How do we experience Prometheus?-A viewer's inquiry

Rating: 7/10 (13 June 2012)

Oh well, being a Ridley Scott fan, with his Blade Runner being one of my favorite movies, I have to say, that Prometheus wasn't a bad movie. The movie was over-hyped sure, wasn't as claustrophobic nor as dark as Alien but still it was an OK movie. Regarding the acting let me just say that Noomi Rapace was amazing, I loved her portraying Lizbeth Salander back in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Michael Fassbender was very cool in his role of David.
The issue raised regarding this movie, isn't if we should focus on the "uberhumanism" concept, developed by F. Nietzsche, but rather if the "Philosophical" issues raised are valid. What do I mean with that, I mean that if you go back and see Alien, you can clearly see that the same "philosophical attributes" can be provoked by the original film as well. Which raises the question, why no one took them into consideration back then? Was it because they were more firmly rooted in the film and not as apparent as in "Prometheus"?Maybe.
While I loved the movie, I have to say, that the existential issues raised in the film, or the whole philosophical attribute of the film, was more in an effort to look the film under a different scope, and not for what it is. Meaning, the film is mediocre to good, it ain't a masterpiece, in fact there are gaps and holes and footage that could be removed, BUT, if one focus on the "meta-physical" elements that the film is bound, rumored w.e to promote, then steadily you forget about its aesthetic faults(form) and focus on the "deeper ends" of the movie it's supposed content.
So, yes I do believe the film was enjoyable, I don't believe the film raises as many existential or meta-physical issues as they say, because if it does, so did (CLEARLY) the first "Alien" as well but no one mentioned them as part of the film's structure, maybe because the "Alien" was a "masterpiece" and "Prometheus" isn't.
One has to understand that this "deeper meaning" of "Prometheus" that is attributed to the film, is a now traditional and successful technique/theory in Aesthetics, the so called "Value Maximization Theory" in Art. Which basically states that we can attribute or "explain" certain situations in works of art if and only if this "attribution" will enhance our aesthetic experience, the pleasure we are taking from this work of art that is, this can be applied EVEN IF it wasn't the artist's intention or end result. An example is the Freudian attributes on Shakespeare's works, the Oedipus Complex analysis of Freud on the human nature. When Shakespeare's works were written, obviously, Freud wasn't around. Still, years after Shakespeare wrote his works, years after Freud, we consider Shaespeare's works as having the Oedipus Complex (psychologically speaking) rooted inside them. Why do we do that? To enhance the experience.
All in all, if one wants to evaluate the other notions of the film, he has to evaluate those notions in the "Alien" as well, and you will be surprised because the "Alien" is full of them in a more deep way. Point is, if you like the film, you should like the film for what it is, and what it created to you, and not for the stretching of "Value Maximization Theories" apparently to fill some gaps the film has.
Cheers.