find something similar in a PG-13 film. (Not to mention what used to get PG ratings. Jaws and Raiders: automatic R rating today if it wasn't Spielberg, I guarantee you.) Anyway, it probably reflects, as you say, the intensity of the violent acts. There were some nasty-ass ways to die in this film. And though the self-surgery scene wasn't terribly gory, that alone probably ensured the R rating. You've seen it twice now: don't we see some of Shaw's innards briefly? I'm not saying 'innards = protect the children,' I'm just trying to divine why the rating.

[greygirlbeast]

There were some nasty-ass ways to die in this film. And though the self-surgery scene wasn't terribly gory, that alone probably ensured the R rating. You've seen it twice now: don't we see some of Shaw's innards briefly? I'm not saying 'innards = protect the children,' I'm just trying to divine why the rating.

This is the film you do not want to die in, yes.

What I remember, is we see a cross-section with Shaw's skin, fascia, fat, and abdominal muscles, maybe an inch thick. We do see that placenta like thing hold the alien offspring, and the umbilical cord. In fact, what made me flinch was Shaw tearing the umbilicus.

[stsisyphus]

In fact, what made me flinch was Shaw tearing the umbilicus.

That was some hard core shit there. Ellen Ripley would be proud.

[greygirlbeast]

Fuckin' A.

[lilith_333]

I haven't seen it yet but my partner liked it so I will probably go see it soon. Thanks for the great review!

Incidentally, even as a former physicist, I've gotten inured to the bad science in sci-fi films - I think the breaking point for me was the black hole contained in a vanity mirror in "Event Horizon."

[greygirlbeast]

Thanks for the great review!

You're most welcome.

[stsisyphus]

It's an R because penis enters the (male) mouth. And by penis I mean something vaguely tube-like and organic and the men don't look pleased by it (if they did look pleased, this would probably be courting NC-17).

And as I said, I really do see Prometheus as a "re-vision" of the original Alien (or at least it's mythos), rather than prequel. The more and more I hear of people being upset/angry/disappointed that the film was not more literally a prequel to 1979's Alien the more I wonder where we got that idea? Did Ridley Scott say it was a prequel? Not for several years he hasn't. Which means that the people who are pushing this are the advertising/marketing people and the hype machine media that pushed the film before it was released. So people who are railing against the heavens that this isn't meeting their expectations really only have themselves to blame for buying the hype peddled forward by other people who had no interest in watering down their marketing power by telling the truth (if they ever knew it). "It's a prequel to

[greygirlbeast]

And as I said, I really do see Prometheus as a "re-vision" of the original Alien (or at least it's mythos), rather than prequel. The more and more I hear of people being upset/angry/disappointed that the film was not more literally a prequel to 1979's Alien the more I wonder where we got that idea? Did Ridley Scott say it was a prequel? Not for several years he hasn't. Which means that the people who are pushing this are the advertising/marketing people and the hype machine media that pushed the film before it was released. So people who are railing against the heavens that this isn't meeting their expectations really only have themselves to blame for buying the hype peddled forward by other people who had no interest in watering down their marketing power by telling the truth (if they ever knew it). "It's a prequel to Alien," is a pitch that you give to studios. While it has some greasy rime of truth to it, it isn't much and smears when you rub it between your fingers.We are agreed on this, and it's pretty much exactly what Scott has

[stsisyphus]

When someone in our culture says "intelligent design," what they mean is divine creation. The phrase is just a new catch phrase for creationism, and this film isn't about creationism. The "gods" are mortal (even if that may not have been Shaw's expectation or hope).Whether or not the gods are mortal seems to be beyond any of the characters' actual logical frameworks (except perhaps David, who is well aware of the inherent imperfection of his creators). When I mention intelligent design, I am more referring to the character's expectations that the Engineers represent omnipotent and omniscient mythical beings that will solve their respective problems (Holloway's lack of fame or scholarly acclaim, Shaw's fervent [if battered] faith, a certain other figure's mortality, David's destructive contempt for humanity) simply for the asking. That's a kind of desperate self-deception that basically might as well be analogous to an unhealthy, self-centered, religious furvor which refuses to consider the possibility of variant spiritual truths (or

[greygirlbeast]

My point being that I don't think Scott was trying to make a case for intelligent design, but rather show that embracing that kind of logical fallacy can lead to disaster.

Okay. Got it now. Yes.