Prometheus...

[Hrvoje Simic]

Honestly, I was too entertained to be bothered by these so called "plot holes".

Yes, it works in movies as well.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

P.S. If this movie raises questions so what...... has everyone forgotten Kubrick's 2001 and the huge unanswerable questions it poses. Want a movie without questions watch a Romcom or a Michael Bay movie.

If you feel the filmmakers themselves didn't had a clue where they were going, it detroys a lot of the illusion that there is much to search for. I could rewatch the movie and tell you in À LOT of scènes what I think is wrong with it, why I think it's bad screenwriting, but I'm not Going to to take the time nor the effort to GO to the theatre again and take a notepad and write everything down.
I'll tell you that there were a lot of things I thought were badly written, and it is not just An issue of not being a brainless Michael Bay movie that spells everything out for you.

 

[Jay Birch]

I found the film was just as obvious as some of these pop corn action flicks... They may as well have had a flashing sign saying "Important symbolism/dialogue occurring now" it was so obvious. The pause before the word "father" was hilarious.

That's without mentioning the awful scripting to bring something to the viewers attention, eg, the medical equipment.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Yes Jay, your experience and mine sound very similar. I honestly couldn't say how much of my interest came from our discussions here and the associated links. I went in with great interest, came out a bit deflated and am working up for a second go.

I ask this purely out of interest, not mailce... But did your interest coincide with reading the various online summaries?

This kind of happened with me.... I watched the film and thought it was ok, but badly written, with poor characters..... I then read some of the online summaries and became fascinated with some of the concepts they were discussing and annoyed at myself for not paying more attention..... I then thought some more about the actual film i'd seen, rather than the interpretations, and realised i was right after all.

 

[PatrickW]

saw this image floating around.

 

[Scott Crawley]

That's funny Patrick. Maybe a sequel will give us enough data for a Punnett square.

 

[Brian Boyer]

If religious groups have anything to complain about it's shaw's line:
"I believe because I choose to believe."

That's the dumbest reason for believing ever put on film. Even as an Atheist I'm offended by that being the rationalization of a believer. It's the sort of writing that you would expect from someone who has never spoken to a person of faith in their life.

...and "I choose to believe" is probably the stupidest line in cinematic history...

I'm clearly no expert but doesn't having faith essentially boil down to "that's what I choose to believe"? Perhaps there's an edit that has Shaw go into a bit more detail that was ultimately cut down to that bare bones explanation. Maybe there isn't.

Don't some people rely on faith when there is no proof of the thing they choose to believe in?

Sure, there are many compelling arguments and testimonials people give for their religious beliefs. Gavin, as a self-proclaimed atheist, despite those compelling arguments, isn't your reason for being one ultimately because you choose not to believe?

There's a scene from "Constantine" where he (Keanu Reeves) is talking to Gabriel (Tilda Swinton) and he claims to believe in God. She quickly corrects him and says he KNOWS God exists and therein lies the difference. Choosing to believe (or having faith) despite what you know or can be proven is where the action is.

If that's the case, a better question than the one I posed before might be don't people rely on faith regardless of whether or not there's proof of the thing they choose to believe in? Isn't the deal that God gave us free will? Doesn't free will = choice? Maybe I misunderstand your problem with that line.

But, even if I'm totally off base with my previous assertions...

That line was meant to honor her father's memory. The type of exposition you'd appreciate regarding her beliefs would be inappropriate to try to explain to a 6-year-old girl attempting to understand various beliefs regarding death, specifically the loss of one's parents, and what comes after that, if anything. A child of that age can, however, more easily process and accept "because that's what I choose to believe" as an answer. Of course she could go into a more detailed explanation if she wanted.

The line was a nod to her dad from a childhood moment where she talked to him about her recently deceased mother (who the cross belonged to, if I'm not mistaken) that still resonates with her as an adult. We know this because she still dreams about it. Given the dialogue that prompted that line, it's not a stretch to think that she wants to believe he lives on in some form and can hear her say it. It's the only reason to even have her dad in the movie at all, in this edit anyway. I think it was assumed that we would get that and move on, not get hung up on it.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Whether or not the desire to procreate is universal is going to have to be a point on which we agree to disagree. I can't even fathom the idea that it is not. Sorry. Procreation is really what we are talking about here. If what you mean is that not everyone wants to raise babies then OK, I can go there, but I'm not sure that is one of the themes. The act of creation, the power of creation is the thing.

I have no particular desire to raise babies and I have no particular interest in my genetic code being used to make babies raised by someone else. That's not really a point of debate haha. In fact I would go so far as to point out that there are even people completely disinterested in Sex (which I would point out is not procreation). There are also plenty of people in this world who have no interest in creating anything diaper wrapped or otherwise. As to why *SHAW* wants to have babies. The fact that there are 10 bazillion reasons in the universe for wanting to have children doesn't get us any closer to knowing why *shaw* wants to have babies. None are given.

But to her they were, and she posed the question. That is the question she asked: Why does God hate us? The fact that you or I do not see them as such is immaterial. The writer is expressing the theme through the character's POV.

Maybe you do need to watch the movie again before forming an opinion. Half way through the movie she acknowledges that they aren't Gods but she follows up with "But who created them?" She believed they were Gods--but when she discovered they were just aliens she moved the goal posts to "who created the aliens?". David even asks this question essentially 'now that you know they aren't Gods why do you care?' to which she responds 'because I'm a human and you're a robot.' To which I turned to my friend during the credits and replied "I guess I'm a robot too." because I don't really understand why she cares why some badly written characters wanted to do unmotivated actions.


@Ian, Ridley Scott says in interviews they killed us because we killed Space Jesus which was what pissed them off. I think they want to kill us because we established a bad precedent for future interaction where every time they make contact we kill their messenger--so I think they were afraid of what we *would become*. However I would argue that killing your baby because it bites you simply makes them good old fashioned baby-killing villains. Which kind of makes sense but isn't really deep or interesting -- it also requires you to read Ridley Scott interviews which means the film failed in conveying that within the scope of the artwork.

@Michel. Whether there is a Director's Cut or not is irrelevant. That's a different movie and one which can be judged separately. It also is unlikely to resolve the fundamental problems with the story.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I have no particular desire to raise babies and I have no particular interest in my genetic code being used to make babies raised by someone else. That's not really a point of debate haha. In fact I would go so far as to point out that there are even people completely disinterested in Sex (which I would point out is not procreation). There are also plenty of people in this world who have no interest in creating anything diaper wrapped or otherwise. As to why *SHAW* wants to have babies. The fact that there are 10 bazillion reasons in the universe for wanting to have children doesn't get us any closer to knowing why *shaw* wants to have babies. None are given.

A universal truth doesn't need to apply to absolutely everyone at every phase of their lives to still be considered universal. Sure there are those without the drive or interest to procreate, but in general it is something that all life possesses. Also, (though I agree it is not a debatable subject) while you may currently have no drive to create a life, some day down the road before you die that may actually become a priority for you. Maybe not. And NO, we aren't talking about sex. I am old enough to appreciate the difference.

On this I fear you are missing the forest for the trees. Shaw's drive to procreate is secondary to the question; Why did the engineers (or on another level why did God) create us? I would argue that is of primary importance. That question is likely #2 on Shaw's list of reasons for bringing us all to that... Wait for it... god forsaken planet in the first place.

Edit: Sorry the creation question would be #1, then when she found out "God" was hostile, that's when the killing question came up. but I'm sure you understood that.

I'm not sure it matters why Shaw wants to have a baby. It didn't even register with me as a significant part of the narrative. But you are again asking why the film maker didn't provide you with the answers. I suggest that it is far more interesting in most cases when the film maker allows room for ME, the viewer to participate in the film and leaves things for me to discover and discuss ad nauseum, with fine folks such as yourself. ;-)

It is the question that drives us, Neo.

Maybe you do need to watch the movie again before forming an opinion.

Duly noted.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I'd like to bring back the first interview Ridley and Damon did when the trailer was released. The best question is at the 18 minute mark from an audience member.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTwVoIapW-Y

 

[Scott Crawley]

Thanks for the link!

I'd like to bring back the first interview Ridley and Damon did when the trailer was released. The best question is at the 18 minute mark from an audience member.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTwVoIapW-Y

 

[Andrew Huse]

Did anyone else feel that Noomi Rapace's performance was lacking? For me, her unconvincing character was distracting at times.

 

[Paul Nordin]

Did anyone else feel that Noomi Rapace's performance was lacking? For me, her unconvincing character was distracting at times.

I thought she was awesome, as was Fassbender.

 

[Brian Boyer]

As to why *SHAW* wants to have babies. The fact that there are 10 bazillion reasons in the universe for wanting to have children doesn't get us any closer to knowing why *shaw* wants to have babies. None are given.

As I recall, Shaw never claimed she wanted to have kids. She was upset that she COULDN'T have kids if she wanted to, especially in light of the comment made by Holloway that anybody can do it.

I think even out of the women who say they never want to have kids, the majority of them actually mean they MOSTLY don't want to have kids. They want to leave a little wiggle room. If I had a dime for every woman who stated that and then changed her mind I'd be pretty well off financially.

Even if you take into account the women who seriously have zero interest in having kids, if told they were physically incapable of having them, I'm sure almost none them would think, "Sweet!".

I think there would be a bit of reconciling and coming to grips that would need to be done before they got past it.

Regardless, how many movies even attempt to explain a female character's motivation for wanting to get pregnant, being pregnant or already having children, unless it's central to the storyline or a major plot point?

Finding fault with Prometheus because Shaw doesn't offer up any reasons for wanting to get preggers is the narrative equivalent of pixel peeping.

We might as well ask why she dyed her hair that color or what her father did for a living?

If the reason a woman wants to have a baby going unexplained in a sci-fi movie is a problem for you, then a movie about actually having a baby, like "She's having a Baby", where it doesn't get explained there either, may just may make your head explode.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

As I recall, Shaw never claimed she wanted to have kids. She was upset that she COULDN'T have kids if she wanted to, especially in light of the comment made by Holloway that anybody can do it.

Good point. +Not only are there 10 bazillion reasons in the universe for wanting to have children, we don't even know *if* she wanted to have children.

As to it not being relevant to the plot. No it wasn't relevant to the plot. But a parent's relationship to their children was one of a couple central themes. So it's just an illustration of neglecting to flesh out one of their central themes. If the film was about how we change our appearance to please others then someone dyeing their hair would be *very* important thematically by offering another illustration on a central theme--another perspective. Also I would point out that in interviews the writer claims "Every single thing in frame was a deliberate choice." So... I choose to take their word on it.

From the scene with Shaw and her boyfriend it's clear that it was a significant aspect of their relationship and something very important to Shaw. They clearly had discussed this extensively (example of good direction and writing). And then... nothing. Really well executed couple of dramatic beats which could illustrate a fresh perspective on the film's central plot about creators and progency and... BAM. The End. No more insight. Boneheaded story move.

David's relationship to his father. Again, really *potentially* interesting dynamics and contrasting/comparing to the Engineers. But it gets 1-2 lines of dialog.

Theron's relationship to her father. Again... 1-2 lines of dialog.

If that central theme isn't going to get developed then it wasted precious screen time to accomplish zilch intellectually or emotionally and should have been entirely cut to focus on one of the other 2-3 central themes that similarly were starved to death.

I suggest that it is far more interesting in most cases when the film maker allows room for ME, the viewer to participate in the film and leaves things for me to discover and discuss ad nauseum, with fine folks such as yourself. ;-)

If your goal is to let the audience "fill in the gaps" then film makers would save themselves a lot of hassle by just shooting half the pages in a script and ship it. Sure it won't make any sense but it'll give everyone the opportunity to come up with diverse theories on what might have been in the movie. Just imagine how deep and thought provoking transformers would have been if you only ever saw 1/3rd of the movie. "I have no idea what this allSpark thing is but I'm engrossed by the off-screen romance that must have developed between Witwicky and that hot chick. I bet it was super romantic and well motivated!" Actually, forget even 1/3rd of the movie just throw up a really nice title: "GOD, What's that all about." And then fade to black over the next 70 minutes. It'll would be very thought provoking.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I thought the score was really out of place most of the time. I was surprised how many times I thought... "kill the music already!"

 

[Scott Crawley]

Transformers

Prometheus

One of these kids is working for his meal and getting nurtured with his nutrition. The other is just getting cold, flavorless cereal shoved down his gullet.

OK Prometheus isn't as fine as a warm breast but a perfect analogy is hard to come by. ;-)

 

[Mark Warren]

I went to see it with zero expectations (actually zero or very low expectations) as I'd bailed after 'Aliens' and couldn't be bothered with any of the subsequent sequels. I also did not expect it to be in any meaningful way part of the 'Alien' canon, (couldn't care) nor did I excitedly watch any trailers, read any speculation or have any other expectations whatsoever... other than the fact it was shot on the EPIC and I like sci-fi.

As a stand-alone sci-fi film I thought it was fine, a few buffoon characters aside, I enjoyed it. It's interesting that it has attracted so much criticism from "fans", who have written tomes and tomes and tomes of analytical stuff, all of which tells me how excited and how gi-normous their expectations must have been. The breast-sucker (above) works as a metaphor too for these fans.

There is a funny article waiting to be written on how fans of a certain generation are bemoaning being "betrayed". When you look at it, Lucas, (Star Wars sequels), Spielberg (Crystal Skull *shudder*) and now Scott... all the iconic breasts have ben accused of turning sour. There's a lesson in life about that as well.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Good point. +Not only are there 10 bazillion reasons in the universe for wanting to have children, we don't even know *if* she wanted to have children.

As to it not being relevant to the plot. No it wasn't relevant to the plot. But a parent's relationship to their children was one of a couple central themes. So it's just an illustration of neglecting to flesh out one of their central themes. If the film was about how we change our appearance to please others then someone dyeing their hair would be *very* important thematically by offering another illustration on a central theme--another perspective. Also I would point out that in interviews the writer claims "Every single thing in frame was a deliberate choice." So... I choose to take their word on it.

From the scene with Shaw and her boyfriend it's clear that it was a significant aspect of their relationship and something very important to Shaw. They clearly had discussed this extensively (example of good direction and writing). And then... nothing. Really well executed couple of dramatic beats which could illustrate a fresh perspective on the film's central plot about creators and progency and... BAM. The End. No more insight. Boneheaded story move.

David's relationship to his father. Again, really *potentially* interesting dynamics and contrasting/comparing to the Engineers. But it gets 1-2 lines of dialog.

Theron's relationship to her father. Again... 1-2 lines of dialog.

If that central theme isn't going to get developed then it wasted precious screen time to accomplish zilch intellectually or emotionally and should have been entirely cut to focus on one of the other 2-3 central themes that similarly were starved to death.

Was the central theme the parent/child relationship or was it more so the creator/creation relationship? Yes, parenthood is a form of it that has to be touched on if one is going to have that discussion at all.

But, as it's presented in the movie, I think it's secondary and used primarily to examine the creator/creation theme.

Weyland isn't David's father. He is his creator. What kind of father would say David is the closest thing he had to a son and in the next breath claim that "son" doesn't even have a soul? Androids aren't supposed to feel but we see David's face change.

Weyland, for all practical purposes, isn't Vickers father (biologically he is), as evidenced by his comments and how he recoils and turns away from her. She calls him "father" sarcastically as if to say he's been anything but. He was no more her father (in the nurturing parent/child sense) than he was David's. He was basically their creator.

Shaw gets upset at Holloway over the bigger issue of who can create life, who can't and what that means (NOT who can have babies and who can't or even who gets to be a parent and who doesn't). She initially thought he was being insensitive about the fact that she can't create life and was reacting to the implication that she was somehow less-than because of it.

The central theme is also about the creator turning on its creation (and vice versa).

The Engineers created humankind. Humans turned on Space Jesus.

The Engineers turned on humankind. The black goop turned on the Engineers.

Weyland, in effect, turns on Vickers through what we can assume to be 100+ years of contempt and neglect. Vickers basically tells Weyland, "Just die, already!" David turns on Weyland and deliberately leads him to his doom.

Shaw symbolically "creates" life by hosting the alien. That life would've turned on her if she hadn't cut it out and tried to kill it first.

The only true parent/child relationship shown of the kind you're talking about is between Shaw and her dad, albeit briefly.

 

[Brian Boyer]

I thought the score was really out of place most of the time. I was surprised how many times I thought... "kill the music already!"

The music is definitely meant to be noticed. Not just because there are more music cues than most modern movies have but also because, as you point out, some of it seems out of place and contrary to the scene.

The romantic nature of the music is almost assuredly a nod to "Alien" and the late, great Jerry Goldsmith. In fact, that original theme gets played when Weyland's holographic recording appears. That theme is genius and Goldsmith was a bad mofo.

During my second viewing, this time in IMAX 3D for the pure spectacle, I paid more attention to the music and why it may have been placed where it was.

Being a movie with several narrative themes, the score heavily reflects that. For example, I believe almost every time the theme of creation crops up in actual events or in discussion, that very romantic musical theme (entitled "Life") from the opening scene gets played, even right before something bad happens.

Once I noticed that, the score didn't really seem to stick out anymore for some reason and it made me question where I thought it did initially.

This is just a guess but I think the music was very much playing off of the dichotomies of what I believe to be the major themes of the movie - the relationship between creators and their creations, gods and mortals, passion (not in the lovemaking sense) and indifference, etc.