Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

[warren oates]

For all the talk here and elsewhere about the movie's grand ideas, I thought they were rather hopelessly dull. I don't know why people who profess skepticism of religion seem to constantly turn to an alternate set of myths as a crutch, but that seems to be what's happening here. There's nothing radical or even all that interesting being contemplated here, just a slight revision of popular creation myths with a misanthropic spin put on top. It might have been more provocative in an era when those creation myths weren't already hopelessly outmoded, but the idea that we're subject to the whims of an angry creator is old as the hills and Scott is reinforcing that kind of silliness instead of attacking it, regardless of what he thinks.

Except that in the film as such there's no clear motive for wanting to end humanity, no indication of emotional anger or ethical condemnation (only the resultant aggression/violence that may come with it), no implication that it's the unified decision of an entire superior race or that such a race doesn't have it's own creators. The Engineers are inscrutable. Perhaps too much so, even if there's going to be a sequel. But just because the answers aren't all there doesn't mean we should opt to fill in the blanks with the most annoying possibilities and then blame the film for something it isn't necessarily doing.

[Brian C]

Be that as it may, the film is so ambiguous and so open-ended that I don't really see a way to discuss its alleged ideas without "opt[ing] to fill in the blanks." Without that, we're just conflating a willingness to ask a very basic question with actually having ideas about the answer.

[warren oates]

Be that as it may, the film is so ambiguous and so open-ended that I don't really see a way to discuss its alleged ideas without "opt[ing] to fill in the blanks." Without that, we're just conflating a willingness to ask a very basic question with actually having ideas about the answer.

I agree that carefully considered ambiguity ought not to be confused with a convoluted lack of clarity. But I do think that simply asking the questions the film does about the origins of human life and framing them in this kind of alien (as in "unknowable and wholly other") context is a pretty radical and interesting gesture for a giant blockbuster spectacle.

Spoiler

The answer isn't definitively that our gods are angry. It's rather that they've apparently been planning to end our existence for centuries. Why? Within the context of the film, it's as mysterious a question as the reason they made us in the first place (the best answer for this in the film is spoken to the android David about his own creation: "Because we could.") And though the film is playing with the origin myths of many cultures, there's no comforting, easily digestable or reversible mythos to what we're given in Prometheus.

[Brian C]

But I do think that simply asking the questions the film does about the origins of human life and framing them in this kind of alien (as in "unknowable and wholly other") context is a pretty radical and interesting gesture for a giant blockbuster spectacle.

Well then, is the "gesture" interesting, or are the ideas themselves interesting? Perhaps I'm mistaking what you're saying here, but you seem to be saying that the filmmakers' initiative in making the film is interesting on a meta level given its status as a Hollywood spectacle. But that's not really addressing the substance of the film itself.

Spoiler

Within the context of the film, it's as mysterious a question as the reason they made us in the first place (the best answer for this in the film is spoken to the android David about his own creation: "Because we could.") And though the film is playing with the origin myths of many cultures, there's no comforting, easily digestable or reversible mythos to what we're given in Prometheus.

Eh. I'm trying to figure out why this is more substantial than just saying,

Spoiler

"How'd we get here? Who knows?"

[warren oates]

But I do think that simply asking the questions the film does about the origins of human life and framing them in this kind of alien (as in "unknowable and wholly other") context is a pretty radical and interesting gesture for a giant blockbuster spectacle.

Well then, is the "gesture" interesting, or are the ideas themselves interesting? Perhaps I'm mistaking what you're saying here, but you seem to be saying that the filmmakers' initiative in making the film is interesting on a meta level given its status as a Hollywood spectacle. But that's not really addressing the substance of the film itself.

Spoiler

Within the context of the film, it's as mysterious a question as the reason they made us in the first place (the best answer for this in the film is spoken to the android David about his own creation: "Because we could.") And though the film is playing with the origin myths of many cultures, there's no comforting, easily digestable or reversible mythos to what we're given in Prometheus.

Eh. I'm trying to figure out why this is more substantial than just saying,

Spoiler

"How'd we get here? Who knows?"

Well, on the first point, you're right. It's a choice that 99 other times out of 100 would have been beaten out of the script repeatedly and surely gotten the director kicked off a film of this budget. It's not really "who knows?" so much as "learning all this still doesn't begin to explain it" especially within the very limited frame of the characters' human understanding based on what was gleaned from one expedition plus a single fast and ugly close encounter. I'm not saying Prometheus is in any way as elegant as 2001 or Solaris but it does manage to preserve the otherness of the Engineers' alien intelligence in a related fashion. Part of the lovely and functional hubris of civilized humanity is the idea that there's always an answer out there to be had, one that we will understand, even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots. The boundaries between religion and science are precisely where this assumption breaks down.

[Brian C]

I'm not saying Prometheus is in any way as elegant as 2001 or Solaris but it does manage to preserve the otherness of the Engineers' alien intelligence in a related fashion. Part of the lovely and functional hubris of civilized humanity is the idea that there's always an answer out there to be had, one that we will understand, even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots. The boundaries between religion and science are precisely where this assumption breaks down.

It seems highly contentious to suggest that the engineers were up to something that can't be explained or understood.

Spoiler

One way or the other, they had a concrete plan, and they had their reasons for doing it, and since they had the same DNA as us (whatever that's supposed to mean - I think it was a huge miscalculation to add this nonsensical detail, but anyway...), presumably their capacity for intelligence doesn't outstrip ours by very much. I don't think the film can have it both ways - it can't say that "we are them" while at the same time building a convincing sense of the "otherness" of their intelligence. The whole point, I thought, was that it's not "other" - it's just beyond the scope of our experience. That's not the same thing.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

You've now basically put me off seeing this later today (and I was at least looking forward to the 3D, but not Imax out here in woopwoop.

Richard Brody loathes it

David, your link is busted, so I thought I would fix it: Richard Brody, indeed, loathes it. (Ya doubled the double-ya-double-ya-double-ya's.) While I can't speak to Brody's take on the film (having not seen the film), I do agree (more politely) with a commenter's point below it: that his Voltaire anecdote is a bit apropos of nothing, given that Voltaire's remarks seem more a mockery of Christian belief than any spiritually bereft individual's aspiration to found a new religion or mythology. I say this as a big fan of Brody, who rarely busts his erudition unnecessarily. Otherwise, I loved his remarks/objections and can't wait to see the film, in spite of his directive.

[warren oates]

I'm not saying Prometheus is in any way as elegant as 2001 or Solaris but it does manage to preserve the otherness of the Engineers' alien intelligence in a related fashion. Part of the lovely and functional hubris of civilized humanity is the idea that there's always an answer out there to be had, one that we will understand, even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots. The boundaries between religion and science are precisely where this assumption breaks down.

It seems highly contentious to suggest that the engineers were up to something that can't be explained or understood.

Spoiler

One way or the other, they had a concrete plan, and they had their reasons for doing it, and since they had the same DNA as us (whatever that's supposed to mean - I think it was a huge miscalculation to add this nonsensical detail, but anyway...), presumably their capacity for intelligence doesn't outstrip ours by very much. I don't think the film can have it both ways - it can't say that "we are them" while at the same time building a convincing sense of the "otherness" of their intelligence. The whole point, I thought, was that it's not "other" - it's just beyond the scope of our experience. That's not the same thing.

Then I guess it's time for me to be highly contentious again. The distinction I'm interested in is the magnitude of "beyond the scope of our experience." I see that you are a "just beyonder," whereas in this case I count myself more of a "way beyonder."

Spoiler

Suppose for a minute that David had perfectly understood his verbal exchange with the awakened Engineer (assuming it was anything meaningful at all) and managed to render those words into plain English for everyone in the room. What do you think was said? Would it have cleared up anything? Could anything have been said that would satisfy you? For me, the quickness of the exchange and the obvious result had a tone more akin to the sort of conversation you might have if your dog -- still with the same intelligence but now with the power of human speech -- woke you up and started speaking to you about what was for dinner, the sole focus of the dog's inner life and of piddling concern to yours. The human's and David's frame of reference here seems of a different level altogether from their godlike creators/erstwhile destroyers. Which is the very definition of what it means from our very limited current human understanding to be godlike. Still, what could the Engineer have said? "Because it is time to destroy you." "Because it is the next stage of interstellar evolution." "Because we know better." "Because you are a failed experiment." Anything that could have been explained would seem tautological from the human point of view. You know what, scratch that dog analogy. It's more like your Sea Monkeys asking you where they came from.

I also think the humanoid form of the Engineers and their shared DNA is muddying this issue. And I agree that a 100 percent DNA match is a hamfisted choice, one that's not even relevant on the level of metaphor/theme.

[Brian C]

Well, I meant "just beyond" in the sense of "simply beyond", not in the sense of "incrementally beyond". I have no idea how far beyond - how could I? It's not knowable.

Spoiler

We don't even know, strictly speaking, that the engineers had anything to with inventing/creating the ooze, or that they were intent on destroying us. They could be interstellar buffoons who chanced upon the gooey black stuff and made a mess of it, not having the first clue what they were doing. The living engineer might have reacted the way he did because he was startled and delusional after coming out of stasis. Or he might have thought that the humans had come to destroy him.

But this is my problem; not that we don't know all the answers - I admire 2001 and Solaris as much as anyone - but that the film's treatment of its questions is so inane that we can't take anything out of it unless we fill in the blanks ourselves. I just didn't find anything to engage, and even your interpretation rests on completely disregarding the film's major "scientific" premise (that they have the same DNA as us) and deciding on your own that the engineers have an intelligence that far surpasses our capabilities.

[warren oates]

Spoiler

[quote="Brian C"]But this is my problem; not that we don't know all the answers - I admire 2001 and Solaris as much as anyone - but that the film's treatment of its questions is so inane that we can't take anything out of it unless we fill in the blanks ourselves. I just didn't find anything to engage, and even your interpretation rests on completely disregarding the film's major "scientific" premise (that they have the same DNA as us) and deciding on your own that the engineers have an intelligence that far surpasses our capabilities.

[/quote]
I'll have to disagree. Even having the same DNA (don't we share all of it with at least some of our earliest ancestors? we certainly do share DNA with Earth humans from earlier millenia for whom technologies like nuclear power and the space shuttle would appear godlike!) doesn't speak to the vast gulf in intelligence that the film presupposes and that real humans would likely have meeting versions of their earliest selves. But you're also right that it doesn't preclude the possibility that the Engineers may be implementing plans that are not entirely of their own design. We simply can't know in this case from the interactions that the film presents. The Engineers may look more like us visually than the ocean in Solaris or the even 2001's Star Child, but I'll maintain that their motives are intentionally (as opposed to cop-out-ally) just as inscrutable and alien. And I'm definitely not arguing that the film is great. Just that it doesn't stink in the way you think. I'm not convinced by your thwarted expectation of specific answers that you seem to think should rightly be included in a better version of Prometheus.

[flyonthewall2983]

Spoiler

My one complaint that I'm guessing has not been addressed skimming through the thread, is that at the end Shaw is basically on a ship that has no means of human sustenance or facilities. This would be less annoying if they didn't go to the trouble of showing the members of the crew throwing up as the wake up from their hyper-sleep towards the beginning of the movie.

[warren oates]

Or to put it another way Brian C, even retarded children question their origins and purpose in life. Imagine a scientific genius trying to explain to a mentally challenged kid his/her place in the universe in the specialist terms of up to the minute cosmology. A vast gulf of understanding would persist between them. Yet, compared to the humans and the Engineers, my two people -- the scientist and the child -- would have considerably more in common than the same DNA.

[warren oates]

Spoiler

My one complaint that I'm guessing has not been addressed skimming through the thread, is that at the end Shaw is basically on a ship that has no means of human sustenance or facilities. This would be less annoying if they didn't go to the trouble of showing the members of the crew throwing up as the wake up from their hyper-sleep towards the beginning of the movie.

Spoiler

Well, we know the Engineers have terraformed the inside of their structure/the ship to be breathable without helmets. And it seems like David understands enough to fly the ship so would presumably be able to suss out the Engineers' hypersleep controls. Granted, I'm not the biggest fan of how he's able to grok any of that, which all seems too easy and convenient to me.

[HistoryProf]

In case anybody needs further confirmation that Lindelof's a hack writer, this interview should launch a thousand facepalms. Logan Marshall-Green, who plays Holloway, provides this particular doozy:

Why is Holloway such a jerk to David?

Logan Marshall-Green: It's something that I wanted to implement and I really, really liked it. Michael and I had a blast with it. It's something I haven't seen in science fiction, which is a sense of racism or bigotry towards androids and synthetic life. I think synthetic life is inevitable, and along that line bigotry and racism (if you will) will be inevitable as well. Although I can't approach a role thinking of [my character] as a racist or a bigot. Certainly now I can look back and explain his disdain for Michael in that way. I kind of loved it... that social reflection on a future being, a synthetic android.

From this answer I can only conclude that Marshall-Green hasn't watched any science fiction, ever. He certainly hasn't seen I, Robot (can't really blame him for that), but has he not seen Aliens?!?!? Ripley wasn't exactly buddy-buddy with Bishop...

Holy crap. #-o

[Brian C]

Even having the same DNA (don't we share all of it with at least some of our earliest ancestors? we certainly do share DNA with Earth humans from earlier millenia for whom technologies like nuclear power and the space shuttle would appear godlike!) doesn't speak to the vast gulf in intelligence that the film presupposes and that real humans would likely have meeting versions of their earliest selves.

That's all good and well, but earlier you suggested that this might be a case where humans couldn't know the answers, "even if we have to wait generations for our science to evolve and connect the dots." Here you're suggesting that it's just a case of the Engineer technology having evolved past ours.

So which of the two suggestions are you actually arguing, since they're in opposition to each other? Our technology today is not "alien" in relation to earlier human technologies - it's simply evolved and connected more dots. We know that primitive man can "evolve" (not a very precise use of the term, but you know what I mean) to understand our modern technologies, because it has indisputedly happened over the course of human history.

And I think this is the foundation of my disagreement with you; you're seeing an "otherness" in the Engineer intelligence that I just don't see. It's just a more advanced version of our own intelligence, given the passage of an undetermined length of time. And I think I'm on very firm ground in reaching this conclusion, since the film goes out of its way to point out the fundamental similarities between us and them. Again, for you to assume a fundamental "otherness" goes against the very premise of the film!

I'm not convinced by your thwarted expectation of specific answers that you seem to think should rightly be included in a better version of Prometheus.

Except, like I said in my last comment, I'm not bothered by the lack of specific answers as much as I'm bothered by the incoherence and inanity of the film's treatment of the questions. IMO it's true that these qualities manifest themselves in the withholding of key information, which I see as a copout for the reasons I've stated and you don't. Agree to disagree, I guess.

[eerik]

What is 10.11.12?

[jbeall]

What is 10.11.12?

Unless they get better writers for the next one, who cares?

[willoneill]

Ok, need some help here. Going to see this tonight with the fiancee, and we need some opinions: 2D, 3D, or IMAX 3D? Input is appreciated.

[bdsweeney]

Ok, need some help here. Going to see this tonight with the fiancee, and we need some opinions: 2D, 3D, or IMAX 3D? Input is appreciated.

Ridley Scott has implied that he thinks 2-D is the best way to view the film.

Personally, I can't comment as I haven't seen it. Sorry :-"

[mfunk9786]

I saw it in 2D (4K projection) and was pretty fucking dazzled. If you have any reservations about 3D or just don't want to spend the extra coupla bucks: Skip it.

[greggster59]

Ok, need some help here. Going to see this tonight with the fiancee, and we need some opinions: 2D, 3D, or IMAX 3D? Input is appreciated.

I saw it in Imax 3d because I had a free ticket. The large screen was cool. I did not find that the 3D image added anything to the experience except in one or two shots.

[Brian C]

I have probably the most trouble with the insistent sleeve wearing of the religious belief stuff that feels totally grafted onto the Noomi character as though one is obliged to pander to all the "believers" out there who can't deal with a non theist based conception of the universe.

The irony here is that I've been engaged in a Facebook discussion with a friend who is upset that the film was "very blasphemous," and was specifically upset by Noomi's cross and the way that her character didn't seem authentically Christian ("she misses the point" of the cross, in his words). So I guess it didn't pander hard enough.

[Finch]

Reverse Shot

[mfunk9786]

it couldn’t even be said to be actively withholding the answers it obnoxiously never provides.

I don't understand why that's obnoxious. I'll agree that the film doesn't gel the way it should have, or give proper weight to its unanswered questions, but why does everything have to be steeped in exhaustively explained mythology? Do people really want every science fiction film to be as dull as, say, the Star Wars franchise?

[franco]

Ok, need some help here. Going to see this tonight with the fiancee, and we need some opinions: 2D, 3D, or IMAX 3D? Input is appreciated.

IMAX 3D, totally. It adds a lot more texture to the mundane cinematography so you may actually end up enjoying this lame movie. I know I enjoyed it much more when I saw it the second time in IMAX 3D.