Prometheus - Spoilery thread of Spoilers

lostlobster wrote:

The "hallucinations" were another stupid way of getting information across that made no logical sense. Why is that recording there? Why only that small snippet? Why is nobody interested in the fact that a) David knew how to make the thing work, and b) that there could possibly be more information stored that they could watch? It's basically a huge plot arrow pointing the way for the actors to go.

Well sure, of course it's a plot arrow, but at the same time, David had been dissecting every known human language down to its roots for the past two years, and those recordings are ~2,000 years old. David probably was doing a best guess translation of the markings on the walls, so perhaps he was only able to access parts of the recordings. And since they are so old, is it unreasonable to assume that they have decayed or been corrupted, not unlike film or audio recordings?

I dunno, there are definitely some lingering questions, but I think they did a pretty good job of setting up alot of the later plot points earlier in the film.

Thanks for that ropes of silicon link, PAR, it was a good read.

nel e nel wrote:

Well, agree to disagree then. I don't think he had any emotions. I agree with LouZiffer, David was made to fool humans into thinking he actually was human.

Fine. To me, strictly in the "David basically has emotions" camp, the give-aways are as follows:

-David possesses vanity (why else would he style himself after Peter O'Toole?)
-David shows a capacity for amusement (there's no other reason for him to shoot basketball while riding a bicycle)
-David is vengeful (he looks pleased with himself when serving Holloway his infected drink)

Now, you can argue that the emotions are programmed AI responses, certainly. But if the programming's really excellent, is there any significant difference between those artificial "emotional responses" and the chemical and electrical responses in the human body that are responsible for emotions? Those are still responses to stimuli and most of them are there to elicit responses for self-preservation and self-diagnostics, speaking in crude functional terms.

I want to be clear: I'm not making some B.S. readerly argument about "oooh! robot's got feelings!" being a major theme in the movie. It's suggested but not really well explored, like so many other things here. However, its suggestion is essential to establishing the parallel between the Engineer-human relationship and the human-android relationship. If there's nothing approaching sentient autonomy in each respective created race, there's nothing to this parallel. And for all the loose ends, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue this isn't a central theme of the film.

I'm very curious to see the cut David-Engineer dialog and find out what, if anything, David has to say about himself.

ianunderhill wrote:

Fine. To me, strictly in the "David basically has emotions" camp, the give-aways are as follows:

They also make it so that he seems to have to come up with an excuse for why he has those feelings, because the crew members instantly deny he could be having them. Holloway says that he can't possibly be dissapointed by things. When he tries to bargain for his life at the end, Shaw insists that he can't possibly be afraid. For me, it was just another example of humans in the film thinking they have some special reason for existing.

“The trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts.”

kuddles - Good catches, there. I can't express how eager I am for the home release of this. I'm not prepared to sit through it again in a theater just yet, but there's a lot I've forgotten in the past two weeks.

ianunderhill wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Well, agree to disagree then. I don't think he had any emotions. I agree with LouZiffer, David was made to fool humans into thinking he actually was human.

Fine. To me, strictly in the "David basically has emotions" camp, the give-aways are as follows:

-David possesses vanity (why else would he style himself after Peter O'Toole?)
-David shows a capacity for amusement (there's no other reason for him to shoot basketball while riding a bicycle)
-David is vengeful (he looks pleased with himself when serving Holloway his infected drink)

Now, you can argue that the emotions are programmed AI responses, certainly. But if the programming's really excellent, is there any significant difference between those artificial "emotional responses" and the chemical and electrical responses in the human body that are responsible for emotions? Those are still responses to stimuli and most of them are there to elicit responses for self-preservation and self-diagnostics, speaking in crude functional terms.

I want to be clear: I'm not making some B.S. readerly argument about "oooh! robot's got feelings!" being a major theme in the movie. It's suggested but not really well explored, like so many other things here. However, its suggestion is essential to establishing the parallel between the Engineer-human relationship and the human-android relationship. If there's nothing approaching sentient autonomy in each respective created race, there's nothing to this parallel. And for all the loose ends, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue this isn't a central theme of the film.

I'm very curious to see the cut David-Engineer dialog and find out what, if anything, David has to say about himself.

I guess that depends on what one thinks is the central theme of the film. I'm not even sure that there is a central theme, and that it's exploring a whole bunch of themes. I'm more inclined to think that they were exploring religious motifs - the links that PAR have posted (particularly the one about Sumerian theology) I've found particularly compelling, and in light of me currently playing El Shaddai (and having done some light research on the Books of Enoch), the themes of creation, fall from grace, worship of false idols/god complex, faith and redemption are really what I'm seeing in Prometheus.

As for the David-Laurence of Arabia connection, re-watch the Peter Weyland TED Talk. Weyland directly references the match scene that David watches. I think it's more about David emulating his creator than vanity.

Either way, I think they intentionally made it ambiguous as to David's 'motivations'.

nel e nel wrote:

I guess that depends on what one thinks is the central theme of the film. I'm not even sure that there is a central theme, and that it's exploring a whole bunch of themes.

I said "a central theme", implying that I think there are a few main themes to the film. We are not in disagreement here.

I'm more inclined to think that they were exploring religious motifs - the links that PAR have posted (particularly the one about Sumerian theology) I've found particularly compelling, and in light of me currently playing El Shaddai (and having done some light research on the Books of Enoch), the themes of creation, fall from grace, worship of false idols/god complex, faith and redemption are really what I'm seeing in Prometheus.

Those are there, yes. I don't see how you can catch those and then miss the very visible question of the gods/man (creator/created) dichotomy, which is what I'm talking about above. It's all over the place, whether you're talking about stuff in the film itself (hoo!), the title, or Weyland's TED talk ("we are the gods now" ring a bell?). There's a lot of religious/mythological weight to this question. Are you really saying it's not there?

Hey, speaking of the TED talk:

As for the David-Laurence of Arabia connection, re-watch the Peter Weyland TED Talk. Weyland directly references the match scene that David watches. I think it's more about David emulating his creator than vanity.

David styling physically styling himself after O'Toole tells me that there's more to it than that. Even if you want to argue it's child-like parroting, there's no reason to do that without the presence of pride or egotism.

ianunderhill wrote:

kuddles - Good catches, there. I can't express how eager I am for the home release of this. I'm not prepared to sit through it again in a theater just yet, but there's a lot I've forgotten in the past two weeks.

Agreed. I still stand by my feelings that the film still feels rather disjointed in what it is showing. This isn't like 2001 or Mulholland Drive where while you may not fully understand everything on the first viewing, everything seems to have a purpose. There are a lot of red herrings and poorly devised scenes in this film. The fact that a lot of the more popular interpretations rely just as much on external interviews or TED talks as they do the actual content of the movie attests to this.

That said, it's also not the plot-hole ridden garbage film either that a lot of people are making it out to be.

It's weird, because I feel it's a heavily flawed movie and have a hard time recommending it to people, but at the same time I plan on buying the Bluray when it comes out.

kuddles wrote:

That said, it's also not the plot-hole ridden garbage film either that a lot of people are making it out to be.

It's weird, because I feel it's a heavily flawed movie and have a hard time recommending it to people, but at the same time I plan on buying the Bluray when it comes out.

I agree with you here. It's not a great movie in the sense that the inconsistencies in plotting and characterization really snapped me out of the ride every now and again. But it was still entertaining and I don't regret spending money on the ticket for it. If anything, my biggest peeve about the movie has been all the self-faffing it's spawned - people posting long, winding articles meandering through their super-insightful and hiiiiiiighly cerebral take on it. Articles and discussions that are really just contests about who is better at appreciating really super deep stuff, maaan. The movie really doesn't support the amount of examination it has gotten, I think. To me, it wasn't much of a thoughtful, mysterious story. It just contradicted itself now and again, was inconsistent and annoying in that respect, and that's that. It didn't "pose questions and leave you wondering" so much as "argue with itself and leave needless threads dangling just for the sake of having them".

But I also liked Transformers and would see that or this again on a big screen, fo sho.

I'm not disagreeing with any dichotomies that you brought up ian, I just disagree that David is having true emotion, and I don't think sentient autonomy is part of David's storyline.

kuddles wrote:

That said, it's also not the plot-hole ridden garbage film either that a lot of people are making it out to be.

It's weird, because I feel it's a heavily flawed movie and have a hard time recommending it to people, but at the same time I plan on buying the Bluray when it comes out.

Yup. I wouldn't call it a rousing success or failure either, but there's something facsinating about the broken pieces set against the ones that aren't. I'm stoked to see it again for analytical purposes, I'm eager to see cut footage, and I'm very eager to hear Scott and the writers giving direct commentary. I know that, with a sequel in mind, I won't get the post-mortem I'm really wanting, but between re-watching the film and all the supplementals, it should be easy to piece together a rough equivalent thereof.

nel e nel wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with any dichotomies that you brought up ian, I just disagree that David is having true emotion, and I don't think sentient autonomy is part of David's storyline.

That's cool. Back to quiet disagreement it is, then.

nel e nel wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

The "hallucinations" were another stupid way of getting information across that made no logical sense. Why is that recording there? Why only that small snippet? Why is nobody interested in the fact that a) David knew how to make the thing work, and b) that there could possibly be more information stored that they could watch? It's basically a huge plot arrow pointing the way for the actors to go.

Well sure, of course it's a plot arrow, but at the same time, David had been dissecting every known human language down to its roots for the past two years, and those recordings are ~2,000 years old. David probably was doing a best guess translation of the markings on the walls, so perhaps he was only able to access parts of the recordings. And since they are so old, is it unreasonable to assume that they have decayed or been corrupted, not unlike film or audio recordings?

I dunno, there are definitely some lingering questions, but I think they did a pretty good job of setting up alot of the later plot points earlier in the film.

See the problem I have with what you're saying is that every bit of it is conjecture about things that are not explored in any way in the movie. Yes, perhaps any or all of that. Does the strength of the rest of the script in any way think that the writer had that stuff in mind? No. You have brought all of that depth to the movie. It's just not in there.

I'm going to step out and stop commenting here, because the more I think and talk and read about this movie I am convinced that it's one of the worst screenplays for a major motion picture that I've seen in some time. Huge failure. Embarrassingly bad. And, really, have nothing more to add to the conversation than that. And that's a conversation stopper. So, yeah, I'm out. See you when the blu ray is released.

lostlobster wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

The "hallucinations" were another stupid way of getting information across that made no logical sense. Why is that recording there? Why only that small snippet? Why is nobody interested in the fact that a) David knew how to make the thing work, and b) that there could possibly be more information stored that they could watch? It's basically a huge plot arrow pointing the way for the actors to go.

Well sure, of course it's a plot arrow, but at the same time, David had been dissecting every known human language down to its roots for the past two years, and those recordings are ~2,000 years old. David probably was doing a best guess translation of the markings on the walls, so perhaps he was only able to access parts of the recordings. And since they are so old, is it unreasonable to assume that they have decayed or been corrupted, not unlike film or audio recordings?

I dunno, there are definitely some lingering questions, but I think they did a pretty good job of setting up alot of the later plot points earlier in the film.

See the problem I have with what you're saying is that every bit of it is conjecture about things that are not explored in any way in the movie. Yes, perhaps any or all of that. Does the strength of the rest of the script in any way think that the writer had that stuff in mind? No. You have brought all of that depth to the movie. It's just not in there.

I'm going to step out and stop commenting here, because the more I think and talk and read about this movie I am convinced that it's one of the worst screenplays for a major motion picture that I've seen in some time. Huge failure. Embarrassingly bad. And, really, have nothing more to add to the conversation than that. And that's a conversation stopper. So, yeah, I'm out. See you when the blu ray is released.

Well, I'm sorry you had such a bad time with the movie, but I thought they established pretty well that David would be able to decipher their language. There was the scene of him practicing a foreign language (turns out it was Proto-Indo-European)on the ship before the rest of the crew woke up, and then the conversation with one of the crewmates asking him if he'd be able to talk with the aliens and he replied yes, and went on to explain the part about studying languages to their roots. So I guess that was enough for me to imply he would be able to read the glyphs.

As for the holo recordings? Well, yep, that was all me conjecturing, but given the genre we're working with, I don't think it was that far of a stretch for me to assume that's what they were. And I think one of the crew members even asks "Is it some sort of recording?" or some such.

Trying to keep myself from ranting too much. Wish me luck.

Overall, I was disappointed with the movie. The amount of plot-holes and illogical behavior eclipses the entire story.

I liked this article, I think it explains what was the major problem with the movie; characters become tools of the plot. The sarcasm and cynicism are a bit thick, but it makes a lot of sense from a "poor movie" perspective. The behavior is incongruent at best, silly at worst and most of the time just plain unnecessary.

It's been all stated before;
Silly; petting the vagina-worm.
Silly; getting drunk because you didn't find any live aliens on your first day on the planet 37 light years away.
Silly; taking your helmet off.
Silly; opening the door because the zombie came-a-knocking.
Silly; proto-face squid grows 30 times in a couple of hours just to look more scary. (face huggers are scary enough, regardless of size).
Incongruent; no one minding Shaw's cesarean procedure.
Incongruent; travelling 37 light years away and call it quits because "I like rocks".
Incongruent; the cartographer getting lost in what appears (according to the 3d scans) to be a one-tunnel cave.
Incongruent; no one minds David can read Engineer writing.

So far, these are, like the article I link to, problems your characters will face when they are forced to follow a plot for the plot's sake. What annoys me, is the poor story telling besides the problems;

Useless; pretend Wayland is dead only to appear in the 3rd act.
Useless; flute-activated alien technology
Useless; entire head-exploding sequence.
Useless; shoehornei-ng an action sequence to rescue Shaw because the Engineer head falls off as the team out-runs the storm.
Useless; the entire "life form pings, life form now gone" to scare Shaggy and Scooby.
Useless; a zombie came-a-knocking in the first place.

Having said this, I really enjoy the message and I think Prometheus accomplishes creating a back story worthy of discussion, even if it did it through a story worth laughing at for years to come.

Hobbes2099 wrote:

Useless; pretend Wayland is dead only to appear in the 3rd act.
Silly; petting the vagina-worm.
Incongruent; travelling 37 light years away and call it quits because "I like rocks".
Incongruent; the cartographer getting lost in what appears (according to the 3d scans) to be a one-tunnel cave.
Incongruent; no one minds David can read Engineer writing.

This is far from useless and establishes the reasoning behind those other points below. The mission had nothing to do with exploration or scientific discovery. It was just a pet project for a rich old man so full of hubris he refuses to accept his own death, and thinks he can cheat it with the power of God. That's why the crew was kept essentially clueless while David clearly had been spending years accumulating knowledge about the mission. It had also been established earlier that of those two men who were lost together, one was completely insecure and dependent on others, and the other didn't care about anything involving the mission at all and saw it as a paycheque.

Granted, I agree with you that this could have gotten across while still making far more compelling characters or better pacing, but it's there.

Useless; the entire "life form pings, life form now gone" to scare Shaggy and Scooby.

That was the Engineer in hibernation, possibly being woken up. If you pay attention to the location, he's talking about the area that David was fooling around with.

IMAGE(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a263/kevlarcardhouse/bTvmf.gif)

Not only does that gif encapsulate what the movie was, but it captures the tone of it oh so well...

Alternate scenario: "I will travel to meet the engineers with you. I have the one trillion dollars you need to get there. I'm old and have a few days left to live. I want to meet my maker and maybe get eternal life out of the whole thing. My upstuck daughter and trusted android-son who has no soul will travel with me. Please help yourselves to some vodka in my ridiculously expensive quarters while I remain in suspended animation until we make contact with our creators."

This changes the rest of the movie, how?
What is Shaw going to say? Take your lousy trillion dollars, I don't want to go with you? Doubt it.

The crew could still be aware of Wayland being onboard and still have the crew watch the introduction video explaining where they are, have David infect Charlie, have that really tense scene between Vikers and David that helps establish that Wayland prefers David to his own biological daughter, and the ridiculous lack of follow up when Shaw shows up bleeding and sweating and telling everyone "we were wrong; it wasn't an invitation". Pretending Wayland was dead helps the plot in no way. It's uselessness is of Michael Bay-ish proportions.

The only part of information about David that the crew was unaware of, was David eavesdropping on their dreams. It's established early on that David has been studying and deconstructing language to their roots in order to re-ensamble it and with any luck, communicate with the engineers.

Being insecure and dependent on others and looking for paychecks are not directly related to easily getting lost (especially when 50% of them happen to be the cartographer). It also does not explain the complete lack of survival instinct required to willingly try and pet an alien vaginal-worm.

I might be misreading what you wrote, it reads like pretending Wayland to be dead justifies the rest of the bullet points you included in my quote.

I'm not sure about the place where the ping originates. It seems to be the access to the doughnut ship. Beyond that door was the cargo bay with the "payload", beyond that the ship's flute-controlled bridge. In there, a dormant engineer with a very, very loud heartbeat. Seems quite a distance and closed off areas for the probe to pick up the dormant engineer's heat signal and/or heartbeat.

Hobbes2099 wrote:

What is Shaw going to say? Take your lousy trillion dollars, I don't want to go with you? Doubt it.

What? Absolutely that's what she would have said. Look at how badly she sabotaged their efforts just finding out about this stuff at the end. Doing it the way he did it ensures he was completely in control of the entire mission right from the beginning (hence David clearly following a set goal while the rest of the team just dicks around) and nobody can oppose or question him because they don't even have a clue he was the person in charge.

The rest of the bullet points just confirms the fact that he brought along expendables to help clear the way with them, and was completely unconcerned with their abilities.

Also, I feel like there is something Freudian going on here that needs examination. Half of people call that creature a vagina worm, half call the exact same creature a penis worm.

That was the single stupidest, most incompetent group of scientists I think I've ever seen committed to film. Also, the spacebortion was full of inadvertent hilarity, but that may have been because at that point, I wasn't really taking the movie seriously anymore and just waiting for more Idris Elba scenes.

My wife and I walked out of the theater and both agreed we hated it. It's an unsatisfying mess trying to be greater than the sum of the parts it lifted from truly great movies. This wasn't an exploration film, I didn't care about their journey and there were no answers. I was looking at my watch waiting for it to just end already. I am really hoping that Prometheus's faults lie with the screenwriters, producers, editors... somebody other than the director. I am absolutely DREADING the Blade Runner sequel Ridley Scott has lined up next because that story was all about exploring questions.

There were some interesting points that I wish they had focused more time on...

The mysterious black goo... Any thoughts that it might be a sort of anti-semen? A catalyst for death (black) instead of life (white). The Alien (black) being the perfection of death, finding a way to reproduce when it isn't possible, a fusion of both biological catalysts? The Engineers (white) using it as a fission catalyst to seed their generic material?

Second thought... David (and his adoration for Lawrence of Arabia) was horribly under-utilized in the last half of the movie. He mimics what he sees and hears and while there are some overtones to Lawrence of Arabia in the movie, they could have done so much more with it. He wouldn't even had needed Weyland's urging to "Try harder" (or the character at all really) if the movie had upped David's mimicry to include adoration / worship / imitation of the Engineers. Heck, even Ash from Alien admitted to admiring the Alien's perfection. David was in a position to actually become a God. The crew should have come back from an expedition, opened the airlock and found him in the lab with bleached white skin, a shaved head reverse-engineering the goo. That would have been kind of awesome. An android built to service us (his "Gods") and finding a new God in himself as a creator. Heh... maybe that's Prometheus 2 : Prometheuss. The Engineers use android technology (something they may not have even thought of) as a way to control the Alien. That gets us a little closer to the traditional bio-mechanical Gigar Alien I guess... What was I talking about? Oh yeah...

What else... the writer really made it "Lost" in space. That damn stupid TV show... with a splash of 2001 and all those stupid generic engineering horror movies on the Syfy channel.
I should not have to take a history lesson in Babylonian creation myths to put a couple of plot's puzzle pieces together. My God did I read a ton of blogs yesterday and it was interesting and fascinating but it should have been explored just a little in the movie, not in a web browser a day later. A film creating conversation like this is always great when there is a reason to actually explore it but the characters, themes and even plot are incomplete or mishandled so all we're doing is spinning in circles.... Whoever made the comment in this sea of posts that they threw ideas at the wall looking for one to stick? Yeah, that hit it on the mark.

Also, I want an "EVP" comic book! Let's see a Predator throw down with an Engineer! Plasma casters & cloaks vs. black goo guns and space worms! Just kidding... though you know someone out there is writing it...

kuddles wrote:

What? Absolutely that's what she would have said. Look at how badly she sabotaged their efforts just finding out about this stuff at the end.

Shaw never tries to stop Wayland, just warn him. She tires to stop the Engineer from (presumably) reaching and killing manking on Earth. Neither motivation from Wayland a) meeting creators and b) pursuing endless life was improved or worsened by him pretending to be dead. As I said; a useless piece of plot.

Being open about meeting the creators would not have changed Shaw's from continuing the expedition; that's what she and Scientist Dr. McWooohooo where there to do. The scientific and spiritual curiosity Shaw manifests in the first scenes makes me believe that if Wayland had been open about travelling with them with the clear intent of pursuing endless life, she would not have passed up the opportunity to tag along for the trip. She might not agree on pursuing endless life. She might not even agree that asking the Engineers for endless life is appropriate (intergalactic etiquette or what have you). But she would not have stayed home "on principle".

kuddles wrote:

Doing it the way he did it ensures he was completely in control of the entire mission right from the beginning (hence David clearly following a set goal while the rest of the team just dicks around) and nobody can oppose or question him because they don't even have a clue he was the person in charge.

Your elaborating based on an assumption. Wayland would have had to first fake his death and then hope that there was a strawman scenario that would allow David to move in secret. It just happened to work that way because the poorly written plot allowed it. And again, to no one's gain. Half the crew and all the weapons are clearly in control once Wayland wakes. This could have been done from the beginning without recurring to the fake-death plot I keep complaining about.

Had Wayland been open about his intentions and the selected group of scientist opposed it, he could have easily gotten a new crew. How many scientist would oppose to be part of mankind's greatest discovery? Vickers explains this early on; Shaw and Dr. McWooohooo are there as a favor for finding out about the Engineers in the first place. Neither were not necessary to a) design, build or fly the ship, b) find the Engineers, c) contact the Engineers, d) ask the Engineers for endless life.

Besides, David does little to distract the team: Galaxy's-dumbest-scientist taking off helmets, getting lost only to start petting penis-vagina-snakes, getting drunk 5 minutes into the mission and electrocuting severed heads were in no way manipulated by David. This was, sadly, all on their own.

kuddles wrote:

The rest of the bullet points just confirms the fact that he brought along expendables to help clear the way with them, and was completely unconcerned with their abilities.

To me, it feels like a plot hole due to very bad writing, not a hidden plot. The characters act stupidly, not purposely incompetent within the story's canon or Wayland's Machiavellian plotting to get pawns he can easily control.

kuddles wrote:

Also, I feel like there is something Freudian going on here that needs examination. Half of people call that creature a vagina worm, half call the exact same creature a penis worm.

took care of that by calling it a penis-vagina-snake. You're welcome. Or I'm really, really sorry.

As a Floyd fan, what those eels reminded me of more than anything else was this:

IMAGE(http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo137/Inkskin_photos/PinkFloydFlowers-1.gif)

So really, we should have been calling them Flower Eels all along, because that's what the animation above depicts. Pretty flowers. Pretty, pretty flowers.

The more I read about this movie, the more I'm convinced it is just a ripoff of the very inspired Prometheus and Bob tapes from Nickelodeon.

The more I read about this movie, the more I'm convinced it is just a ripoff of the very inspired Prometheus and Bob tapes from Nickelodeon.

These guys?:
IMAGE(http://remnantofgiants.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/davey-and-goliath.jpg)

fangblackbone wrote:
The more I read about this movie, the more I'm convinced it is just a ripoff of the very inspired Prometheus and Bob tapes from Nickelodeon.

These guys?:
IMAGE(http://remnantofgiants.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/davey-and-goliath.jpg)

These guys.

IMAGE(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvxrajgvLF1qzwftfo1_400.jpg)

It's exactly the same! Now I feel duped.

LouZiffer wrote:

It's exactly the same! Now I feel duped.

Ah, the one good part about that Shazaam show or whatever the Hell it was.

I know what I'm doing for the next several minutes.

Prometheus Sequel inevitable. Rapace and Fassbender are signed.

FOX wrote:

The studio's big summer bet was Ridley Scott's Prometheus, June's sort-of Alien prequel. The $130 million-budgeted film has grossed a solid but not spectacular $303 million globally, putting it right on the franchise bubble. (It should top out north of $360 million.) Fox confirms to THR that Scott and the studio actively are pushing ahead with a follow-up (stars Michael Fassbender and Noomi Rapace are signed) and are talking to new writers because Prometheus co-scribe Damon Lindelof might not be available. "Ridley is incredibly excited about the movie, but we have to get it right. We can't rush it," says Fox president of production Emma Watts, who also has overseen the successful reboots of the X-Men and Planet of the Apes franchises. A Prometheus sequel would be released in 2014 or 2015.

I have to admit my fanboi-ness came through for this movie. I wanted it to be good SO BADLY that it took a couple months for it to sync in that it most definitely could have and should have been better.

Dare I hope Scott redeems himself w/ a sequel? I'm all for not having all the answers but sheesh, Prometheus was just torture...

PAR