After I saw Prometheus, I purposefully didn't write a review on here for two reasons. First, I only saw it after it had been out in theaters for several weeks, and I prefer to post reviews while the movies are still relatively new. Second, it was just a crappy movie. To sum it up in one sentence, I felt like I had just watched six different movies and maybe two of them weren't terrible. There were so many issues with the script that any review I might write would end up being a long, ranting piece about how I thought the movie sucked.
Which means this post is going to be a long, ranting piece about how I thought "Prometheus" sucked.
(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)
1. Character (un)development
There were only two characters in the movie that I liked: Michael Fassbender and Stringer Bell (sorry, make that Idris Elba). Fassbender's just a wonderful actor, and it was fun to see Stringer from The Wire in a scifi movie. There were also a bunch of other characters as well, none of whom I cared about. In no particular order, there was Lead Female Protagonist, Guy You Thought Was Lead Male Protagonist, Charlize Theron In A Skintight Jumpsuit, Some Asian Guy, Some Asian Guy's Friend, 40-Something Scientist Lady, Guy With Beard, and Other Guy Who May Have Had A Beard. I may be leaving someone out. Oh well, they clearly weren't important to the plot at all.
Lead Female Protagonist (LFP) is someone we as the audience are supposed to root for. Supposed to. Usually this is done by making the character relatable to us, pitiable, or just straight awesome. LFP was maybe number two, pitiable, but not through any clever means. Her traits were that of the "idealistic scientist who's too noble for cynicism or to think that people might want to misuse science and technology for malicious purposes" trope. In one word: naive. And naivety does not endear me to a character, mostly because I like characters who are, you know, smart.
Then there's Guy You Thought Was Lead Male Protagonist (LMP). I label him that partially because he's also extremely one-dimensional, and also because he's killed halfway through the movie. He has some sort of romantic thing with LFP, but this is never made clear how serious it is (unless I somehow missed that; be explicit, screenwriters). The two of them clearly do have a thing, but I don't know if it's long-term, or if it's because they're horny in space and their options are limited. Point is, the move tries to cash in emotionally on this relationship when LMP dies because we're supposed to sympathize with LFP even more.
I'd love to explain what Charlize Theron's character's role was, but I just plain don't know (aside from the obvious looking-good-in-skintight-clothing). She's like the captain or something, the person in charge of the mission. Everyone is supposed to do what she says even though we have no real reason to respect her authority. But she drinks vodka straight, so watch out for her badassery! In the first Alien movie, the captain of the Nostromo seemed like a sensible, decent guy. He was level-headed, brave, and cared more about his crew than the mission. Theron just yelled at people to do things she didn't want to do herself and didn't show a whole lot of that putting-the-crew-first thing.
2. People Doing Stupid Things Over And Over Again
Remember when I wrote that I like intelligent characters? This movie didn't have any, except for Fassbender and that was because Fassbender's an android (or maybe a REPLICANT???) who follows his programming. Everyone else did stupid things over and over and over and over and over until they finally got themselves killed and I cruelly laughed at their demise.
Some of the more egregious decisions: LFP is impregnated without her knowledge by Fassbender and after she goes and has a really crazy abortion surgery scene, SHE WALKS RIGHT BACK TO FASSBENDER AND IS LIKE "HEY Y'ALL, WHAT'S HAPPENING?" As someone who can't get pregnant, I can't predict how I'd react in this situation, but I'm reasonably sure that I WOULDN'T DO THAT. Am I in the neighborhood on this one, ladies?
Another stupid decision happens with the two bearded dudes. They get lost on the alien ship (of course they do, even though THEY HAVE A MAP) and when they think there's something alive that's after them, they head back to the room that's FILLED WITH DEAD BODIES. Logic must have gone extinct right before the 22nd century. Beard One and Beard Two (alternatively Scottish Beard and Glasses Beard), are both then killed by the creatures in the room.
And finally, the climax sucked. The reveal that the really old guy was on the ship the whole time (THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!) was bizarre. Part of that six-movies-in-one thing I stated earlier. And why was he there? To ask the aliens "Hey, I know you seem like you're planning on sending of these ships filled with biological weapons to Earth to wipe out our species, so do you mind giving me eternal life, which I'm presuming you have because I'm old and don't want to die and that's all that motivates me?"
As if the moment when the alien went apeshit and murdered the old guy and six others wasn't enough of a warning (along the plan to DROP BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS ON EARTH TO ERADICATE US), the movie ends with LFP deciding to visit the alien's homeworld to convince them not to kill us. I'm sure that's going to work. Absolutely positive. In no way do I believe these guys will murder the everlasting shit out of you the second you try to speak to them. Nope. Totally not gonna happy. You keep on being that naive, idealistic scientist who, by the way, decided to travel to the aliens' planet WITH THE GUY WHO IMPREGNATED HER WITH AN ALIEN AND ALSO WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR LMP'S DEATH.
Seems reasonable to me.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Kid Stands on Old Person's Lawn, ESPN Reports
Speaking as someone who is terrible at basketball, I think I am completely entitled to throw my opinion into a basketball discussion. Especially considering the irrelevancy of this particular basketball topic. Apparently over the last day or two, the 2012 men's Olympic basketball team and the 1992 men's Olympic basketball team have been trash-talking each other over which is/was the better team. Yup, a bunch of old, retired basketball guys are arguing with 20-somethings about something that will never, ever happen unless some form of time travel occurs.
Here's the breakdown of the situation: The '92 Olympic team has been considered the single greatest collection of basketball talent ever. They were given the moniker "The Dream Team" for that specific reason: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockon, Scottie Pippen, David Robinson, Clyde Drexler, Christian Laettner, and Chris Mullin. Basically Superman times twelve. During their run for the gold, they outscored their opponents by about 44 points per game, as if they were playing against sixth-graders. In the gold medal game, they won by a 32-point margin.
Just so we're clear, '92 team = Gods.
But that was 20 years ago, and now a completely new group of players fills the roster for this year's team. They're also basically gods. LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Kobe Bryant are a few of the players that make up the team. This is a really, really good roster. Barring some sort of catastrophic event such as a bubonic plague outbreak or the Monstars sucking up all their talent, this team's going to win gold this year.
But then somebody had to open their big fat mouth.
I don't know who started the trash-talking, but someone (I think it was Kobe's ego) said that their team was better than the other and would beat them, temporal physics notwithstanding. And of course members of the other team shot back, giving relevance to this pointless claim. Now there's trash-talking back and forth, and the basketball media is rolling with it because it's July and, aside from Dwight Howard acting like a whiny little shit, there's nothing to talk about.
"I know what we can talk about! Young people standing on some old guys' lawns and the old guys yelling at them to get off! Think of the ratings!" - Someone at ESPN, probably.
That's my "media critique" of this situation. Being a journalism major, I am completely entitled to offer my vastly knowledgeable opinion on the media that I've gleaned from the handful of classes I've taken over the past few years. I do have to say that I haven't turned on the TV today (OK, that was a lie, I watched some Breaking Bad and Community; but I don't have cable), so I don't know if ESPN devoted any coverage to it. My gut says they did, as there are stories about the feud on its website, and I've seen a number of ESPN people tweet and/or retweet things about it all afternoon and evening. (Looking through online stories at its website, ESPN appears to have devoted some time to the story through the airwaves. Links to segments on PTI and SportsCenter are available to view).
But this is a non-story. Here's why: There's no way you can ever definitively prove which team is/was better. Unless the TARDIS appears or someone from Starfleet decides to violate the Temporal Prime Directive, this matchup will never happen. Sure, you can run projections and get an idea of what might happen, but that's it. It's not trash-talking that bothers me in this whole story, it's the fact that people are actually debating who would win. I know I sound like a fun-killer for saying that, but let me clarify: Debating this amongst your friends is fine. I'd sure like to have it with my friends and see where the discussion goes. But having this debate on SportsCenter or PTI? That's my problem.
Why are you wasting my time on this by letting anchors and analysts try to give a definitive answer to a question that doesn't have one? We're talking about two different eras of basketball: Different styles of play, different officiating/rules, different league configurations, etc. This is essentially comparing apples to oranges, and it's just not a feasible comparison. Also, aren't there other, more pressing news stories you could devote your time to instead of this? Like, say, the whole Penn State report that just came out. I hear that's KINDA A BIG DEAL. Or maybe not.
If ESPN does want to have this debate, give it to Bill Simmons. This is exactly his domain. He's probably the most knowledgeable basketball guy at ESPN, and people (by "people" I mean the totally not pretentious-sounding descriptor "media watchdogs") will know exactly where he's coming from: He's not the voice of an objective reporter, he's a sports fan who somehow gets paid to write about sports by ESPN without having to always be objective (which is basically my dream job). People know this and understand this when they read his columns, and his take on this debate, including a definitive answer on who would win a best-of-seven series, is 1000 times more relevant than the guys on SportsCenter who aren't talking about legitimate news stories.
So yeah, that's the end of my little rant. More like nit-picking, though. I might come down a little hard on ESPN, but this isn't that big of a deal. It just seems ill-timed in the light of the new information about the Penn State report. And let's face it, ESPN can't exactly do any more damage to their credibility anymore, because that assumes there's still something left to damage. ZIIIING!!!
Oh, and I'll take the '92 team any day. Duh.
Here's the breakdown of the situation: The '92 Olympic team has been considered the single greatest collection of basketball talent ever. They were given the moniker "The Dream Team" for that specific reason: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, John Stockon, Scottie Pippen, David Robinson, Clyde Drexler, Christian Laettner, and Chris Mullin. Basically Superman times twelve. During their run for the gold, they outscored their opponents by about 44 points per game, as if they were playing against sixth-graders. In the gold medal game, they won by a 32-point margin.
Just so we're clear, '92 team = Gods.
But that was 20 years ago, and now a completely new group of players fills the roster for this year's team. They're also basically gods. LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Kobe Bryant are a few of the players that make up the team. This is a really, really good roster. Barring some sort of catastrophic event such as a bubonic plague outbreak or the Monstars sucking up all their talent, this team's going to win gold this year.
But then somebody had to open their big fat mouth.
I don't know who started the trash-talking, but someone (I think it was Kobe's ego) said that their team was better than the other and would beat them, temporal physics notwithstanding. And of course members of the other team shot back, giving relevance to this pointless claim. Now there's trash-talking back and forth, and the basketball media is rolling with it because it's July and, aside from Dwight Howard acting like a whiny little shit, there's nothing to talk about.
"I know what we can talk about! Young people standing on some old guys' lawns and the old guys yelling at them to get off! Think of the ratings!" - Someone at ESPN, probably.
That's my "media critique" of this situation. Being a journalism major, I am completely entitled to offer my vastly knowledgeable opinion on the media that I've gleaned from the handful of classes I've taken over the past few years. I do have to say that I haven't turned on the TV today (OK, that was a lie, I watched some Breaking Bad and Community; but I don't have cable), so I don't know if ESPN devoted any coverage to it. My gut says they did, as there are stories about the feud on its website, and I've seen a number of ESPN people tweet and/or retweet things about it all afternoon and evening. (Looking through online stories at its website, ESPN appears to have devoted some time to the story through the airwaves. Links to segments on PTI and SportsCenter are available to view).
But this is a non-story. Here's why: There's no way you can ever definitively prove which team is/was better. Unless the TARDIS appears or someone from Starfleet decides to violate the Temporal Prime Directive, this matchup will never happen. Sure, you can run projections and get an idea of what might happen, but that's it. It's not trash-talking that bothers me in this whole story, it's the fact that people are actually debating who would win. I know I sound like a fun-killer for saying that, but let me clarify: Debating this amongst your friends is fine. I'd sure like to have it with my friends and see where the discussion goes. But having this debate on SportsCenter or PTI? That's my problem.
Why are you wasting my time on this by letting anchors and analysts try to give a definitive answer to a question that doesn't have one? We're talking about two different eras of basketball: Different styles of play, different officiating/rules, different league configurations, etc. This is essentially comparing apples to oranges, and it's just not a feasible comparison. Also, aren't there other, more pressing news stories you could devote your time to instead of this? Like, say, the whole Penn State report that just came out. I hear that's KINDA A BIG DEAL. Or maybe not.
If ESPN does want to have this debate, give it to Bill Simmons. This is exactly his domain. He's probably the most knowledgeable basketball guy at ESPN, and people (by "people" I mean the totally not pretentious-sounding descriptor "media watchdogs") will know exactly where he's coming from: He's not the voice of an objective reporter, he's a sports fan who somehow gets paid to write about sports by ESPN without having to always be objective (which is basically my dream job). People know this and understand this when they read his columns, and his take on this debate, including a definitive answer on who would win a best-of-seven series, is 1000 times more relevant than the guys on SportsCenter who aren't talking about legitimate news stories.
So yeah, that's the end of my little rant. More like nit-picking, though. I might come down a little hard on ESPN, but this isn't that big of a deal. It just seems ill-timed in the light of the new information about the Penn State report. And let's face it, ESPN can't exactly do any more damage to their credibility anymore, because that assumes there's still something left to damage. ZIIIING!!!
Oh, and I'll take the '92 team any day. Duh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)