Even though I do agree with most of what you thought was positive with the movie Apostate - such as its astounding beauty and the great character Fassbender - there were too many unjustifiable actions throughout the movie for this to truly shine for me. It is a sci-fi movie, and when they evidently try to make the science portion somewhat realistic (first 20 minutes), and then fail with that prospect, I get frustrated.
I want to differentiate between intentional plot-holes that are improving the movie experience as whole by leaving us in deep quandaries for days to come, and the ones that simply leaves us in frustration. They are two very different entities, and should not be treated the same.Originally Posted by Apostate
An example of the first one would be the example you brought up, with Fassbender's intentions. I am perfectly content with leaving the theater contemplating what his ultimate role and own intentions were, and I think the movie-makers did a great job on depicting him to create this specific thought process.
An example of plot-holes that leaves us in frustration would be the numerous scientific failures that was committed, which did not in any way, shape or form improve the movie.
We should be frustrated by the latter one, because it implies either:
a) Intentional plot-hole to mess with the audience and to make people dislike the movie. (BAD)
b) Laziness from writer where they think they can impress us with smashing graphics and the story will seem good enough. (BAD)
c) Attempt at "artistic touch" but failing miserably with such and leaving the audience in frustration. (BAD)
d) Leaving it for the sequel/prequel which does not make the movie in itself better, but just reliance on other movies to explain itself. Note here that I am not talking about the sort of plot-holes that are meant to be covered in a later movie, such as the ending of the first LotR, but instead the kind of plot-holes that requires repair in a later movie for the first one to make any kind of sense. (BAD)
Good article, but it still fails to truly answer most of the questions, it just states that most of the questions aren't that important anyway, and that we should be able to live with that ambiguity. The questions that can are are meant to be answered in a possible sequel/prequel I have no issues with, but then again, that goes back to my previous comment about "good" plot-holes and "bad" plot-holes.Originally Posted by orbitalx
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
I meant to differentiate in my initial post but I was half asleep
I agree with you that there are types of plot holes that need to be avoided at all costs. I'd be happy to discuss which of these were present in Prometheus; I thought for the most part the explainable was either explained or left intentionally open ended in a "not bad" way.
-The motivation of the Engineers: We don't know exactly why they made us, we don't know why they wanted to destroy us, and we don't know why the Engineer at the end decided to kill everyone and go out of its way to hunt Shaw. I think that these questions were very much intended to be left unanswered and I had no problem with them. It's worth pointing out also that we don't know what David said to the Engineer; he may have provoked it deliberately.
-The function and biology of the black goo: It seems odd how differently it affects everything. I'm still trying to piece together how some of its different uses lined up. I think there's a possible case to be made that the goo is in some cases used too conveniently to create more plot twists.
The movie is full of pseudoscience and quite a bit doesn't add up from a hyper-realism perspective. The silliest example of this is that they brought crappy bullet guns and flamethrowers as their weapons. This is pretty much consistent with the Alien universe though. No one complained about flamethrowers in Alien. There's always been a strong element of suspended disbelief with these movies.
My personal theory on some things:
I think that the Engineers are not actually "us". The way the Engineer in the beginning of the movie dissolves itself, the fact that all of them are male bodies, and the perfect phsyique seems to suggest to me that perhaps they designed the human genome, and created human bodies for themselves to work on their weapons facility. Recall how David says that he looks like a human to make humans feel comforted. They might have real physical bodies that are simply elsewhere, remote controlling the humanoid bodies. Or they could be some sort of parasitic race, like the Xenophobe. There's a lot to speculate about here.
I think that the Engineers create human seeds on desolate planets as a way of terraforming the planet into a liveable planet for themselves. They then use the Xenophobe goo to annhilate creatures currently on the planet, and then they move there and inhabit it themselves far down the line in the future. The other possible explanation is that they are experimenting with creating a new base host creature for themselves, one that is superior to their current Engineer form. Humans probably do not meet this criteria, as they are much smaller and more physically weak than the Engineers in the movie.
The Engineers could be religious zealots on a mission to purge heresy from the universe using the Xenophobes, much like the Covenant.
I just enjoy how many questions are still left unanswered. You could spend hours discussing theories and have a blast doing so.