Prometheus...

[Gavin Greenwalt]

OK, then I will offer my apology to any of you ladies who care to claim it. :beer:

For the record, seemingly silly is how I originally viewed the characters. I have been thinking about this film for several days now and the more thinking I do, the more I feel I understand it. It took me a couple days to come to the conclusion that they were not so silly when viewed as archetypes, and since Prometheus is myth that reasoning made sense.

It has taken me days to arrive at a place where I think I understand what I saw and I will see it again to further refine my observations. I understand that many folks aren't willing to give a film that kind of effort and I can't fault them for it.

Sometimes all we want from a film is passive entertainment. I can see how many Alien fans might come to Prometheus expecting exactly that, since Alien was more THAT kind of film. If that is what you were expecting I completely accept that you might dislike it intensely and I respect that. I don't mean to be condescending about it.

On the other hand Ridley Scott has been saying for months that this was NOT going to be an Alien film. Folks should consider that and keep an open mind. It is unfair to the efforts of the film making team to just come out and proclaim that the film sucks because it wasn't what you expected... That is my opinion anyway for what it's worth.

Promethius is going to have long legs I think.

So many things wrong with this post.

First off, I didn't expect passive entertainment. I'm not some dullard who just wants an action movie (although I do enjoy a good brainless action flick). What I *GOT* was passive entertainment masquerading as thoughtful cinema. My objection isn't that it's silly fun, there was plenty of that. My objection is that it's being sold as some deep drama when it's simply not there. I love deep drama. I love Solaris (Tarkovsky), I love Muholland Drive--I love puzzle movies. I also love mythology and philosophy. My Dad is a professor of philosophy and I grew up surrounded by Theologians and Philosophers. I also love mythology and world religions. I spend a lot of time reading mythology and analysis of said mythology like Jung. The problem isn't that we're expecting a fluff piece or even a horror movie (I don't really like horror movies, and don't even really care that much for Alien movies for that matter). I "don't mean to be condescending" my point is simply that I know my shit so excuse me if I take offense to the suggestion that we have no idea what we're talking about or incapable of deconstructing mythological themes.

The whole thing reminds me of this scene from Life of Brian:

"The Shoe is a sign!" "No the Gourd is a sign!"

It's very simple, these aren't 'archetypal' characters. They're badly written characters from the person who brought us Lost's bullshit. Remember season 1 of lost? "Oooo this Smoke Monster, what a mystery! I can't wait to find out what it is and what it means!" Spoilers, nobody knew what it meant, first and foremost the writers. They're not some deep mystery, they're a plot hole and lazy writing/film making. This is what this writer does. He comes up with a bazillion unresolved plot points and hopes we forget about the fact that he has absolutely no clue what they are. They're fake mysteries. And he did it very well for 7 years. To give them more credit than that is simply excusing poor craftsmanship. Any meaning found is a credit to your own creativity and imagination not the writer and director.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Lol Gavin! That just may be, but does she weigh the same as a duck?

I haven't seen a frame of Lost, so we don't share the same bias. (I think I saw an FXguidetv segment on the smoke monster though. Otherwise I would have absolutely NO idea what you were talking about.) Funny isn't it that when it comes to Prometheus I am as "lost" as anybody. It really did take me a couple of days before I felt I actually might have a handle on what was intended. As I have mentioned my bias leans toward Mr. Scott, so I admittedly give him the benefit of any doubt I may harbour. He's clearly better at this stuff than I am. Just look at how poorly I am communicating here. I think I'm hashing out hypotheses and many of you think I'm spewing gospel from a soapbox. What The Fuck?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

He's clearly better at this stuff than I am.

Really? I haven't seen a film where Ridley Scott explores big ideas since Blade Runner. And almost all of that was from drafting off of Philip K Dick--who did clearly understand how to take big ideas and condense them into themes and characters that resonate with the questions he asks. Philip K Dick also knew that you can't get greedy--you need to be judicious in your choice of ideas to explore in any given story. Blade Runner can be condensed down to "are humans unique in having souls?" Nice simple question. No clean answer but lots of thematic exploration. The film presents arguments for both case. "No robots have no soul, nor do they feel empathy." "Yes they have souls, Deckard maybe is a robot and he is unaware of it and is essentially human." Etc.

Prometheus has none of that. It asks a question "Why did they try to kill us." Which first of all isn't a very interesting question nor even a big question--that's a simple plot question like "Why does Megatron want to enslave the human race." It's not a universal question, it's a specific question "Why does character A want to do X?". Not answering character motivation isn't mystery it's poor writing. It also fails the second task of an ambiguous film and that is to provide *both* answers. If you provide both answers in your film then you've done your duty by presenting the differing perspectives. By presenting no answers you're just tacking on jibberish.

I like a lot of Ridley Scott movies, he's probably visually my favorite director, but I haven't seen anything previously made to indicate a keen interest in deep philosophical questions. If this was a film by Terrence Malick then it would deserve at least a second viewing on name alone but not Ridley. And the combined powers of the internet's dissection hasn't produced a single coherent story yet. Regardless if I haven't figured it out--I assume the whole planet can produce someone to solve a mystery if there's a mystery to be solved.

What I do see is a classic case of having a bunch of really cool concepts that you want to explore--but failing to find a way to integrate them into a story. And just for the record, I didn't realize it was Lost's writer until after I saw the movie and tried to figure out who was responsible. Which was a complete "oohhhhhh that explains it" moment.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Really? I haven't seen a film where Ridley Scott explores big ideas since Blade Runner. And almost all of that was from drafting off of Philip K Dick--who did clearly understand how to take big ideas and condense them into themes and characters that resonate with the questions he asks. Philip K Dick also knew that you can't get greedy--you need to be judicious in your choice of ideas to explore in any given story. Blade Runner can be condensed down to "are humans unique in having souls?" Nice simple question. No clean answer but lots of thematic exploration. The film presents arguments for both case. "No robots have no soul, nor do they feel empathy." "Yes they have souls, Deckard maybe is a robot and he is unaware of it and is essentially human." Etc.

Prometheus has none of that. It asks a question "Why did they try to kill us." Which first of all isn't a very interesting question nor even a big question--that's a simple plot question like "Why does Megatron want to enslave the human race." It's not a universal question, it's a specific question "Why does character A want to do X?". Not answering character motivation isn't mystery it's poor writing. It also fails the second task of an ambiguous film and that is to provide *both* answers. If you provide both answers in your film then you've done your duty by presenting the differing perspectives. By presenting no answers you're just tacking on jibberish.

I like a lot of Ridley Scott movies, he's probably visually my favorite director, but I haven't seen anything previously made to indicate a keen interest in deep philosophical questions. If this was a film by Terrence Malick then it would deserve at least a second viewing on name alone but not Ridley. And the combined powers of the internet's dissection hasn't produced a single coherent story yet. Regardless if I haven't figured it out--I assume the whole planet can produce someone to solve a mystery if there's a mystery to be solved.

What I do see is a classic case of having a bunch of really cool concepts that you want to explore--but failing to find a way to integrate them into a story. And just for the record, I didn't realize it was Lost's writer until after I saw the movie and tried to figure out who was responsible. Which was a complete "oohhhhhh that explains it" moment.

Yes. Blade Runner is the cornerstone upon which all of my respect is built and it is fair to say that his films have been... Shall we say relatively light in theme... since. I do think he had lofty aspirations with Prometheus and I respect that he went for it. I think you're being too harsh though and taking the questions too literally. Shaw believes she is speaking to God when she asks "Why do you hate us?" So I have no problem taking that to great depths. It's a profound question and in my opinion the high point of the film. Pass on that if you like, but I'm keeping it.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

They aren't even really very good questions:
"Why did they create us?"
David provides a perfectly succinct answer: "Why did you create me?" We see no indication that David is wrong. Nor do we see any other clues. The only other idea in the same vain is Shaw's desire to have children. Engineers -> Humanity? David: For shits and giggles. Shaw: ???? We never get a clue as to *WHY* shaw wants children. Presumably because she wants to love them. But the only person who either thematically or explicitely states a rationalization is David. So we'll go with David. "The reason the Engineers created humanity is because they could and out of a desire to do new things. The writers offer us no interesting insights or perspectives on this question. They could have at the very least gotten this question thematically into the film through Shaw's desire to have children and her motivations. She could have provided an interesting vehicle for conversation. There is no conversation. She just wants children. And that is that. And again, that's not a universal question, that's a specific question "Why did *the engineers* create us?" That's a question of motivation. If you can't answer a character or group of character's motivations then they're badly written. And why a specific group of characters did something... isn't terribly interesting. It's not a "Big" question. It's a small question just like "Why did Megatron lead a rebellion against Optimus Prime?" who cares? He's a badly written evil villain whose motivations are largely unwritten.

"Why did they destroy us?"
Not a universal question like "Why do we have a desire to create?" this is a specific plot point. The answer as suggested by Ridley Scott is because we didn't live up to their standards and that we killed Jesus Christ Space Jockey.

If it's because they were mad then that's understandable. Although genocide because you're mad just makes you a villain. It's not interesting. Megatron wanted to destroy humanity for similar reasons--anger issues/superiority complex. I'm sorry there is no answer to this question where it's like "Oh ok Engineers, totally understandable. You're actually good guys who want to commit a holocaust, and you're just misundesrtood."

Answer: They're evil.

"What does it mean if your creator is evil?"
It means absolutely nothing. There are lots of bad people in the universe. Just like some people's parents *cough* wayland *cough* are bad people doesn't raise any interesting philosophical questions. It's not a big mystery why some people are bad guys--spoilers: because they are. Did Megatron's father neglect him as a child? Don't care. Again, bad guys do bad stuff. Not some big deep mystery.

"Do parents have an obligation to get out of the way of their children?"
Kind of a weird question in modern society and not one many people can identify with. Also except for the extremely strained and short plotline--not really a part of Prometheus.

Every other question I can think of is just stupid plot stuff "was the green goo and the black goo the same stuff?" "How does a carbon dating device work on a planet whose baseline carbon ratings are unknown without extensive geological investigation?" "How did they run across the runway without scanning from orbit in 5 minutes?" "Why did the goo turn on the Engineers?" "If the engineers had security cameras why didn't we rewind the footage to see what they were running from?" "If the engineers had security cameras, did Prometheus have security cameras? Couldn't they have watched the recorded video feeds of the engineers getting attacked by Penis Cobras?" "What did the kraken eat to get so big?" etc... None of that kind of stuff is a big unanswered question of the universe. Those are just big unanswered useless plot points.

EDIT:

Ok I'll add in your bonus question:
"Why do you hate us [God]?"
Assuming there is a God and there are believers of said God. How is an unpleasant experience with Aliens any different than an unpleasant encounter with say... a Shark. Both are gruesome and cruel. You could have a character in Transformers 2 getting ripped to shreds by Megatron ask the same question as being thrown through the air. Doesn't mean it's thematically relevant.

Also I'll add another one too:

"How can there be a God and Alien life?"

Every episode of Star Trek by virtue of there being aliens asks the same question. And besides a throw away line from David and Shaw's persistence in believing in spite of the fact that there is aliens it's not really covered in the film.
"How can there be God when you find out that God didn't create you?"
"Because I just believe for absolutely no reason what so ever."

Again, this same question is equally explored in Transformers 2 since there are space aliens--so presumably much of Earth's population has the same question "If there are aliens, and they've never heard of Jesus... how can that be?"

There isn't even a need for aliens, "How can there be a God and Budhists who never heard of Jesus?" The problem of religious pluralism is an nteresting question. But not to sound like a broken record but... it's again, not at all explored in the film.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I was the biggest LOST fan on the planet. Listened to podcasts about the show and scoured the forums to find answers. I have to admit, often times discussing the show was more entertaining than watching the actual show. The ending for many was a let down. I was OK with it ince the pilgrimage I took with the character over the 6 seasons was so memorable, no ending could ever have have been as satisfying as the journey. The fans of the show were amazing and came up with incredible theories. Lindelof and Cuse felt pressure to stay ahead of the curve and I feel hurt the show because they began writing for the fans instead of what was right for the show. In any case, Prometheus is not a TV show and problems cannot be corrected a week later. If you never see LOST you can watch this kids 3 minute version of what the show was about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HWECQa23Cs&feature=fvwrel

 

[Scott Crawley]

They aren't even really very good questions:
"Why did they create us?"
David provides a perfectly succinct answer: "Why did you create me?" We see no indication that David is wrong. Nor do we see any other clues. The only other idea in the same vain is Shaw's desire to have children. Engineers -> Humanity? David: For shits and giggles. Shaw: ???? We never get a clue as to *WHY* shaw wants children. Presumably because she wants to love them. But the only person who either thematically or explicitely states a rationalization is David. So we'll go with David. "The reason the Engineers created humanity is because they could and out of a desire to do new things.

You don't find that interesting? In a world so full of religious convictions I find it very bold of them to let David answer that question. Do you really have no understanding why Shaw might want to have children? Why does anyone? Is that not a basic and fairly universal human need? God created us because he could, or he was curious, it was a frivolous whim is basically what is suggested, and that amuses me quite a lot. I'm almost suprised that there hasn't been an uproar from religious groups over that one.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I have to admit, often times discussing the show was more entertaining than watching the actual show.

I think you have identified a trend then. Call it The Lindelof Effect. ;-)

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You don't find that interesting? In a world so full of religious convictions I find it very bold of them to let David answer that question. Do you really have no understanding why Shaw might want to have children? Why does anyone? Is that not a basic and fairly universal human need? God created us because he could, or he was curious, it was a frivolous whim is basically what is suggested, and that amuses me quite a lot. I'm almost suprised that there hasn't been an uproar from religious groups over that one.

Except that it's obvious that the Engineers weren't Gods. They were no more Gods than any Mother or Father. They simply gave life to things. That was the only clear part of the entire story. But it also destroys any universality to the mystery of their motivations.

"What's God's motivation": big question.
"What's some Space Alien BioWeapons scientist's motivation?" : Who gives a shit?

Is it a basic universal need to have children? No. It's not. And it's not terribly mysterious-- people want to be loved, people want to be needed, people want to pass on a legacy... there are dozens of reasons to have children. NONE of them are explored in the movie. Not a single one. Why did Wayland have children? No hint. Was it a legacy (his daughter? maybbbbeee but he doesn't seem interested in her existence so God only knows why he had her.) His robot? Not the slightest hint except as a scientific exercise of ego. So since we have NO other parent/child relationships we have to assume that the film makers is suggesting that Humanity was created as an exercise of ego just as David was created... or not-- because even though that would actually be an interesting parallel between the Engineers and the only acknowledged Father/Son relationship in the entire movie--the two are only on screen together for about 60 seconds in the whole film and at no point is there any discussions between them.

I think the reason religious organizations aren't up in arms over this movie is the same reason they aren't up in arms over every single science fiction movie ever made isn't attacked by them.

By the way, Star Trek did the whole "Humanity is the seed of an alien race" thing in a TNG episode like 20 years ago. It's a pretty universal problem with religion as soon as you encounter an alien race that hasn't heard about God just like encountering another culture that doesn't believe in God. So they would need to protest every science fiction film just about in existence as well as every movie ever made with a foreign non-christian culture.

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.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Is it a basic universal need to have children? No. It's not. And it's not terribly mysterious-- people want to be loved, people want to be needed, people want to pass on a legacy... there are dozens of reasons to have children. NONE of them are explored in the movie.

You claimed to have no idea why Shaw wants to have children, but you do. There are many reasons and you too can name a few. Remember that Shaw is one of us, not an alien. Her reasons might include any from your list. Exactly why doesn't seem to matter in the larger scheme of the film.

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.

Except that it's obvious that the Engineers weren't Gods.

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.

 

[Michel Hafner]

The current cut is short by 20-30 minutes. Wait for the director's cut on BD for a final verdict.

 

[Ian Vertovec]

Gavin, I find your compare/contrast of Prometheus and Transformers hilarious. Please do more.

To me the entire plot was relatively straight forward. The engineers wanted to kill us because they realized that, like Weyland, the child was destined to replace the parent. And, also like Weyland, they rebelled against the way of things. Weyland probably had children as a means of obtaining his legacy, but was somehow disappointed with Vickers and David both. That's when he must have tryed to extend his reign unnaturally though this expedition. So by extension, the engineers must have made us as a means of extending their own legacy. After realizing that we failed to live up to their standard, they chose to destroy us. This seems to work enough for me to enjoy the film.

How did the cesarian parasite go from 8 pounds to 800 pounds in less then an hour?

 

[Matt Ryan]

Gavin, I find your compare/contrast of Prometheus and Transformers hilarious. Please do more.

To me the entire plot was relatively straight forward. The engineers wanted to kill us because they realized that, like Weyland, the child was destined to replace the parent. And, also like Weyland, they rebelled against the way of things. Weyland probably had children as a means of obtaining his legacy, but was somehow disappointed with Vickers and David both. That's when he must have tryed to extend his reign unnaturally though this expedition. So by extension, the engineers must have made us as a means of extending their own legacy. After realizing that we failed to live up to their standard, they chose to destroy us. This seems to work enough for me to enjoy the film.

How did the cesarian parasite go from 8 pounds to 800 pounds in less then an hour?

It has rapid growth apparently haha. She had sex the night before and was already 3 months pregnant so I guess it mutates quickly.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I loved Prometheus, hated Solaris. I also prefer 2010 over 2001. Moon was awesome. Amazing how differnt optinions can be.

 

[Adam Beck]

I just wanted to add how cool it was to hear Stephen Nakamura from Company 3 talk about his role in the DI process on Prometheus. Very insightful, and motivating. Each open house I attend just seems to get better and better.

 

[Michael Pyon]

Honestly, I was too entertained to be bothered by these so called "plot holes". I thought the story of David was really the highlight of this film, however, I will say that there were some pretty stupid moments like the guy wanting to pet the snake and "I choose to believe" is probably the stupidest line in cinematic history but doesn't make it any less true when I say that the film was INTENSE!

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

Gavin's posts are awesome

You sum up everything I dislike about the movie. Though it works because it's a visually good craftmanship. The screenplay... not so much.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

They're badly written characters from the person who brought us Lost's bullshit. Remember season 1 of lost? "Oooo this Smoke Monster, what a mystery! I can't wait to find out what it is and what it means!" Spoilers, nobody knew what it meant, first and foremost the writers. They're not some deep mystery, they're a plot hole and lazy writing/film making. This is what this writer does. He comes up with a bazillion unresolved plot points and hopes we forget about the fact that he has absolutely no clue what they are. They're fake mysteries. And he did it very well for 7 years. To give them more credit than that is simply excusing poor craftsmanship. Any meaning found is a credit to your own creativity and imagination not the writer and director.

+1

The Smoke Monster, the Ice Bear... Been there, done that. Halfway the second season of LOST I got this very distinctive idea that the writers had no idea what they were writing about, after enjoying the first season very much. I stopped watching. Some of my friends kept following it, and after the whole series finished, I think I was very right when I got that feeling.
It IS lazy screenwriting. I'm writing a SCI-FI idea, and it already takes me 2 years to flesh out my ideas in a SHORT movie, but I do think they are very well fleshed out (and yes, visually I'm aiming for a Blade Runner kind of look, story is completely mine).
After 45 minutes of Prometheus, I had exactly the same feeling: yes, I've gone along until now, but I'm getting the feeling you filmmakers (writers & director) don't know where you are going.

Only afterwards I read that it was the same screenwriter of LOST. Amazes me indeed that this guy gets hired again. It's really easy to begin some mystery that poses serious questions in a script. I had a couple of those questions after 1 week of brainstorming on my initial short-film idea.
It took me 2 years afterwards to flesh it out in a way that it still poses the right questions (to my opinion), fleshes it out, is still entertaining, and has all the other good script things (not to heavy handed dialogue or very explicit explaining dialogue, which I try to avoid as much as possible, which isn't always easy if you try to put up a huge future background in a short movie...). Still busy with the script, btw, but it's coming along. Sorry for the off-topic, but writing this kinds of stuff gets me to recognize the lazy screenwriting a lot sooner.
Maybe a director's cut will shed a new light, but to be honest, I don't have very high hopes in that.

 

[Mike Garrick]

It's interesting how everyone is talking about the scene with scientist & the snake thing. Yes it is stupid, I believe intentionally so......

It occurred to me after, a 2nd viewing of the movie, the snakes head when alert with it's "wings open" design can be found incorporated into convenant of the ark designs. Hence the way I now read this scene is our poor dumb scientist is opening the "end of days" by extending his hand stupidly towards the winged snake. Alternately many think the "winged snake" as the modern symbol for medical caring but is actually the symbol for Hermes the patron of commerce, the fat purse, deception & death.

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.

 

[Jay Birch]

It really did take me a couple of days before I felt I actually might have a handle on what was intended.

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.