Damon Lindelof Paradise Script

[RagingDragon]

He REALLY took a DUMP on SPAIHTS DRAFT. :/

Let me fix that for you.

[Deuterium]

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.

[Mustangjeff]

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.

[Darth Vile]

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.

[Deuterium]

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.

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.    

[DaddyYautja]

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.

[echobbase79]

He REALLY took a DUMP on SPAIHTS DRAFT. :/

Let me fix that for you.

But didn't Ridley support all of his ideas?

[T Dog]

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.

[SiL]

I dunno.

Considering the amount of complaining, it's clearly an issue.

I 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.

[ChrisPachi]

Not sure what your F**King about.

Not at you mate, just general frustration at how maddeningly dumb Lindelof's "proof" is.

I'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.

[SM]

I dunno.

Considering the amount of complaining, it's clearly an issue.

I 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?

[Deuterium]

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.

[SM]

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.

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.

[Deuterium]

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.

[RagingDragon]

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.

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...