# Prometheus



## Robert Donnell (Jun 13, 2012)

Prometheus, what can I say, I just saw it last night.

This is a prequel to the movie Alien, and they screwed it up at every turn.  

So why am I bashing a SciFi/Fantasy of any sort when I love them so?   Well this is the best example of what not to do.  In Alien, Aliens, Alien vs Predator, etc we have a well established time line, life cycle for the alien creature which Prometheus utterly ignores.  Furthermore the mistakes they made were unforgivable.  (Bob breaks into song: “Unforgivable that’s what you are.”)

So here is my list of things that they should never have done:
A.	Broke cannon, what had been established in prior movies.
B.	Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Christians at every turn.” 
C.	Respecting the beliefs of a non-specified Pagan religion, you don’t get it both ways. 
D.	Broke the laws of physics, again.
E.	Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Gun Owners at every turn.” 
F.	Out of control robots, it has been done too often.
G.	High tech multi billion dollar spaceships manned by untrained illiterates.
H.	Made Corporation owners, ultra-evil, ultra-rich, greedy, stupid murderers.

I swear to God it is as if you got together six each, socially awkward, Maoist, bad writers who had never seen the movie Alien and gave them cart blanch.

To be honest I am a very poor third rate hack writer who could benefit from a good proof reader, spell checker and a good Editor, but I can do better than this.


----------



## ProfessorBrainfever (Jun 13, 2012)

"B. Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Christians at every turn.”
C. Respecting the beliefs of a non-specified Pagan religion, you don’t get it both ways. "

I honestly don't remember either of these things happening. Of course, not having any religion myself, it easily could have gone over my head.


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 13, 2012)

Well the Protagonist has a discussion with her Father where a positive belief in some sort of afterlife is professed.  Later she is told that it was a stupid idea to have “True Believers” on board and that they were merely employees not leaders of the expedition.  It is what you would call a hostile environment.

For the record, I am an Atheist but my culture is that of a Middle Class American Christian and I take swipes at Christians as a nasty insult at my own values.

The bottom line ultimately is that as a viewer of the movie I feel like a nasty insult has been aimed at me by the Hollywood establishment who made the movie.  My point is that as a writer one should never insult your readers.


----------



## ProfessorBrainfever (Jun 13, 2012)

Robert Donnell said:


> Later she is told that it was a stupid idea to have “True Believers” on board and that they were merely employees not leaders of the expedition.  It is what you would call a hostile environment.



Well, yes...but the people who say those things aren't the most sympathetic of characters, and the Christian is clearly the hero of the piece. 

If the villain of the film makes fun of something you like, that isn't necessarily a message the film is trying to portray.


----------



## soulless (Jun 13, 2012)

Robert Donnell said:


> So here is my list of things that they should never have done:
> A.	Broke cannon, what had been established in prior movies.
> B.	Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Christians at every turn.”
> C.	Respecting the beliefs of a non-specified Pagan religion, you don’t get it both ways.
> ...



I saw this a couple of weeks ago and quite enjoyed it for what it is, a fun and somewhat beautiful sci-fi flick.
but to your points...
A.  I don't see how it broke any canon, except with the AVP movies which to be honest are best forgotten about. Everything can be easily fitted in with the 4 real Alien films.
B + C.  I didn't see a problem with the religious aspect, though I can't see where the "christian bashing" comes in, even with the original ideas for why the engineers want to wipe us out that were removed from the film.
D.  Pretty much all sci-fi fiction, in every form, does this for reason of drama. Its poetic licence, again no problem there.
E.  Actually not a bad point 
F.  Androids are a staple of the Alien films but David seemed quite in control to me.
G.  Some of the crew did seem to make quite odd decisions which have been picked up by lots of people around the world.  Maybe some of this will be fixed in the impending directors cut on Blu-Ray (and hopefully DVD so I don't have to spend on a Blu-player just yet)
H.  Again, this is a staple of the Alien films, and its the same company (well half of it, they haven't merged with Yutani yet) so what would you expect.


----------



## dragonangel517 (Jun 13, 2012)

I have started several drafts as a response to this, then abandoned them. I simply can't reply with out getting snarky, so I will just say this. It's a movie. A piece of fiction, nothing more.  A piece of fiction someone else wrote, someone else's vision. I enjoyed every moment of it, and hope to see a sequel.


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 13, 2012)

This is not a review of the movie, this is me the writer cringing at all the huge gaffs and rookie mistakes that never should have made it to the screen.

As a writer, I hear again that a good editor would have made the writer fix these mistakes before publishing and that the self published books are for this reason not worth reading high school quality pulp.  Then I see mega-buck Hollywood movies do this low quality work and wonder where their editor is.

All the while I struggle to meet the minimum standards for publishing.


----------



## Krieger (Jun 13, 2012)

I'll admit, the plot's a mess. But aside from some of the things which are purely a matter of taste (religion bashing, etc.), what are some of the actual story telling issues that you noticed, and how would you change them?


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 13, 2012)

Well they changed the spacefaring Geiger-esque aliens into 100% human Greek Gods intent on the destruction of all humanity for no good reason.  That added nothing to the plot, I would leave the ENGINEERS as truly alien Aliens.
Next they made the mistake of putting those same Greek Gods on Earth at many points in our past, well why didn’t they just wipe us out 35,000 years ago?  I would dump that.
The hyper paranoid female has a medical machine that can not do surgery on human females, I would cut that out.  Then it does it anyway.
I think that I would put back in the normal Alien Creature as the bioweapon.
I might spend some time on Character development.  Why are some characters sniveling cowards (who would not have gone into space in the first place) and others Suicidal macho types?  While there are some who would willingly sacrifice themselves for Humanity I am pretty sure that none of those crewmen knew the extent of the threat.
To be honest about it, I would cut every bit of dialog after landing and start over.  I have a book that starts with a premise, what if UFOs are real?  I started in one direction and deleted it to start over, same story just without unworkable characters.  They should have done the same.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jun 15, 2012)

I think I'm right in saying it had a different writer involved in it compared to the other films. That accounts for a lot of peoples problems with it. Frankly, as objective as we want to be, admit it, we're comparing it to Alien. By that criteria its going to be a bit off. 

That being said, to me, modern motion picture writers aren't worth much. A lot of things have pretty wonky writing... And then you get someone like Joss Whedon or Steve Moffat who balance the equation. 

As always scifi is sidelined. The golden days this isn't.. but I like to think its getting better with the success of the avengers and such.. sorry.. I like to HOPE.


----------



## Alex97 (Jun 16, 2012)

Went to see this a while ago and enjoyed it for what it was.  I think I enjoyed the fact that my freind was cowering in the corner during most of the movie despite it not being scary.

As far as the unexplained stuff like the aliens/engineers suddenly want to destroy the humans it seems to me that they've left that sort of thing unanswred in order to make a sequal.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Jun 20, 2012)

Mom: How was the movie?
Me: Not that good
Mom: What was it about?
Me: I don't know

That movie did not explain anything! ARGH


----------



## Bear (Jun 20, 2012)

I watched this movie on monday. I thought it was full of plot holes. The grand scope of the story was huge and I felt the narrative struggled to keep up with the overall theme. Geiger's work was amazing and the film was visually stunning. Overall, I would rate Prometheus three out of five stars. I hope they make a sequel so many of the plot holes and themes could be explained. I was also surprised with the religious theme that was present throughout the entire movie.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Jun 20, 2012)

Bear said:


> I watched this movie on monday. I thought it was full of plot holes. The grand scope of the story was huge and I felt the narrative struggled to keep up with the overall theme. Geiger's work was amazing and the film was visually stunning. Overall, I would rate Prometheus three out of five stars. I hope they make a sequel so many of the plot holes and themes could be explained. I was also surprised with the religious theme that was present throughout the entire movie.



I agree about Gieger; he's one of my favorite artists.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 20, 2012)

I'll try to go see it soon. Based on people I know and have talked to first hand, I expect I'll like it just fine. Most of the complaints I've read aren't going to be big issues. If it entertains me for two hours, then great.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Jun 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I'll try to go see it soon. Based on people I know and have talked to first hand, I expect I'll like it just fine. Most of the complaints I've read aren't going to be big issues. If it entertains me for two hours, then great.



PROS
Fun to watch
Some parts are very grotesque and added to the horror aspect
Very good visual effects
Art design by Giger
Loved the aliens

CONS
Poor characters, very black and white
Left too many unanswered questions; didn't explain hardly anything
Ending

But go and see it for yourself and tell us what you think


----------



## Robert Donnell (Jun 22, 2012)

Gieger is a sick puppy, I like that!


----------



## Zephon (Jun 22, 2012)

I did not see "Christian bashing," in fact I thought the near-end of the movie actually had a pro-Christian or at least Pro-Theist message. I consider myself a "wobbly Catholic" and I actually enjoyed discussing the theological aspects presented in the film. (If the Engineers made humans, then is Christ truly the son of God?) I said yes, Christ is beyond humanity and the human form is a vessel for the soul, even if it's built by a race diabolical aliens I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm just trying to make the point that the immediate interpretation of anti-Christian can be broken down rather easily. 

Other than that, I agree with what others said, Geiger really came through again. That man scares me.

The unanswered questions were irritating from a screenwriting standpoint, teasing the audience and leaving them unsatisfied. However, as with the theological implications, I found the discussion after the movie(we went to steak n' shake intriguing and fun. 

I was sort of expecting it to blow my mind a bit, but alas, my mind remains intact. It could have been better, and I don't want to go into all the scientific flubs that got more annoying as the film progressed. (Taking your helmet off on an alien planet just because there's oxygen? wtf!) 

There's a sequel rumored to be in the works which 20th Century Fox says may address many of the unanswered questions. 

Now it's time to see Moonrise Kingdom...


----------



## Flemming Hansen (Jun 22, 2012)

The movie wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great either. In the end I sat there asking myself "Well, what about this and that." I mean, there were so many things and elements that weren't explained. It will only receive a 3/6 stars from me.


----------



## gavintonks (Jun 22, 2012)

well it is just a alien rehash everyone on board gets killed horribly at least 2 by having something sucking on them and exploding out afterwards, and the chick escapes

only new thing is Signorney Weaver is not in it, or her DNA

what amazes me is how far they park from everything, must get tired of walking
to me it lost the plot when dna disintegrating gray instead of green hulk man alien gets eaten by new version of little shop of horrors cactus, and when it falls on him pseudo sexual climax, writer needs therapy
why dont they just stick to the original formula make a tight alien movie that we have enjoyed a few times over

all they needed was the machine that carved the mayan calender and it will be complete


----------



## ALB2012 (Jun 23, 2012)

The new Star Trek movie changed lore and that was excellent.  Sometimes a new vision just changes it, happens all the time. It is a movie- it is not meant to be accurate, it is meant to be fun and entertainment. If they stuck to the laws of physics it would probaly be very dull ( see mythbusters.)

As for the "bash" at Christians- I won't comment as this is not the time for a theological debate however if it serves the plot then it serves the plot. Would you have been offended if they bashed Jews, or Muslims or Hindus. Would you have even noticed?

Gun laws- not everyone agrees with the gun laws.  I have no idea whether they were making a statement or not. I suppose that is down to personal view, as is the whole "I didn't like this film," "I thought it was great" debate.

You can't enjoy every book you read, or indeed every film you see. You cannot please everyone.

I wonder what all the "bashing" about self publishing is over. I have seem some "officially" published books which are badly written and full of mistakes and still got through. I have seen some excellent self published books. 
There are so many talented people who are just unlucky or don't get the break for one reason or another, self publishing is a useful tool, for those that cannot find someone suitable or afford to go down the old fashioned route.

Yes there are some badly written books out there, and perhaps it is more likely in SP or E books but well no one forces a person to buy it or read it. If you don't like it stop reading.

I would rather read a good book with a few typos than a well edited book which has a terrible story.


----------



## ALB2012 (Jun 23, 2012)

Alex97 said:


> Went to see this a while ago and enjoyed it for what it was.  I think I enjoyed the fact that my freind was cowering in the corner during most of the movie despite it not being scary.
> 
> As far as the unexplained stuff like the aliens/engineers suddenly want to destroy the humans it seems to me that they've left that sort of thing unanswred in order to make a sequal.



Or simply did not have time to include it.  Maybe it just is? Sometimes the answer to why is simple:because.


----------



## Ophiucha (Jun 24, 2012)

Robert Donnell said:


> A.	Broke cannon, what had been established in prior movies.
> B.	Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Christians at every turn.”
> C.	Respecting the beliefs of a non-specified Pagan religion, you don’t get it both ways.
> D.	Broke the laws of physics, again.
> ...



A) Actually, I think it is very _specifically_ a prequel to Alien, but _not_ Aliens, Alien 3, and Alien Resurrection. More specifically, the Director's Cut of Alien. *Spoilers if you haven't seen it.* In the director's cut, Ripley - while the ten minutes till self-destruct counter is counting down - comes across Dallas and another crew mate, alive and stuck to the wall with the usual hard, saliva-y crap they use, with them turning _into_ the alien eggs we see at the beginning of the film. This breaks all of the canon of the later films, but actually makes much more sense in the context of _Prometheus_.

B/C) The protagonist was ambiguously Christian - hell, I wasn't even entirely sure if she was Christian so much as she valued belief and the cross symbolized that to her because of her father, but nevermind - who maintained her faith throughout horrors and scientific miracles. How is that bashing Christianity? Further, C is hardly a valid point. One, it took place in Africa, no? What evidence do we have that it was a _pagan _religion? It could have just as easily been Islam. Or voudon. Further, you can very easily bash Christians not bash Paganism. If you don't think that's possible, I must wonder how many atheists you've met, because _many _of them are cool with Paganism and hate Christianity. I think they're both stupid, myself, but as an active member in the atheist community, I can tell you that the yay-Pagan, nay-Christ view is very popular.

D) In which instance in particular? The space travel? Regardless, there's this thing called suspension of disbelief...

E) When did _this _happen? Yes, the scientists thought guns would be unnecessary, and thought the guys who brought them were being paranoid and/or warmongering... _and they were completely wrong because holy crap guns would have been insanely useful at every turn_. The maybe two instances guns were even mentioned (which doesn't make the whole move "lol screw guns", btw) were, to me, functionally like the main characters saying something like "let's split up!". It's a set up for them to not have guns when that'd be absolutely great to have.

F) It's a trope of the Alien series. It's been done, but let's be honest, Alien did it best and Prometheus is allowed to use it.

G) Was there any evidence that anyone on that ship was an 'untrained illiterate'? The captain - Idris Elba - seemed perfectly capable of piloting the ship, and I daresay I think he can read. The other two captains who admittedly got so little mention that I just sort of called them "Asian guy" and "white guy" also seemed to be piloting the ship at times and had to read displays, so... what are you even talking about?

H) C'est la vie. They made Weyland seem that way. But I don't care enough about defending the rights of corporations to say they're wrong to do so. Also, Charlize Theron - who presumably would have taken over if she weren't squished - seems like she's not evil, not particularly greedy, and is in no way stupid. Rich, yes, but... I mean, that's how corporations work in America, and presumably Weyland Corp. is in America, and I thought her murdering the scientist was pretty justified.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 1, 2012)

I saw this movie finally, just this morning. I enjoyed it. The only thing that really bothered me was some of the foolish decisions made by characters who are supposed to be smart and should know better.


----------



## TL Rese (Jul 1, 2012)

i admittedly expected a lot more from this movie.  there was just so much hype that i had really high expectations. - plus, ridley scott has such a great reputation, who would have thought he'd screw this up?  the special effects were entertaining enough, but that's about it.  charlize theron's character could have been eliminated entirely (what does she really contribute to the plot?), and there seemed to be so many loose ends and plot holes.  *sigh*  oh well.


----------



## Telcontar (Jul 2, 2012)

My take in a nutshell: Breathtakingly gorgeous movie with some decent ideas. Sadly, all decent ideas were completely hamstrung by breathtakingly horrid script.

Too many mysteries and too few semblances of an answer that had any merit. Too many characters doing too many stupid things (not just unwise, but _stupid_ - like trying to _pet_ an alien creature you know nothing about). Too many contrivances, too many "this is only here as an excuse for special effects" moments, etc. Such as how the 'black goo' caused so many different, seemingly unrelated effects. No ryhme or reason to it, just excuses for pretty stuff, weird stuff, and  pretty weird stuff.

I did enjoy the movie, but mostly as a B movie spectacle wrapped in a AAA movie budget.


----------



## Zophos (Jul 3, 2012)

I didn't dig it. There was a lot of pointlessness to it, way too much unexplained and the link from Prometheus to Alien was more of an "Oh crap, we forgot to put in a scene that makes it somehow relevant" moment. In fact, I found the entire genesis of the climax creature savagely disjointed. The only redeeming quality of the entire film was the conversation about meeting your maker and him telling you "I made you because I could." There was actually a grain of substance to that, but the rest of the movie really just fell apart.



Robert Donnell said:


> A.	Broke cannon, what had been established in prior movies.
> B.	Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Christians at every turn.”
> C.	Respecting the beliefs of a non-specified Pagan religion, you don’t get it both ways.
> E.	Turned the movie into a “Lets bash the stupid Gun Owners at every turn.”
> ....



While I agree the movie was pretty lame, I don't follow your logic any of these.



Ophiucha said:


> ...
> H) ....Also, Charlize Theron - who presumably would have taken over if she weren't squished ... and is in no way stupid....



You mean aside from her cartoonish death of not being able to figure out the quickest route to escape the giant wheel shaped space ship that was about to roll over?


----------



## Zophos (Jul 3, 2012)

TL Rese said:


> ...charlize theron's character could have been eliminated entirely (what does she really contribute to the plot?)...



Completely agree with this assessment.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 3, 2012)

I do think Theron's character was unnecessary. I kept wait for more out of her. 

The only thing I really had a problem with, as noted above, were the stupid decisions people made. My expectations weren't that high, but on the whole I still had fun watching it. The biologist playing with the alien creature was probably the low point in terms of sheer stupidity. I didn't find it believable that a biologist on a mission to a distant moon would react that way to seeing some strange alien life.


----------



## Zophos (Jul 3, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> ...The biologist playing with the alien creature was probably the low point in terms of sheer stupidity. I didn't find it believable that a biologist on a mission to a distant moon would react that way to seeing some strange alien life.



Yeah, he definitely went the "Look at the pretty puppy! Let's pet him!" route. Seemed out of character for a dude who started out as a skeptic of the "Engineer" hypothesis based on 10 bazillion years of evolution, or whatever he said. I have complete faith in evolution, but I'm going over to that 4' lamprey thing and petting it!


----------



## Pyrsa (Jul 23, 2012)

Couldn't agree more. You've gotta think these megabuck movie makers have a really poor opinion of the audience's recall/critical thinking/taste. And how much more money could they make by getting it right?


----------

