And oh, how I wish he hadn't. Nor IV, nor V.

You didn't like IV? That one's my favorite.

Nimoy actually changed his mind in the midst of filming Wrath of Khan, hence the otherwise superfluous "Remember!" moment.

Note: that isn't a reflection of how he thought Star Trek III would be, so much as a reflection of how positive his experience was in making Wrath of Khan.

There's a great overviev of the film's science aspects (or lack thereof) here (obviously this link contains spoilers):

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-science-of-prometheus/

Money quote:

So I generally liked the movie even though many plot points were left unexplained and it wasn't perfect... my question is, does anyone have any recommendations for movies that raise similair questions as Prometheus, but perhaps are quite a bit better? Examples of things I know I've seen are Contact, Event Horizon, 2001... I guess what I'm specifically referring to is... (Prometheus spoiler to follow)



Thanks!

The problem with nitpicking in general is that any nitpicks can be nitpicked as well. For instance the argument about the evolutionary stability is bogus as there was never any reason to believe that the planet in the beginning was Earth. Therefore we the audience have no way of knowing when that scene was taking place. Not only that, but there are examples of creatures that have evolved very little over extended periods of time (sharks for instance). Plus a race that has managed to achieve a high level of technological advancement probably won't be evolving very much. Then there is the issue of space flight where these creatures are kept in hibernation over extended periods of time, plus we don't know how long they live for (it's implied to be quiet long) so we don't know how many generations existed between the guy at the beginning and now. Nor is the overlap with our genetics that big of a deal, as our genome contains a lot of inactive DNA and by switching genes on and off a great deal of variation can occure.

He also misses the obvious point about the archaelogical paintings. Namely... that the archaelogists say that these paintings were found in Sumaria, Babylonia, and Mesapotamia, and then states that these civilizations that were not connected in any way. Now tell me what is wrong with that? Basically, I was just like "Okay this star thing is obviously a plot device without which there would be no movie so I'm just not going to get upset about it even if the history and science is wrong in so many ways."

If you can accept faster than the speed of light travel than there is really little reason to get worked up about anything else. (in my opinion)
-Jeremy

wtf I do that like every day

Prometheus was much less frustrating the second time around. A handful of things still drove me nuts, but I'm over most of my smaller gripes (that's not to say that the flaws weren't there, it was just easier to look past them). I think what happened this time was that because I went in knowing what was going to annoy me ahead of time (like Holloway being the dumbest scientist in history), I was able to enjoy all of the better aspects without the lingering frustration of any recent blunders.

FYI, I havent read any of the posts in this thread yet. Just saw it...


3 stars? Blade Runner? Seriously Jim, this might be the absolute dumbest "science" fiction movie I have ever seen.

Is there one person in this movie that would have ANY basis in reality whatsoever? Absolutely the dumbest crew ever assembled... makes the crew from the movie Sunshine seem like a well banded group.

I could list the number of unending retarded moves and idiotic sequences, but I have a feeling some of that has been done already in the 5 pages here. I will have to go read some...

Berardinelli, this review lessens you a bit IMO.

I obviously disagree. "Nitpicking" implies that the issues I and others have with the film are minor. To us, they are glaring flaws. And the abysmal science featured in the movie is only a small part of it. I already listed a host of other issues I have with the film. Furthermore, the movie purports to be and is touted as "an intelligent science fiction film", when I find it to be anything but. I found it to be dumb, hollow and empty.

I also disagree with the notion that suspension of disbelief for FTL-travel carries over to everything else in a film, but that--as with most things, is an individual point of view. I find it to be a gradual scale and if you ask me to suspend my disbelief on an issue or three (or possibly more/less depending on the film and issue) I'm fine, but there is obviously a limit. Suspension of disbelief only carries so far and Prometheus broke mine fairly quickly with the mindboggling stupidity of its characters and awful plot development. For some reason the film really hit a nerve with me. I have never felt this antagonistic towards a movie ever before in 20 years of watching and studying film. I think it is probably rooted in the fact that the film ultimately seems to present itself and aspires to be something it's not: A thoughtful existential piece. That was what I expected having heard about it when I went to see it. It wasn't what I got.

The reason I bring up faster than the speed of light travel is because it's scientifically impossible (by modern physics understanding of the universe) so to get upset with say... identifying a star cluster by crude cave paintings or the "100% genetic match" comment, neither of which are (as I think I pointed out) not nearly as impossible as faster than the speed of light. (Improbable yes, but not impossible) So to get upset over other scientific details in a film where faster than the speed of light travel is obviously occuring, well, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You have to be pretty egrigigous to beat "faster than the speed of light travel". It's possible yes, but very difficult.

Things like sound in space, horrible understandings of motion and how objects would move in the absence of a large gravitational body, spaceships with artificial gravity, spaceships that can accelerate to faster than the speed of light and not turn the crew into paste, but still throw them around when the they get hit by every little photon torpedo, are nearly all present in Prometheus and nearly every other film ever made. So to not get mad about these things occuring in Prometheus but to get mad about the other, yes, problematic, but hardly noteworthy, scientific details just does not make sense to me.

You just said you found the film idiotic. My good sir, that is not an argument, but an unbacked thesis that doesn't adress any of the points I raised.

I disagree, although not entirely, as I too found the film idiotic in parts, not entirely but certainly at times. Characterization was spotty, the plot itself, holy, and not in the spiratual sense, and the overall experience one of filmmakers whose reach exceeded their proverbial grasp. I like ambitious films, so the fact that the film did not fulfill the promse of the first scene did not kill me.
-Jeremy

No less a scientific authority than Neil deGrasse Tyson enjoyed the movie, citing the biggest gripe as Charlize Theron's "half a billion miles" remark. Make of that what you will.

Incidentally, Ridley Scott's next project will be an original screenplay written by Cormac McCarthy.

As I wrote, what broke my suspension of disbelief was not the terrible science presented in the movie but rather the continued imbecilic actions of its characters and the awful plot development. The science problems simply build on and expand these issues. I am not exclusively objecting to the bad science in the film. The bad science is only a small part of my problem with the film. But because of all the other issues I have, it becomes less tolerable to me.

And the identical genetic match of alien DNA with humanity is every bit as impossible as FTL travel if not more so. The engineers are seemingly immune to decomposition. How could this feature possibly not be encoded into their DNA? Or any other of the dozens of features that seperate them from humans. Even two human beings do not share share identical DNA sequences! I have different genes than you do. Modern criminal forensics is based on this fact.

And my opinion that the film is dumb is not an "unbacked" thesis. I have backed it up with over 20 examples from the film. There is scarcely a character who behaves reasonably. It has nothing interesting to say save for the idea that aliens engineered human life, which is hardly a revolutionary concept. I found the most promising parts of the film dealt with David in ways similar to Scott's "Blade Runner", which features neither great science nor brilliant characterisations (save possibly for Roy) but is nevertheless one of my all time favourite films for the way it presents the issue of artifical life. Unfortunately, these things are never expanded on and "Prometheus" just struck me as being hollow and empty. You are obviously free to disagree.

CoenFan, you are right on the mark. Don't listen. This film was nonsense science, which really doesn't even matter that much given the Perfectly stated...

And the 'fiction' part of 'Science Fiction' starts to become a little bit more recognised...

I've heard comments here like "drove me nuts" and "annoyed me". Are you kidding? A bad relationship causes blood pressure issues, not a bloody movie

While I think that words like "disappointing" would be warranted by this film, words like "worst fucking film ever" and "piece of pseudo sci-fi trash" are going a bit too far. This film was good, even if it could have been much better.

I don't think it's the worst film ever by any means, nor would I even call it a piece of trash. It is, however, profoundly dumb, which is something I was unprepared for and--given what it seems to want to accomplish, find it difficult to tolerate. Using James' scoring system, I would probably rate it about a 1,5.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it. I left the theater mildly satisfied by what I had just seen but not as excited as I had hoped to be. I think the thing that most pleased me "in the moment" was how good the 3-D was. That was the only thing about PROMETHEUS that exceeded my expectations.

Let's not forget the most common "deliberate" scientific error made in science fictions films: artificial gravity. We accept characters walking around a space vessel as if it were normal.

Which sci-fi films have attempted to portray gravity realistically? I can think of 2001, and more recently Avatar.

Apollo 13.



(Preempting a potential and obvious source of disagreement: being closely based on fact does not mean that it is nonfiction.)

I think Mission to Mars tried, though I'm not sure how successful they were, as I'm not a physicist.