There is a reason why I have to get drunk to go to the movies these days and its name is Prometheus. Prometheus – now a mythological symbol for everything that is wrong with contemporary Hollywood filmmaking – is an over-hyped, over budgeted, unoriginal spin-off that proves Hollywood is becoming an irrelevant medium for powerful storytelling. In the words of Hudson from Aliens: GAME OVER, MAN. GAME OVER!
Just to be clear, I came into this movie with low expectations. I wasn’t expecting it to be a sci-fi masterpiece in the same league with Alien, Aliens or Blade Runner. However, I was looking forward to an above average film that would chill and thrill me. Maybe even make me think a little, like District 9 or Surrogates. Not mind-blowing. Just a nice ride from one of my all-time favorite directors. Boy, was I wrong. (Luckily, I remembered to bring four little bottles of Jack Daniels in my purse).
What’s wrong with Prometheus? Let me count the ways (WARNING: SPOILER ALERT)…
Prometheus is not an existential horror movie. Prometheus promised to be a scary, thrilling sci-fi film. It promised to at least entertain me for a couple of hours and, well, it didn’t. It wasn’t scary. It wasn’t intellectual. It was just… meh. Hey, honey, don’t promise me untold pleasures and then take me the Chucky Cheese. You will get no action.
The best thing about the movie was Michael Fassbender’s performance as an android full of more wonder and curiosity than his human counterparts. The entire movie would have been greatly improved if it had been told from his perspective. And I’m not just saying this because I think he’s as hot as the surface of the sun.
It’s not actually Prometheus. So, if you’re a keyboard warrior who’s up on all the Prometheus reviews, you’ve probably read Cavalorn’s Livejournal epic thesis on the film’s roots in mythology. I’d just like to say that I don’t give a shit about the movie’s symbolism. If anything, it was so weighed down with it that it bruised the story. Being pretentious, doesn’t make your shit not shit. Trust me, it’s still shit. Just piled higher and deeper.
In Greek mythology, Prometheus was a Titan and the creator of mankind. But, Prometheus is not just a myth about creation; it’s about humans receiving knowledge from the Gods. Prometheus showed man how to use fire and was punished by Zeus. He took us out of the dark and into the light. And at no point in this film, does one of our alien creators gift us with any kind of knowledge. They are just mean, giant brutes with nothing interesting to say to their children.
Yes, they look like Titans, but beyond that – they are basically less interesting versions of Kratos from the PS3 hit God of War.
Hollywood: if you are going to make a movie about based on Greek mythology and the ideas presented in “Chariot of the Gods,” please make it at least as good as the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens show – or a B sci-fi movie from the early 1990s like Stargate. Even Aliens vs. Predator is a better interpretation of the genre. Thank you.
Lazy Storytelling. From the very first scene, this movie failed. Why show Prometheus (our alien creator) right away? Ever heard of building a mystery? Building tension? Making the audience wait to discover who created us? I don’t care if the scene is taken from the Greek creation myth. It doesn’t serve the story. Toss it. Show some discipline. Put your craft before your need to show everyone how smart you are.
But that’s not even the start to this movie’s poor storytelling. Each scene failed to use the conflict it created in the previous scene (HUGE fail and a sign that the script was disjointed as if 10 different writers worked on it and there was no one checking to see if things made sense). The plot is illogical. It fails to create character arcs – and, well, the poor scene work and cringe-worthy dialogue makes you wonder if anyone cared if this movie was any good.
Weak Protagonist. So, who the hell is our hero? We spend a lot of useless time with other characters in scenes that do nothing to move character or story forward. After Dr. Elizabeth Shaw gets impregnated with facehugger/squid baby, we realize she is supposed to be our protagonist. But we have no emotional connection or investment in her. Why does she care about finding our alien creators? What drives her? Why do I care about her more than the hunky android played by Michael Fassbender?
Take a cue from Contact and show us why this scientist is so passionate about finding these alien beings. Show us what she’s been through to get to this point in her life. Show us her personal stakes. Because I do not understand… or care.
Everyone is stupid. All the characters in this movie are dumb as a facehugger – and just as suffocating. They keep doing stupid, illogical things like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (who are totally dead, btw) playing with menacing serpents slithering in black ooze. Yeah, don’t touch that, dude. If you were on an expedition in the jungle, you would bring a gun and you wouldn’t try to play with the black mamba.
A dying Weyland in really bad old man makeup secretly travels with the ship in order to meet his maker, before he meets his maker, just so he can get his brains bashed in by his maker. What did he expect? God to be a nice guy? Silly man.
But the most dumbass move of all comes from our so-called hero Dr. Shaw. At the very end, she decides not to return to Earth, but to find the home planet of our homicidal creators, so she can ask them why they wanted to destroy us. WHY IN THE HELL WOULD SHE WANT TO DO THAT?! They were planning on wiping out our planet. So, you want to remind them that they never got around to doing it? If this is the best example of human heroism in this sci-fi universe, we all deserve to die.
They think YOU are stupid too. So, a very, very misguided Dr. Elizabeth Shaw takes off with her handsome android head to find the home planet of the Titans, because she wants to know why they were going to destroy us.
This, of course, is to set-up a sequel (Ugh, enough already). Really? That’s your cliffhanger? Wow. The filmmakers must think we are as dumb as their cardboard characters.
We don’t need a sequel to realize why they were going to deliver a ship full of that black ooze to Earth. Let me explain with a simple equation:
The Titans + Facehugger / Squid Creature = Xenomorph.
Or more eloquently…
They created us to be genetically similar enough to them, so they could use our bodies to breed Xenomorphs. Duh (flips hair).
They were going back to Earth to impregnate the human population with Xenomorphs, probably because they are fighting a bigger intergalactic war and need a crap load of biological weapons.
You don’t need to waste your money (or time) watching the sequel. And don’t bother paying to watch the first movie either. You will see nothing new. You will experience no thrills. You will be barraged with a bunch of mythological imagery that does little for the actual story. And you will be wondering how such a legendary director got it so wrong.
If you’re into the whole “Chariot of the Gods” premise, re-watch Stargate (1994) for free on YouTube right here:
Your brain will be more satisfied. Plus, James Spader is nerdilicious.
Geez, you barely scratched the surface of the stupidity.
Theres a biologist. When presented with the corpse of the first alien being EVER, he decides to leave with the geologist, who also happens to be uninterested in collecting or sampling any minerals. Okay. Yeah. And of course, neither of them packed anything like an iphone to guide them back to the ship, because that would be too boring.
The first thing they try and do with the head is *re-animate* it. Not take samples, not analyze it. No, lets see what happens when we jolt it with current, just for kicks, since its not like we just risked our lives in a sandstorm to get it here.
The Robot decides to test what happens when you infect a human with the weird shit he found, because that is of course standard scientific procedure. Given a crew of a dozen useless redshirts, he instead chooses to infect one of the only two people on board who have some idea of what is going on. Then, he forgets all about it, lets him die incinerated without bothering to follow up, get a sample or even a souvenir photo, or even bothering to watch really. WTF? And of course, since this is primarily, albeit secretly, a medical/biological mission, the ship would have no provisions at all for medical quarantine (except flamethrower). Yeah, of course not. A robot surgeon pod yes, but a standard med quarantine for your infection experiments? no chance, that would jeopardize a stupid plot point moment.
Then for no reason whatsoever, someone becomes a zombie. thats not really one of the xenomorph stages that I recall. One of the stupidest scenes I’ve ever suffered through.
Until the rest of Prometheus, that is.
When the Alien Engineer is awakened, after being asleep for 2000 years and having his entire base, friends, comrades demolished, and comes face to face with alien humans who should not be there, he/it chooses to not investigate or inquire, or do anything with his fucking brain, instead going all kickboxer and immediately launching his ship to… where? why? Even my 12 year old would take a minute to figure out what had happened before beating up the first people she sees. Being asleep for 2000 years, clearly there was not a split second to lose.
Next, somehow, there is a decision to destroy the ship because its heading to earth. Except of course nobody would have the slightest idea that this was the destination of the ship. The stupid robot was the only one that saw the holographic earth map and he’s decapitated. Even then it would be a long shot to assume that was the ships destination, but at least it would be something. The others had zero. zilch. So its a random guess out of the blue and they all decide it must be true and collisions-ho! Why not?
Is nobody else bothered by the fact that christianity is essentially an ethics and morality, not a creation myth? I kept not understanding what the alleged symbols here were supposed to represent, since the obvious Prometheus on the rock/Jesus on the cross comparison was entirely absent since this film was not about knowledge or enlightenment AT ALL. Why is it even called Prometheus? Why not call it Gomorrah? Random life and death seems to be what this is all about.
I don’t know, I could go on and on. Endlessly stupid. A hundred percent derivative. Not one memorable moment or scene. Not one believable action or decision. Stargate is Citizen Kane by comparison. Snow White and the Huntsman is War and Peace. It would be a decent movie if it had been made by high schoolers over a weekend, but given thirty years and an infinite budget to come up with this is beyond unfathomable.
Seriously dude. You are right on.
Actually not a myth, but I get what you’re saying. Symbolism is lost on everyone if they don’t know what the symbol is supposed to mean in the first place.
what are you referring to not being a myth? Prometheus is definitely a Greek Myth.
Yeah I forgot about the zombie! That was so fail. Someone proposed that Charlize Theron’s character was an android because the pod was configured for males only.
Meow… I would like to also contribute the Kratos analogy to you. Very perceptive kitty. Can has good scfi movie, plz?
Oh, and check out this interpretation. It actually makes a ton of sense and is a lot more elegant than the other interpretation: http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html?thread=8940231#t8940231
Well…more sense, anyway.
And this one, too: http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html?thread=8980423#t8980423
Some folks are going to amazing extremes to polish this turd into something that means something. It is a waste of effort, people. I’m a production designer myself, but even I don’t believe that secret engravings in the background and (misguided/jumbled) subtext symbols overcome failures in basic plot and storytelling. Intent does not matter, intent is easy, ideas are cheap. Its execution that matters.
Thanks for the review…I will save my money and rewatch STARGATE instead. As you said, “James Spader is nerdilicious,” and that counts for a whole lot!
thanks, sam
don’t forget, kurt russell also rocks that movie.
absolutely spot on, Martian … and Javier. Instead of exploring the high-minded themes it hinted at, they decide to remake Alien. I feel most of the problems with this movie has to do with the fact that they adopted the structure of 2001 and Alien and not care how their characters get from point A to point B
We start with 2001: A Space Odyssey
[1] Opening scene .. A long, long time ago, on earth … apes doing what they do until an extra-terrestial entity shows up, evolution is tampered with / a long, long time ago, on earth [maybe], an extra-terrestial entity shows up and sacrifices himself and evolution is tampered with
[2] Discovery of the monolith on the moon … an expedition is organised / discovery of hieroglyphs, an expedition is organised
[3] Astronauts kept in the dark about mission details .. creepy computer, HAL9000, looks over them / Astronauts totally in the dark about mission details … creepy android that sounds like HAL9000 looks over them.
here we switch to the Alien structure:
[4] Planetfall, crew wakes up, briefing on their situation, not getting along with each other, discovery of alien structure / Planetfall, crew wakes up, mission briefing, not getting along with each other, discovery of alien structure
[5] we see a bunch of eggs / we see a bunch of jars [in the original Alien script, it was a bunch of jars]
[6] Kane pokes his face at an egg, helmet gets melted, he gets face-clamped and mouth-raped / dumb scientists try to pet alien vagina-snake, same helmet-melting and face-raping
[7] Dallas hunts down alien in corridor while crew watches the video display of blips / 3D map of alien spaceship with 2 idiots on board … it wasn’t paid off because Stringer Bell went to do his version of the Turing test on the Evil Queen
[8] they cut the face-hugger, acid blood spills / they electrocute the alien head, it explodes
[9] Robot hides Kane’s infection from crew, allowing the alien to germinate / robot infects assholey scientist , allows creature to grow in Noomi
[10] Ripley refuses to let infected Kane on ship / Charlize refuses to let asshole scientist on ship
[11] chest-bursting .. alien escapes .. grows big / DIY Caesarian … alien ignored … grows really, really big
[12] Both 2001 and Alien now : robot carries out his pre-programming and sabotages crew / Fassbender does his thing
[13] Bowman in 60s-standard old man make-up as he meets his maker / Weyland in 60s-standard old man make-up as he meets his maker
[14] back to Alien: robot decapitated … reveals plot points / robot decapitated … reveals plot points
[15] Ripley running around in white underwear / Noomi running around in white underwear
[16] crew gets picked off one by one, leaving sole female survivor in small escape pod / crew dies in all sorts of stupid ways, leaving sole female survivor in small escape pod
[17] she gets attacked by monster we’re supposed to believe is dead, uses her brains and survives / she gets attacked by monster we’re supposed to believe is dead, deus ex machina happens, she survives
[18] she returns to earth with cat / she goes looking for a sequel with robot-head
i believe that’s why the characters are so unbelievable. they just have to hit a particular mark in the plot, consistency of character be damned.
preach on!
Yes. This. Exactly.
I know Hollywood is obsessed with repeating its past success without ever risking a single original impulse, but that they copied these films so *precisely* really boggles my mind. I get that it’s a formula, but I didn’t realize the formula was specific down to the quantum level. “Take exactly two gluons and and one spinon and stir 1/8,341 of a turn.”
Trying to duplicate a film to this degree is breathtakingly retarded. It also explains a lot.
I feel validated. I decided not to watch the movie after viewing the trailer. Why? Because of sewer inspection bots, bomb robots, packbots, and my personal love for a bot named Opportunity. If you can build an anthropomorphic robot that can mimic human behavior, you can damn well build an advanced AI version of Opportunity and load it full of all the analysis devices you’d ever want. Build a couple hundred of them, send them down from orbit. It is just so 1930s of Scott to have humans walking around in an extreme biohazard environment. We don’t do that now. Level 4 labs at the CDC anyone? Of secondary consideration, I am sick to death of Ridley Scott. Tertiary: the most interesting thing in a premise like this is the convo between the Engineer and the humans. The last thing we need is another Big Bad that needs to be capped.
Thanks! Yes. The word out here in LaLaLand is that the studios let Scott drive this movie and no one had the guts to tell him that he was wrong.
wait . . . there was an alien comic . . .
where the space jockeys used xenomorphs to terraform planets . . .
well there was actually one or two stories, one where they used aliens to terraform planets to their likeing, and another where they used xenomorphs to wipe out life
from what I can tell there was definitly influence from the comics on this movie . . . the problem being they didnt realize what made many of the alien comics good!
as soon as I see the film, I am going to revisit the comics and do a side-by side comparions . . .
because I feel like that it is really just going to boil down too “the aliens are just terraforming tools”
send me a link to the comic… would love to read them
aw man I can remember, I have to go through a whole crate of alien comics now XD
okay lets see I havent seen the film yet, so i am just going to list the comics i think had an influence based on what plot details I have skimmed from the film
“Dark Horse Presents: ALIENS” or as the copyright info calls it “Dark Hose Presents: ALIENS Platinum Edition” and in the fandom it is usually just called “ALIENS Platinum Edition”
this comic is actually one of the more beloved, it features 4 stories . . .and each of them I think had to have had some kind of influence on prometheus
first story explains the aliens home planet, the second shows non-human pyramids on alien planet with archeologists . . . looking into it
the third story shows a species that uses alien eggs as . . . food . . that story is weird!
and the last one gets into the space jockey, and it talks about how they appearently use aliens to clear planets of life or something . . . .it is . . .
this comic is eerie . . . I havent seen prometheus yet, but so much of what everyone says about the movie . . .just straight up reminds me of this comic
and . . . dont tell anyone . . .you can download it here :I
it was published in 1992, and it is kinda hard to find, it actually helped launch me into my interest in the alien franchise
http://1hostclick.com/emuk2k25fjia/Dark_Horse_Presents_-_Aliens__Platinum_Edition_.cbr.html
appearently in another book “Aliens: Original Sin”, the Space Jockeys are mentioned and discussed throughout the book. Towards the end the reader learns that they are trying to breed a group of Aliens
and it was appearently a graphic novel by Mark Verheiden where the space jockeys were using the aliens to clear our earth or something . . .
sorry I spammed your comments, but I think it is important to research how expanded works dealt with these aliens because then we will see how badly they either messed it up, or castrated their own work to fit these ideas
It’s totally cool. I’m actually very interested in reading these comics now.
Thanks, dude!
i recommend Mark Verheiden’s Alien: Book 1. It’s full of great sci fi ideas … unlike that overrated film we’re dumping on
[...] Why Films Like ‘Prometheus’ Are Driving Me to Alcoholism [...]
Yep.
[...] Space jockeys? Dodgy character motivations? Giant human head sculptures in space? As soon as this film comes out in Germany I’m seeing [...]
Did anyone else think of ‘The Thing’ (Carpenter version) when watching this? Actually I would say for a good night of movie viewing rewatch ‘Stargate’ (for your pop-mythology) and then ‘The Thing’ (for your gooey space monster kicks).
BTW…the ship at the end was obviously supposed to be the ship at the beginning of ‘Alien’. The fact that the Engineer doesn’t assume the pose of the space jockey at the end of ‘Prometheus’ is such a major break in continuinity it beggars belief. Right up there Padme dies.
Personally I thought it was a brilliant film (and I realise I have no friends here who agree, not so far at least). I’ve seen the film three times, and must admit to feeling similarly disappointed on the second round. But if you follow the explicit premise of the film – where did we come from? – sincerely, then the film is a riveting and compelling spectacle. There is a tremendous amount of congruency and layering in the film which is meant to convey the high hopes man has in terms of meeting his maker. In typical ALIEN fashion, not only is reality a cruel mistress, but also a deadly one when confronted for all that it is. If you’re going to the movies just to be entertained, and you’re limited to thinking logically, and you’re stuck in a prequel construct (obviously not having paid attention to the pre-screening reviews, or comments from the director himself), then you’re going to be disappointed. The film is a wise tome about the created reaching par with their creators (David with his makers, humans with the Engineers, the black goop with their forebears/hosts in fast forward), and when the creators knowledge is exceeded, what does the creator have to offer? You bet that’s VERY disappointing! It’s the same disappointment children feel when they grow up to discover their parents are far from perfect. And then the irony shifts in the further, as parents become helpless as children, and the children become fully empowered adults. It’s implicitly disappointing, but the question is – will we accept death or cling to life. Will we sacrifice or be selfish? In that lies the fate quite possibly of our species.
The writer of this blog has it half way right that the key to the story is seen through David, who models himself on Lawrence of Arabia (who also saw himself as an outsider, who rebelled against his commanders and finally took charge of his own fate and to some extent those of his enemies).
The symbolism in the film forms a cohesive whole. If you don’t feel it, that’s weird. Many many hints are provided, so one needs to pay attention. One commentator spoke of the theme of “nothing” – David says “There is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing” (quoting Lawrence). When David’s maker, Weyland, later confirms, at the moment of his death, “There’s nothing,” David responds, “I know.” David has exceeded his creator in every conceivable way, and now, like Elizabeth, is free to explore…to go on a personal journey. That’s also symbolic, the specifics are less important than the act itself.
Why does Vickers die? Because she’s no less selfish or more deserving. This is a tale about the weakness of our beliefs, and the strength of the will to survive (and supplant). I don’t know, I can’t think of a film in years that makes one think this much about some pretty hardcore issues. Usually the idea of religion in mainstream film is verboten – kudos to this director for not simply going the safe route and making ALIEN 6, but something courageously deep, and well considered.
The first Engineer drinking from a cup, sacrificing himself that others might live, Christmas day, Elizabeth giving birth (through her abdomen) like the Virgin Mary’s barren cousin in the Nativity story, the idea of sacrifice begetting life (and selfish greed violent death), David’s attempts to become human and free (by at turns destroying and assisting his creators) etc etc etc Read this if you’re interested http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html.
I think it shows a poverty of spirit, an arrogance similar to the characters in this film and deplorable lack perception to those who don’t get Prometheus. Go and watch Transformers. Or go to church or something. I’ve love to know whether those who got the film did so because of their own search for answers – like the director – beyond religion.
Oh, I got David and the nihilistic perspective of the universe this movie puts forth… Being an atheist, this is an exciting theme. It was just poorly executed. It should have been focused, hence my suggestion of telling the story from David’s perspective.
Just because someone points out weak storytelling, doesn’t mean they don’t understand theme — or what the author or filmmaker intended. And theme does not make up for a lack of sound storytelling. Maybe you do not understand what story is. Many of my old students did not either. It’s not obvious to everyone.
There were no characters i cared about. Their motivations were so cardboard and cliche that many of the scenes were cringe-worthy. There were no character arcs. Ask yourself, how did this experience change the main character?
Shaw never acted like a scientist. She is no Jodie Foster from Contact. If you want to watch a good movie about science and religion, rewatch Contact. You will get a sense of what motivates people to want answers about the universe. There was no such character motivation here.
“The first Engineer drinking from a cup, sacrificing himself that others might live, Christmas day, Elizabeth giving birth (through her abdomen) like the Virgin Mary’s barren cousin in the Nativity story, the idea of sacrifice begetting life (and selfish greed violent death), David’s attempts to become human and free (by at turns destroying and assisting his creators) etc etc etc Read this if you’re interested http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html.”
Um, if you had read my article. I refer to that blog post.
Just because you use symbols, doesn’t mean that you don’t have to tell a story. In Greek mythology, Gods gave birth to other Gods literally from them bursting from their bodies. I get it. That’s cool visual symbolism. But… So what? Give me a reason as a viewer or a writer to care.
Littering a film with too many ideas and too many symbolism is just a way of covering up some fundamental storytelling problems. It’s like a pretentious band-aid. We can all hide behind pretentiousness. That’s easy enough. Now, putting your ego aside and telling a good story. Now, that’s a challenge.
Unfortunately, Prometheus was unable to do this.
“Shaw never acted like a scientist” … precisely. The character is not believable at all as a scientist. “I choose to believe” counters years of training in the scientific method? That’s like a doctor using “woman-created-from-man’s-rib” concept in his actual medical practice.
She didn’t act like a religious person either. What was her motivation again? To search for her maker … does that mean she’s looking for her Christian God? Or some abstract concept of a deity? Was she disappointed when she discovered that God was a pale alien dude on steroids? Were her theories proven or disproven by their discoveries? To search for the Divine only to find Lord Voldemort? As a Chrisitian, why didn’t she make the connection between the aliens and the Nephilim? I don’t remember if she thought about the immaculate conception when she found out about her condition … didn’t she think she might’ve been ripping the next Jesus out of her belly? And after finding out that “god” is not the deity in her beliefs, she still insists on chasing the alien with the biological weapons to ask the big spiritual question “Why does God want to kill us?” Really?
Lazy Hollywood stereotypes. That’s what i kept thinking throughout the movie. These people are scientists because we were told they are. Don’t look at how they behave.
She’s religious because she chose to believe outrageous hypotheses …. and she wears a cross. That guy’s a geologist because he says, “I love rocks!”. Yet he doesn’t take any soil samples on an alien planet. And that other guy’s a biologist because he gets high and tries to pet an alien snake. Yet he runs away from a bunch of dead aliens. Biological samples, anyone?
Ok, one more gripe before i get to my point. The helmet thing … any research scientist knows that contamination works both ways. They’re not just endangering themselves when they took off their helmets. They’re contaminating the alien environment with microbes from Earth. Didn’t they read “War of the World’s”? They could’ve killed God!
Yes, I’m over-analysing the movie. That’s because I couldn’t hold on to my suspension of disbelief. Every time I couldn’t buy a character or a scene, I’m taken out of the movie. Not only were the characters unbelievable as scientists/explorers/professionals on an expedition to discover the origin of mankind, they barely behaved like human beings. The entire plot seems to be propelled by dumb people doing dumb things. If the characters weren’t such complete idiots, there’d be no story.
No, i don’t need all the questions answered [especially when they're of the rhetorical, WTF variety]. They asked big questions at the beginning of the the movie and instead of addressing them in the story, they chose to do a slasher flick in outer space, complete with dumb-teenager equivalents.
And no, before someone asks, i don’t claim to be a better director than Ridley Scott [or even Uwe Boll], but i retain the right as an audience member to declare that the emperor has no clothes …
And what’s up with the smoke monster anyway?
roddy: you are not over-analyzing. if the movie was thrilling or riveting and you were invested in the characters, the lack of scientific believability would be forgivable. But it was just a poor movie all around.
and it does bother me that people spend millions of dollars on movies and don’t even bother to fact check. wikipedia people.
doesn’t it imply then that you’re a better storyteller than Ridley Scott? I mean, if you say you can recognise a good story when you see one, and you’ve figured out what’s a strong character, plot etc? There are a lot of folks who don’t understand certain elements immediately and then they reckon someone or something was stupid. I’m not convinced. Fairy tales, and mythos often contain seemingly nonsensical but powerful themes (wicked witch = evil mother in law, seven dwarves = unsuitable suitors). When you apply the logic system it falls apart. When you apply human constructs you can see why these stories resonate and are so resilient to the passage of time.
1) Scott is an amazing storyteller, which was why this movie is so disappointing. As an artist, not everything you do is brilliant. Just because you are so-and-so doesn’t make you infoulable and it doesn’t mean that you are always right. I’m noticing a trend in Hollywood with some once amazing directors producing subpar work as they get older. It’s caused by a number of things, too much money, budgets so big that it quells creativity, unchecked egos, etc. When directors are younger and hungry for success they tend to do better work because they have to listen to feedback and they are challenged to be more creative given smaller budgets. In Prometheus’ case, the studio gave Scott free reign. He choose a writer from Lost to write the script — a show known in the industry to have no real plan from the start. In the past, Scott had produced screenplays written by stronger writers. No one had the guts to tell Scott what needed to be improved, because he’s Ridley Scott.
It’s one thing to become a great director. It’s another challenge to stay a great director. You have to be able to put your ego aside and listen to feedback. Trust that just because you are really good at something, doesn’t mean that you don’t need to listen to others. And hope that people are just placating you, because you’re “kind of a big deal” and they are telling you the truth.
2) You’re right, mythology and fairy tales do resonate. In fact, they are the basis of all stories and hero archetypes. They are actually not nonsensical. They reflect the way are brains put together narratives (i.e. we are the heroes of our own story). It’s the way humans organize information about the world and about their own life. However, there is a difference in retelling a myth and just littering something with symbols. What myth was this retelling? Because it wasn’t actually the Greek myth of Prometheus. What hero archetype was Shaw? I’m not saying that it wasn’t the intention of the filmmakers to tell a story in mythic structure, but they didn’t really pull it off.
Mythic structure actually helps writers by simplifying the story and creating classic characters with clear arcs. I do not see any evidence of this here.
Missed opportunity.
“I’m not saying that it wasn’t the intention of the filmmakers to tell a story in mythic structure, but they didn’t really pull it off.”
That may be a subjective thing. I know in Snow White and the Huntsman I hated the part where the Huntsman demands that his dead wife be resurrected. I found it hard to believe that he could be that naive, but some people didn’t. I also found Theron a little contrived (some people didn’t) and Stewart not particularly kissable. So if one is getting stuck on one thing, or a few, unable to suspend disbelief, unable to see the story for what it is, maybe that can ruin the whole thing. I do think Ridley Scott deserves a bit more credit. It makes sense that he would invest a great deal of thought and effort and painstaking evaluation in coming back to a work which essentially set up his entire career. I refuse to believe that he took on this project rashly, or quickly, or that there was any slap-dashing of the script.
The only part where I felt Scott indulged us a little was when Janek provides his explanation for what is going on (that the moon was a weapons depot, and the weapons turned on them). It’s been pointed out by others that the alien being we see in the beginning and the alien we see at the end differ markedly – one is virtually naked, the other is semi-engulfed in a kind of dark armour. I won’t go into details about this except to say that I think the film deserves multiple views in order to form a cohesive opinion of it. Maybe the brighter amongst us ‘get it’ on the first view. I don’t think anyone can form a complete opinion though at first glimpse.
I must confess I was unaware about the whole writer of Lost business, which I think has contaminated your ‘open-mindedness’. Perhaps Lindehof messed up on Lost. In the same way that you say “As an artist, not everything you do is brilliant.” – well, just because you apparently blundered in your last script, or everything you’ve ever written, doesn’t mean it’s all worthless.
Let’s be fair, Charlize Theron weighed in heavily on the material until she was satisfied
http://www.ratherronge.co.za/html/sub_content.aspx?reviewid=1960
and there was another screenwriter upon whose draft the whole thing was ‘built’. And Ridley did a lot of work customising the script towards something that he obviously felt very passionate about communicating. So the idea that it was ill-conceived or mis-rendered is a stretch for me to believe. Prometheus is no different to Blade Runner or Alien in revisiting Scott’s familair themes of human vanity vs our obvious frailty.
I think what makes this film rare and important, and meaingful, is it is one of the few films that seriously looks at and questions our implicit beliefs. What if we met our creator. What would he do, what would he say? How would that change us? And I think it is very instructive to note how the writers/filmmakers see our Creator – sickly white, all-powerful, mute, monkish, sensitive and sophisticated and at the same time surrounded by blackness, and death, immobile, militant and the purveyor of sickening concoctions, ripe and ready for unbridled monstrous evolution/mutation. That creation and destruction are such intimate bedfellows is another nice touch.
I reckon David was a classic character. He is central to the story throughout. “What myth was this retelling? Because it wasn’t actually the Greek myth of Prometheus. What hero archetype was Shaw?”
Shaw plays the archetype of the ‘believer’ (and if you will, ‘survivor’). You might not think that’s an archetype, but she is very separate from the other cast members in her experience – she’s the one who realises her mistake (we were so wrong), she also contradicts Holloway in that she both decides ‘it was an invitation’ and because she overtly ‘chooses to believe’. Even at the end of the film, she chooses to believe, although it’s difficult to imagine she has not suffered a few painful realisations. There are numerous scenes in which Shaw feels herself (physically, psychologically, spiritually) destroyed. How does she respond to these, for lack of a better word, disappointments? With remorse, with concern for others beyond herself, with vivid introspection, with courage.
I’m not sure how one can say that the characters in this film are not well conceived. Shaw is, and David is. There’s not a terrific amount of time available to flesh out every single character.
David plays a sort of Pinocchio wanting to be a real boy archetype. In a sense, so does Vickers, who hates living in the shadow of the Apple of her father’s eye. On many levels it is about the attempt by various characters to raise themselves ito of their independence and personal power in the world. “assert” is perhaps a better word.
But there are consequences to these attempts – motives in the story of creator and created are critical. I think it is a very powerful question: “Why did the Creator change His mind about us.” The question isn’t so much about the Creator as about us looking to ourselves and asking whether we are worthy; whether we have redeeminfg qualities. Prometheus offers to examples of redemption: the victim who learns and is sorry (Shaw). And the perpetrator who imposes and is sorry (or at least, suffers a consequence (David).
I’m fascinated by the fact that you don’t see any link to Prometheus. In broad strokes, it is about a God/Creator (Prometheus created man) who gives a gift (life) and then a second gift (fire/information) for which it is punished – viscerally, by a monster. There are quite a few examples of the flesh being ripped open in Prometheus the movie – in Elizabeth Shaw (who is representative of the barren Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin also named Elizabeth), there’s in David, and in the first and last Engineer. All three (and there are more) are examples of Creators. The monsters are metaphors for the consequences of our beliefs which manifest in actions. Fire – information that can turn worlds to ruin.
I think at a very simple level, it’s a story about creation and destruction. There’s a fairy tale for that, there’s religious iconography, there’s parent child, there’s human engineer and machine, there’s the science fiction yarn. Scott cleverly used all of them. In addition he demonstrates that we are the monster. We give birth to it, it rises within us, it mobilises us, we give life to it (we’re in control) until it breaks through a threshold (the monster of our making is in control). The whole idea of good and evil, creator and creation, belief and action – is stitched into this metaphor. I find it very powerful, especially given the context we find ourselves in. Modern Empires (Greece, Italy, Britain, Japan and the USA) imperilled. At the same time the Curiosity Rover about to land on Mars (in August) to prospect for life. Can we (on earth) be redeemed for our sins? Can we find life and so learn about where we fit in – or perhaps transition to the higher level, the Accountable, responsible, Wise creator (and Custodian) of worlds?
I’ve seen the movie three times. I think if you’re convinced it’s a miss, perhaps it’s worth another look.
http://www.ratherronge.co.za/html/sub_content.aspx?reviewid=1975
Another interesting view.
I’ve seen it twice. I took my roommate to it, because she really wanted to go. As someone who has worked in business (writer in video games now, better people, better pay), let me clue you in on a couple of things:
“I refuse to believe that he took on this project rashly, or quickly, or that there was any slap-dashing of the script.” um, yeah.That happens a lot out here. People talk about how crappy scripts are getting made all the time. It’s really common. Hollywood is a very political animal. It’s who you are, not what you have written. The word from some of the studio assistants was this was the case with Prometheus. My point with Lindehof is that Lost set up a lot of cool stuff, but the writers had no idea what it meant or where it was going. They literally wrote the pilot and it got picked up… they had no idea where they were going with it. I’m just seeing that same pattern here. Lots of set-ups. No pay-offs. That’s really sloppy writing. Every scene in a movie should move character and plot forward. In a great movie, every scene moves character, plot and theme forward. Nothing is a movie is in there without a purpose.This movie was riddled with a ton of throw away scenes, not to mention flat, cliche dialogue.
If Shaw is playing the archetype of the “believer” then she’s not a scientist. And how does she change? Does she lose her belief? No. She doesn’t arc at all. In Contact, the scientist is a scientist. She doesn’t have faith. She only has fact. Her love interest, played by Matthew McCannehay is a believer (he’s a missionary)…. How does she change, she learns to have faith… as well as fact. She must have faith in order to reach her goal (which is meeting an extraterrestrial which can give her some answers about life and the universe) Ah, Carl Sagan.
To say that this film is rare in theme is a bit naive. The idea of man looking for his creator is not a new theme in literature or in film. It’s a pretty basic, classic story. It’s been retold a million times in a million different ways. In fact, the alien creation myth outlined in “Chariot of the Gods” has been really popular in pop culture these last 30 years. So, if you are going to retell it, be fresh and original… and be entertaining.
I think you are in love with the ideas this movie represents. You are entitled to like whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean what you like is perfect and everyone should agree with you. And if they don’t, they are not “getting” something that only you see.
Trust me, we all get it. We were all hit over the head again and again with the movie’s heavy-handed symbolism. It actually was a turn-off. It was insulting. It was lazy and pretentious. And it was unoriginal and predictable.
“To say that this film is rare in theme is a bit naive. The idea of man looking for his creator is not a new theme in literature or in film.” Even James T Kirk has done it.
Sad to see this is what passes for intelligent sci fi these days.
Instead of adapting great sci fi novels like Arthur C Clarke’s “Rendevous with Rama” or “Childhood’s End” or Asimov’s “Foundation” [hell, i'll stop here .. it's a long list], Ridley Scott went on to remake “Alien” [with a dash of 2001]
“I must confess I was unaware about the whole writer of Lost business, which I think has contaminated your ‘open-mindedness’.”
I don’t think anyone went in thinking “Oh, this movie is written by the writer from Lost”. It’s probably more like “The director of the 2 best sci fi movies is returning to the genre after 3 decades!”. The baggage of high expectations. If this film was directed by Paul WS Anderson,”I’d say, “Ehhh, it’s okay. what did you expect?”
Only after the movie finished, I went “Lindeloffffff!!!!” . And shame on Scott for not recognising a weak script.
Check out this interview with Lindelof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSNTXHljeeM
It’s quite informative. Pretty funny how the interviewer didn’t let him get away with the straw man argument “sometimes some people don’t like it if you don’t give them ALL the answers”. Lindelof himself seems to be quite critical of other people’s bad storytelling.
You can only tease your audience for so long [the record remains at 6 seasons] before they turn around and say ,”you don’t have any actual answers, do you?”
Ah okay – I’m starting to see that you really really didn’t like this film. I suppose I’m arguing the point that from all the evidence it was very well conceived (or thoroughly considered) but I think you’re just saying that it’s shit, maybe it had ambitious ideas but it got splattered on screen in a sort’ve mess, the result was a sort of hit and miss by a director and crew kinda off their game.
I’m not sure if I said the theme was ‘rare’, just the concept of asking bold questions about where we come from and our beliefs is something I’ve rarely seen in cinema. Not questioning beliefs, but questioning the very foundations of what we believe about a creator and our ideas of ourselves (are we redeemable within the context of a Creator/Creation scenario). Maybe you see that all the time at the movies, I don’t.
Here’s a final link to the horses mouth, director Ridley Scott. What’s nice is this has a transcript and audio, so you can get a feel of what he’s saying.
http://collider.com/ridley-scott-prometheus-2-sequel-interview/170207/
http://media.collider.com/collider_audio/Prometheus/Ridley_Scott_Prometheus_Interview.mp3
When I listen to it I have a sense of respect for how finely tuned and planned and executed it is. In another interview Charlize Theron describes how the entire ship was actually built, and the only green screen used was for the windows. I find that quite a lot of additional effort, something that also impresses me. But perhaps my standards are extremely low and uninformed.
The set designers and actors and VFX artists did work really hard on this movie. (One of my friends is a VFX coordinator… worked on Snow White… not this movie, but you hear the artists talk about how crappy the films are they are working on all the time… it’s just a job). And you should have a sense of respect for their work. They work long hours and take a lot of abuse from studio executives with personality disorders/ But special effects and set design do not make for a good story. It’s a group effort that starts with a good script.
Whatever directors and actors say about their movies publicly is also part of their job. You don’t trash talk it to the press, even if you were frustrated. It’s not professional. Megan Fox trashed talked Transformers and her career totally sputtered. No one wanted to work with her. Do those movies suck? YES. but they did pay her a lot of money. It’s her job to help sell it. So, I wouldn’t use PR as evidence of good fillmmaking.
No one is saying you have bad taste. Prometheus isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen by far. It was just really disappointing.
If it makes you feel any better, I thought Avatar was worse, even though the storyline was cleaner.
I liked AVATAR, sorry – but also think this was better. I’m an atheist too so I value realism, and issues that bring reality to the core (even if they do so in not the most obvious manner). I’ve been quite inspired to write (actually continue writing) my own novel-as-a-movie. So I reckon I’ll send it to you for a final check. If you hate it either it means it’s great, or if you fix it, it will be perfect (hard to say which). Here’s a quick quote from Scott which I think reminds us all what’s involved, whether or not the writer in question did commit blood, sweat and tears to this script:
Scott: Has anyone written a book here?
[Everyone says “No.”]
Scott: Try writing a book, dude. That’s difficult. Writing a screenplay is like writing a book, it’s that simple. You’ve got a blank page and that’s it, a blank page and then you go from there and everyone has their own method.
okay. that’s it. i cannot stand your ignorant assumptions about the people you are dealing with.
So here comes the hammer.
I have written a draft of a novel I may or may not abandon. (If you are going to write one, be prepared to start about 5 before actually finishing one). I’ve also written over 7 feature length screenplays, television specs, pilots, etc.
I taught screenwriting at one of the biggest universities in the country. Went to film school on a fellowship for my writing (got accepted everywhere). I also doctor screenplays occasionally for friends.
I work in creative advertising for the money while I work on my fiction. I have penned several national T.V. commercials (which have been produced and aired), game trailers and all kinds of different interactive messaging. Right now, I’m hoping to get a chance to pitch a game design document. Writing is what I do for a living. It’s not a hobby.
Javier, who commented above, has MADE a feature-length animated movie. And a good one that did well at festivals.
A book and a screenplay are easy to write. I can write a 120 page screenplay in a week. Doesn’t mean it’s good. Writing a GOOD one is hard and takes discipline. You usually go through 10-20 full rewrites. It’s about a 5 to 10 year process. And you have to put your ego aside for the good of story.
But just because someone wrote a good screenplay, doesn’t mean that anyone will read it or that it will get made. Screenplays get made 90% of the time out of pure politics, based on who wrote them and what actors and directors are attached to them.
And when you are a writer working in Hollywood, you work on scripts for the MONEY. Most of what you get handed is not very good and you are just trying your best to salvage it — which is hard when creative execs and actors with huge egos keep handing you really bad notes and asking you to make horrible changes. But, it’s your job to make them happy. It’s ShowBiz, honey. Not ShowArt.
Again, you need to stop assuming that you know more than the people around you.
And, as an atheist, how in the hell was Avatar realistic?
@roddy right on. anyone can criticize a piece of art. writing something does not make you great. it just means you took the time to put words onto a page. now, pat yourself on the back and realize you can do better. rewrite. rewrite. rewrite.
@roddy isn’t Avatar just “Fern Gully,” but made for an even younger audience?
Someone made the point that no one understood Blade Runner when it came out. And Lindehof makes the point that the scene in The Matrix where the Architext explains everything made him cringe. Personally I liked it, but as a writer myself I get that he wanted a fairly ambiguous beginning that perhaps asked mroe questions than it answered. Isn’t that what you try to do when you try to do a reboot or launch a franchise?
I’ve actually also written about a dozen manuscripts, 50 000 words plus, so I’d say you’re also making some assumptions. I’ve been a little slack in pitching them to publishers and giving them the umpteenth polish. Are you generally an unhappy person? Perfectionism tends to induce that.
incidentally I also write for a living and I don’t think writing a book is easy. any good writer doesn’t just put words on a page but agonises over the whole lot of them. Even Scott who is a success says how hard it is. do you have any award winning or even moderately good works out there that anyone is talking about? I doubt whether you or I have or ever will produce anything as seminal as Scott has – and does. I hope that changes for both of us, but until it does I think it’s arrogant to criticise someone as confidently as you do, someone who has at least made a huge success. We haven’t. In the words of a recent superhero movie: “I have much to learn.” Apparently you don’t. Just being real.
Whoa. Nick. Unhappy? No. I actually get paid to be creative all day long. I worked really hard to be able to do that. I’m just very passionate about writing, especially science fiction. And I find the decline of Hollywood fascinating.
And by no means am I a perfectionist. I’m always making mistakes and learning from them. It’s not about being perfect. It’s just about being better than a freshman college student. It’s about caring about your craft (and understanding your craft). For me, when I see millions of dollars being spent on movies like Transformers or Avatar or Prometheus… I get sad, because hiring a writer is the cheapest part of making a movie. And when you see story problems that could be so easily fixed if someone took the time to really develop the script properly, but didn’t, it just sits wrong with a writer.
Maybe I’m different. I can’t help but write. I don’t agonize over it. I “vomit” on the page and rewrite later. Never edit yourself while your writing Be raw and wild first. And be emotional. People love emotion in their art. We want stories to break our hearts, make us happy, scare us, make us feel something outside of ourselves. Great books and movies do this. They swallow us emotionally. We have no choice but to be digested.
No, I probably will never produce anything as good as Alien, Blade Runner or Thelma and Louise. Those were great movies. Prometheus wasn’t. Let’s put it this way, if I had written that script I would have said to myself “good start… that android character is really strong… I will have to develop his storyline further in my second draft and fix some of these big gaping holes in my plot. I should let another writer I trust and respect look at this. Maybe they can help me solve some of these problems.” To me, fixing story and character problems is FUN! It’s part of the creative process.
Just because Scott directs something, doesn’t mean it’s automatically good.
No. It’s not arrogant to criticize obvious flaws in any piece of work. What’s arrogant is think your work is infoulable… or to hold people up on such a pedestal that your ego become intertwined with what other people think of them. Whether or not people like Prometheus has nothing to do with you or your vaule as a person or a writer. And just because you like it, it doesn’t mean that you are special or can see things others cannot. People not liking Prometheus has nothing to do with their ability to understand it. It has to do with the fact that the storytelling was weak, the science was blatantly wrong, and the characters weren’t convincing. Sure, it was pretty. But so is my lava-lamp.
Just a note about Blade Runner: That was released when I was a baby, but my father saw it and understood it. I’ve never heard of anyone not understanding that movie who liked science fiction. Sure, there is some mystery (like whether or not Dekkard was a Replicant), but the mystery is existential, without being pretentious. And whether or not he was… doesn’t matter. The story stands on its own. I also thought it was a great adaptation of PKD’s book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” even though it was quite different in tone (PKD tends to be quite comic in his writing). What makes that movie good? Simple. It’s just a film noir detective story set in the future. It’s about character and story. It could have been set in WWII with Nazis instead of Replicants and the movie would still be good. Same thing with Battlestar Galactica. It’s a military/war story that happens to be set in a sci-fi environment. Again, it could be set in any war from any time period and it would be good, because the characters are so engrossing and intriguing. Brilliant.
I’m happy to hear that you’ve written so many pages. May I recommend reading some books on story and structure? Read “A Hero with a Thousand Faces” by Joseph Campbell (because you like myths and symbolism). “Psychology for Screenwriters” is also rather good (forgot the author’s name) for character development.
If you are serious about becoming a screenwriter (of any type, film, television, commercials, games), go to Drew’s Script O Rama and start reading as many screenplays as possible (keep in mind they are final drafts after dozens of rewrites). Also, come out to Hollywood and intern for free for a production company and watch what gets bought and what does not and why. Or write a feature and apply to grad school.
I’m agnostic [if that means anything] and i HATE Avatar. i didn’t like Prometheus but i HATE Avatar. Must be some post-colonial emotionial residue thing.
to answer your question – what was realistic in AVATAR was the manner in which The Company preys on natural resources, and people, and demonstrates the idea that there are no longer governments, just corporates (which run them and their militaries).
well, that’s social commentary; not realistic use of science to add tension to a story.
And I’m still not sure how Avatar comments on Atheism or science vs. religion… or how it is realistic scientifically (Prometheus is not realistic either. There is no way we are exactly the same genetically as those aliens. I’ve never seen such a blatant disregard of science fact. Wikipedia is so easy to use).
Again, if science vs. religion is a theme that interests you, I recommend reading Carl Sagan’s fiction and nonfiction and watching Contact.
Avatar is just a dumbed-down retelling of other colonial stories, including what we did to the Native Americans (Isn’t Dances with Wolves almost the same exact story, just with actual character development and decent acting?) I never met a screenwriter in Hollywood who liked Avatar. It’s not a movie writers care about, because the story and character development is weak and cliche. It’s a movie VFX artists care about, because it was basically just a showcase for new 3D technology.
I haven’t seen “Fern Gully”. Are the characters less cartoony? Loved the FX on Avatar [i'm an effects guy]. Can’t watch the movie more than once. Cameron is a good storyteller. I just wish he’d hire good writers.
here’s Red Letter Media’s brilliant dissection of “Avatar”
@roddy. yeah. i loved cameron’s older films (aliens, terminator 1 and 2). he’s a master action director, demonstrating that an action movie can be both explosive and hella smart. i don’t know why avatar failed so hard character wise. the story structure is solid, just a bit cliche. the main problem was that the characters were really cardboard. i didn’t really connect with or care about the main character (bad casting too). and he didn’t earn anything in the movie, he just automatically got to ride that big dragon bird… he never earned being a hero. and when that general guy came out guns blazin’, shooting at that ship… i was done. good villians are not that two-dimensional and unlikable. good villains are kinda charming in a way and usually quite intelligent (i.e. hannibal lector, lex luther (gene hackman), the queen in snow white, etc).
i remember watching big summer action blockbusters about ten years ago and they were still decent movies (with an engrossing story and interesting characters who arc). not oscar winners, but cool and smart films (like true lies or independence day).
but things have changed. writers have much more power in television. they are in charge. it used to be that writing for t.v. was looked down upon, but now it is the place to be.
instead of getting paid shit and watching studios destroy your scripts and treat you like you don’t exist (most screenwriters are not even allowed to go onto set), all the good writers have fled to t.v. (and now gaming), hence all the incredible shows.
@Shanon. Agreed. Cameron’s best work were in his early films. My favourite being Terminator. Aliens was a great action movie but it’s basically Alien by way of Starship Troopers. Its structure is the same as Alien, just played out on a bigger scale:
alien = aliens, Ash = Burke [Bishop was a nice red herring], Dallas vs blip on scope = marines vs blips on scope, discovery of cocooned Dallas [deleted scene] = discovery of victims + chest-bursting, blow up big ship, escape in pod = blow up planet, escape in smaller ship, rescue cat = rescue girl, alien on escape pod = alien queen on small ship, Ripley puts on space suit to fight alien = Ripley strapped into power loader to fight alien queen …
i’ll spare you the T1/T2 comparison. Cameron is a great action director, a good storyteller but somewhat lacking as a writer. Also i find his work a bit derivative [Aliens = Alien, T1 = Harlan Ellison's stuff, Abyss = Close Encounters] and his characters a bit flat [good actors can flesh them out, though]. The Stephen Lang character is as deep as Billy Zane on the Titanic.
And you’re spot on about the main guy on Avatar. He didn’t earn anything. Costner experienced a spiritual death and rebirth, went native and earned his stripes. Same with Anjin – San in Shogun. Even Paul Atreides, who was bred to be the kwistaz haderach, had to prove himself.
Great villains can easily be heroes in their own movie. Like Magneto. Lex Luthor on TV was much more interesting than Clark Kent.
I think we’re spoiled by great TV nowadays. As TV Shows get more sophisticated, movies get shallower. Is it a pattern? Fancy effects and 3D are not enough anymore. We expect solid characterisation and well-told stories in our entertainment.
Total Recall looks good though.
It’s been fun chatting with you Shanon
you too, Roddy
I’ve seen Contact. Great film, a brave film, but one of the cheesiest renderings of an alien/God ever. A beach scene in the Caribbean? Look, just saying, if that’s your idea of an authentic piece of science fiction then we do have very different ideas of what sort of fiction is realistic. I mean, if you’re an atheist and the ‘alien’/God presents itself as your father (who is already dead), then by God you probably are delusional.
I have an idea you write so much that you begin to see through everything while it’s happening – like those folks who listen for scratches on old vinyl records and pretty soon that’s all they hear. I think AVATAR does tell a story – maybe shitty to your mind, and ripoffs of everything, but if the story wasn’t fairly good no one would have cared to watch it. Transformers is another kettle of fish – loud noises etc, and I suppose successful for its appeal to younger children. But even the shittiest film with the shittiest story that makes money is a success even at least commercially.
You’re going to hate me for this but I was actually moved to tears in AVATAR, not once but several times. The same happened in the very mediocre X-Men 3. Not perhaps because of perfect storytelling but because some elements resonated very strongly. In Avatars case it was her hatred and blame for his part (possibly innocent) in her father’s death – not sure how that resonated with me. Maybe the feeling of betrayal at the time.
I once interviewed a director who made me think about writing and telling stories in a totally different way. He said that the language of emotion is universal. He was talking about never having read comics (he made X-Men Origins, the reboot with Hugh jackson, SA Oscar winning director Gavin Hood). And saying because he knew Greek myths, he felt that was enough – as long as he could convey the conflicted nature of the characters. Again, some elements in movies are totally unbelievable if tou really think about it. Often it is the emotional line that either resonates or doesn’t. I feel quite passionate about movies that resonate with the workld’s zeitgeist, if that makes sense. Where it seems the world says, “I get it, you’re right, we need to deal with this.” That can be the case even with a not so great movie, but my point is to time a movie/book etc in order to surf that public headspace is I think a great and worthwhile achievement. Something I’d like to do.
One point – in Prometheus my description of realistic refers to the visuals. Especially, early on, the slightly dirty glass when the shields of the space ship are removed. And other small, deft touches (David picking up an unseen piece of fluff). So I think I ‘see’ realism slightly differently. When you’re in the space of a movie, or science fiction I don’t know how much it is worth getting caught up in whether it is absolutely realistic or not (after all, it is fiction). Take the premise in Terminator and Star Trek. I mean, you might as well walk out the cinema as soon as some of those critical (and completely) implausible plot points crop up.
And final point – in Avatar Cameron was trying to convey a private sense of something he said he’d felt…these blue indian type people…and what it might be like to be youthful and strong…there’s a scene where a group of them climb up rocks etc in order to ride those flying lizards. That’s all about childhood wonder and the joy of living. That’s an filmmaker saying come and ride this idea with me. Dunno, if you don’t see that you miss the point. There’s one scene, maybe two, in prometheus, where the characters are fascinated…David by the alien’s depection of the galaxy. That’s a moment when the filmmaker asks you to partake, say, “isn’t this fantastic.” The other one was where the two scientists look up to the cave and wonder…it’s the beginning of imagining…”where did we come from?” and the leap after that is Scott playing a trick on us and saying, well imagine if the answer was a horrible one you’d rather not know.
Listen, Nick. I don’t like Contact because I’m an atheist. I like it because it’s a good movie. I wouldn’t get into a pissing contest over atheism with me. I was brought up by atheists. I was having existential meltdowns when I was 11. My first mentor wrote a book about atheism. My religion or non-religion have nothing to do with whether or not a movie is good. Gah. You’ve completely missed the point.
And, the alien in Contact wasn’t a “God” or our creator. Rewatch it. Gah (again).
I’m glad you once interviewed a director. Ever been hired by one?
I’m going to be honest with you if you are really serious about trying to write for film, television or games: You are not a professional creative writer. You need to accept this and listen to people who are, so you can become one. Your ignorance about the basics of creative writing and the industry is something you need to take note of, because it’s going to embarrass you in front of people that may be able to help you. Also, your inability to recognize the points other people are making around you about story and character is the sign of an amateur… and the kind of amateur that no one even wants to teach. You can like Prometheus, but that doesn’t mean it’s not flawed or that you can like and still see where it could be better. They are not mutually exclusive.
Even writers who enjoyed Prometheus, will tell you how jacked-up it was. I also dare you to ask any screenwriter whether or not they cared for Avatar — I have not met one yet. Because, we as writers don’t care about visuals. We care about story and character. That’s our business. That’s our craft .It’s not our job to make things pretty or realistic visually. It’s our job to tell a compelling story. Your arguments sound like that of a visual artist of some kind, not of a writer. That’s fine. It as a beautifully shot film, but that’s got nothing to do with whether or not it is a good story.
I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings because someone is pointing out flaws in a movie you didn’t even make and you feel the need to lash out. I can’t imagine how you would react to criticism of your own work. You got to have thicker skin than that. I know Ridley Scott does.
I don’t have to justify myself to you for this reason. Yes, I’ve won awards. No big ones. But who cares? It’s not what you’ve done in the past. It’s what you are doing now. My achievements of the past don’t make up for my failures in the present. And my failures in the past don’t deter from my current successes. You are what you are doing right now. That’s all. Same point goes for anyone.
And by the way, my credits should have no bearing on whether or not people like movies or shows or games that I had nothing to do with. People are entitled to like whatever they want. But, they are not entitled to go around devaluing people because they don’t share the same opinion.
Again, you are presuming that we don’t understand the writer/director’s intent with Prometheus. Or Cameron’s intent with Avatar. You are wrong and this is tiring. We all get it. What we are saying is that those intentions were poorly executed story-wise.
I totally intended to do yoga today, but then got talked into having drinks and Korean BBQ instead. Do I still get credit for doing yoga? It was my intention.
Can you please go be angry with someone else for not agreeing with you now?
@Shanon … Good God, you’re patient, woman. You sound like a really good teacher.
I love Korean BBQ.
we agree on something
it does look like Scott was very intimately involved, and Lindehof was merely the writer in the sense that Lindehof wrote mostly Scott’s ideas down, but they were still Scott’s ideas. There was some ‘engineering’ of the script, nips, tucks, gimmuicks, ambiguities, but I can’t believe Scott gave Lindehof his franchise and said, “There, impress me.” Hence, I feel it’s a little arrogant to assume that he did. Especially when you hear him say himself how intimately involved he is with everything, including the actors. Also, if you go into painstaking detail with sets, if you render a picture as painfully beautiful as he has, can you really assume that he glossed over the writing part? I don’t.
I feel like he made the right movie, and the sort of film he wanted to make. This idea that he flipped a coin or quickly got in the drivers seat, made the film, and fucked it up…I don’t get that sense at all.
I felt the storytelling was strong, in the same way that The Old Man and the Sea, a Classic, was strong, simple, layered, deep – but still a fairly simple story.
The science was wrong, but then the science wasn’t even true to begin with. It’s almost like being angry in the first ALIEN when an alien is brought on board (breaking protocol) and saying, that is so stupid I’m not watching anymore because it’s not real. You think? The alien in alien was a man dressed in a suit and smoke and mirrors.
Thanks very much for your numerous book suggestions. I’ll make an effort to try to get to ‘em. Believe it or not I still have Robert McKee’s STORY (never finished reading it) and things like The Screenwriter’s BIBLE and 101 habits of highly successful screenwriters.
I do value what you’ve said about caring about your craft. I think that shows in the volume, first of one’s work, then the quality and in an ideal world, finally, in its success.
@roddy right on. anyone can criticize a piece of art. writing something does not make you great. it just means you took the time to put words onto a page. now, pat yourself on the back and realize you can do better. rewrite. rewrite. rewrite.
@roddy isn’t Avatar just “Fern Gully,” but made for an even younger audience?
@Shanon. Being an Asian from an ex-British colony, i get irritated by “The Great White Hunter” movies. It’s fine when the movie is done well, like “Dances with Wolves” or even “The Last Samurai”, where the characters are not so one-dimensional. [To be fair, the portrayal of Westerners in Asian movies is usually crap]
When you combine “The Chosen One” sci fi theme with “The Great White Hunter”, it really gets on my nerve. “Dune” did it very well. “Avatar” not so much.
It’s not a historical epic. It’s bloody sci fi! Couldn’t they create a more inventive alien race? The Navi are just Native Americans painted blue. Their culture is like any “primitive” culture on our planet and the aliens behaved like humans and had human feelings. Again, it’s bloody science fiction! You have the freedom to create on a blank canvas! Make the alien blue-chick look like the Alien Xenomorph and let’s see what’s-his-name plug his pigtail into her socket ..
Here we get the post-60s “Great White Hunter” with white guilt. “My people have done bad things. I feel bad about it” … ugh. Only B’wana can ride the great sky-beast let’s worship him.
All said, i did enjoy John Carter. Great storytelling, great fun
“..one of the cheesiest renderings of an alien/God ever. A beach scene in the Caribbean?”
“…do you have any award winning or even moderately good works out there that anyone is talking about?”
“I think it’s arrogant to criticise someone as confidently as you do, someone who has at least made a huge success”
you are aware that Robert Zemeckis is an award-winning director, right?
Prometheus left the audience open to interpret its meaning or end. like the ending to inception, its up to the audience to imagine.
I swear Scott has a bet with Lucas on who can f-over their 70,s film legacy better.
I first saw ALIEN in the cinema back in ’79 and knew as soon as i walked out of that film it was a classic piece of sic-fi. At the time,most people didn,t care much for the movie.It was still all about Star Wars back then.
On walking out of ALIEN,i felt fascinated,intrigued and amazed at what i,d seen.I remember thinking that Alien with a mouth inside a mouth was some wild stuff. Not to mention that giant biomech alien life form, fused into its seat in a symbiotic relationship with the ship it pilots.Or as Dallas says, ‘Alien life form…looks like its GROWING out of the chair’. A being that was some sort of biomechanical construct ‘..totally integrated into the function it performs’ as Dan O Bannon was quoted as saying in a 1979 cinefex interview titled ‘Creating an Alien Ambience’. Then there was the chest bursting scene,pretty wild stuff back then and a real shocker for those in the cinema.
Flash forward 33yrs and the best Scott can come up with is the non-sensical stupidity of Prometheus.
I,ll start by saying introducing the whole ‘god is an astronaut in a funky spacesuit’ schtick into the ALIEN universe is just groan worthy.Wern,t Predators bad enough? We all know Ridley Scotts fav. film is 2001:A Space Odessey,but really, did you have to go there again when its been done to death already 50 times before in way better films.I guess so.*YAWWWN*
Here are some of the glaringly stupid plot points and ideas i noticed ultimately ruining the whole tarnished Alien franchise for me once and for all.Not that it hash,t been a toss since Alien 3 and the mysterious egg Ripley must of souvineered onboard.
*The movie opens with one of these wanky engineer creations dissolving himself to seed a planet with life giving DNA.WTF! Why would a supposedly highly advanced race of super beings with a supposedly god-like intelligence,need to dissolve themselves to achieve this end.Surely they,ve arrived at some super scientific method of DNA introduction.But no,lets just have one of them dissolve itself because it looks pretty.Why does no life on Earth have a biomechanical aesthetic.Why arn,t humans 9ft tall,have grey skin and black eyes if our DNA supposedly originates from these engineers?Why is Damien Lindelof a screen-writer and not packing shelves at Walmart?…
*Why do these engineers have a cheap biomechanical aesthetic,yet their faces are smooth as a babies backside?
*I mentioned it above but this whole engineer concept and the ret-conning of the space jockey from a 22ft tall biomechanical construct designed to pilot the derelict ship, into a f-ing 9ft tall spacesuit.
Talk about pissing all over a classic idea, utterly tarnishing the work and conceptual ideas of the artist who created it Hans Rudi Giger.Machinery fused with organic life is the whole underlying theme of his artwork Thus the term ‘bio-mechanics’.
Personally,i,ll take my space jockey as it was originally intended.You can have your ret-conned space suit BS and stick it where the sun don,t shine.
*The android dis-obeying the first law of robotics. Which goes something along the lines of ‘I shall not by thought or action allow a human being to be harmed or come to harm.’
But no,just for the hell of it,the robot infects a crew member with DNA altering goop…just to see what happens.Endangering the crew members life and putting the remaining crew-members at high risk.
*The engineers leading a bunch of humans to what is basically a WMD factory and then letting them have free run of the place.Which leads to…
*Leaving urns of highly contagious and very volatile DNA altering goop lying around un-protected or locked away safely,just so we can duplicate the look of the scene where Kane discovers the Alien spore pods in ALIEN.Which by the way,where protected under an ancient and now degraded blue force field/mist.
Leaving these urns lying around is akin to leaving a box of venomous snakes in the middle of a kids playground and a very stupid idea considering these beings are supposed to be super intelligent.
*Vickers being Weylands daughter.Vickers wanting nothing more than to take over her fathers empire and thinking she,s going to achieve this by pissing off into space for 4 years in a spacecraft that travels at 17.5x the speed of light lol. There by giving her rivals on Earth 4yrs to plan and scheme behind her back whilst she,s gone. Vickers running in a straight line as the alien ship falls from the sky,not left or right,allowing the ship to fall directly on her from above.
*A small rock saving elizabeth Shaw from being crushed by hundreds & thousands of tons of spaceship.Spare me please.
*The trilobite/proto-facehugger is the product of DNA altered HUMAN semen the resulting creature/trilobite coming to term in a HUMAN female.This proto-facehugger then implants an embryo in an engineer (whose DNA is supposedly much the same as a humans).This embryo then births as the deacon or proto-alien. All this making the title of the original film ALIEN,totally redundant.Guess you missed that glaring screw-up Mr Scott.
Next time your watching ALIEN,remember that if a little incident 30yrs prior,involving an android,some sex a few humans and an engineer,never took place,the alien would,nt exist.
And it,s so Alien after all i guess. Remember that next time your watching ALIEN. What a f-ing joke.
*If the medi doc is supposedly only configured for a man,what the hell is it doing in Vickers quarters? The whole configuring concept..stoopid.
*The engineers using digital readouts etc etc. Biomechanics should have transcended this technology.The writers where too naff to work that out.
Possible Spoiler- And i think at the age of 70- something,proof that Scott is losing the plot..But he,s said in interviews since the making of the film,that the reason the engineers want to wipe out humanity is that 2000yrs ago we crucified one of their kind on a cross(not that he looked biomechanical or anything lol).This engineer called himself Jesus.
You,ve just got smack your hand to your forehead and groan out loud.
The absurdity just goes on and on suffice to say i think Scott fluked ALIEN and he has been riding of the success of it and 1982′s ‘Blade Runner’ ever since.
Speaking of which,it,ll be interesting to see how he stuffs that up too.
I won,t see Prometheus 2. I,ve had all the BS i can take regarding this now utterly tarnished and redundant film franchise. ALIEN R.I.P.
Agreed, Dark Jazzor. i just rewatched it with a friend who wanted to see if he missed anything when he watched it in the cinema. Even without the disappointment which came from high expectations, it’s stunning how bad this show is. Not only is it a waste of a halfway decent concept and it’s a poorly told story … the scenes don’t flow into each other, things just happen. I don’t know what’s worse … Ridley Scott thought the audience would buy this crap or he actually thought this was a good movie.
I read every single comment and the review. I’m on the same page with Shanon, how could I not be? And to ‘Nick van der Leek’… Your only argument, pretty much, is that Shanon isn’t as famous as Mr. Scott… soooooooooooo her opnion is now moot? And it sounds like she has a lot more experience than you anyways, seems kind of hypocritical to me.
Thanks, Todd
I think the reason most people don’t understand this movie is because they are not well versed in history or mythology. What more can you want from a movie, it gives an explanation for life never before seen on the big screen? If the author of this article knew anything about the history of religion ( I’m not talking about ancient aliens or history channel shows ) I mean real religion and why most only endure 1000 years or less, you would be able to grasp the fact that not only does this movie tie many major religions together through fiction and research, but the movie was pretty well done as well. You sound like a fan girl of 80s scifi, just because this wasn’t the prequel of alien so many expected , was it really a bad sci fi movie? I sat through pandorum which is a real bad scifi movie, Prometheus is a movie reminiscent of ancient aliens that has a few holes… That being said still was very believe able (alien engineers concept) and had better effects than avatar in my opinion ( watched both on 1080p blurry in 3d)
Again. You missed my point. Symbolism isn’t a replacement for narrative or good story-telling. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying a film because it’s good eye-candy — or appreciating its symbolism — but that doesn’t mean that those things replace a good story.
For instance, I love David Lynch, but I would never tell people that they just don’t “understand” him, because they complained or pointed out a lack of story-telling — because they’re right. With Lynch, you are only watching him because he uses weird, dream-logic. It’s his schick. That’s not Scott’s style at all. That wasn’t the expectation. And clearly, the film meant to be more cohesive than it was.
Lastly, I have a very academic background in both religious history and mythology. I grew up in an environment where I had classical mythology taught from me from preschool to 12th grade. I think the idea of life springing out and destroying another body is cool. That’s how the Olympians crawled there way out of Cronos (King of the Titans). Or Athena springing from Zeus’ broken skull. That’s all great. But those visual references have do NOT make up for Prometheus’ many narrative flaws, fails in logic, or poorly drawn characters. In fact, it makes it even more painful to watch, because it’s such a waste of symbolism.
I’m a writer. We don’t care about special effects unless they create tension or serve a narrative purpose. We don’t care about 3D. A piece of crap story in 3D is just a turd in three dimensions. Making the visual quality nicer, doesn’t fix intrinsic flaws in a film. Geeeezzzz.
Think about things this way (I’m going to use the main scientist character as an example). You are writing a story or screenplay about a female scientist who wants to meet her maker. First of all, she’s a scientist, which means she acts on evidence, not faith. The fact that everything she does is based on faith in the film is not only lazy, but not true to the character of any scientist. Scientists use the scientific method to guide them. Yes, they hope there is something out there (see Contact), but they don’t go around acting like absent-minded believers. Where’s the inner conflict? Also, she wasn’t very likable, compelling and kept making stupid decisions — oh, and she never arced. You are going to spend all that money making a movie and not even have your main character arc? Lame.
You say that people who do not like Prometheus, just don’t understand it? Then should I say, if you’re one of those people who feel the need to defend it, then you don’t know the difference between story and VFX?
You can understand something completely… and still not like it. And you’re perfectly entitled to like a stupid movie because it’s pretty. I like many stupid movies, but I wouldn’t go around defending my guilty pleasures.
it was a good movie, the idea was excellent, but the making of the film was bad and they could have put way more effort into it.
there is nothing here i can disagree with. it’s rare i have seen a film that is so puzzlingly stupid and yet looks like it cost every cent of it’s huge production cost. ( oh , there was avatar i guess) and, for the record i LOVE sci fi. dearly. District 9 is amazing, but cost a sixth of this… Primer is one of my fav. movies ever and that wouldn’t cover ridley scott’s lunch bill. Proving of course ideas are PARAMOUNT and is really what the sci-fi genre dows best. We have Lucas to thank for creating the ‘sci-fi blockbuster’, spectacle is everything, and ideas do not matter.
i really enjoyed Prometheus. on the spectacle level alone. on every other level it is catastrophically bad. i am so sad i have now watched this 3 times desperately hoping that i am wrong and that it is in fact brilliant. i am planning to watch it a 4th. but i know now, it’s rubbish.
i won’t repeat any of the above comments. one thing that really pissed me off last time. the sense of time internal to the movie. i know it’s a real skill in making a film, but in prometheus it is so badly handled.. it makes me cross. how does the alien that comes out of shaw grow so vast in the space of 20 minutes? conisdering it was a ‘pre-mature birth’ it shouldn’t have survived at all. and the opening of the film suddenly seems woefully stupid. how can the dna strands of the sacrificial alien suddenly create human kind in a few seconds? Why do the aliens leave it to millenia of evolution to decide to wipe us out? and the deacon… why on earth is it born 5 ft tall. ready to fly a spaceship and understand how to navigate it.. so we can continue this brilliant story in Prometheus 2?
everyone in this film deserves to die. i knew this was going to be bad when, right at the start, fiefield says, “i ‘m here to make money..”
everything in this movie is a cyher. the laziest kind of writing. the characters, the situations all there simply to expedite an ‘alien sequel’. and make a shit load of cash. the ideas should have come first. not the dollar signs.