http://collider.com/prometheus-script-damon-lindelof/211149/ (http://collider.com/prometheus-script-damon-lindelof/211149/)
Download Link (http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/PARADISEfinal.pdf)
https://twitter.com/DamonLindelof/status/269948194195140608 (https://twitter.com/DamonLindelof/status/269948194195140608)
Reading through Damon's draft, it's clear he's far more of a screenwriter than Spaihts. I can almost feel the film. That's rare.
Far out, Damon, fix your f**king caps lock!
Quote from: SiL on Nov 14, 2012, 09:34:39 PM
Far out, Damon, fix your f**king caps lock!
;D Also the sound effects he writes are rubbish, takes me right out of it as it reminds me of the Batman tv series!
Most scripts are written this way. You want to replicate the experience as much as possible.
Show me another professional script that has that much caps in it. Aside from scene headings and characters (and camera directions), caps should be for emphasis. Using it every second sentence, it loses impact. Page 3 for example is almost all caps. Compare it Aliens - scene 140 or so onwards.
I can't show you them because, well, that would be illegal. Usually scripts are pared down before production, so most of Damon's prose thoughts would be eliminated, but regardless, his writing is far more visual -- thus the capitalization -- than Spaihts.
More importantly, read any Lost script. All of them are dramatized in the same way.
Quote from: SM on Nov 14, 2012, 11:43:36 PM
Show me another professional script that has that much caps in it. Aside from scene headings and characters (and camera directions), caps should be for emphasis. Using it every second sentence, it loses impact. Page 3 for example is almost all caps. Compare it Aliens - scene 140 or so onwards.
From the Blu-ray, possibly an early version of the script but you can see his inclination towards capitalizing everything.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/blu-7.jpg)
A couple of things got my attention, like Lindelof calling the Trilobite Troglybyte which is a name I know was used during production and is mentioned in the Blu-ray very briefly. Also apparently most revisions were called Paradise after Lindelof got involved.
QuoteI can't show you them because, well, that would be illegal
:D
QuoteMore importantly, read any Lost script.
Think I'll pass thanks.
QuoteSomething MEANINGFUL is about to happen here.
Gimme a break...
One
small EXCERPT and
ALL BUT THREE senTEN
ces HAVE way TOO
MANY CAPS.
The last page of the script is pretty much all caps. All the way down.
Quote from: Disendor on Nov 14, 2012, 11:56:58 PM
I can't show you them because, well, that would be illegal.
There are plenty of script sites online that have copies. We can wait.
Most professional scripts from - well, professionals - do have a great deal of those caps, actually. It's a technical thing.
I do think Lindelof's draft has significantly more character. Spaihts more nuts and bolts. I actually think it was a good marriage, writers-wise, but I could've used a few more of the nifty ideas in the Spaihts draft - like the missiles everyone hates, or the crash with the separated compartments, or the eyes.
QuoteJANEK (OVER COMM)
Hey... It's Janek... are you people out
of the airlock yet?
Shaw keys her COMM --
SHAW (INTO COMM)
We're still in the elevator. Why?
INT. MAGELLAN, BRIDGE, INTERCUT - DAY
Janek here, looking at the HOLO-GRID... and he's actually
SMILING with his DISCOVERY --
JANEK (INTO COMM)
I think I just found Fifield.
INT. MAGELLAN, AIRLOCK, ELEVATOR LIFT, INTERCUT - DAY
Jesus. FIFIELD? We almost forgot about him.
SHAW (INTO COMM)
What? Where?
JANEK (OVER COMM)
Uh... according to his bio-comm, he's
right outside the damn ship.
THVUNK. The elevator hits bottom. The AIRLOCK DOOR STARTS
TO GRIND OPEN as one of the MERCS asks --
90.
CONTINUED: (2)
(CONTINUED)
MERCENARY
Who the hell is Fifield?
And that is not a question that will ever be answered as --
SOMETHING REACHES IN THROUGH THE AIRLOCK AND LITERALLY TEARS
HIM IN HALF. And what follows --
IS PURE CHAOS.
We only get quick glimpses of what was once FIFIELD -- It
moves so damn FAST -- It's BIG though -- FERAL AND ANGRY --
MERC #2
PUT IT DOWN!!!!
STACCATO GUNFIRE -- The Mercs UNPREPARED FOR THE ONSLAUGHT --
Fifield pulls TWO RIGHT OFF OF THEIR ROVER -- SNAPPING ONE'S
NECK -- TOSSING ANOTHER ACROSS THE AIRLOCK LIKE A RAGDOLL --
IN THE OTHER ROVER -- David sits there in mute wonder as Shaw
snaps into action -- She moves to WEYLAND -- GRABS HIS
WHEELCHAIR -- heroically pushes him to their Rover!
SHAW
Get in!
MORE GUNFIRE -- RICOCHETING BULLETS -- Weyland wills himself
out into the Rover as Shaw tosses his chair on the BED IN THE
BACK, barks at David --
SHAW (CONT'D)
MOVE OVER, DAMMIT!!!
Shaw hops behind the wheel -- SLAMS THE ROVER INTO GEAR,
looks over her back shoulder where --
FIFIELD turns his attention on them -- NARROW ELONGATED HEAD
that has PUNCHED THROUGH THE HELMET OF HIS TATTERED SPACESUIT
-- GREY GLISTENING SKIN -- HE RISES TO HIS FULL HEIGHT and --
SCREEEE! Shaw throws the BUGGY INTO REVERSE -- SMASHES INTO
FIFIELD, driving him BACK INTO THE WALL OF THE AIRLOCK --
CRUSHES HIM!
POPS the Rover Forwards -- The REVERSE AGAIN JUST FOR GOOD
MEASURE as she RUNS FIFIELD'S HEAD UNDER THE TIRES WITH A
SICKENING SKLLLLISH!
Shaw looks around for surviving MERCS -- There are none.
Grits her teeth as she hits the clutch one last time, PEELS
That's all I wanted to see. Just shaw running fifield over. Like in the trailer :P
QuoteMost professional scripts from - well, professionals - do have a great deal of those caps, actually. It's a technical thing.
Examples of this "technical thing"?
I'm not commenting on the quality of a script I haven't read yet - I've just never seen a script with that much ALL CAPS in it. Looks a bit silly.
I am not even bother going to read anything because all this CAPS talk is scaring me. I've seen how Caps can be used well, but holy shit does this scare me:
Quote from: thecaffeinatedone on Nov 15, 2012, 12:47:58 AM
QuoteJANEK (OVER COMM)
Hey... It's Janek... are you people out
of the airlock yet?
Shaw keys her COMM --
SHAW (INTO COMM)
We're still in the elevator. Why?
INT. MAGELLAN, BRIDGE, INTERCUT - DAY
Janek here, looking at the HOLO-GRID... and he's actually
SMILING with his DISCOVERY --
JANEK (INTO COMM)
I think I just found Fifield.
INT. MAGELLAN, AIRLOCK, ELEVATOR LIFT, INTERCUT - DAY
Jesus. FIFIELD? We almost forgot about him.
SHAW (INTO COMM)
What? Where?
JANEK (OVER COMM)
Uh... according to his bio-comm, he's
right outside the damn ship.
THVUNK. The elevator hits bottom. The AIRLOCK DOOR STARTS
TO GRIND OPEN as one of the MERCS asks --
90.
CONTINUED: (2)
(CONTINUED)
MERCENARY
Who the hell is Fifield?
And that is not a question that will ever be answered as --
SOMETHING REACHES IN THROUGH THE AIRLOCK AND LITERALLY TEARS
HIM IN HALF. And what follows --
IS PURE CHAOS.
We only get quick glimpses of what was once FIFIELD -- It
moves so damn FAST -- It's BIG though -- FERAL AND ANGRY --
MERC #2
PUT IT DOWN!!!!
STACCATO GUNFIRE -- The Mercs UNPREPARED FOR THE ONSLAUGHT --
Fifield pulls TWO RIGHT OFF OF THEIR ROVER -- SNAPPING ONE'S
NECK -- TOSSING ANOTHER ACROSS THE AIRLOCK LIKE A RAGDOLL --
IN THE OTHER ROVER -- David sits there in mute wonder as Shaw
snaps into action -- She moves to WEYLAND -- GRABS HIS
WHEELCHAIR -- heroically pushes him to their Rover!
SHAW
Get in!
MORE GUNFIRE -- RICOCHETING BULLETS -- Weyland wills himself
out into the Rover as Shaw tosses his chair on the BED IN THE
BACK, barks at David --
SHAW (CONT'D)
MOVE OVER, DAMMIT!!!
Shaw hops behind the wheel -- SLAMS THE ROVER INTO GEAR,
looks over her back shoulder where --
FIFIELD turns his attention on them -- NARROW ELONGATED HEAD
that has PUNCHED THROUGH THE HELMET OF HIS TATTERED SPACESUIT
-- GREY GLISTENING SKIN -- HE RISES TO HIS FULL HEIGHT and --
SCREEEE! Shaw throws the BUGGY INTO REVERSE -- SMASHES INTO
FIFIELD, driving him BACK INTO THE WALL OF THE AIRLOCK --
CRUSHES HIM!
POPS the Rover Forwards -- The REVERSE AGAIN JUST FOR GOOD
MEASURE as she RUNS FIFIELD'S HEAD UNDER THE TIRES WITH A
SICKENING SKLLLLISH!
Shaw looks around for surviving MERCS -- There are none.
Grits her teeth as she hits the clutch one last time, PEELS
That's all I wanted to see. Just shaw running fifield over. Like in the trailer :P
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Nov 15, 2012, 12:47:55 AM
Most professional scripts from - well, professionals - do have a great deal of those caps, actually. It's a technical thing.
Commissioned, as opposed to spec, scripts will have more -- but generally not to Lindelof's borderline ludicrous level, no. Half of every sentence is either capped or underlined.
The more I read caffeinate's quote, the worse my brain gets.
Kinda ironic that the faceless unnamed mercenary asks who Fifield is.
QuoteMERCENARY
Who the hell is Fifield?
I've seen far worse from far bigger screenwriters, myself. It's just not the thing to faze me at this point. I have a hard enough time figuring out when to caps in my work.
I like the suit cutting off Millburn's arm... kinda Forever War-eske.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 15, 2012, 12:55:57 AMCommissioned, as opposed to spec, scripts will have more -- but generally not to Lindelof's borderline ludicrous level, no. Half of every sentence is either capped or underlined.
He was obviously very excited to get the job.
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Nov 15, 2012, 01:15:17 AM
I've seen far worse from far bigger screenwriters, myself. It's just not the thing to faze me at this point. I have a hard enough time figuring out when to caps in my work.
Why is it difficult?
Here's an example of caps being used to appropriate effect...
Vincent's eyes narrow, ready to do this.
VINCENT
Count to three.
Lance, on this knees right beside Vincent, does not know
what to expect.
LANCE
One...
RED DOT on Mia's body.
Needle raised ready to strike.
LANCE (O.S.)
...two...
Jody's face is alive with anticipation.
NEEDLE in that air, poised like a rattler ready to strike.
LANCE (O.S.)
...three!
The needle leaves frame, THRUSTING down hard.
Vincent brings the needle down hard, STABBING Mia in the
chest.
Mia's head is JOLTED from the impact.
The syringe plunger is pushed down, PUMPING the adrenaline
out through the needle.
Mia's eyes POP WIDE OPEN and she lets out a HELLISH cry of
the banshee. She BOLTS UP in a sitting position, needle stuck
in her chest – SCREAMING.
Vincent, Lance and Jody, who were in sitting positions in
front of Mia, JUMP BACK, scared to death.
Mia's scream runs out. She slowly starts taking breaths of
air.
The other three, now scooted halfway across the room, shaken
to their bones, look to see if she's alright.
LANCE
If you're okay, say something.
Mia, still breathing, not looking up at them, says in a
relatively normal voice.
MIA
Something.
With some people it's more a stylistic thing, with others a tech thing, with others both. But yes, I've seen far worse histrionics. I can't be bothered about his caps. Sue me.
Stroppy much?
Not in the slightest, darling. I just don't share the outrage. I see guys selling or overselling in their scripts a lot - my personal pet peeve is underlining, not caps so much. And there isn't enough underlining for me to get irked at.
think this is one of the most pointless conversations iv ever seen
Do you not get out much?
Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Nov 15, 2012, 02:08:52 AM
Not in the slightest, darling. I just don't share the outrage. I see guys selling or overselling in their scripts a lot - my personal pet peeve is underlining, not caps so much. And there isn't enough underlining for me to get irked at.
There's no outrage - it's just looks a bit dopey, which surprised me for a pro job.
So anyway. If it was a toss up between which screenplay to film then I think Spaights' is much stronger.
But ultimately, apart from the Jockey's being God-like beings, I would have prefered a completely different setting and story.
I think the Spaihts script has what I see in a lot of his stuff - big ideas, fascinating exploration of technology and pseudo-science, gorgeous language, but at times, a sterility and strict functionality to the characters.
By contrast, the reason I hate so much of Damon Lindelof's other work (outside Prometheus) is the namby-pamby, saccharine 'jes folks' approach to it that dumbs down most of the work of Lindelof and the rest of the JJ Abrams/Bad Robot factory, where they rely strictly on cheap twists and bland sentiment. The few times they've succeeded for me is when they're working within the framework of an existing property desperately in need of a reboot - like Star Trek - and in the case of Prometheus, it also had a cold, nasty core structure which I think Lindelof couldn't make mushy. Here, I felt he brought simply what he was good at to Prometheus - character, but not cheap emoticons. Shaw is a much more appealing and unusual character to me in the final film in that she is the anti-Ripley - willowy, seemingly frail at first, quietly spiritual and almost like a schoolteacher - and David is far more ambiguous and fascinating as opposed to the Spaihts script; there's also a lot to be said for and with Janek and Vickers. And that's Lindelof. For as much as I detest the Bad Robot machine, I admire a lot of his work here. And his work dovetailed with Spaihts' grand, glittering ideas.
The film is flawed (though I did, admittedly, love it), and could be even more than it was. But I don't know if you could've had simply one or the other. I do hope - and expect - that more of Spaihts' ideas will be reused in the future.
If this is legit then the problems with the film are right here in Lindelof's script. Some things are better, but overall the dumbness that was Prometheus is rooted in this screenplay. Apart from the Alien Engineers idea - that was that other guy.
"Because it is what I CHOOSE to BELIEVE"
I like this Weyland better than movie Weyland. He seemed way less dickish.
The entire approach to both scripts, for me, is wrong. They both have done a serviceable job here. It's just the details of the story that I find supremely lacking. I suspect this is mostly on Scott's head. We know that both writer's worked heavily with him on their scripts. We also know from the interviews and the extras crap on the BluRay, that Ridley was driving the buss. I honestly find this movie to be equal parts Alien3 and 4. I think it lacks the intelligence and simplicity of the first two. One think that struck me was how powerful the full TED speech was. It establishes character, tone, and much of the story yet to come. It should have been at the beginning of the movie instead of the sacrifice scene. It was too on the nose. It was too CSI. It was too early to reveal the big blue men. It should have gone straight from the full speach to David watching it on a monitor, then the David stuff. Get rid of the retread of the AVP assembly scene it's dull and adds nothing in the way of character set up.
We don't even know whether this is legitimate, and even if it is, where it fits into the production. I find it hard to believe that the whole finding evidence of terraforming and then taking off of the helmets scene was impromptu.
Quote from: DestinyCapt on Nov 15, 2012, 05:47:36 AM
The sacrifice scene. It was too on the nose. It was too CSI. It was too early to reveal the big blue men. It should have gone straight from the full speach to David watching it on a monitor, then the David stuff. Get rid of the retread of the AVP assembly scene it's dull and adds nothing in the way of character set up.
The modern-bullshit CSI aspects of this movie bother me greatly. They were in Spaihts' draft aswell.
Anyway this wasn't/isn't/will never be the ALIEN movie I want to see.
I think if Damon Lindelof put as much effort into his writing and coming up with whacked out ideas as he does being a crafty marketing and P.R man, then his work would probably be significantly better.
Good lord I'm beginning to agree about the CAPS. I haven't read as many scripts as some here, but I can't even read the first page without being buried in it.
It quickly makes the emphasis lose meaning, especially as he seems to use it to emphasize all kinds of different things.. physical aspects, emotion, and even concepts... like this for example:
QuoteNOW A WRINKLED HAND enters frame, TREMBLING slightly as it
taps the PAD, turning it OFF and SMASHING US BACK TO:
Why? Why capitalize PAD and OFF? Or the 'NOW A WRINKLED HAND?' Unfortunately for me, it reflects the simplicity and heavy-handedness of the film in trying to get things across. Not naturally, but forced. I've read much better scripts, both in their dialogue and narrative as well as writing style. The caps and sound effects and lack of any real depth rather than saying '
THIS HAS DEPTH' just seem amateur to me.
Intentional or not, I think the title of this thread has the best, BEST pun on Damon's name we have yet.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Nov 15, 2012, 05:41:19 PM
Intentional or not, I think the title of this thread has the best, BEST pun on Damon's name we have yet.
IGG NOTH ..
DAEEMON HAER!Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fedu.glogster.com%2Fmedia%2F10%2F44%2F98%2F63%2F44986349.jpg&hash=113ada35934177f227de9ec7713c24fcf137e236)
Now you will never know if it was unintentional or not.
Spoiler
:laugh: Fantastic.
I don't get it, I'm not a very subtle person, can someone spell it out for me? Seriously.
Quote from: ikarop on Nov 15, 2012, 07:03:27 PM
Now you will never know if it was unintentional or not.
Spoiler
The ambiguity... classic Lindelof!
Such mystery!WHAT DOES IT MEEEEAANNN?!?!
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 15, 2012, 07:29:46 PM
I don't get it, I'm not a very subtle person, can someone spell it out for me? Seriously.
Title was mispelled as 'Daemon Lindelof'. Corrected now.
Late to the party, but as someone who has written scripts, I'd agree completely with SM on the issue of capitals. They're meant to be used to introduce specific new characters or objects. Things like that. Here, they're massively over-used.
And when it comes to prose, less can often be more.
This is pretty much useless as it doesn't seem to be the final draft, not to mention there is no confirmation it is real. The last shooting script,that is the one we need
Quote from: zuzuki on Nov 16, 2012, 01:39:36 PM
This is pretty much useless as it doesn't seem to be the final draft, not to mention there is no confirmation it is real. The last shooting script,that is the one we need
I'd say the opposite. Around 90% of the dialogue and action seen on screen appears in this script. Even the elements that aren't in the film (Shaw running over Fifield, the mulitple Engineer's beginning, the alternative design of the Hammerpede) are things we already knew about.
I'd be more interested to read his 160 page script.
^^^ that was the fake one that leaked a couple of days ago.
But seeing this isn't the final draft we still don't know what exactly was cut from the final movie,what was re-arranged. that's what i'm interested in, not if this version matches the movie
some bad writers have some good work and some good writers have some bad work.
A director just has to do the best he can with either. BUT HE SHOULD NEVER get involved with the editing. I love ridley scott films. 8 of his films are on my top 25 with 3 of them in my top 10 and 2 of them in my top 5. But watching him standing over the brilliant editor telling him to cut this and that in the making just made me mad.
But I'm still happy with prometheus. Love the film and have watched it many times. never get tired of it
Quote from: zuzuki on Nov 16, 2012, 04:59:25 PM
^^^ that was the fake one that leaked a couple of days ago.
But seeing this isn't the final draft we still don't know what exactly was cut from the final movie,what was re-arranged. that's what i'm interested in, not if this version matches the movie
Ah, so is the script that started this thread proven to be a fake?
SMASH to X
This looks like the final draft to me, I can see why they cut some scenes, also the dream scene with Weyland makes casting a young man make sense.
Overall I felt this script was slightly better than the film we got, I liked how David started chatting to the engineer and ignored Weyland. The create Shaw birthed also sounded a lot less like a squid, and I like the fact it was still trapped in the med pod not retardly big.
Quote from: BAD_ASS_MOFO on Nov 16, 2012, 05:16:46 PM
some bad writers have some good work and some good writers have some bad work.
A director just has to do the best he can with either. BUT HE SHOULD NEVER get involved with the editing. I love ridley scott films. 8 of his films are on my top 25 with 3 of them in my top 10 and 2 of them in my top 5. But watching him standing over the brilliant editor telling him to cut this and that in the making just made me mad.
But I'm still happy with prometheus. Love the film and have watched it many times. never get tired of it
A director being prescriptive about or being directly involved in the editing process is common practise. Otherwise an editor could turn out a completely different movie to the one the director shot. :)
I'm finding the script impossible to read due to the writing style.
Quote from: Virgil on Nov 16, 2012, 05:44:31 PM
Quote from: zuzuki on Nov 16, 2012, 04:59:25 PM
^^^ that was the fake one that leaked a couple of days ago.
But seeing this isn't the final draft we still don't know what exactly was cut from the final movie,what was re-arranged. that's what i'm interested in, not if this version matches the movie
Ah, so is the script that started this thread proven to be a fake?
The ones with all the grammar problems and ''our lord' shit was fake
Quote from: Xenoscream on Nov 17, 2012, 10:19:50 AM
SMASH to X
This looks like the final draft to me, I can see why they cut some scenes, also the dream scene with Weyland makes casting a young man make sense.
Overall I felt this script was slightly better than the film we got, I liked how David started chatting to the engineer and ignored Weyland. The create Shaw birthed also sounded a lot less like a squid, and I like the fact it was still trapped in the med pod not retardly big.
This version doesn't have the giant head in the ampoule room and the giant mural with the deacon.
I quite like the placement of the urns in the ampoule room in this version. I think they changed it in the film just for estetic reasons, to look more like the eggs placement in Alien
Damon Lindelof confirms it's real via his Twitter:
"For those curious... Yes, the "Paradise" script that got posted this week on Collider is indeed my early draft of PROMETHEUS."
Just had a look at the first few pages and ... why the need to CAPITALISE and UNDERLINE all the time? It's kinda childish looking.
There isn't.
But let's start another discussion on it, the first two pages of this thread weren't enough. :P
Quote from: SiL on Nov 18, 2012, 01:24:35 AM
There isn't.
But let's start another discussion on it, the first two pages of this thread weren't enough. :P
I'm way behind :laugh:
Just getting through it. Almost all of the main characters are described as being sexy or handsome :P (Vickers is also "pretty TOUGH SHIT")
The caps lock is just action or acting cues. After the first few pages I tuned them out. Actually I think it is an effective way to get the point across to a director on what you want out of the script. I've seen a few scripts written like this before.
Beyond that, I am enjoying this. Far better then the spaiht idea, and some nice changes from the movie. Kinda wish the theatre version was closer to this version, some very nice details were edited.
Just finished. Damn that was horrendously written.
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:29:45 AM
Just finished. Damn that was horrendously written.
Not perfect but better then the shitty dark horse comic that was alien engineers.
Quote from: fiveways on Nov 18, 2012, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:29:45 AM
Just finished. Damn that was horrendously written.
Not perfect but better then the shitty dark horse comic that was alien engineers.
I think they were both really bad. Lindelof's read like a randy highschooler's. Shaw and Holloway's love scene? "they PULL EACH OTHER'S CLOTHES OFF -- GODDAMN IT IS HOT." One of Weyland's dream escorts? "A STUNNING WOMAN IN AN EQUALLY STUNNING BIKINI ... everything about her just oozes SEX". I can't believe the cast read this with a straight face.
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:29:45 AM
Just finished. Damn that was horrendously written.
I'm with this guy.
I doubt this is what the cast read. This was just a draft. By the time they started casting quite a few things had changed already.
The title changed. Magellan was turned into the Prometheus, some dialogue and scenes were switched up. Vickers isnt Weyland's daughter in this script. Etc...
And the final script was probably rewritten to be less "Caps-Lock"-y. :laugh:
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 01:19:49 AM
Just had a look at the first few pages and ... why the need to CAPITALISE and UNDERLINE all the time? It's kinda childish looking.
You have to picture the film. It's very difficult to position a film of this size without doing so.
Spaihts did fine.
Caps or no caps, it's the same movie, and it is awful. Spaihts came up with the bullshit premise, but Lindelof took it to new heights of stupidity. This leak proves that Lindelof deserves every single bit of stick that he gets in regards to this film, and that Scott and co. deserve double so for running with it.
And the moaning begins again, now because of caps lock use and underlining and sexy stuff. It's a early draft, it's not meant to be complete, but a work in progress. It's not meant for the actors, for the producing crew. It's just one of the drafts that got pushed back and forward between Ridley and him when they were ironing shit out. I imagine the final draft, the shooting script was looking different than this, and that is the one we should wait for. This has no value right now, only shows us on stage in the script making progress
Quote from: Disendor on Nov 18, 2012, 06:27:07 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 01:19:49 AM
Just had a look at the first few pages and ... why the need to CAPITALISE and UNDERLINE all the time? It's kinda childish looking.
You have to picture the film. It's very difficult to position a film of this size without doing so.
It's very easy to do so. You use the full breadth of language. I'm a literature student; I've been able to picture grander things conveyed to me by novels (and even other scripts) without the formatting being outrageous.
Quote from: zuzuki on Nov 18, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
And the moaning begins again, now because of caps lock use and underlining and sexy stuff. It's a early draft, it's not meant to be complete, but a work in progress. It's not meant for the actors, for the producing crew. It's just one of the drafts that got pushed back and forward between Ridley and him when they were ironing shit out. I imagine the final draft, the shooting script was looking different than this, and that is the one we should wait for. This has no value right now, only shows us on stage in the script making progress
It sounds like you're doing a lot of assuming. It seems very close to a final draft (not saying it is
the final script). All that needs changed is the shifting of one dialogue scene, a change of name for the Magellan, and the insertion of Vickers' and Weyland's father/daughter talk and you essentially have Prometheus as we watched it. This script is actually closer to the film than Alien's shooting draft was (the 'final draft' of Alien you can read online or in print was amended December '78 -
after filming).
Either way, I'm approaching the script on its own merit - and it's awfully written.
And before anyone starts the 'haters gonna hate' crap, I
like Prometheus.
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Either way, I'm approaching the script on its own merit - and it's awfully written.
And before anyone starts the 'haters gonna hate' crap, I like Prometheus.
I agree. I too like Prometheus and comparing the final film to Spaiht's draft I think it was the right direction to go in (though still in need of work). However, Lindelof's script is just close to unreadable due to it's writing style and reliance on audience guesswork. Everytime he went on to tell the reader what they should be feeling at a certain plot point I wanted to stop (and did at a few points). It's just not a well written script at all. Spaiht's script on the other hand is very well written, though I think it could have actually made a much lesser film.
Quote from: Gazz on Nov 18, 2012, 03:28:21 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Either way, I'm approaching the script on its own merit - and it's awfully written.
And before anyone starts the 'haters gonna hate' crap, I like Prometheus.
I agree. I too like Prometheus and comparing the final film to Spaiht's draft I think it was the right direction to go in (though still in need of work). However, Lindelof's script is just close to unreadable due to it's writing style and reliance on audience guesswork. Everytime he went on to tell the reader what they should be feeling at a certain plot point I wanted to stop (and did at a few points). It's just not a well written script at all. Spaiht's script on the other hand is very well written, though I think it could have actually made a much lesser film.
Agree completely. Lindelof - right direction, bad writer. Spaihts - derivative work, but a better writer. Lindelof telegraphs everything, he's the worst kind of 'tell' writer. We should be grateful that he's at least not a novelist.
I find the script irritating to read, but I think it is about as irritating as I find this Lindelof character anyway.
Lindelof's quote is three-hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. He can do -- and write -- whatever he so chooses.
Quote from: Disendor on Nov 18, 2012, 06:18:38 PM
Lindelof's quote is three-hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars. He can do -- and write -- whatever he so chooses.
How much he's paid has no bearing on how good a writer he is.
Who said that it was? Take only one glance at some of his Lost episodes -- solo written -- to see his talent. A great prose writer? Perhaps not, but he is a better screenwriter. There is a difference.
QuoteWho said that it was?
I assumed your rather off topic comment about how Damon Lindelof's paycheck gives him the ability to writer whatever he wants was intended to have a bearing on the current conversation (the quality of writing in the Prometheus script). Happy to see it doesn't.
In Hollywood, it does. He is -- or was, as he's returning to television -- one of the most highly paid writers. There is a reason for this.
I'm sure Paul WS Anderson picks up a pretty penny for his "screenplays". Because he convinced a Hollywood producer of his worth doesn't mean his films or scripts have much worth to me.
I like Prometheus and think Lindelof's script made for an alright film. However, his script makes for a hard read and I've read enough of them to know the information could have been communicated in a much easier and less brain scrambling way even for Hollywood's standards.
I do think Lindelof is a very good storyteller. My problem with him is his endings at times. The ending to Lost maddened me. I was fine with the ending to Prometheus, but I give credit to Ridley Scott for making that work. Lindelof creates a lot of intriguing loose ends, and doesn't see the need to wrap them up, or at least wrap them up in a satisfying way.
^^ I love the ending to Lost :P it was expected and everyone knew that was coming but it had never been done before. well actually it has. a little unknown film named "Purgatory" which is a fantastic small indie film . watch it if you get the chance man :)
So we learned this was an "Early" draft. why not release the final draft? and why not release footage that they never bothered putting into deleted scenes? or does his final draft contain some spoiler elements that they want to focus on for the sequel?
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:49:55 PM
Quote from: Gazz on Nov 18, 2012, 03:28:21 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 18, 2012, 03:04:34 PM
Either way, I'm approaching the script on its own merit - and it's awfully written.
And before anyone starts the 'haters gonna hate' crap, I like Prometheus.
I agree. I too like Prometheus and comparing the final film to Spaiht's draft I think it was the right direction to go in (though still in need of work). However, Lindelof's script is just close to unreadable due to it's writing style and reliance on audience guesswork. Everytime he went on to tell the reader what they should be feeling at a certain plot point I wanted to stop (and did at a few points). It's just not a well written script at all. Spaiht's script on the other hand is very well written, though I think it could have actually made a much lesser film.
Agree completely. Lindelof - right direction, bad writer. Spaihts - derivative work, but a better writer. Lindelof telegraphs everything, he's the worst kind of 'tell' writer. We should be grateful that he's at least not a novelist.
Lindelof characterization was way better, as was his dialog. Spaihts David was beyond awful. Each there own.
I know it's been said before but dear Engineers! Can you possibly spam the caps lock more than this guy?
"BRIGHTNESS. So sudden it HURTS our eyes..." That's not even an action bit, just a descriptive phrase!
Quote from: fiveways on Nov 19, 2012, 12:12:39 PM
Lindelof characterization was way better, as was his dialog. Spaihts David was beyond awful. Each there own.
Lindelof's David was better. As for his characterisation I'm not sure what he really added beyond radically altering Holloway into a douche.
I liked Holloway and Watts in Spaihts' draft. Lindelof's made them unlikable.
I preferred Lindelof's characters, aside from the 'deleted scenes Holloway'.
I found them boring in the Spaiths script.
I like what Lindelof did with David, he definitely made him better. But he turned Holloway into a douche (for the kids) and made Watts into a Christian (major face palm). I actually really didn't like Shaw's character. Her "because it's what I choose to believe" line was so bloody cringey. Oh Lindelof, will they ever stop hiring you you silly P.R Marketing Whore Nerd.
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 19, 2012, 11:57:26 PMI like what Lindelof did with David, he definitely made him better. But he turned Holloway into a douche (for the kids) and made Watts into a Christian (major face palm). I actually really didn't like Shaw's character. Her "because it's what I choose to believe" line was so bloody cringey. Oh Lindelof, will they ever stop hiring you you silly P.R Marketing Whore Nerd.
I agree with a part of what you say, except for hating Shaw to be a Christian. I mean, I don't like the character either, but in my case is because of her boring personality. A character has not to be bad only for being a religious, that is kind of interesting, actually.
I think it's because she reminded me of an ignorant creationist. "I believe the earth is 6000 years old, It's what I choose to believe".
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 20, 2012, 12:15:47 AM
"It's what I choose to believe".
I agree. Of all the instances of bad or nonsensical dialogue that occurs in Prometheus, that statement by Shaw was absolutely atrocious, outright laughable, and takes the prize.
The problem here isn't that a scientist can't also be a person of Faith (because they most certainly can). The problem is that a serious scientist wouldn't offer up such a statement, in order to support a trillion dollar expedition. They would make a detailed case, supported by solid arguments and evidence, to motivate the pursuit of a scientific endeavor of such magnitude.
Instead, Lindelof gives Shaw this ridiculous line, as a juvenille short-cut for introducing into the film the "big question" of faith and science. Instead of investing just a bit of time in exploring Shaw's character, and how she might reconcile her Faith with her science...BOOM, like a shot out of the blue, Shaw's character is immediately trivialized.
It's like Lindelof (and Scott) thought:
"Let's give her a single line to show that she makes major judgements based upon non-scientific reasoning, and later we will tear it apart, and make her question everything she previously held on faith".
Except, they never really do that.
It's a bullshit line, because it isn't earned. No work was put into actual character development, nor is the promise of exploring "big questions and ideas" ever fullfilled.
Don't ever recall having an issue with that line.
Her science has lead her to believe that answers can be found on LV-223 (2+2+3=7 - The number of spiritual perfection in Christian numerology; just ask Black Francis).
She convinced Weyland to fund it.
Dunno why it's an issue.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 02:03:28 AM
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 20, 2012, 12:15:47 AM
"It's what I choose to believe".
It's a bullshit line, because it isn't earned. No work was put into actual character development, nor is the promise of exploring "big questions and ideas" ever fullfilled.
No they had that really really good dream sequence. That was my favorite part of the movie for sure. It was so nicely shot and the acting was really good.
Well, I think Shaw has a valid point. The Spaiths script did better explaining the faith thing, when people talking about the Engineers who designed us and refer to them as gods, someone says "hey, they could be 'gods', but they're not THE God".
Pretty understandable to me, yes, Engineers made us, but who made THEM?
The notion of God is still debatible in the Prometheus universe.
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 20, 2012, 02:18:44 AM
No they had that really really good dream sequence. That was my favorite part of the movie for sure. It was so nicely shot and the acting was really good.
LOL. You are right. I must have subconsciouly edited that out of my memory because it was so traumatically terrible. Just love how Shaw dreams in a third person perspective.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 02:34:53 AMLOL. You are right. I must have subconsciouly edited that out of my memory because it was so traumatically terrible. Just love how Shaw dreams in a third person perspective.
I've been following your comments, and they're basically: If I didn't notice/remember/understand something, that's because the movie sucked.
You should be more humble and recognize you have errors as viewer, instead of blaming the movie for everthing.
Just saying .__. I actually like you.
Quote from: Magegg on Nov 20, 2012, 02:41:23 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 02:34:53 AMLOL. You are right. I must have subconsciouly edited that out of my memory because it was so traumatically terrible. Just love how Shaw dreams in a third person perspective.
I've been following your comments, and they're basically: If I didn't notice/remember/understand something, that's because the movie sucked.
You should be more humble and recognize you have errors as viewer, instead of blaming the movie for everthing.
Just saying .__. I actually like you.
Magegg...I was joking. Of course I remebered the dream sequence. I didn't reference it in my earlier post, because the dream sequence does absolutely nothing to support Shaw's character in uttering such a simplistic statement, in front of her peers, as justification for the entire expedition. She provides no evidence that the engineers created us, and when challenged, offers the explanation "because that is what I choose to believe".
IMHO, the only reason for this line of dialogue, is to establish Shaw's character and judgement system in one ridiculous brush stroke. If this isn't an example of lazy (incompetent?) screenwriting, I don't know what is.
She doesn't need to justify the expedition to anyone but Weyland. And she was successful.
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 03:04:56 AM
She doesn't need to justify the expedition to anyone but Weyland. And she was successful.
Then, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
I can almost see Weyland's decision making process:
"Hmmm, let's see, we got this scientist who claims that space aliens created us...she has absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion, but she believes it. f**k it, let's spend a trillion dollars, hire a bunch of incompetents, go traipsing across the galaxy, and see if she is right"
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AMThen, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
He got old, delusional and senile.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 03:04:56 AM
She doesn't need to justify the expedition to anyone but Weyland. And she was successful.
Then, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
Obviously not, since Shaw was pretty much right as seen in the movie Prometheus.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Nov 20, 2012, 03:17:10 AMObviously not, since Shaw was pretty much right as seen in the movie Prometheus.
Not so - Shaw was wrong and many people, including Weyland, died for it.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 20, 2012, 03:27:06 AM
Quote from: ShadowPred on Nov 20, 2012, 03:17:10 AMObviously not, since Shaw was pretty much right as seen in the movie Prometheus.
Not so - Shaw was wrong and many people, including Weyland, died for it.
She wasn't completely wrong is what I was getting at. Weyland took a gamble on Shaw believing that the Engineers would be up there and possibly had created us...she was right on those two counts.
Quote from: Magegg on Nov 20, 2012, 03:16:59 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AMThen, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
He got old, delusional and senile.
He sure did.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffilmireland.net%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fridley_scott_1543382c.jpg&hash=efd091b58b8e5e8c18dc6b3fb8c9f3e380b65280)(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20121006110014%2Falienanthology%2Fimages%2F0%2F0e%2FPeter_Weyland.jpg&hash=bad10bc1f6d43cc33c96b15ae5a7b92e90fcd9f2)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.contactmusic.com%2Fpics%2Fmb%2Fbody_of_lies_premiere_061108%2Fridley_scott_2158646.jpg&hash=9572515c0ffb91f2ac9108c888a12605d1e80d31)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-YYdtAaiv6nw%2FT9TRKGcjg8I%2FAAAAAAAAAac%2F-T_hu_sT1W4%2Fs1600%2Fjockey2.png&hash=d224751572b4de60aad05db1c71a000b163de3e9)
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 20, 2012, 03:27:06 AM
Quote from: ShadowPred on Nov 20, 2012, 03:17:10 AMObviously not, since Shaw was pretty much right as seen in the movie Prometheus.
Not so - Shaw was wrong and many people, including Weyland, died for it.
She was only wrong about the Engineers motives.
All the stuff about a super race of engineers who created life and left behind signposts to find them - spot on. The scientific work Shaw and Holloway did was enough to convince Weyland to mount a mission.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 03:04:56 AM
She doesn't need to justify the expedition to anyone but Weyland. And she was successful.
Then, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
I can almost see Weyland's decision making process:
"Hmmm, let's see, we got this scientist who claims that space aliens created us...she has absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion, but she believes it. f**k it, let's spend a trillion dollars, hire a bunch of incompetents, go traipsing across the galaxy, and she if she is right"
Well there's a well considered response if ever there was one...
Quote from: Magegg on Nov 20, 2012, 03:16:59 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AMThen, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
He got old, delusional and senile.
Magegg, that is certainly a plausible explanation for Weyland making such an irresponsible decision.
However, it doesn't explain why Shaw would offer such a flippant explanation to her scientific peers. It just doesn't work, and doesn't ring true (IMHO), because professional people (most especially scientists) do not behave this way in real life.
Would it be too much to ask of the writers, to put in just a little work, and give Shaw a few minutes to explain to her colleagues (and most importantly, us, the audience) the line of critical reasoning and physical evidence used to support a theory that the engineers were our creators. Forget about the heiroglyphs/carvings/cave paintings all depicting the same star map. While those would certainly raise interesting questions...how exactly would these support a theory that space aliens were our creators. Is that a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from such evidence?
If the writer(s) really wanted to earn our suspension of disbelief...f**k, all they had to do was have the cave paintings also contain a simplified, but unambiguous depiction of the structure of the DNA molecule. At least that might offer some support that such beings were familiar (and possibly somehow involved) with terrestrial biology. Obviously, our ancient ancestors who made the paintings wouldn't understand it...but we would, and wasn't that the whole point?
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 04:09:11 AM
Quote from: Magegg on Nov 20, 2012, 03:16:59 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AMThen, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
He got old, delusional and senile.
Magegg, that is certainly a plausible explanation for Weyland making such an irresponsible decision.
However, it doesn't explain why Shaw would offer such a flippant explanation to her scientific peers. It just doesn't work, and doesn't ring true (IMHO), because professional people (most especially scientists) do not behave this way in real life.
Would it be too much to ask of the writers, to put in just a little work, and give Shaw a few minutes to explain to her colleagues (and most importantly, us, the audience) the line of critical reasoning and physical evidence used to support a theory that the engineers were our creators. Forget about the heiroglyphs/carvings/cave paintings. While those would certainly raise interesting questions...how exactly would these support a theory that space aliens were our creators. Is that a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from such evidence?
If the writer(s) really wanted to earn our suspension of disbelief...f**k, all they had to do was have the cave paintings also contain a simplified, but unambiguous depiction of the structure of the DNA molecule. At least that might offer some support that such beings were familiar (and possibly somehow involved) with terrestrial biology. Obviously, our ancient ancestors who made the paintings wouldn't understand it...but we would, and wasn't that the whole point?
I agree entirely :D
Quote from: ShadowPred on Nov 20, 2012, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 03:04:56 AM
She doesn't need to justify the expedition to anyone but Weyland. And she was successful.
Then, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
Obviously not, since Shaw was pretty much right as seen in the movie Prometheus.
Aren't you thinking backwards, here? The entire premise of the movie hinges on her being right (we walked into the theatre knowing this) but it doesn't make it any more believable considering how it was done. And Shaw being right at the end doesn't make Weyland's decision at the beginning any less of a stretch.
*Whoops, I clicked on MODIFY by accident.*
I still side with Vickers. She's the only one who speaks any sense in the first half.
If you're old, want more life, answers, whatever, and have limitless funds - why not mount this sort of expedition?
Because you don't have limitless time.
Spaihts does it better by having Watts and Holloway actually present their data. They have a pretty good reason for believing what they do. All we ever get from Shaw in the movie is her self-righteous horseshit based on some cave paintings and we're expected to just go with it.
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 20, 2012, 05:18:39 AM
Quote from: ShadowPred on Nov 20, 2012, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 03:15:20 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 03:04:56 AM
She doesn't need to justify the expedition to anyone but Weyland. And she was successful.
Then, the character of Weyland, a man with the intellect and critical reasoning sufficient to build a corporate empire without parallel, is apparently just as stupid as everyone else on the team.
Obviously not, since Shaw was pretty much right as seen in the movie Prometheus.
Aren't you thinking backwards, here? The entire premise of the movie hinges on her being right (we walked into the theatre knowing this) but it doesn't make it any more believable considering how it was done. And Shaw being right at the end doesn't make Weyland's decision at the beginning any less of a stretch.
Her being right in the end is what makes me say that Weyland wasn't stupid for making the decision to mount the expedition.
"Bigfoot's out there. Gimme a million dollars to find him."
"How do you know he's there?"
"Grainy-ass footage and a footprint."
"How do you know it's real?"
"It's what I choose to believe."
"Well shit, I'm sold. Here's two million, I'll grab my coat."
Quote from: ShadowPred on Nov 20, 2012, 05:34:00 AM
Her being right in the end is what makes me say that Weyland wasn't stupid for making the decision to mount the expedition.
The decision, looking at the evidence on which it was based, was still rash, no matter the consequences. Like I said, I much preferred Spaihts' take on her evidence. It was more than a hunch, it was something that could be verifiable without ever leaving Earth's orbit. And he did verify it. And then all of that was gone and to plug it up we're simply told he was a "superstitious man," which makes him seem all the more foolish. The decision making process, no matter the results, will always be rash, and maybe stupid, because of the premises the decision was made on. Luckily for Peter, Shaw was right, so he didn't end up with egg on his face (just an egg-sized lump and bruise :P)
QuoteBecause you don't have limitless time.
So do something to try and answer those questions you have in the time you have left.
Helps if you invented hypersleep.
I just figured it was a given that whatever they gave to Weyland was sufficient. And Vickers was the opposing "I think you guys are full of shit" sceptical side to balance out Weyland's 'faith'.
Bugger what she gives someone off-screen, it's what she gives the audience that counts.
In Spaihts' draft Shaw and Holloway were scientists. In Lindelof's draft they were a couple of mods from answersingenesis.org.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 20, 2012, 06:40:59 AM
Bugger what she gives someone off-screen, it's what she gives the audience that counts.
I dunno. They're about to land already. It was settled to Weylands satisfaction - even if he took it on faith - years earlier.
I don't see an any problem with Shaw's stance whatsoever. Weyland's gullibility may be more in question, but again we have Vickers to provide the opposing viewpoint.
There are problems in this flick, but I don't see this as one of them.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 04:09:11 AMForget about the heiroglyphs/carvings/cave paintings all depicting the same star map. While those would certainly raise interesting questions...how exactly would these support a theory that space aliens were our creators. Is that a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from such evidence?
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing while watching the movie. Sure, I can see how they would consider that proof of alien visitors, but where did the "aliens created us" idea come from? It would have been nice with a scene explaining some of that. :-\
And alas, another ridiculous plot hole.
I remember a cool part in Spaihts' screenplay where they are on the deck of the ship on the ocean and they are frantically moving around examining evidence and the audience is watching them as they conclude their finding of the star map. It would make for a a more interesting scene. Instead we got a douche bag in a badly lit room moving around shitty looking minority report holograms after doctor evil and his dog had just walked around the set, IN 3D MAAAAAAAN.
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 20, 2012, 12:58:14 PM
And alas, another ridiculous plot hole.
I remember a cool part in Spaihts' screenplay where they are on the deck of the ship on the ocean and they are frantically moving around examining evidence and the audience is watching them as they conclude their finding of the star map. It would make for a a more interesting scene. Instead we got a douche bag in a badly lit room moving around shitty looking minority report holograms after doctor evil and his dog had just walked around the set, IN 3D MAAAAAAAN.
I much prefer Spaihts' take on the evidence gathering and the conclusions drawn. It's obviously a more detailed and comprehensive data set in which to mount an expedition. But, the Lindelof version didn't cause me to really halt in my tracks and say WTF. We only see one dig in the movie, but they've obviously done much more research since they have a bunch of different tablets to display.
The "proof" part in Lendelofs' script is the part where they say that the stars displayed on the tablets match one location that can not be seen from earth. In my mind this points to knowledge outside of human capabilities, and removes most of the possibility of random chance.
But after that point it quickly falls apart for me.
Shaws proclamation that they engineered us because it's what she chooses to believe was a WTF moment. I can't think of a more pretentious statement. I would have much prefered that they simply call it evidence for visitations from avanced beings, and then later in the movie discover we share a large portion of DNA either from direct manipulation or a common ancestor.
For me the ancient glyph tablets in Lindelofs script currently represent huge plot holes that need to be explained in a sequel. Why are they pointing to LV-223 since the Engineers "liked" us at the time the tablets were created. It's like telling your friends to go somewhere dangerous. Also, why are some tablets dated hundreds of years after the outbreak on LV-223 (when they wanted us dead). A good writer could turn these holes into some very interesting sublots, or they could just be ignored and not explained which would really piss me off :)
IMO, the scene is good as it is. It conveys the important first act exposition nice and simple, in the cinematic fashion, along with setting up the characters.
The "on the nose" data presentation you guys wish does not add anything to the story.
Plus, both scripts that leaked are apparently work in progress, which haven't been rewritten.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Nov 20, 2012, 02:34:20 PMThe "proof" part in Lendelofs' script is the part where they say that the stars displayed on the tablets match one location that can not be seen from earth.
f**k.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 20, 2012, 03:39:34 PM
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Nov 20, 2012, 02:34:20 PMThe "proof" part in Lendelofs' script is the part where they say that the stars displayed on the tablets match one location that can not be seen from earth.
f**k.
Not sure what your F**King about. If you don't agree with my opinion just say so. The quotes around the word "proof" are meant to show that the word has a different meaning than the dictionary entry. The proof is a guess on their part.
It's allways useful to remember that Lindelof helped write Cowboys and Aliens.... the film where aliens come to earth to steal our "gold".
lol
Dude just cant write science fiction. Nor finish a story properly. Nor handle exposition. Ugh.
He really took a dump on Spaihts draft. :/
Quote from: Blacklabel on Nov 20, 2012, 04:31:03 PM
He REALLY took a DUMP on SPAIHTS DRAFT. :/
Let me fix that for you. ;)
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Nov 20, 2012, 02:34:20 PM
The "proof" part in Lendelofs' script is the part where they say that the stars displayed on the tablets match one location that can not be seen from earth. In my mind this points to knowledge outside of human capabilities, and removes most of the possibility of random chance.
Hi Mustanjeff,
A few comments...
A) It doesn't matter what may or may not exist in a script...the issue at hand is the content and coherence of the actual film, as released.
B) Notwithstanding the singular importance and priority of comment "A", the line of script dialogue you cite, adds absolutely nothing to the topic at hand. The fact that there exists (in the film) evidence of identical "star maps" throughout history, by civilizations who would have no contact, and no possibility to influence or share the information, implies some causitive agent which is at least provisionally unexplainable and mysterious.
The existence of an unknown, advanced intelligent agency, which was in independent contact with multiple ancient civilizations throughout history...is certainly
one possible hypothesis to explain this mysterious evidence. That is in the film.
What is not in the film, is any explanation as to how a conclusion that space aliens were our creators could be drawn from such evidence.
NOTE: I recognize you have a problem with this, as well, from your prior post...even as it exists in Lindelof's script. So, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just focusing on the specific scene in the film, and Shaw's behavior/dialogue, which is the responsibility of the writers/director.
C) Notwithstanding both "A" and "B", my actual problem is the motivation by Shaw to flippantly declare "because that is what I choose to believe" as an explanation, to her friggin' scientific peers and colleagues no less, for a hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence. As I stated previously, it is not something a professional person would do. This rings false, and trivializes her character. It is just one of a myriad of problems that exists with this film, in terms of unrealistic and irrational character behavior and decisions.
Edit: What makes this scene stick out as a particular sore point for me, personally, is because it so easily could have been fixed. See my previous post. As I wrote that earlier reply, it took my all of a minute to come up with the idea of adding a representation of the DNA molecule into the cave paintings. And, I am certainly not implying I am anyone special. So what does that say about professional writer(s), a director, and probably a few other individuals, with months to develop ideas, review and consider, before commiting to shooting a film? Heck, they could have even realized they had some problems after the "final day of shooting", and added some pick-up shots. I guess it bugs me so much, because there is really no excuse for this, and the many other problems that exist with the film.
My point in citing the dialogue that I mentioned was to simply compare the scientific evidence portion of the two scripts. I was also giving my opinion to another members post that I prefer Spaihts more comprehensive/plausible description of the findings, but the Lindelof version didn't give me issues up to the point that Shaw started talking.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 20, 2012, 05:39:23 PM
Edit: What makes this scene stick out as a particular sore point for me, personally, is because it so easily could have been fixed. See my previous post. As I wrote that earlier reply, it took my all of a minute to come up with the idea of adding a representation of the DNA molecule into the cave paintings. And, I am certainly not implying I am anyone special. So what does that say about professional writer(s), a director, and probably a few other individuals, with months to develop ideas, review and consider, before commiting to shooting a film? Heck, they could have even realized they had some problems after the "final day of shooting", and added some pick-up shots. I guess it bugs me so much, because there is really no excuse for this, and the many other problems that exist with the film.
The problem is I could do this for virtually every film I deem 'not perfect'. It's really about what works (or doesn't work) in context of the movie. I agree that within
Prometheus there is no hard scientific explanation for why Shaw/Weyland believe the Engineers to be the literal creators of human kind... outside of a theory and wishful thinking. However, I don't believe that such an explanation is needed within the context of a movie that simply wants to get the protagonists from A to B as quickly as possible. And remember the audience is already privy to the Engineers engineering life (as per start of the movie)... so from a narrative POV, the audience do not need to be convinced that Shaw's/Holloway's theory is correct by additional exposition/dialogue.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Nov 20, 2012, 07:00:01 PM
My point in citing the dialogue that I mentioned was to simply compare the scientific evidence portion of the two scripts. I was also giving my opinion to another members post that I prefer Spaihts more comprehensive/plausible description of the findings, but the Lindelof version didn't give me issues up to the point that Shaw started talking.
Got it. And thank you, you've given me an incentive to read both of the scripts so I can see the differences, and evolution of the story from Spaihts ==> Lindelof ==> Final shooting script and film.
Cheers, mate.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Nov 20, 2012, 07:13:36 PM
The problem is I could do this for virtually every film I deem 'not perfect'. It's really about what works (or doesn't work) in context of the movie. I agree that within Prometheus there is no hard scientific explanation for why Shaw/Weyland believe the Engineers to be the literal creators of human kind... outside of a theory and wishful thinking. However, I don't believe that such an explanation is needed within the context of a movie that simply wants to get the protagonists from A to B as quickly as possible. And remember the audience is already privy to the Engineers engineering life (as per start of the movie)... so from a narrative POV, the audience do not need to be convinced that Shaw's/Holloway's theory is correct by additional exposition/dialogue.
Hi Darth,
I do not necessarily disagree. However, I hope I was clear that the particular scene (and line of dialogue) being discussed, is simply one example of myriad of problems endemic within the film,
IMHO. I was highlighting it as a specific example.
My problems with the film are not limited to bad science, or bad dialogue...it covers the gamet, including irrational and/or unrealistic character behavior, nonsensical events that occur within the narrative, etc.
It is a package deal. ;D ;)
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 20, 2012, 09:59:30 AM
In Spaihts' draft Shaw and Holloway were scientists. In Lindelof's draft they were a couple of mods from answersingenesis.org.
I dont know if this is an actual website or not but that was funny.
Quote from: RagingDragon on Nov 20, 2012, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: Blacklabel on Nov 20, 2012, 04:31:03 PM
He REALLY took a DUMP on SPAIHTS DRAFT. :/
Let me fix that for you. ;)
But didn't Ridley support all of his ideas?
I'll play Devil's advocate with Damon Lindelof.
On one hand, if I was putting together a sci fi film I think you could put him in a room and get a ton of great helpful and interesting ideas from him. I think he would make a terrific creative consultant.
On the other hand, his plotting, story, dialogue and characters are hideous hideous creatures. He should either write something completely nuts and balls out, continuing writing work aimed at teenagers, or stop writing altogether.
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
I dunno.
Considering the amount of complaining, it's clearly an issue.
QuoteI don't see an any problem with Shaw's stance whatsoever.
It's that the entire plot of the movie hinges on someone saying "I have pretty much
nothing but some cave paintings to back this up, but this is what I believe, so I'm right." And then when this nonsense is pointed out, we're expected to side
against the person talking any rational sense. We're expected to go with Shaw and Holloway simply because they're our signposted protagonists, not because they have a leg to stand on.
In scenes like Shaw and Holloway talking to Vickers in her private quarters, usually the Vickers character is supposed to come off as antagonistic because she seems to
lack reason, because the person we're siding with has a logical argument and the other person ignores it out of spite, of arrogance, of ignorance. Instead we're left expected to
dislike the only person with a brain to her.
It's also nowhere near as compelling an argument as the stacks of evidence Watts and Holloway discover in Spaiht's draft, which actually arouses some level of intrigue.
"We found these similar paintings."
And?
"We found these similar paintings that also included alien writing, means to decipher them, and detailed star charts."
Ooh, tell me more.
It's really shitty, lazy writing and I don't see why you're trying to argue it isn't when you of all people should know that it is. We're being
told to sympathise with Shaw, but we're given very little reason to actually do so. Her argument is founded on nothing and she doesn't seem to understand why everyone doesn't just believe her out of hand. She's a shitty scientist and a worse character and we're meant to like her just because she's the one obnoxious character that
doesn't die.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Nov 20, 2012, 04:11:37 PMNot sure what your F**King about.
Not at you mate, just general frustration at how maddeningly dumb Lindelof's "proof" is.
Quote from: tmjhur on Nov 20, 2012, 09:42:10 PMI'll play Devil's advocate with Damon Lindelof. [..] On the other hand, his plotting, story, dialogue and characters are hideous hideous creatures. He should either write something completely nuts and balls out, continuing writing work aimed at teenagers, or stop writing altogether.
You did your best. ;D
Quote from: SiL on Nov 20, 2012, 09:59:55 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
I dunno.
Considering the amount of complaining, it's clearly an issue.
QuoteI don't see an any problem with Shaw's stance whatsoever.
It's that the entire plot of the movie hinges on someone saying "I have pretty much nothing but some cave paintings to back this up, but this is what I believe, so I'm right." And then when this nonsense is pointed out, we're expected to side against the person talking any rational sense. We're expected to go with Shaw and Holloway simply because they're our signposted protagonists, not because they have a leg to stand on.
In scenes like Shaw and Holloway talking to Vickers in her private quarters, usually the Vickers character is supposed to come off as antagonistic because she seems to lack reason, because the person we're siding with has a logical argument and the other person ignores it out of spite, of arrogance, of ignorance. Instead we're left expected to dislike the only person with a brain to her.
It's also nowhere near as compelling an argument as the stacks of evidence Watts and Holloway discover in Spaiht's draft, which actually arouses some level of intrigue.
"We found these similar paintings."
And?
"We found these similar paintings that also included alien writing, means to decipher them, and detailed star charts."
Ooh, tell me more.
It's really shitty, lazy writing and I don't see why you're trying to argue it isn't when you of all people should know that it is. We're being told to sympathise with Shaw, but we're given very little reason to actually do so. Her argument is founded on nothing and she doesn't seem to understand why everyone doesn't just believe her out of hand. She's a shitty scientist and a worse character and we're meant to like her just because she's the one obnoxious character that doesn't die.
Me, of all people, doesn't see the world in black and white terms of science = real and religion = bullshit as many others do. I can see them co-existing with no problems whatsoever. Ergo I don't have a problem with Shaw's stance. Technically it might be bad writing/ execution of getting that across to a wider audience, but I can't honestly say I have an issue with it, just to fall in with popular opinion. Which might change when I watch the film again - but I somehow doubt it. Sorry.
And so what if the 'protagonist' comes across as naive and the 'antagonist' is the sensible one?
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 10:47:22 PM
Me, of all people, doesn't see the world in black and white terms of science = real and religion = bullshit as many others do. I can see them co-existing with no problems whatsoever. Ergo I don't have a problem with Shaw's stance. Technically it might be bad writing/ execution of getting that across to a wider audience, but I can't honestly say I have an issue with it, just to fall in with popular opinion. Which might change when I watch the film again - but I somehow doubt it. Sorry.
Hi SM,
For the record, I completely agree with you that Faith and Science can coexist...in fact, I firmly believe they are mutually compatible (and I am a scientist).
With all respect, I don't think that is what is being argued, here, specifically.
While I can't speak for anyone else, my specific argument relates to the unbelievable and unreasonable dialogue that the writer's put into Shaw's mouth, during the debriefing. She absolutely can be a person of strong Faith, as well as a scientist. However, as a scientist, she would never declare, in front of an audience of her peers and colleagues, that the sole basis for her conclusion that space aliens are our creators, is because "that is what I choose to believe".
In the real world (and if the writers/director had done any due diligence) she would have presented detailed scientific evidence to support her hypothesis. The fact that the writers/director did not think it important to give her character (and by extention, us, the audience) this opportunity, is a fundamental failure in story-telling.
Now, personally, if that was the only major WTF moment (in the bad sense) in this film, I might not have such a problem. However, it is only one in a series of implausible, nonsensical mis-steps, character behavior, and outright plot-holes that permeate this film.
QuoteIn the real world (and if the writers/director had done any due diligence) she would have presented detailed scientific evidence to support her hypothesis.
Why? They were practically in orbit around a planet two years from Earth. What were they going to do? Say, no thanks I'm not interested? She told them why they were already there - she wasn't trying to convince them to join her on her crusade. That time was long past.
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 11:23:36 PM
Why? They were practically in orbit around a planet two years from Earth. What were they going to do? Say, no thanks I'm not interested? She told them why they were already there - she wasn't trying to convince them to join her on her crusade. That time was long past.
SM,
I agree...all the more reason it is ridiculous.
Again, if the writers/director put some real thought into this, they might have provided a scene where she makes the case to Weyland and perhaps the board members of the Corp. I mean, there is any number of ways they could have made this more credible -- like my suggestion of including a simple depiction of the DNA molecule next to the "star map" on those bloody cave paintings. And if they had done that , then they don't even need to add a scene...this could have occurred in the debriefing scene on the Prometheus. Presentation of such evidence might have taken up one or two minutes of screen time (perhaps less).
What they absolutely shouldn't have done, IMHO, is have her flippantly reply "because that is what I choose to believe", when challenged by a group of her scientific peers.
Again, taken on it's own...maybe not such a big deal to yourself and others. However, I feel it is symptomatic of a host of other problems within the film. I am just picking out this particular moment as being one particularly egregious example, at least to me.
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 11:23:36 PM
QuoteIn the real world (and if the writers/director had done any due diligence) she would have presented detailed scientific evidence to support her hypothesis.
Why? They were practically in orbit around a planet two years from Earth. What were they going to do? Say, no thanks I'm not interested? She told them why they were already there - she wasn't trying to convince them to join her on her crusade. That time was long past.
This is an interesting point. To me, it brings up one of my glaring issues which is the mission objective itself. The scientific reasons seem all but glossed-over, and even Weyland himself seems to view the scientists as a sort of formality.
This is backed up by David's behavior and Weyland's ultimate motives, but it leaves the actual characters and narrative severely hanging. It's just too direct. The religious angle is fine, and religious scientists (if they can manage to limit their bias) could make for some very intriguing characters, but the central theme of the movie just railroads it over the realities of the situation.
But this could easily turn into a discussion about the pace of the film, and if they even had time to include what was needed. The damn thing was so fast. I've been transcripting the dialogue from the DVD, and most scenes have less than a paragraph worth of lines. It reeks of TV writing, even the good dialogue...
Am I the only one on this entire forum that is happy with the film? nothing in the film bugged me apart from the editing but apart from that I thought it was fantastic.
but lindelof's script kinda sucked but he did say this was a very, very early draft on twitter. WHY NOT RELEASE the final draft?
QuoteWhat they absolutely shouldn't have done, IMHO, is have her flippantly reply "because that is what I choose to believe", when challenged by a group of her scientific peers.
I've yet to watch the film again, but from memory her response wasn't exactly greeted enthusiastically by the others.
QuoteI mean, there is any number of ways they could have made this more credible
But not like this eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwEtldZQNew#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwEtldZQNew#ws)
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 11:51:33 PM
But not like this eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwEtldZQNew#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwEtldZQNew#ws)
SM,
I think I have expressed my opinion on such material, previously, in this thread. In any event, I just posted this in the other ongoing thread:
Quote
The film has to stand on it's own, completely independent of external resources and/or "ex post facto" buttressing and band-aids...including marketing info as well as director/writer post-release interviews and explanations.
IMHO, if any of this bullshit is required to make sense of the film, and/or explain (away) plot-holes, incoherent character decisions/behavior, etc....then what you have is a fundamental failure in story-telling, period.
-- at the end of the day, you have to look at this from the eyes of a general audience, who only has information contained within the film, or from prior films.
I recognize and fully respect that you may feel differently.
I mean, don't get me wrong...I am not specifically against such material being produced and offered to the fans. It can be fun, and for many it can enrich the story and experience. That is all well and good.
What I am specifically opposed to, is any appeal to such material in order to correct or explain defiecincies that exists in the official film.
Would it make any difference if they got the date right?
David: Why do you think your people made me?
Holloway: We made you because we could.
David: Can you imagine how disappointing it would be to hear the same thing from your creator.
Alien fan: Why do you think your people made Prometheus?
Ridley Scott: We made it because we could.
Aliens fan: I'm not saying it had to have aliens but it had to have aliens.
Ridley Scott: (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-uGdBPGRc9S0%2FT61XjPh-nkI%2FAAAAAAAABWA%2FCAlnjKL5YNE%2Fs1600%2Fridley-scott-cigar.jpg&hash=8048e76d29ecf4451832b420c0ff6eba0a361be6)
Quote from: SM on Nov 20, 2012, 10:47:22 PM
Me, of all people, doesn't see the world in black and white terms of science = real and religion = bullshit as many others do. I can see them co-existing with no problems whatsoever.
So can I. Not what I'm talking about at all though.
Her stance isn't the problem -- her believing these are our creators, her being religious, none of that's an issue. The issue is that's all we have to go on. She's a one-note character and her note is appallingly flat and uninteresting. "I saw this, therefor I believe this, and that's all there is to it."
Which can be plenty. Just not how it's handled here.
QuoteAnd so what if the 'protagonist' comes across as naive and the 'antagonist' is the sensible one?
Because the scene very clearly wants us to dislike Vickers -- yet Shaw's the one that winds up looking like a prat.
Ripley sounds like a raving loon at the inquiry in
Aliens, but we've been with her and we know she's right. We get to share her frustration rather than looking at her wondering why she's having a hard time believing people are incredulous about her totally unfounded claims of acid-bleeding face-raping space aliens.
We know Shaw's right because we sat through the first five minutes and we know there wouldn't be a movie if she weren't, but
she doesn't, so she comes across as a self-righteous bitch. It's the same problem the AvP movies have, or
Alien 3; we're too far ahead of the characters, and the writers have decided to exploit this rather than keeping us all level.
And then throughout the entire rest of the film her faith and belief remain pretty thoroughly untested, let alone unbroken. She's proved right that they made us, never questions the existence of a higher power still, and still acts like she's owed something by the end of the picture.
That's
my problem. She's a shitty character that we're stuck with the entire film who never grows or develops in any meaningful way and we're apparently supposed to
like her.
I didn't find her entirely likeable. Though she was probably most likeable among a cast where I'm not sure I found anyone entirely likeable to be honest.
Janek was the only person I liked and Vickers was the only one who seemed to make sense.
David stole the show, but. I don't know if he was likeable, but I'm pretty sure that's the point.
I liked Janek but man, I wouldn't want him to be my captain. Try not to bugger each other... I'm off to bugger Vickers :P
I found that way more dopey than anything about Shaw's beliefs.
I didn't even find Shaw's beliefs themselves to be dopey; just that they were silly to be used as her sole defense against her peers and as be-all evidence for launching the mission. Spaihts' Watts would've pulled out the DNA evidence she had; Shaw's reply is the sort of debate-stopping cop-out you see or hear in everyday arguments. I think the members here could have a better debate on the matter of belief than the characters in the movie.
Quote from: SM on Nov 21, 2012, 02:55:48 AM
I found that way more dopey than anything about Shaw's beliefs.
SM,
As I thought I emphasized previously...it has absolutely nothing to do with Shaw's
beliefs. It has everything to do with the way her character was forced to behave, due to the ineptitude of the writer/director, in the scene in question.
You've emphasised it endlessly out the fecking wazoo...
I was speaking in general terms about the scene everyone so dislikes.
Quote from: SM on Nov 21, 2012, 03:46:48 AM
You've emphasised it endlessly out the fecking wazoo...
I was speaking in general terms about the scene everyone so dislikes.
LOL,
Okay, I shall refrain from commenting further on this matter. ;D ;)
One baffling character twist was how Shaw and Holloway suddenly swap positions, starting with the "Don't be a skeptic" line when Shaw pleads with him to leave his helmet on. In the promotion of the film, and in the early scenes, he is portrayed as the one of the pair with his feet on the ground - Shaw's anchor, as it were, yet he is the one who is personally hurt by the fact that the engineers are dead and, in the alternate bedroom scene, that they don't care about him.
Not so much a "baffling character decision" as just Holloway throwing Shaw's "believer" attitude back at her face as a reminder of who she is.
As far as he was concerned they were in an Alien temple that their theories had predicted. The temple of their "gods". They were already proven correct... in all the excitement and blood rush of "WE JUST FOUND OUR GODZ, GUYZ!" it was probably hard to understand why she was suddenly being all "let's be careful about this..." (she was right of course, but hotter heads prevailed.)
Of course, the whole story continuously fails on a basic science level.
Once the Prometheus team arrived at LV-233, found the temple, assayed the dead "engineer" and found it's genetic code to be, for all intents and purposes, human...a "reasonable" scientific hypothesis to explain this amazing coincidence, correlation and correspondence might be:
==> An advanced, space-faring alien race visited Earth within the recent past (measured in thousands of years), and interacted with our ancestors.
==> They took a few humans back with them, and augmented them through genetic modification. That is who the "engineers" are.
What is NOT a reasonable scientific hypothesis, from the evidence available to the Prometheus science team, is to conclude that the engineers were our creators, and responsible for Life on Earth.
Even presuming the artificial introducion of primordial life (self-replicating molecule / cell) to a planet...the chances that Intelligent Life would evolve is most likely pretty low. The chances that the same primordial life would not only evolve into some Intelligent lifeform, but also that the Intelligent lifeform would be identical to their progenitors' (the engineers), has such an infinitesimally low probability, as to be effectively impossible.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 21, 2012, 10:16:19 PM
Of course, the whole story continuously fails on a basic science level.
Once the Prometheus team arrived at LV-233, found the temple, assayed the dead "engineer" and found it's genetic code to be, for all intents and purposes, human...a "reasonable" scientific hypothesis to explain this amazing coincidence, correlation and correspondence might be:
==> An advanced, space-faring alien race visited Earth within the recent past (measured in thousands of years), and interacted with our ancestors.
==> They took a few humans back with them, and augmented them through genetic modification. That is who the "engineers" are.
What is NOT a reasonable scientific hypothesis, from the evidence available to the Prometheus science team, is to conclude that the engineers were our creators, and responsible for Life on Earth.
Even presuming the artificial introducion of primordial life (self-replicating molecule / cell) to a planet...the chances that Intelligent Life would evolve is most likely pretty low. The chances that the same primordial life would not only evolve into some Intelligent lifeform, but also that the Intelligent lifeform would be identical to their progenitors' (the engineers), has such an infinitesimally low probability, as to be effectively impossible.
In Spaihts' draft, it's heavily implied that the Engineers "augmented" life on Earth to eventually produce a lifeform resembling them; presumably, this is the intended reason in the final film as well.
Which is the only thing keeping me from denouncing the film as complete horses**t.
Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Nov 22, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
In Spaihts' draft, it's heavily implied that the Engineers "augmented" life on Earth to eventually produce a lifeform resembling them; presumably, this is the intended reason in the final film as well.
Which is the only thing keeping me from denouncing the film as complete horses**t.
Hi PB,
You may not necessarily have been following along to the previous posts/arguments...nevertheless, my point is that any such appeal to "external" explanations and/or clarifications, counts for absolutely nothing, in the context of the released film. Whatever may or may not have existed in a prior draft script, has no bearing on what is actually presented in the official film.
As serious fans, we can analzye and debate "what if" scenarios till the cows come home. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what is contained within the official film...as that is what the general audience will understand.
If it isn't in the official film, it doesn't friggin' count. If someone has to look to a draft script for information that does not exist in the final, released film, in order to answer fundamental narrative problems, then that constitutes a failure in basic story-telling and film-making.
The "general audience" has easy access to all these info sources outside of the film too.
Quote from: SM on Nov 22, 2012, 05:57:44 AM
The "general audience" has easy access to all these info sources outside of the film too.
Sure, in theory,
everyone with an internet connection has potential access to these external "sources".
However, in reality (and let's be honest, here), these resources constitute an "extended universe" that no ordinary, typical audience member would ever consult, much less know of it's existence. It is only a relatively small, atypical and exclusive group (e.g members of this forum) that view such material...and have the pleasure to debate and argue over it's canonical legitimacy, or not. ;) :)
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 22, 2012, 07:13:29 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 22, 2012, 05:57:44 AM
The "general audience" has easy access to all these info sources outside of the film too.
Sure, in theory, everyone with an internet connection has potential access to these external "sources".
However, in reality (and let's be honest, here), these resources constitute an "extended universe" that no ordinary, typical audience member would ever consult, much less know of it's existence. It is only a relatively small, atypical and exclusive group (e.g members of this forum) that view such material...and have the pleasure to debate and argue over it's canonical legitimacy, or not. ;) :)
If we're talking audience perception/understanding... I completely agree with you. We can only take what occurs in the actual movie to debate if it achieved its aims. We must discount docs, deleted scenes or early drafts of screenplays. However, I just disagree with your conclusions. IMHO the movie does enough to allow the audience to connect the dots without the need for over exposition and talky dialogue that burdens similar sci-fi movies. It's the fine line between an excesible and an inteligent Hollywood product - which I think Prometheus treads quite succesfully (without ever doing it perfectly though I'd agree).
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 22, 2012, 07:13:29 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 22, 2012, 05:57:44 AM
The "general audience" has easy access to all these info sources outside of the film too.
Sure, in theory, everyone with an internet connection has potential access to these external "sources".
However, in reality (and let's be honest, here), these resources constitute an "extended universe" that no ordinary, typical audience member would ever consult, much less know of it's existence. It is only a relatively small, atypical and exclusive group (e.g members of this forum) that view such material...and have the pleasure to debate and argue over it's canonical legitimacy, or not. ;) :)
So all that money they spent on marketing was solely for our benefit then?
The recent argument here about why Weyland would bet so much on Shaw's beliefs could be easily assuaged by the inclusion of the Viral Eye clip or some exposition of the sort, and even more so by the entry in the Weyland Files on the BD suggesting that Weyland knew about the signal from LV-426 well before setting out for LV-223. Either one of those elements would of solved the problem and we wouldn't be arguing about it.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 23, 2012, 09:51:09 AM
The recent argument here about why Weyland would bet so much on Shaw's beliefs could be easily assuaged by the inclusion of the Viral Eye clip or some exposition of the sort, and even more so by the entry in the Weyland Files on the BD suggesting that Weyland knew about the signal from LV-426 well before setting out for LV-223. Either one of those elements would of solved the problem and we wouldn't be arguing about it.
Yeah but we're arguning about it because we're Alien fans who are moved to discuss the minutia. For the millions of others who went to see it, Weyland's commitments to Shaw's convictions/beliefs are largely irrelevant.
I was surprised to see the Quiet Eye viral in the Paradise draft. :P It was definitely meant to be in the movie at some point. It's exclusion doesnt make me sad, though. Doesnt work.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Nov 24, 2012, 04:23:52 PMYeah but we're arguning about it because we're Alien fans who are moved to discuss the minutia. For the millions of others who went to see it, Weyland's commitments to Shaw's convictions/beliefs are largely irrelevant.
So the script is fine because nobody other than us fans gives a second shit?.. I am not sure what your point is here.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 25, 2012, 11:59:49 AM
Quote from: Darth Vile on Nov 24, 2012, 04:23:52 PMYeah but we're arguning about it because we're Alien fans who are moved to discuss the minutia. For the millions of others who went to see it, Weyland's commitments to Shaw's convictions/beliefs are largely irrelevant.
So the script is fine because nobody other than us fans gives a second shit?.. I am not sure what your point is here.
No - I'm pointing out that it's largely irrelevant to the masses of 'normal' moviegoers. Is the fact that Darth Vader takes a dissproprtionate amount of time to take a shot at Luke's X-Wing in the Death Star trench a massive script issue? Nope.
Quote from: Deuterium on Nov 22, 2012, 05:16:26 AM
Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Nov 22, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
In Spaihts' draft, it's heavily implied that the Engineers "augmented" life on Earth to eventually produce a lifeform resembling them; presumably, this is the intended reason in the final film as well.
Which is the only thing keeping me from denouncing the film as complete horses**t.
Hi PB,
You may not necessarily have been following along to the previous posts/arguments...nevertheless, my point is that any such appeal to "external" explanations and/or clarifications, counts for absolutely nothing, in the context of the released film. Whatever may or may not have existed in a prior draft script, has no bearing on what is actually presented in the official film.
As serious fans, we can analzye and debate "what if" scenarios till the cows come home. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what is contained within the official film...as that is what the general audience will understand.
If it isn't in the official film, it doesn't friggin' count. If someone has to look to a draft script for information that does not exist in the final, released film, in order to answer fundamental narrative problems, then that constitutes a failure in basic story-telling and film-making.
Hi Deuterium, the thing is that I myself came up with such an idea as I struggled to justify the film's apparent mockery of the scientific process. You're quite right however (hmmm, PB...I like it! :P)
EDIT: Just picked up on this little gem: "WATER. Intensely BLUE,
untouched and PRISTINE as the rays of the SUN dance off its glasslike surface. CLEAR.
UNTOUCHED."
*facepalm*
It seems odd that most of the criticism here seems to be on the scientific accuracy or strange plot moves. I've got little problem with the plot, and smaller yet concern over the science behind the film. Alien was also ambiguous, which is why it is still so interesting today.
The issue with Lindelof's script is plainly the dialogue....it's atrocious in parts ("you can pay me...on the other side" - ugh). This pulled you back and snatched away any sense of realism. In my opinion the jarring cruddy conversations were far more damaging to the film than these scientific issues.
Even still...In my opinion it was a fine film....
Quote from: SureSureSURE on Nov 26, 2012, 11:11:40 PM
It seems odd that most of the criticism here seems to be on the scientific accuracy or strange plot moves. I've got little problem with the plot, and smaller yet concern over the science behind the film. Alien was also ambiguous, which is why it is still so interesting today.
The issue with Lindelof's script is plainly the dialogue....it's atrocious in parts ("you can pay me...on the other side" - ugh). This pulled you back and snatched away any sense of realism. In my opinion the jarring cruddy conversations were far more damaging to the film than these scientific issues.
Even still...In my opinion it was a fine film....
I'd agree with that... However I'd posit that Scott/Lindelof were going for 'hyper-reality' rather than 'realistic'... hence some of that
Star Trek type dialogue that doesn't sound like real people talking in a realistic way a la
Alien.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Nov 25, 2012, 10:46:58 PMNo - I'm pointing out that it's largely irrelevant to the masses of 'normal' moviegoers. Is the fact that Darth Vader takes a dissproprtionate amount of time to take a shot at Luke's X-Wing in the Death Star trench a massive script issue? Nope.
Gotcha, but Vader waxing lyrical before shooting Luke out of the sky is pretty much mandatory for a villain like that - screen villains have always done it, and for some baffling reason continue to do it. While Weyland's motives are clear in the end, there is still no presented weight behind his decision to follow Shaw's hunch, which would not of seemed like so much of a hunch if the script bothered with some basic setup. A good writer could of wound these things in without the kind of cumbersome exposition that Lindelof seems to hate so much. Five minutes, max.
And a lot of these gripes are not just fan gripes - they have come from all walks, we just care more.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Nov 27, 2012, 10:08:17 AM
Quote from: Darth Vile on Nov 25, 2012, 10:46:58 PMNo - I'm pointing out that it's largely irrelevant to the masses of 'normal' moviegoers. Is the fact that Darth Vader takes a dissproprtionate amount of time to take a shot at Luke's X-Wing in the Death Star trench a massive script issue? Nope.
Gotcha, but Vader waxing lyrical before shooting Luke out of the sky is pretty much mandatory for a villain like that - screen villains have always done it, and for some baffling reason continue to do it. While Weyland's motives are clear in the end, there is still no presented weight behind his decision to follow Shaw's hunch, which would not of seemed like so much of a hunch if the script bothered with some basic setup. A good writer could of wound these things in without the kind of cumbersome exposition that Lindelof seems to hate so much. Five minutes, max.
And a lot of these gripes are not just fan gripes - they have come from all walks, we just care more.
I hear what you are saying, but I just don't think an explanation as to why Weyland believed Shaw is necessary (even if done with minimal dialogue).... and it's certainly not a scripting issue IMHO, even if more exposition is desired. As mentioned before, from a narrative perspective, if we (the audience) did'nt get to see the Engineers at the start of the movie... then yes, the audience would need a modicum of understanding to clarify the driver for a multi billion $ mission into space. However, as we (the audience) already know Shaw is correct with her 'hunch' any further explanation of Weyland's reasons for believing her is moot.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Nov 27, 2012, 11:39:13 AMHowever, as we (the audience) already know Shaw is correct with her 'hunch' any further explanation of Weyland's reasons for believing her is moot.
OK fine... One minute then? Thirty seconds? I don't choose the believe! :)
I don't really see him trusting or being convinced by Shaw etc as an issue. If it is too much of a stretch for us to go along with him being convinced by her scientific discovery and argument that's fine but it should also be recognised that, from my point of view, weyland is portrayed as being quite mad. It is more of the desperation for longer life that drives him rather than scientific or spiritual discovery, this is after all the most likely reason why the engineer kills him in the end.
I have to admit some of the character motivations are plain bizarre. My guess is that the script had undergone so many changes & rewrites that nobody really know who and what anymore. There is a suggestion that Weyland has deeper connection to the Engineer's group. That Shaw & the crew are just experimental subjects not for Weyland but for the Engineers to fiddle with!
Another strange line of dialogue involves David saying" If we don't wear a suit, you people wouldn't be comfortable.." Now there is a lot parallel drawn between David & the Engineers, that they are servants for Higher Authority.That kind of line is too loaded to be thrown around before the most suspenseful part of the movie, the first trip to the temple. The Engineers themselves wear a suit, the elephantine suit, so that they look "agreeable" in the presence of the Higher Authority: the Ganesha/Giant Space Jockey of the original ALIEN.
Quote from: zakzak on Nov 27, 2012, 09:34:11 PM
I have to admit some of the character motivations are plain bizarre. My guess is that the script had undergone so many changes & rewrites that nobody really know who and what anymore. There is a suggestion that Weyland has deeper connection to the Engineer's group. That Shaw & the crew are just experimental subjects not for Weyland but for the Engineers to fiddle with!
Another strange line of dialogue involves David saying" If we don't wear a suit, you people wouldn't be comfortable.." Now there is a lot parallel drawn between David & the Engineers, that they are servants for Higher Authority.That kind of line is too loaded to be thrown around before the most suspenseful part of the movie, the first trip to the temple. The Engineers themselves wear a suit, the elephantine suit, so that they look "agreeable" in the presence of the Higher Authority: the Ganesha/Giant Space Jockey of the original ALIEN.
Nice theory ;) That's actually really interesting?
To be honest, I love Lindelof's Paradise script!
Not because it makes any scientific or logical sense, no.
But, because...Life on Earth began in Scotland!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i05k9p_MMBg# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i05k9p_MMBg#)
Space Jock.
Quote from: 180924609 on Nov 28, 2012, 07:39:14 PM
But, because...Life on Earth began in Scotland!
Yup.
Valaquen first rose from the grounds.
Quote from: 180924609 on Nov 28, 2012, 07:39:14 PMBut, because...Life on Earth began in Scotland!
As my gran-daddy always said: Remember your roooots boy!
It's probably off-topic, but it does seems to me that the audiences are no longer able to figure the things out by themselves.. They want everything "on the golden plate", on-the-nose dialogue and show & tell scenes.
.. and that's the complete opposite of what the movies should be.
Quote from: Zenzucht on Nov 30, 2012, 11:28:25 PM
It's probably off-topic, but it does seems to me that the audiences are no longer able to figure the things out by themselves.. They want everything "on the golden plate", on-the-nose dialogue and show & tell scenes.
.. and that's the complete opposite of what the movies should be.
Hi Zenzucht,
There exists wonderfuly provocative films of great subtlety, which contain intricate layers and meanings, and which motivate one's imagination to search for deeper meanings and messages. Prometheus is
NOT one of these films, IMHO.
Rather, it is an example of lame story-telling on the part of the writer(s), and poor execution on the part of the Director. It is rife with plot-holes, inconsistent and non-sensical character behavior, ridiculous dialogue, and a fundamentally incoherent narrative that is built on a house of cards. In sum...it is a complete and utter mess. Again, IMHO.
Quote from: Deuterium on Dec 01, 2012, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: Zenzucht on Nov 30, 2012, 11:28:25 PM
It's probably off-topic, but it does seems to me that the audiences are no longer able to figure the things out by themselves.. They want everything "on the golden plate", on-the-nose dialogue and show & tell scenes.
.. and that's the complete opposite of what the movies should be.
Hi Zenzucht,
There exists wonderfuly provocative films of great subtlety, which contain intricate layers and meanings, and which motivate one's imagination to search for deeper meanings and messages.
Not in the Alien franchise there isn't - IMHO.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 01, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Not in the Alien franchise there isn't - IMHO.
Don't think many -if any- of them were reaching for this effect. Bar Prometheus.
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 01, 2012, 06:01:20 PM
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 01, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Not in the Alien franchise there isn't - IMHO.
Don't think many -if any- of them were reaching for this effect. Bar Prometheus.
Not sure Prometheus was ever trying to be that... to be fair...
It was according to the filmmakers before release.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 01, 2012, 08:05:13 PM
Not sure Prometheus was ever trying to be that... to be fair...
Are you kidding me? Did you guys see the same pre-release interviews by Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott, that I saw?
Quote from: Deuterium on Dec 02, 2012, 04:27:12 AM
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 01, 2012, 08:05:13 PM
Not sure Prometheus was ever trying to be that... to be fair...
Are you kidding me? Did you guys see the same pre-release interviews by Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott, that I saw?
I don't believe you are really that naive that you can't identify PR spun interviews. This is a Hollywood system movie designed for mass audiences... Not some art house movie or geek fest for those who think
Predator is 'cool'. Scott, I'm sure, was well aware that he was making something that would guarantee bums on seats whilst being made with a modicum of intelligence... I don't think he was ever intending to make
2001:ASO or
Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 02, 2012, 08:47:13 AM
Scott, I'm sure, was well aware that he was making something that would guarantee bums on seats whilst being made with a modicum of intelligence... I don't think he was ever intending to make 2001:ASO or Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I'm with you Darth Vile. I've got the same vibe.The problem was when I read the synopses I thought something..I exaggerated in my mind what probably could be done with it.So it was something in my mind and other on his.I guess Ridley knew when the synopsis fell in network the public would think so many things far away from what he was thinking.
He said almost before the movie premiere: "This movie is a meeting: 2001 with steroids!It's different".
That's what opened my mind. But I do not consider myself to be cheated or disappointed. I'm pleased with what I saw.
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 02, 2012, 08:47:13 AM
I don't believe you are really that naive that you can't identify PR spun interviews. This is a Hollywood system movie designed for mass audiences... Not some art house movie or geek fest for those who think Predator is 'cool'. Scott, I'm sure, was well aware that he was making something that would guarantee bums on seats whilst being made with a modicum of intelligence... I don't think he was ever intending to make 2001:ASO or Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Darth,
You totally lost me. I am not sure what you are trying to say. It seems as though you agreeing that Lindelof and Scott knew Prometheus' story was nothing but "hot air"...and that all the bullshit "deeper" meanings that they promised was nothing but window dressing and red herrings. Which is what I have been saying from day one.
Quote from: Deuterium on Dec 01, 2012, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: Zenzucht on Nov 30, 2012, 11:28:25 PM
It's probably off-topic, but it does seems to me that the audiences are no longer able to figure the things out by themselves.. They want everything "on the golden plate", on-the-nose dialogue and show & tell scenes.
.. and that's the complete opposite of what the movies should be.
Hi Zenzucht,
There exists wonderfuly provocative films of great subtlety, which contain intricate layers and meanings, and which motivate one's imagination to search for deeper meanings and messages. Prometheus is NOT one of these films, IMHO.
Rather, it is an example of lame story-telling on the part of the writer(s), and poor execution on the part of the Director. It is rife with plot-holes, inconsistent and non-sensical character behavior, ridiculous dialogue, and a fundamentally incoherent narrative that is built on a house of cards. In sum...it is a complete and utter mess. Again, IMHO.
You nailed it man. It's how I felt after seeing and why I can't really re watch it.
I'll throw into the hate pot that the average shot length of the film is painfully short. Too much cutting, I can't get sucked in and dreadfully unsubtle soundtrack ain't helping to much either.
srsly?
I've heard some stupid criticisms about Prometheus and some legit ones - but shot length?
I saw so much crap around the Alien universe in their latest movies, like all the AVPs and Alien 4 .. that when I saw Prometheus it was a bit of a reward ;because of these previous blunders.
Of course is not a stunning movie but it is the best thing that it came since Aliens from Jim.In my modest opinion.
I know that some people will not agree.But I was no longer excited about anything related to the franchise for a long time and then the movie has premiered and I started to change my mind.I think this film gives a little hope at least.
I'll not lose my faith in Prometheus yet. If their ideas in the next work will going to work , I don't know.
But I will be waiting for the sequel and hoping that will complement the ideas initiated now.
There's nothing lost yet.
The film has (a lot) more positives than negatives points.It has to be emphasized.
Quote from: SM on Dec 03, 2012, 01:09:53 AM
srsly?
I've heard some stupid criticisms about Prometheus and some legit ones - but shot length?
Seriously.
It's a valid criticism which I think gets overlooked.
It seems to be a big problem in modern general audience pictures.
How big?
Length a problem? Disagree.
Although i think the film would have been improved with the extended Engineer/Weyland dialogue and the Shaw/Engineer fight at the end. They are both memorable scenes.
Quote from: Deuterium on Dec 03, 2012, 12:23:20 AM
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 02, 2012, 08:47:13 AM
I don't believe you are really that naive that you can't identify PR spun interviews. This is a Hollywood system movie designed for mass audiences... Not some art house movie or geek fest for those who think Predator is 'cool'. Scott, I'm sure, was well aware that he was making something that would guarantee bums on seats whilst being made with a modicum of intelligence... I don't think he was ever intending to make 2001:ASO or Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Darth,
You totally lost me. I am not sure what you are trying to say. It seems as though you agreeing that Lindelof and Scott knew Prometheus' story was nothing but "hot air"...and that all the bullshit "deeper" meanings that they promised was nothing but window dressing and red herrings. Which is what I have been saying from day one.
You've lost me... The story is simply about what happened if we met our creators and they turned out not to be as benevolent as we'd think. There is no "hot air" or "bullshit" about it. Of course anybody involved with the movie during production is going to state it's the biggest thing sliced bread (can you remember how they were selling Alien 3 onwards?)...but only an idiot would think that 1)
Promethus was going to be a shocking/gory movie from start to finish (given the rating it was always going to have) 2) It was going to be an intellectually challenging movie that dealt with profound questions about life, the universe and everything.
It was however, and IMHO, a populist movie that was made with more intelligence and craft than most of the Hollywood mainstream movies.
http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.cz/2012/12/eric-heisserer-lifts-curtain-on-studio.html (http://thebitterscriptreader.blogspot.cz/2012/12/eric-heisserer-lifts-curtain-on-studio.html)
You have to read this article!
I'm hearing two quotes from the movie at the moment:
"It's everything!"
"I was wrong, I was so wrong!"
QuoteYour new job: Spell out all the things you so artfully seeded through innuendo and subtle suggestion. Now you're writing things in ALL CAPS and talking about how this is THE TURNING POINT FOR YOUR CHARACTER because she realizes SHE MUST BETRAY HER FRIEND to SAVE HER FAMILY. If you learned how to write from a certain LOST writer, you'll be doing this already, along with statements like HOLY SHIT, this is the MOST HEARTBREAKING MOMENT WE'VE EVER SEEN.
So that's why nearly EVERYTHING was in CAPS LOCK.
So Lindelof just knows how to play the game. Simple as that.
I wonder DID HE ALWAYS WRITE LIKE THIS? Or did he just develop that overtime with all the nonsense a writer has to put up with.
Either way he's an irritant. He rims the execs hard and then plays the P.R game to such a fine t that allegedly everything he's working on is the greatest shit EVER EVER EVERRRRRRRRRRR.
I really don't think there is anything to it. They tried to go epic and got avalanche by the sheer scale of work that needed to be done.
Oh and about that 2001 comparison thing...
Quote from: wikipedia"The old race of man is about to be replaced by the "star child", which was conceived by the meeting of the spaceship and Jupiter. MacLeod also sees irony in man as a creator (of HAL) on the brink of being usurped by his own creation. Thus, by destroying HAL, man symbolically rejects his role as creator and steps back from the brink of his own destruction."
Thus the engineers reject their role as creators by choosing to destroy their own creation(man) to evade certain doom. Yea...
Eh. what really matters is what ends up onscreen. Cant fault him for playing the game well and getting $$$.
QuoteIt was going to be an intellectually challenging movie that dealt with profound questions about life, the universe and everything.
And as you know that's exactly what they were aiming for.. so you agree that it's garbage! Cheers bro! My shout! ;D
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Dec 04, 2012, 10:10:42 AM
QuoteIt was going to be an intellectually challenging movie that dealt with profound questions about life, the universe and everything.
And as you know that's exactly what they were aiming for.. so you agree that it's garbage! Cheers bro! My shout! ;D
So if a movie isn't about life, the universe and everything it's worthless? That's a rather blinkered view to have. I'd be interested to see what you have in your collection - as something tells me that your collection probably doesn't reflect your thoughts on Prometheus. ;)
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 04, 2012, 10:28:14 PMSo if a movie isn't about life, the universe and everything it's worthless?
No, if a movie
is about creation, life and death then it is either a good movie that handles those themes well or it is
Prometheus.
And my collection is made up almost entirely of
Red Dwarf DVDs.
Prometheus is not worthy! ;)
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Dec 05, 2012, 01:00:40 AM
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 04, 2012, 10:28:14 PMSo if a movie isn't about life, the universe and everything it's worthless?
No, if a movie is about creation, life and death then it is either a good movie that handles those themes well or it is Prometheus.
And my collection is made up almost entirely of Red Dwarf DVDs. Prometheus is not worthy! ;)
What a black and white view you have on this Chris... you mustn't enjoy much. And as much as I love Red Dwarf, I can't believe that's the only thing in your DVD/blu-ray collection ;)
It's got curry monsters. Ones doesn't need much else. ;D
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Dec 05, 2012, 10:56:52 PM
It's got curry monsters. Ones doesn't need much else. ;D
ROTFLMAO!
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Dec 05, 2012, 10:56:52 PM
It's got curry monsters. Ones doesn't need much else. ;D
gotta luv curry monsters ;)