Yeah, attacking anyone for simply having and expressing an opinion is out of line. Even if the discussion gets heated, as it is won't to do, it is out of line. I'm sure I made a mistake or two, for which I apologize. I think the big problem when discussing films of this nature - big massively hyped nerd pictures, especially franchise stuff - is that ever since Lucas went and acted all Lucas, people always want someone to blame when things go wrong, and since the aggrieved party can't tell Hollywood how angry they are, they tell the people who enjoyed it. (The inverse of that is that people then feel the need to defend those monolithic entities' feelings, which is ridiculous, and only serves to perpetuate the angst.) It isn't right, but it is understandable. I wish film criticism (sans a couple certain critics) would return to the way it was in the 70s, but that ship's long sailed. The RLM guys are fighting the good fight, though.
"All the people" appears to be BillD. But I am open to entertaining the idea that he has multiple personalities! In any case, you never said anything. If you felt he was attacking you, speak up! It's the best way to keep criticism focused on the film and not on the person offering an opinion (which I agree is silly/rude and unnecessary). And "everyone" is painting with too broad a brush. Unless you mean guilty of something in a general sense because I probably am. Give me a moment and I'll make a list.
EDIT: Added in quotes for context because Creole Ned is apparently watching this thread in order to jump in with snark on a moment's notice if anyone dare besmirch the name of PROMETHEUS critics. I'm curious what your contributions look like to you in terms of how constructive they are. I don't know what "redshirt" means to you, nor do I know all of its possible ramifications for Star Trek fans. But I feel pretty comfortable with being dismissive of its use in this instance with reference to that character. It was a pretty solid marker of poorly articulated shit-stirring last time, although I believe that Raife at least used it somewhat more accurately. The first comment was a joke directed at AlexB because I think it's easy to underestimate the potential for a GWBush Bring 'em on kind of moment in this topic. Other than that, I'm really not that interested in most meta-criticisms for this film but I remain interested in the particulars of the movie itself. I don't see why that's a problem.
People who liked it and people who didn't like it? It doesn't. I get that his character is supposed to be excited about finding an alien, but to have an archaeologist blunder around, destroy ancient artifacts, take off his helmet and generally demonstrate zero curiosity towards any of the discoveries being made are just a few examples of instances where my suspension of disbelief was pierced. I believe they even lampshaded this behaviour with some dialog they gave to Noomi Rapace ("guys, I think we've altered the composition of the room" or something). You know what would have been better than having to add that dialog? Actually having them act like archaeologists.
I think it was "we've altered the atmosphere of the room", a reference to the way that the manufactured atmosphere coming in was apparently triggering reactions around them. I think Scott went a long way to explaining some of the "realism" problems by talking about his approach to characters in the movie and acting, which is basically that the former exist to move the plot forward and the latter turn in a performance according to their criteria and it usually sticks as is. It's frustrating when there are so many things that could have been done to make the film smoother and more plausible in the human details so they could properly fade into the background where they belong. Oh, also, I don't know if I mentioned it before but apparently one draft had the purpose of the revenant Geologist being simple revenge on the one that got him into this, which was supposed to culminate with Theron's death.
You know what, you're right, I stand corrected. Although one of my main beefs with the movie is that it didn't provide any motivation for David's actions. Why is he doing that? On whose behalf is he doing it? Isn't that kind of important to know? And nevertheless, it still doesn't make Holloway's actions any more logical. He's sick and scared and doesn't know why. Why on earth would he decide to kill himself? There's no resignation demonstrated by his character, he just suddenly walks into a blast of fire. Great? What am I supposed to do with that. It doesn't? I thought she was established early on as the daughter of Weyland, now the head of the company. She's certainly not set up as any sort of soldier or navy officer.
Well, let me apologize, because I never intended it as a callback to one of Raife's comments. I'm not even sure when or why he used it. To me, it was just a joking reference to a character who does nothing and whose only role is to die meaninglessly to prove how dangerous the situation is. It was tongue in cheek, nothing more.
I was just explaining why the whole redshirt thing was triggering my middle finger. No apology necessary, and I'm sorry myself for not having a softer touch on that.
David is supposed to be a bit misleading, in that you are unaware of his encoded priorities as a robot (mainly oriented around Old Man Weyland's goals), and along with that the way he negotiates his own goals within the rules he has to live by becomes evident only through how he acts. It only gradually becomes clear he's not bound by a strict "don't harm humans" or anything like that. So, consider that the combination of his increasing disdain for the scientists he previously admired (let alone humans generally in their approach to his creation) now that he's encountered evidence of real genius, and his programmed priority of testing different avenues towards Weyland's goal make him something between a Literal Genie and a genius child with no conscience. You can also see it in the way he baits Theron and the way he works around his restrictions generally (ie watching people's dreams) simply because no one thought to constrain his AI around raw curiosity. It's not easy to follow the first time, but there is a steady progression of desperation from the moment he hallucinates/sees the thing in his eye to the moments of body failure in the facility. She was, but her strangely ascetic conduct, the instant pushups coming out of the cryotank, etc suggest something underlying her background that make her a good deal more than a product of nepotism. However, I think you are probably right that she is not former military since one of the other cut scenes has Elba explaining a good deal more about his background in the military and there's no implication she has any experience along those lines. Could just be a class divide or something, who knows. They also toyed with the idea of implying that she was a potential android as well, but ultimately decided to leave in only the remnant of that in Elba's joke.
In case you haven't had the opportunity to listen to Spaihts and Lindeloff talk past each other on the writer's commentary, the entire Spaihts script has been leaked online and promptly declared the second coming. Spaihts confirmed it was the real deal. I don't have an opinion on it yet, I was pretty mixed on what the commentary showed in terms of his strategic goals and his more practical sense of scripting.
