Film: Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012)

[punch_the_lion]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120606/REVIEWS/120609989

Ebert gives it a four star review. I'm intrigued to see it again now. He seems to admire the concept of the film and the fact that Scott isn't just strictly tapping into Alien. It seems to develop it's own mythology.

[Sock OR Muffin?]

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120606/REVIEWS/120609989

Ebert gives it a four star review. I'm intrigued to see it again now. He seems to admire the concept of the film and the fact that Scott isn't just strictly tapping into Alien. It seems to develop it's own mythology.

If anyone hasn't seen it, don't read past the first paragraph. He goes into a lot of detail in that review.

[Rimbaud III]

I have only seen one film in 3D, Avengers, which was supposed to be pretty good for 3D, and I hated that part of it. I would never choose to see a film in 3D. It's an unsatisfying experience that I definitely do not prefer to normal movie watching.

There are few examples of it being used effectively. Cave of Forgotten Dreams, as mentioned above, is an example of where it's used to good effect. Pina, by Wim Wenders, is also supposed to be pretty successful. But there's not a rotten cock's chance in hell that I'm going to sit through two hours of modern dance to verify this.
I think most 3d films fall short because all they desire is to exaggerate the existing spectacle. I get it, shit's flying towards me LIKE IT WAS REAL! Depth, that thing that 3d ostensibly seeks to give us the illusion of, is taken literally. That generally comes at the expense of anything else. It's also too fucking dark. It's not 3d glasses they should be giving us at the door, it's cataract glasses.

I think My Bloody Valentine 3D had some bits that relied on the comedic/schlock aspect of 3D(Blood splattering against the lens, a pickaxe being thrown). For that, I can see it.

Most of the time it doesn't bring anything to the table.

Most of the time it's a studio attempting to squeeze more out of our wallets. A large percentage of 3d films are stereoscopically converted in post, and unless you're dealing with a fully CG shot they can be hideously simplistic (in my experience at least). A lot of shit ends up looking like cut-outs because that's exactly what they are.

[Rimbaud III]

I wish they'd brighten the image for 3D films, they always look dull and tonally narrow.

Yep. The glasses are little polarising filters. Of course the exposure your eye receives is going to be diminished after passing through this filter - why is the projector not just kicked up a quarter/half stop?

I heard an item on Radio 4 a few months ago, where a study found that most cinemas were projecting way too dark these days. They said it was down to the kids operating the projectors just not having any training as managers of cinemas are happy to treat the projectors as 'set-and-forget' devices. I even saw a movie a while ago where the image was skewed and part of it was falling off the screen. This is no doubt compounding the problem.

Ebert's written on this too. Lazy/inexperienced projectionists pretty much sums it up. Well, that and shit projectors.

This article provides a little insight into why 3d films can look so dark:

[...]The cinema needs to either buy a new 3D projector or upgrade their existing projectors. The latter is cheaper but the result is also cheaper. The big problem with each and every technology for projecting stereoscopic images, is that it needs to do with the light output of the single projector lamp to project two distinct images. The inevitable end result is that — even in the most ideal case — each eye only gets half of the projector lamp's intensity compared to a plain 2D projection (Figure 3). In reality it is even worse: because the image splitting systems and the filters are not ideal in neither the projector nor the glasses, each eye will get an intensity that can be as low as 7% of what it would see in a plain 2D projection. This is actually the only difference between a converted projector and one that is specifically and properly designed for 3D: the latter should have a much higher light output to compensate for the loss of intensity. Needless to say this again increases the cost, which is why many venues will resort to a lower-intensity projector with too dark a 3D image as a result.

I have a friend that's a projectionist. I'm going to ask him what his take on simply turning up the intensity of the bulb on a converted projector is.

[holmes]

I've seen a couple of 3d films - alice in wonderland and cave of forgotton dreams. The 3d in both of those films is pathetic in comparison to the 3d in Prometheus. The secene that really sticks in my mind, is when David first enters the last engineer's bridge on the space jockey, when he stands in the middle of their controls watching the star charts spin around his head. That really does give you the feeling that you are experiencing a multi-dimension visual.

My thoughts on the film...my troubled thoughts;

[i]Possible Spoilers[/i]

As for the film - it looks amazing, the first 20 minutes particularly look really awesome. But as for the actual script...what a pile of toss. Seriously, it's just annoying - the mad geologist or whatever he is, why is so upset all the time? Hopefully, he is a satire on the sort of angry tattoed suburbanite dickheads you meet at screamy hardcore gigs, who want to shout at you in the lovely face about the benefits of communism, and then go back to mum and dads 4 bed semi when the youth centre shuts. But, still - why? Why does Spall's character wan't to be his friend? Why are all the chick from red road's lines so stupid, considering she is one of the best actresses in the uk? Why is the captain so under-used, considering how much screen presence he commands with so little actual screen time? Why are his co-pilots suddenly so happy to die at the end? Why is the Ripley substitute's boyfriend always so annoying and snarky? Why do they make such a point of showing the space jockey spaceship crashing to the surface and landing in the same position as in Alien, only to have the pilot leave the ship and die on the emergency space pod, when in Alien a chest burster has killed him in his chair on the ship? Why is the end so unfinished? Sure, sequels need to be set up, but this felt like one of those annoying cut-in-half films. The Alien franchise spawned sequels, yet each episode felt like it's own complete little section, if you will, and fucking had the decency to end properly. Bollocks! Even if I hadn't seen Alien, this film would have seriously pissed me off. Frankly, I think the good reviews have been overly generous.

A lovingly polished turd. Go see it.

[Gramsci]

Incidentally, I saw Prometheus yesterday, in glorious 2D.

The opening scene, prior to the title even being shown, are perhaps the most beautiful 8 minutes of mainstream, big-money cinema I've ever laid eyes on. Truly astounding - and I didn't need 3D to 'enhance' it. The few times I've seen a 3D feature I've found myself dedicating a not-inconsiderable amount of brain power to working our whether the 3D effect is actually working, rather than being taken in by the images. I'll happily never see a 3D movie ever again.

I will be re-seeing the film in 2D.

Steve, avoid the 3D, pointless.

[GypsumFantastic]

I found this article regarding the many questions left behind by the Prometheus storyline pretty helpful.

Trying to answer the questions of Prometheus

[ImDADA]

I wish they'd brighten the image for 3D films, they always look dull and tonally narrow.

Yep. The glasses are little polarising filters. Of course the exposure your eye receives is going to be diminished after passing through this filter - why is the projector not just kicked up a quarter/half stop?

I heard an item on Radio 4 a few months ago, where a study found that most cinemas were projecting way too dark these days. They said it was down to the kids operating the projectors just not having any training as managers of cinemas are happy to treat the projectors as 'set-and-forget' devices. I even saw a movie a while ago where the image was skewed and part of it was falling off the screen. This is no doubt compounding the problem.

Exactly, you're almost wearing sunglasses - why aren't 3D prints just sent to the cinemas already brightened up? Seems like the simplest problem to fix.

[chumpchange]

I wish they'd brighten the image for 3D films, they always look dull and tonally narrow.

Yep. The glasses are little polarising filters. Of course the exposure your eye receives is going to be diminished after passing through this filter - why is the projector not just kicked up a quarter/half stop?

I heard an item on Radio 4 a few months ago, where a study found that most cinemas were projecting way too dark these days. They said it was down to the kids operating the projectors just not having any training as managers of cinemas are happy to treat the projectors as 'set-and-forget' devices. I even saw a movie a while ago where the image was skewed and part of it was falling off the screen. This is no doubt compounding the problem.

Exactly, you're almost wearing sunglasses - why aren't 3D prints just sent to the cinemas already brightened up? Seems like the simplest problem to fix.

For 2 reasons:

- they are digital files that rely on the luminance settings of the individual projector in each theater

- you can't create a "brighter" version in during the color-timing of the film and output that one as your 3D distribution because it would fuck up the color, contrast and gamma curve. It would look even worse.

This is a problem of studios pushing forward a technology that is only half-ready in order to make a quick buck.

Unless I know for sure that a film has been shot in 3D, I stick to the 2D screening. Most of the time you can look it up on IMDB, under "full technical specs".

[Tommy Alpha]

One of the biggest problems I have with this kind of film highlights the general misapplication of auteur theory. The amazing things about Alien were the set/production design, the sound design, the script, the lighting and the special effects. Though Scott oversaw the whole thing, it wasn’t like they were calling on his technical expertise in any of these fields. It was a great film made great by collaboration between very talented individuals, helmed by a competent director. Sure, he might have steered the ship one way or the other, but it was within very narrow parameters. The mood was straight out of Geiger’s paintings, the pacing was from O’Bannon’s script. Everyone else was working off those two things.

Give it 30 years of people blowing smoke up his arse on the strength of two amazing films and not much else and it’s like Some Kind of Monster without the laughs. The Ridley Scott show, everyone marching to his drum. An old man convinced of his own genius who no one will say ‘no’ to, despite the fact he is nothing more than a competent director who had two flashes of brilliance early on (I’d give him more credit for Blade Runner, though it was still very much collaborative). Is it any wonder he’s revisiting them now?

Sure it looked pretty and it was one hell of a film to see in the imax half baked, but the more I think about it the more I feel like if I wanted to watch an old man wanking I just wouldn’t knock before going into my dad’s bedroom* **

*I’m so sorry, dad
**I’m totally using this line again

[johnnyshape]

Had a day off today. Went to watch Prometheus in 3D.

I lasted an hour, then walked out.

What a waste. What a half-arsed load of third-hand scifi tropes, pisspoor dialogue, B-movie acting, and cack-handed special effects.
The 3D glasses got right on my tits too; like watching a film through a dirty windscreen, just for the odd thrill.
But that wasn't the reason I gave up on it. I left because it was fucking rubbish. (I wasn't the first to leave in the cinema either, and it was only a one-fifth-full afternoon showing).

[japmn]

Prometheus is a terrible movie! Just fucking awful!

[Plastic Eggs]

Well, it was nice to look at.

[pollo]

Blows my mind that people are voting 'Not Crap'. You people are not the people I thought you were.

[punch_the_lion]

Hmm. Ridley Scott's next film titled The Counselor will star Michael Fassbender in the lead....the original screenplay will be written by Cormac McCarthy. Interesting.

[punch_the_lion]

Prometheus is a terrible movie! Just fucking awful!

Avatar is still worse, I will wager.

[krs]

This film convinced me 3D is not necessary, ever, for a film. It was distracting. There are numerous glaring defects in the technology. 3D does absolutely nothing for Prometheus. Avoid.

It was disappointing, but I will pull short of calling it Crap. Most of my criticisms have been mentioned, so I won't go into that. Prepare yourself for numerous logical problems and some bad dialog. This might make a good rental.

[Gramsci]

... a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

[/quote]

'Nuff said.

[Auntie Ovipositor]

I don't think 3D is inherently stupid or useless, but I also don't think it's inherently a step forward. Everything Murch says about the planar realities is true, but there's still something appealing about the illusion. It's not natural-looking, but it mimics some natural behaviors in a way that's interestingly off-putting. Someone is going to find a way to exploit the look in an interesting manner at some point. I missed Cave of Forgotten Dreams, but I hear he did something interesting with it. Someone else will as well, I have no doubt.

But I can't take more than 5 or 10 minutes of it as it stands now, so I'll be seeing this in 2D.

[Brinkman]

Had a day off today. Went to watch Prometheus in 3D.

I lasted an hour, then walked out.

What a waste. What a half-arsed load of third-hand scifi tropes, pisspoor dialogue, B-movie acting, and cack-handed special effects.
The 3D glasses got right on my tits too; like watching a film through a dirty windscreen, just for the odd thrill.
But that wasn't the reason I gave up on it. I left because it was fucking rubbish. (I wasn't the first to leave in the cinema either, and it was only a one-fifth-full afternoon showing).

Prometheus is a terrible movie! Just fucking awful!

This film convinced me 3D is not necessary, ever, for a film. It was distracting. There are numerous glaring defects in the technology. 3D does absolutely nothing for Prometheus. Avoid.

It was disappointing, but I will pull short of calling it Crap. Most of my criticisms have been mentioned, so I won't go into that. Prepare yourself for numerous logical problems and some bad dialog. This might make a good rental.

Wow.

I saw it in 3D at an Imax theater the day it came out and will be going to see it again without the 3D whenever my lady wants to go.

Having now seen 3D movies in both standard and Imax theaters, I would have to say that I found the sense of immersion the Imax viewing imparts as very complementary to the otherwise gimmicky imperfection that plagued my prior 3D experiences. As far as brightness issues, I experimented with removing and replacing my 3D glasses during the opening vistas and found that the subtly boosted light levels of the projected image seemed properly calibrated for the polarized 3D glasses. Whether this has anything to do with the fact that children and teenagers are not allowed as Imax projectionists, I don't know.

Ultimately, I agree with others who found the subtle use of 3D tasteful and effective, I think the good performances barely outweigh the bad and that overall, it's strengths effective at overcoming it's weaknesses. One does get the feeling that the movie really meant to have more to offer in both scale and execution, but if you think this is only good for a rental, man, I envy your home theater setup.