Chindie Posted June 5, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 5, 2012 I've not seen it yet (possibly tonight, possibly tomorrow...) but I've seen a couple of places have people draw parallels with the Phantom Menace and see raw reactions to those comments, even from people that themselves disliked the film, say that that is a mental reaction, so I'm inclined to agree with hogso here, it seems like someone saying that is turning up the hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 5, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2012 I'd say it's probably just the convenient parallel to make. But I think that was always the risk with this film. You can't (and shouldn't) blame people for having high expectations. If the film then doesn't meet those expectations then it IS the film's fault, not the viewer. Or should they accept crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Nvm i know how Just a few questions, What was the green crystal and the alien mural about why did the ceiling suddenly turn into goo, why was the face hugger so big How did all the space jockeys die when they were piled up they mentioned something burst out of them yet there were no xeno's to be found? Was Holloway turning into a xeno when he was infected? What was the green goo on the control panel that David found Why was the space jockey so angry i know guy pearce is a tosser but i thought that was a bit out of order Why didnt vickers run to the side when a spaceship was about to land on her face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 5, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2012 [color=white]Hello I am a text message[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Right watched this the other night, here are my thoughts and answers to a few questions. Lot's of spoilers so you have been warned... Ok strange one, I liked it but I agree with many on here that a) it could have been a million times better and there are a lot of plot holes. Here’s my understanding of some bits which may/may not help… 1) This was a new planet to what we’ve seen before LV-232. Not the planet from Alien, which was LV-426. 2) This whole planet was a military testing base run by the big blue chaps referred to as ‘engineers’ who we are lead to believe created life on earth (amongst other places). 3) The ‘vases’ in the military compound contained a chemical weapon, which mutates an organisms DNA upon contact. The plan was to fly off to a number planets including earth to release this weapon and ‘wipe life out’ on each one. 4) There was some kind of leak/accident which caused an outbreak in the testing facility leading to them all being killed. 5) By opening the tomb at the start, they changed the composition of the air inside and that caused the ‘vases’ there to react in some way and spill onto the floor. 6) The ground within the tomb contained ordinary earth worms (or a very similar type of creature) – these worms then mutated upon contact with the black chemical and grew into the cobra-like creature which attacks Milburn and Fifield. Bits which didn’t make sense… 1. Why the **** did they not send in drones/robots first, why go into the complete unknown without any precations? Were they in a rush to get home for tea? Realistically that didn’t make sense but I’ll allow it. 2. Why did Milburn not develop some kind of chest bursting mutant? If the worm got inside him, surely that would happen (as per the end sequence)? 3. THE SQUID!!!! What the ****?? Even suspending all disbelief it is hard to accept that a mutating Holloway having sex with a normal, uninfected Shaw would result in her giving birth (albeit via the very good cesarian scene) to a mutant squid! Surely it would be a humanoid-type creature no? And then, after being ‘decontaminated’ which I assumed would kill it, it then grows into a gigantic **** octopus???? Piss off Ridley you **** it up there! 4. Why did the vases stacked up in the flight room not react like the others when it was opened up? 5. Presumably the one surviving ‘engineer’ had gone into stasis expecting another one to fly the ship into orbit, so why are there no corpses in there, as if to suggest that whoever was the pilot in this instance had been attacked and killed before they could take off? Bits they could have done better… 1. I completely agree with Jonno in that it needed a more tense build up to some of the death scenes. Really missed the quialities of Alien in that respect. 2. As many have pointed out, Vickers’ death – pathetic! Plus I would have preferred to see her die in a more sinister way. In Alien one of the most memorable scenes is at the end where Lambert and Parker are trapped and realise they are going to have to face the xenomorph, then it kills them in a very tense and grizzly manner. Surely there was room for the big blue chap to bump her off in a similar style before facing Shaw? 3. Mutant Fifield – him coming back to the ship just seemed bizarre and bolted on. As someone has already said, it was as if they needed to bump off a few of the unneeded crew and he was a quick way to do it. Again it should have been done in a more tensely built up way rather than a quick shoot-em-up. In all some big disappointments and some massive questions beyond what I’ve posted above (but to which I expect answers in the next instalment – which I am positive there will be). Having said that, it was visually stunning and Noomi Rapace I thought was a great lead character – very Ripley like. I’d like to see it again as I’m sure there are subtle nuances that I’ve missed, plus on the whole it’s quite entertaining, just not as good enough as I was hoping for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I think the marketing has done more harm than good for this film. It is not a direct prequel. It is not Alien, or Aliens. It is a start of a new trilogy exploring completely different themes. I'd say go in expecting a film with more in common with 2001 than Alien. In fact it has more in common with Blade Runner than Alien. It isn't as good as those movies, but comparisons with Phantom Menace are way off. It is considerably better than that, and it is considerably better than the last two films in the Alien franchise. Anyway, I expect it will be looked on differently in some corners when the aforementioned trilogy is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggaman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Honestly anyone saying its on par with phantom menace in terms of a let down either a. had their expectations set way too high or b. is mental Agreed to a certain extent, as it isn't anywhere near as poor as The Phantom Menace. The difference in quality when comparing each of them to the earlier films in the series is similar though, being that each went downhill. Neither lived up to expectations and both could have been so much more. I can see the comparisons in that sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Why have so many questions been left unanswered its annoying will they do a sequel to milk more money out of us fans Im sorry if i missed this in case i did but why the hell did the space jockey's want to destroy earth after the space jockey at the start was clearly seen starting life on earth by mixing his DNA in the primordial ooze on earth What the hell was the point in starting life if they were just going to destroy it with these so called xeno chemical weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GREAT_BEARD_OF_ZEUS Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Ash - that is the big question which I think will form the basis for the second film... it's the reason Shaw wants to go to their home planet at the end rather than back to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folski Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Honest to go went in there and the whole first hour just seemed like it could have been done in about 8mins, thought it was painful. How it got 8.5 on IMDB is beyond me, that being said I though avengers was good but it was rated as one of the top ten films ever on IMDB, not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I am rambling a bit, but I did wonder why the Jockey committed Hari Kari at the start? thats my main gripe with the film the longer i think about it, he gets left behind, drinks that stuff and creates life on earth by mistake, they decide that they dont like this mistake so develop a factory for destroying us but every thousand years or so these 10ft tall brick shit house engineers capable of intergalatic travel and who knows what other sort of technology, decide to come and tell a couple of spear chucking tribes where the factory is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Ash - that is the big question which I think will form the basis for the second film... it's the reason Shaw wants to go to their home planet at the end rather than back to earth. dont see how they can though without introducing more human characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggaman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I am rambling a bit, but I did wonder why the Jockey committed Hari Kari at the start? thats my main gripe with the film the longer i think about it, he gets left behind, drinks that stuff and creates life on earth by mistake, they decide that they dont like this mistake so develop a factory for destroying us but every thousand years or so these 10ft tall brick shit house engineers capable of intergalatic travel and who knows what other sort of technology, decide to come and tell a couple of spear chucking tribes where the factory is? My take on this: Who said it's Earth at the beginning? It probably is, yet there was nothing saying where that incident took place. Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 Just got back. Superb. Simply superb. A stunning start to a planned trilogy. Can't wait to see where it goes next. What was wrong with the music?! The only thing that bugged me was the Scottish woman who couldn't act and a few jokey scenes that fell flat (theron & Elba). Other than those minor things it was excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 5, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 5, 2012 Just walked back in from it myself. Er... I dunno what to think to really. My expectations were low and there is a considerable amount of it that is weak - I think the allegations of a fairly weak script are deserved. But it's good still. It's absolutely stunning to look at, the look of it is just... right. Even some weaker moments in the art design don't let it down too much. The music is fairly anonymous, it's just constantly there, theres nothing that grabs you and it's often overblown, but even that didn't stop me enjoying. It's basically daft. There are questions and holes all over it, we drove back just pulling questions from it but we all still fundamentally enjoyed it. Go see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevMur Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 First hour great, second hour average. Why use Guy Pearce if you weren't going to have him being made younger at some stage? Why not just use an old actor? I reckon a lot of stuff ended up on the cutting room floor as the they tried to make a 3-hour cut into a 2-hour action movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briggaman Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a better film. There, I said it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 6, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6, 2012 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a better film. There, I said it... That doesn't fill me with confidence, seeing as Kingdom of HEaven is one of my least favourite films ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Went for a second viewing t'other day, got a bit better as I'd braced myself for the bits I didn't like. Anyone else find it telling how the Engineer flipped his wig as he was touching David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a better film. There, I said it... Who knows Ridley could release a directors cut which is 3 hundred times better than the original just like kingdom of heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts