Special Edition Podcast
Show Notes
In space no one can hear you… podcast? One of the most anticipated films of 2012 is finally here: Prometheus! It’s director Ridley Scott’s prequel to his 1979 sci-fi classic Aliens, and reactions have certainly been mixed. Join Conor Kilpatrick, Paul Montgomery, and Mike Romo as they attempt to suss out what went right and what went wrong.
Running Time: 40:12
Prometheus (2012)
Subscribe
Get Involved
Doing the podcast is fun and all, but let's be honest, listening to the 2 of us talk to each other can get repetitive, so we look to you, the iFanboy listeners to participate in the podcast! "How can I get in on the fun?" you may ask yourself, well here's how:
- E-Mail us at contact@ifanboy.com with any questions, comments or anything that may be on your mind.
Please don't forget to leave your name and where you're writing from and each week, we'll pick the best e-mails to include on the podcast!
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
I’ll say this about the film: I may not have liked it very much but it lead to this interesting 40 minute discussion AND THEN after we signed off we were just chatting and then we started talking about the film again and went on for like another half an hour. There’s something to be said for a film that generates that much discussion.
I have yet to see the movie and I am still interested in seeing it. Even if people have trouble with it I just can’t ignore such a gorgeous looking movie.
I am wondering though, and this is just from seeing some of these reviews:
Is there a Kubrick feel to this movie? With the bizarre prologue and some bouts of nothing going on in the movie, people said it was a lot closer to 2001 then to Alien. Just curious to see if you guys saw any of that.
@TNC: That’s definitely what they’re going for, but (in my opinion) they fail miserably.
I should just clarify; I mean that, while the mysterious, meaning of life, “I have no idea what’s happening right now” stuff was very well done, but the rest of the movie did not hold that up.
isn’t that recurring music jingle the same jingle that they play on the flute to activate the flight deck? they sounded the same to me anyway. it was like a little bit of foreshadowing.
It was awesome
I thought the movie was awesome as a stand-alone. I don’t agree that the movie seemed to be made as part 1 of a trilogy.
I loved this movie..Im glad not every question was answered considering a lot of the movie was based on the question of “where we come from” and thats an unanswerable question in itself..it wasnt a direct prequel leading right into Alien and I’m excited to see how Ridley Scott will eventually tie everything together in future sequels
Outstanding film. No one other than Ridley Scott could’ve done this.
Just came back from the movie and I really enjoyed it. I can definitely see why people are a bit undecided on liking the movie or not though. This isn’t your typical summer blockbuster and it does have a lot of ‘2001’ influence to it. Although Ridley Scott isn’t ripping Kubrick off which made me happy cause I read from so many people (online) that he was taking ideas from him.
PROS: It’s an absolutely GORGEOUS movie from beginning to end. Unlike James Cameron, who took his dick out and showcased it to the world, Scott didn’t let the CGI get in the way of the movie. The ships, landscapes, and creatures all look great and they don’t look fake at all. Hell, I was impressed that he used actual buggies instead of using CG to show people inside them. Fassbender was fantastic in this and while he isn’t a ‘HAL 9000’ he is so unnerving but childlike it’s hard not to like him. The story, while uneven (and I’ll get to that in a second), was also pretty fascinating and to be honest if this had nothing to do with Alien at all I wouldn’t be upset. Plus I did like the music in this and Marc Streitenfeld (relatively new to the scene) composed some eerie pieces here.
CONS: First off, Guy Pearce’s make up is probably the worst make up I’ve ever seen in a mainstream movie. He did a good job as Weyland but the make up was so bad it took me out of the film a bit. Why couldn’t they get someone like Anthony Hopkins do fill in for him? Charlize Theron’s character was also not well defined or written so I could care less about her. It probably would have been better to get rid of her all together because she adds nothing to the film. There are some nitpicks I could say like the obligatory scene of people trying to play nice with aliens or most of the secondary characters were pointless. But they didn’t hamper the movie so much as Pearce and Theron did.
Overall it is sort of a breath of fresh air for me. It isn’t a generic, sci-fi blockbuster movie and it’s the first time in a long time where the CGI actually benefits the film rather then hampering it. Maybe it’s a little dated and it could have been bigger if it came out before Avatar. But what’s here is pretty damn good and even if I didn’t see it in IMAX I would probably recommend finding one that does because this could be one of the most gorgeous movie of the year. It would be a shame if Scott doesn’t get a chance to do a sequel though so I hope that losing to Madagascar 3 twice in the box office doesn’t kill that chance. GRADE: B+
(Come on, you know you want that sequel with Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender’s head getting into shenanigans in space.)
Good overview TNC. I was a late goer to the cinema as well, and enjoyed it a lot too. It could have been a lot worse in the hands of the wrong director. Check out Alien III & IV. Granted I just like the Alien franchise & I’m a pretty big SF fan, so I thought Prometheus was very successful. I just went to the 2D showing, but after I saw it, I wanted to go again to the 3D film just to see what kind of experience that was.
To be fair, Alien III and Resurrection had amazing directors attached to them. David Fincher did the third movie and Resurrection was directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (of City of Lost Children and Amelie fame). The problem with those films was that they were given strict mandates by the studios and had extensive rewrites well into production. Alien III in particular is infamous for literally having 6 writers and not having having a shooting script ready for the actors during filming.
They aren’t good films because of them. Although Resurrection, while terrible, has a lot of Jeunet’s influence in the final cut so it definitely is ambitious with some of the directing.
I know I’m behind on my movie watching but I just saw this tonight and i had been saving the podcast until i saw the movie. I personally thought the movie was fantastic and I’m a little surprised by the negative reaction but i understand Conor’s point of view. I didnt know this was going to have a sequel and actually dont mind if we dont get one because I think they should end on a win. I didnt think this movie had any more or less answers than the original Alien did. Also I love the idea of the girl with the dragon tattoo roaming space with robot Magneto’s head in a duffel bag.
Ok so I’m posting on this thread a week late and no one is ever going to read this, but I found this interesting q and a with Lindelof and I want to share this with someone. So since I don’t having any real friends it will have to be a deserted comment thread.
MTV :Why did David poison Charlie? Was he hoping he’d impregnate Elizabeth or was that just a nice bonus?
Lindelof :In the scene preceding said “poisoning” (but WAS it?), David was chatting with someone in cryo-sleep via headset that we can safely assume is Weyland. If I were a betting man, I’d say something happened in that conversation that very specifically directed David to spike Holloway’s champagne. And yes, it was a safe bet that Holloway would have sex with Shaw soon after. Which is why in space, you should always wear a condom!