Ridley Scott to direct prequel to Alien!!!!!!....

[PC Engine Fan X!]

After watching the Prometheus flim and reading that link that emphatic mentions about, it certainly gives the viewer a more logicial interpetation as to why such scenes were filmed a certain way. It all makes sense now (to me) with some additional thoughts and comments from director Scott himself.

Of course, if it was released with the additional 20 minutes of footage (which'll be included in the upcoming Blu-Ray version), I'm sure that it wouldn't have been quite as cryptic and sloppy with the current edit of the theaterical version in the first place. Sounds like the Blu-Ray variant release has plenty of surprises/extras.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[RGC]

Probably already posted, but just in case:

[spoliers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQ ... e=youtu.be

[/spoliers]

All your questions answered, I mean asked!

[Randorama]

Adolf tells it like it is.

Also:

Who wrote this shit?

Lindelof, the joke behind Lost

Ahhh, I see, now it makes sense, never mind for complaining about the movie's content.

[GaijinPunch]

Probably already posted, but just in case:

Sure was.

[blackoak]

I think that this movie, like many other sci-fi movies in the past, has one very general problem.

If authors want to touch philosophical themes and take continental philosophy themes, then the result will be a bit of a mixed bag. Nietzsche, Baudrillard, etc. are, as continental philosophers, anti-scientist in their thinking. Science Fiction is fiction based on pushing scientific speculation to its limits, by definition.

So, mixing the two opposing tendencies can easily leads to inconsistent, intellectually vapid outcomes (this movie, but also tons of other previous movies).

Refreshing to see someone present this view. I had a long period of study with the continentals, culminating in Nietzsche, of whom I've read and re-read nearly everything over a period of 5-7 years. Whatever one might say about the merit of his ideas for literature/art in general, your comment about sci-fi is spot on, I think. Along those lines, that lj entry about myth is typical of something which at first blush (ie to an unstudied twentysomething--and not meant to be an insult) seems quite deep and full of possibilities, but is really an empty glass if you dare to unbend your mental knee. No matter how "existential" or "mythological" something is claimed to be, it doesn't suffice for local material decisions, like, say, the (hackneyed) decisions of the characters in Prometheus. To say nothing of their professed ideas about the science of the world they inhabit.

Anyway, I don't feel like substantiating all that with a long debate right now, just wanted to sound a note of agreement. One writer who I think finds fertility in the line between idealist/materialist approaches to sci-fi is Stanislaw Lem. He recognizes some of the intellectual problems here but doesn't just kowtow to them with poorly wrought characters who do things because of some "mythical" (ie anti scientific, ie anti-scifi) impulse.

[Randorama]

[

Refreshing to see someone present this view. I had a long period of study with the continentals, culminating in Nietzsche, of whom I've read and re-read nearly everything over a period of 5-7 years.
Whatever one might say about the merit of his ideas for literature/art in general, your comment about sci-fi is spot on, I think.

Thank you. I am pretty sure that someone else before me made this point, but I can't remember who. He/she was an author of sci-fi who held an MA/Ph.D. in Philosophy. Possibly, Fritz Leiber.

Along those lines, that lj entry about myth is typical of something which at first blush (ie to an unstudied twentysomething--and not meant to be an insult) seems quite deep and full of possibilities, but is really an empty glass if you dare to unbend your mental knee.

The key problem is that the authors must fall in this category. Very likely Lindelof, who I understand to be a person who has poor grasp and background knowledge of general philosophical themes, from the little I saw in Lost. That's philosophy illiterates writing philosophy movies for philosophical illiterates, so the result can't possibly be very good.

Also, again, Nietzche? It's the author that people who don't want to really to know philosophy read, to "touch base", i.e. pretend they have a good knowledge of the subject by reading a key author. Bah.

[CMoon]

Just saw Prometheus. What a bizarre film. At once there were elements of it I liked, but the mix of old school sci fi with modern/popular movie conventions didn't gel for me at all. The new-age mumbo jumbo required turning one's brain off. Was utterly floored how anti-science the film actually was--and it didn't do this in any sort of sneaky or clever way (perhaps because it couldn't), but just threw it right out there. The film suffered from not having any sort of actual, definable monster (formless goo?), and no revelation of any sort at the end. All that said, I enjoyed the general sci-fi vibe of exploring ruins on another planet--that's mostly the reason I went and saw it.

I think you guys have already dissected the movie to a greater extent than I want to, and maybe more than it even deserves since underneath the sheen of heavy production, I don't think the movie is all that well thought out or executed. I might even go so far as to say the overall plot is a stinker. When you strip that production away, I don't know if this film is much more substantial than the average episode of Doctor Who.

OK, the robotic C-section thing reminded me of the killer-whale abortion in Orca: classy!

[Illyrian]

Don't insult Dr. Who by comparing it to Prometheus. Well maybe it is better than Matt Smith's episodes but that's hardly a big accomplishment

[CMoon]

Don't insult Dr. Who by comparing it to Prometheus.

Actually I wasn't trying to. Its similarity to a 2 hour doctor who episode may have been the best thing about it, but I definitely had higher expectations than that being a feature film. A lot of this really felt like a very well produced B movie.

[MX7]

I think that this movie, like many other sci-fi movies in the past, has one very general problem. 
If authors want to touch philosophical themes and take continental philosophy themes, then the result will be a bit of a mixed bag. Nietzsche, Baudrillard, etc. are, as continental philosophers, anti-scientist in their thinking. Science Fiction is fiction based on pushing scientific speculation to its limits, by definition. 
So, mixing the two opposing tendencies can easily leads to inconsistent, intellectually vapid outcomes (this movie, but also tons of other previous movies).

I think considering science fiction to be purely about discussing scientific endeavours is somewhat simplistic. Some of the best films and books I can think of in the 'science fiction' genre have no real interest in 'science' at all, but rather creating a visually appealing backdrop to project pre-existing story archetypes on. The science itself is a periphery, a tool of ether alienation or inclusion depending on how it is utilised. Excluding what is sometimes referred to as 'hard' sci-fi, I find science fiction characteristic through the fact that it generally does not explore the limits of speculation beyond a very superficial level. 

In general, sci-fi could be described less as a genre, but more of a particular (and often) visual tendency in films of other genres. The application of these conventions is rarely more than superficial, but certainly not any less valid for being superficial. By applying this aesthetic, we can add spice to melodrama (Stalker), new wave (Close Encounters), noir (Blade Runner), porn (IKU), political drama (Gundam) and haunted house films (Alien et al). 

 I think the enduring popularity of sci-fi is indicative of interest in a particular aesthetic than a meaningful exploration of the limits of scientific endeavour. Speculation is rife in science fiction, with flying cars, lasers and time travel, but these aspects are so far removed from modern science that it is essentially fantastic. Individual sci-fi texts of course have their own internal verisimilitude, but when we start discussing the merits of colonising Venus, said speculation has become indistinguishable from fantasy. 

So I'm afraid I have to disagree with the notion that the vast majority of science fiction has anything to do with actual science except on the most superficial of levels. And if sci-fi isn't actually to do with science, then it could potentially happily coexist with anything. 

Discussing forced binaries and the perceived inflexibility of FUCKIN' SCIENCE somehow bought this nice little exchange from the 1982 animated kids flick 'A Flight Of Dragons'  to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw9bny88 ... ata_player

[Randorama]

Ok, nothing personal to you, MX7, but I think that you are missing one point in my post, which you post without reporting my name.

I think considering science fiction to be purely about discussing scientific endeavours is somewhat simplistic. Some of the best films and books I can think of in the 'science fiction' genre have no real interest in 'science' at all, but rather creating a visually appealing backdrop to project pre-existing story archetypes on. The science itself is a periphery, a tool of ether alienation or inclusion depending on how it is utilised. Excluding what is sometimes referred to as 'hard' sci-fi, I find science fiction characteristic through the fact that it generally does not explore the limits of speculation beyond a very superficial level. 

I think that most sci-fi, at least in prose, tends to explore more than just the boundaries of "hard sciences". Say, Dune is an extremely elegant work about some far-fetching possibilities one can entertain in the domain of social sciences, to put it in a very abstract way. And just to be sure, since the '60s, most authors use the term "speculative" fiction, to stress that these works focus on speculating how different worlds/societies/physics may work, and how intelligent creatures (not the characters in Prometheus, then) would act in those worlds.

In general, sci-fi could be described less as a genre, but more of a particular (and often) visual tendency in films of other genres. The application of these conventions is rarely more than superficial, but certainly not any less valid for being superficial.

That's what one gets when content is thrown out of the window, I think.

 I think the enduring popularity of sci-fi is indicative of interest in a particular aesthetic than a meaningful exploration of the limits of scientific endeavour. Speculation is rife in science fiction, with flying cars, lasers and time travel, but these aspects are so far removed from modern science that it is essentially fantastic.

I Would say that, for the ones who want more than fancy technology, there's a lot to explore in sci-fi. Please see comment above.

Individual sci-fi texts of course have their own internal verisimilitude, but when we start discussing the merits of colonising Venus, said speculation has become indistinguishable from fantasy. 

And that would represent the 1% of current sci-fi, I'd guess. Please see Darwin's radio for scientifically-grounded spec fiction.

So I'm afraid I have to disagree with the notion that the vast majority of science fiction has anything to do with actual science except on the most superficial of levels. And if sci-fi isn't actually to do with science, then it could potentially happily coexist with anything. 

That's what Hollywood has given us. And, if sci and spec fiction has nothing to do with science and speculation, then it's another type of fiction, which is all good and dandy, but that's not sci-fi. In the case of Prometheus, that's at most good-looking vapid stuff for those who can't get anything beyond the first historical emo, Nietzsche.

Discussing forced binaries and the perceived inflexibility of FUCKIN' SCIENCE somehow bought this nice little exchange from the 1982 animated kids flick 'A Flight Of Dragons'  to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw9bny88 ... ata_player

I think that "fucking science" is something that exists in the minds of those who can't bother to study a little bit of science, out of superstition. Continental philosophers mostly fall in this category, the category of those who fear what they can't understand.

[Mischief Maker]

I think that "fucking science" is something that exists in the minds of those who can't bother to study a little bit of science, out of superstition.

Or people who grew up watching "Bibleman"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuaoSDGPBOo

[MX7]

@Rando - well nothing personal to you, but I think we made the same point: sci-fi uses the notion of speculation as a mirror to allow us to explore social, political or whatever issues But yeah, nice one, I essentially agree with everything you mention. I adore science fiction, especially literature, and especially when it explores gender, sexuality and artifice. I'd be interested in reading Darwin's Radio as I've seen it mentioned a few times and it would form a good counterpoint to the usual 'science as periphery/science as villain' stuff I usually read. I tend to resist the term 'speculative fiction' as it sounds a bit wanky, while science fiction, somewhat paradoxically (and aptly given the context of this tangent) sounds bright and breezy.

[CMoon]

@Rando - well nothing personal to you, but I think we made the same point: sci-fi uses the notion of speculation as a mirror to allow us to explore social, political or whatever issues

So here's the question with Prometheus since it starts from the very beginning and throws out modern science. Even if you don't accept 'darwinism', the ideas presented in this film about genetics and DNA are beyond wrong. Do we consider this speculative anymore? This film does not say 'this is beyond what we know today, but maybe someday...'; instead it starts throwing out reality to create a shallow, nonsensical alternate reality. Perhaps we might still call it speculative, but like reading Jules Verne, we know the premises are now outdated/shown to be wrong (hahaha, 'old future'). Prometheus doesn't have the excuse of age, so we have to just fall back on general ignorance of science (in particular, biology.)

Edit: typo

[Randorama]

I think that you spell out the core problem of the movie, Chris. Then again, if this is targeted for 12-25 yo audiences from the US, heaps of Intelligent Design and basic misrepresentation of science seem like a marketing need, don't they?

Aside this: MX7, glad to hear that, and apologies for the vitriolic innuendos.

One general feeling I have been getting since watching this movie is that maybe I just can't stand movies anymore, as I can't stand much the idea of a plot and characters being developed in only 2 hours. I had this lingering feeling for a while, but this particular movie felt like a last straw of some sort. Last good sci-fi I saw was Gundam 00 and Towards the Terra, which were several leagues above this movie, and they were Anime, of all things (seinen ones, though).

On a side note...

I'd recommend Ursula Leguin, the other works from Herbert (Hellstrom's Hive, for instance), Philip Farmer, Greg Bear. My initial example, Darwin's Radio, is set in a alternative 1999 in which a saltational evolution of humans occur (i.e. suddenly, some women are pregnant with a future version of humans). Aside this idea, the book has no other sci-fi loci amoeni.

You may need to blame your older lads, though, for "speculative fiction" (!). It was invented by Ballard or Spinrad (NY guy who wrote a lot for New worlds, though) or perhaps Aldiss, all authors I warmly recommend. Spinrad's works are what are you looking for, especially A world between.

[Skykid]

I think considering science fiction to be purely about discussing scientific endeavours is somewhat simplistic. Some of the best films and books I can think of in the 'science fiction' genre have no real interest in 'science' at all, but rather creating a visually appealing backdrop to project pre-existing story archetypes on. The science itself is a periphery, a tool of ether alienation or inclusion depending on how it is utilised. Excluding what is sometimes referred to as 'hard' sci-fi, I find science fiction characteristic through the fact that it generally does not explore the limits of speculation beyond a very superficial level. 

In general, sci-fi could be described less as a genre, but more of a particular (and often) visual tendency in films of other genres. The application of these conventions is rarely more than superficial, but certainly not any less valid for being superficial. By applying this aesthetic, we can add spice to melodrama (Stalker), new wave (Close Encounters), noir (Blade Runner), porn (IKU), political drama (Gundam) and haunted house films (Alien et al). 

 I think the enduring popularity of sci-fi is indicative of interest in a particular aesthetic than a meaningful exploration of the limits of scientific endeavour. Speculation is rife in science fiction, with flying cars, lasers and time travel, but these aspects are so far removed from modern science that it is essentially fantastic. Individual sci-fi texts of course have their own internal verisimilitude, but when we start discussing the merits of colonising Venus, said speculation has become indistinguishable from fantasy. 

So I'm afraid I have to disagree with the notion that the vast majority of science fiction has anything to do with actual science except on the most superficial of levels. And if sci-fi isn't actually to do with science, then it could potentially happily coexist with anything. 

Discussing forced binaries and the perceived inflexibility of FUCKIN' SCIENCE somehow bought this nice little exchange from the 1982 animated kids flick 'A Flight Of Dragons'  to mind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw9bny88 ... ata_player

I like this post. It's like a mini film study.

[Mischief Maker]

Then again, if this is targeted for 12-25 yo audiences from the US, heaps of Intelligent Design and basic misrepresentation of science seem like a marketing need, don't they?

Hey, screw you buddy! The very reason creationism rechristened itself "Intelligent Design" is because of its failure to get placed on the curriculum in American Schools.

First they tried to censor the Theory of Evolution, then when that failed they tried to get creationism taught alongside evolution on an equal basis, then when that failed they tried to dress creationism up in pseudo-scientific jargon as "Intelligent Design," then when that failed they shifted their thrust to home schooling and private religious schools.

Yeah, the creationists get more press, but that's because the Darwinists represent the status quo.

Why can't (English Filmmaker) Ridley Scott just be dumb?

[CMoon]

Hilarity ensues when you realize that Prometheus isn't pushing an intelligent design agenda either. Ultimately I don't know what agenda it is pushing other than some general chariots of the gods conspiracy nonsense, but even that isn't really done so in any compelling manner. Ultimately it is a hodgepodge of ideas while not really committing to any of them; and maybe that's the let down. Maybe if it had really been some sci-fi creationist thing, and done so in a compelling way, I might have actually dug it more. In the end, I didn't know what the movie wanted me to feel or think--and that is actually a very serious criticism of a film.

[DEL]

CMoon wrote;

So here's the question with Prometheus since it starts from the very beginning and throws out modern science. Even if you don't accept 'darwinism', the ideas presented in this film about genetics and DNA are beyond wrong. Do we consider this speculative anymore? This film does not say 'this is beyond what we know today, but maybe someday...'; instead it starts throwing out reality to create a shallow, nonsensical alternate reality. Perhaps we might still call it speculative, but like reading Jules Verne, we know the premises are now outdated/shown to be wrong (hahaha, 'old future'). Prometheus doesn't have the excuse of age, so we have to just fall back on general ignorance of science (in particular, biology.)

and:

Hilarity ensues when you realize that Prometheus isn't pushing an intelligent design agenda either. Ultimately I don't know what agenda it is pushing other than some general chariots of the gods conspiracy nonsense, but even that isn't really done so in any compelling manner. Ultimately it is a hodgepodge of ideas while not really committing to any of them; and maybe that's the let down. Maybe if it had really been some sci-fi creationist thing, and done so in a compelling way, I might have actually dug it more. In the end, I didn't know what the movie wanted me to feel or think--and that is actually a very serious criticism of a film.

^Very good points.
What agenda is it pushing indeed?
The Engineer at the beginning 'seeding' the Earth and later on the scientists finding that we have matching DNA, is basically IGNORING all the other animals on the Earth!
I could go with the notion of Chariots of the Gods 'seeding' Pre-Cambrian life on Earth, but not this. We're kinda similar to the Apes don't ya think

Plus, the Religion didn't sit well in this film either

[Mischief Maker]

What agenda is it pushing indeed?
The Engineer at the beginning 'seeding' the Earth and later on the scientists finding that we have matching DNA, is basically IGNORING all the other animals on the Earth!
I could go with the notion of Chariots of the Gods 'seeding' Pre-Cambrian life on Earth, but not this. We're kinda similar to the Apes don't ya think

Plus, the Religion didn't sit well in this film either

I really don't think Prometheus is pushing an agenda. It's just suffering from the same Prequel malaise that turned Darth Vader into Space Jesus. Sequels are hard enough as it is, you have to make a movie that OUTDOES the original, and worse, you often have to use characters who were never intended for additional stories whose arcs are already complete (eg. Neo in the Matrix Sequels). Make it a prequel and not only do you have to accomplish those two goals, but you also have to insert a magic reset button that puts things back where they were in the first movie.

I'll probably get some flak for saying this, but Firefly's Malcolm Reynolds is a more complex and interesting character than his inspiration, Han Solo, because he was created to support a long running TV series. Reynolds has all sorts of history behind him, complex relationships with his crew, etc. Even after the movie Serenity there's plenty of Reynolds to support further films or a relaunch of the TV show. Han Solo, on the other hand, was a common criminal who by chance got involved in something bigger and more important than his standing in the Space Mob, uncovered that deep down he had a heart of gold, and craziest of all, a crook like him wound up with a princess in the end! How do you fulfill the 3 prequel requirements of outdoing Star Wars, using this character whose entire arc is complete, AND putting him back in the position of saying "Better her than me!" in Star Wars? Alternate universe rebellion with a hotter princess and force-amnesia? Unless one of the writers has a flash of serious creative genius these unnecessary prequels (like Star Trek 11) can't help but be ludicrous!

So enter Prometheus. Um... the space jockeys aren't just a weird ancient alien race with creepy biomechanical ships stumbled upon by a ragtag mining crew, they're the engineers of humanity sought out by the most powerful man on Earth! The Xenomorphs aren't just a creepy space-wasp, they're actually shoggoths that form themselves into any number of bizarre creatures whose one common feature is that they rape their victims in the mouth and implant their larvae in the victim's still-living body like... a creepy space-wasp.

[EmperorIng]

I suppose I might be a bit too plebe for this discussion, but I will say that my reaction to the film after leaving the theater was a solid 3/4 stars, if you will.

Meaning, I liked the film despite numerous plot inconsistencies and in some cases a truly awful script (Scott should have never turned to tv writers to write real dialogue. Just about every tv writer is a hack through-and-through).

I actually liked the monster design... I just wish we saw more of it in action! I called the things "Face-fuckers" to distinguish them from the face-huggers of Alien lore. While Giger apparently worked on the monster designs, the lack of monster we got to see made me feel like he was slumming it this go.

I still don't think there has been a film to out-do Scott's original effort. Cameron's movie, while fun, was too cartoony in comparison; Fincher's valiant attempt to save a terrible script was a noble failure that i enjoy as a movie, but still a failure; Resurrection was just plain shit and not even Ron Perlman could save it - Prometheus, at the least, is better than Resurrection.

P.S. am I the only one that gets seriously annoyed when people call the franchise the Aliens series?

[Udderdude]

Maddox takes his turn .. obvious spoilers. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... s_nutshell

Review spoiler: He didn't like it :p

[RGC]

Aren't you bored of vitriol-misanthrope-journalism? David Baddiel, Jeremy Clarkson, Charlie Brooker, Roger Ebert, and plenty of others have made a living out of calling things a pile of wank. It's so tiresome and unimaginative. Don't like TV adverts, turn the TV off. Don't like mainstream movies, don't pay visits to the cinema. You do have a choice. "Waaah! I want everything to be designed for the needs of my superior brain/personality!" is never going to get you anywhere.

Prometheus = good popcorn flick. Deal with it...

...cnuts.

[mesh control]

you have bad taste

[RGC]

See "Your opinion is wrong"

[Skykid]

Aren't you bored of vitriol-misanthrope-journalism? ...Roger Ebert...

Apart from Ebert. That guy has bigged up plenty of stinkers...

For a fee.

[RGC]

OK, he was a bad example. Generally a cock-nose though. Hey, I could do this media critic thing. Everything is wank, aimed at lowest common denomi....blah blah blah.

[DEL]

RGC wrote;

Prometheus = good popcorn flick. Deal with it...

Wait! This is an Alien movie by the director of the original Alien. We expected more than mere popcorn flick. HENCE the 13 pages of this thread.

[jonny5]

Saw this last night. Pretty let down to be honest. The characters all seemed very one dimensional, and most just seemed tacked on, like the pilots or the scottish tech chic. The funny thing is it seemed the most well rounded/human character in the whole film was the fucking android! The comment about the wirters being TV writers definitely makes sense. The dialogue/ character interactions totally felt like TV.

But I totally see what you guys were talking about with this. Great idea for a film, but not executed very well, and tons of timeline issues if this is in fact before Alien. Also, what was with all the similar scenes from the other films? Don't want to go into too many details and give away anything, but you know what I mean if you saw it.

And the young researcher couple, seemed a bit young to have been scouring the earth finding all these different sites, both looked to be late 20's early 30's. So what, they went to University and then found all this shit in a couple years? Come on now.

I dont know. I'm usually pretty good at putting up with shit in films and enjoying it for what it is, but this film just rubbed me the wrong way; too many things that distracted me from enjoying the simple pleasure of the visuals and story line.

Sucks too, I was pretty stoked when I first heard about this and even more so when I watched the trailer. Oh well. Can't win em' all.

[EmperorIng]

I have this sneaking suspicion that most of the internet world hates Roger Ebert for the sole fact that he made the earth-shattering and mountain-leveling claim that video-games weren't art.