He could go on for ages asking questions. So many questions that one could do a taxonomy of them, dividing them up into:

1. Problems with the science: DNA & evolution, scientists don't behave like that, FTL travel just 80 years into the future, action-hero with a stapled abdomen, David knowing an alien language, rapid biomass contravening the law of conservation of mass-energy, etc.
2. Problems with movie grammar: ill-defined character motivations, inconsistent behaviour, a storm that leave everything the same, struggling to escape from a crashing ship only to be crushed by it, redundant characters that should have been rolled into one, endless stupid dialogue, no subtitles on David's question, characters disappearing, David's sinister behaviour not explained, etc.
3. Problems with the plot: Engineer motivation to destroy Earth? Engineer reason to kill the humans upon waking, what's with the holograms? Worms? Getting lost despite having 3D maps? Relationship of LV-223 to LV-426, morphology of xenomorphs, 35,000 year old cave paintings that point to a weapons facility, secrecy of Weyland, why would Shaw trust David at the end, why would Shaw trust another Engineer, and dozens of other things.

It's the sheer quantity that's the problem. Every sci-fi movie has a couple of problems of this nature that we're prepared to forgive (e.g. magic bean), but rarely do A-list movies commit so many errors.

When the zombies attack (can't believe I'm writing this), don't some crew get knocked off? When the old man wakes up, he seemed to have attendants that we've never seen before, as if they were asleep with him. The background characters are so bland, you can't care. In Aliens who know have many marines there are and how many die in the first attack.

As one reviewer pointed out, not only was there a difference between mainstream critics and genre geeks, but between British (where it opened earlier) and American reviewers. The Brits were more likely to call bullshit on it ('was it shit or really shit?'), whereas the Americans started bending over backwards to confabulate theories that supposedly rescued it from clusterfuck to profound meditation on human nature.

From Ridley Scott's perspective (& the studio's), it's a success. Box office? Healthy. Mainstream critics on Rotten Tomatoes? Overwhelmingly positive. Forums are abuzz with discussion about what it means. That can only be good, right?. "Let's do another one".

Single most cringe-worthy line in the movie: "It's what I choose to believe"

Another issue with the movie no one's said yet - the head autopsy? What was the point of that?

Holloway, who apparently has been waiting for this moment all his life, the first ever examination of an alien body, is drinking booze and doesn't care while his wife reanimates a frigg'n alien head!

Then the head explodes. For no reason. Then they all just forget about it. Whatever.

Just like the storm, the scene didn't advance the plot in any way.

Just like Vickers trying to get off the ship in a life-capsule, only to die straight away anyway.

I just can't believe how shoddy the screenplay was! The more you think about it the worse it gets. When you watch the behind-the-scenes to The Social Network, there's weeks of Fincher and Sorkin and the cast going through the script meticulously scene-by-scene working out every character motivation to every word.

It seems like Ridley Scott just shot without even reading the script. "It's the bloke that wrote Star Trek? I'm sure it's fine. Right, let's go, scene 1, take 1, and action..."

What's also interesting about Prometheus, is the disconnect between mainstream reviewers (it looks great!) and the nerd/geek/demographic fan base that know the genre/franchise intimately.

Some good points. I didn't say it was some 'rule', just that a director is more likely to astound you with something jaw-dropping you haven't seen before when he's younger than older. You're right that the weak link with Prometheus was the script (and with Kingdom of Heaven it's Orblando Bloom), but the buck has to stop with the director who has final say in approving these creative decisions. It's not like Ridley has no clout with the studio.
Scott's 'bell curve' is shifted to the right, as he started late (Alien was age 42). Most directors are well established in their 30s. But you must admit Scott's output the last decade has been mostly bland (A Good year, Robin Hood, etc). His last great movie was Gladiator (2000). Compare that with his output in his first decade as director - mostly game-changing hits. And I would venture that's the pattern for most directors. Woody Allen fits this bell-curve pattern exactly - and because of the prolific output, there's high 'resolution' in charting the lame early movies, the strong mid-career movies, and the high proportion of duds in late-career.

The artist gets 'what they have to say' out of their system, and the fuel tank runs empty (sorry for the mixed metaphor). And in the sciences too (mathematicians are washed up at 30). Not saying I like it, but its fairly evident from biographies for major artists and scientists. The brain is a physical organ, and just like an Olympic athlete, it performs better when younger.

It's hard to think of directors, authors, composers, artists, scientists, etc that got better with age and did their best stuff after 50. There must be isolated examples, but for every one we can cite, there'd be 10-20 that fit the normal bell curve that reveals declining creative powers with age.

They assume it's some sort of sci-fi 'Mulholland Drive' that's supposed to be mysterious and leave questions unanswered. If only that was the worst of its sins. Haven't they seen LOST?
It must be a sign of insecurity to assume the movie is smarter than you, rather than they just didn't know what they were doing. The dazzling production values (like Inception) give the illusion that its very sophisticated, and  a sprinkling of references to 'deep topics' is sufficient to pass for profundity.

The bar has been set so low that just mentioning 'x' in passing is enough to qualify as 'the movie is about x'. Just mentioning searching for God doesn't mean your movie 'is about the search for God'. Mentioning the myth of Prometheus doesn't mean that's what it's about.

If I could summarize what's wrong with Prometheus in one phrase, it's "biting off more than it can chew".

Just saw it in London - in IMAX 3D. Cinema was full of 40 year old nerds that grew up with Alien/s.

The first act was full of cliches - ship's crew wakes up and don't know what's happening. They all have asbergers and hang shit on each other. The scientists act like truckers.

One biologist is swigging nonchalantly on a bottle of vodka while they examine the first ever alien head ever. Whatever.

The geologist character was awful.

Mr Enlightened UberMensh wakes up at the end (the big finale that'll answer all the questions) and just goes 'rrraaa' and kills everyone, like he's got the IQ of a WWF wrestler.

Who filmed and projected the holograms? What was it all about? Huh?

The positives: it looked great, the Prometheus ship was highly detailed, the 3D was fine, the score was okay (although I had prepped myself first with the score). Fassbender's acting was good. Production design was good.

The negatives: the dumb dialogue, all the cliches, the unresolved character motivation, the low-brow action (raa), the lack of originality in creature effects, etc.

Alien+Aliens is so good as a one-two combination, that this hasn't a hope to compare.

It felt like half a movie. I hope they have the Prometheus 2 greenlit and in the can soon to resolve this - that would be the only saving grace.

How does Shaw know the uber-race will greet her and her pet head? What if she steps out of the ship on the home planet, and the same thing happens again i.e. Mr Uberrace goes 'rrraaa' and tears her head off?

Kathleen Kennedy might soon have the power to reverse all of Lucas' dumb-arse 'additions' to the Original Trilogy...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18314956

Must.....refrain...... from.......bashing......George

I was like that with Alien v Aliens. Everyone loved Aliens (it was so badass), so Alien had to be cooler movie for we refined discerning aesthetes.  Alien had atmosphere and production design, whereas Aliens was too mainstream and conventional. Now, after re-examining both from the production side of things, I have to acknowledge Aliens as the greater cinematic achievement. Sometimes the masses are right, and even though Cameron thinks he's Jesus Christ (same initials), I gotta (begrudgingly) give credit where it's due. That dude knows how to assemble a goddamn movie.

I'd throw the rights in the trash where they belong. All semblance of credibility, of reputation, of goodwill, has been leached out of the franchise. It's been debased, infantilized, pimped out, and gutted of any dignity. It couldn't be more pathetic if it was $2 heroin-addled hooker spread-eagled and lifeless in the dumpster.

Which planet do you want to visit most? Mars? Pandora? LV-426? Middle Earth? Arrakis?

No need to trade-in a healthy arm for an artificial one if it has a similar level of function/sensation. The premise would have to be if it was twice as strong or had inbuilt wi-fi or something.

You're on a 13 hour flight to Sydney and can sit anywhere you want. As you walk on, you notice there are spare seats next to James Cameron, Stephen Fry, Megan Fox, Richard Dawkins, and Jon Stewart.

Who do you sit next to?