Prometheus (2012) discussion - *SPOILERS!*

[Gordian Knot]

There are so many questions this movie does not answer, but this is one that I didn't see brought up as of yet.

Why do all the cave paintings show the star chart & the figure pointing to it? The answer given in the movie makes sense - it tells them where to go to meet the aliens.

Only it turns out the aliens don't want to meet us at all, if I understand the rest of the story line.

So what was the point of all the cave paintings?????

[iansales]

Plus, the five circles, described as a "galactic configuration", which is meaningless, are most likely a constellation seen from Earth. 35,000 years ago. But it's also there on artefacts that are 20,000 years old. Stars move, the Earth moves. The constellation would not be the same now and would not be the same at any of the periods during which the artefacts were made. Which renders the whole thing impossible.

[TheTomG]

"Space Jesus" apparently explains part of it - in some interview, Ridley Scott I believe said that the Engineers sent along an ambassador some thousands of years ago, and we killed him, so they got mad and decided to wipe out their creation. Originally, I guess this wasn't a military installation but a place of peace, love and was all cosy and stuff.

Quite HOW we killed an Engineer back in the day, since apparently we couldn't do it with guns and flamethrowers, well, who knows.

[gully_foyle]

So I saw it last night and went over all of these issues with the guys I saw it with and whilst I thought it looked pretty cool, the Swiss Cheese plot, and everyone's stunned incomprehension about it, makes me conclude its a pretty crap film. We forgave a few inconsistencies in Bladerunner. No director's cut, or sequel, will save this one.

Can someone, please, make another iconic sci-fi film for us all to rave about?

[iansales]

There's always John Carter, which was unfairly slammed.

[Alien Dynasty]

I just saw this film last night and loved it. Can't wait to see the fully grown proto-xenomorph. Also, some of the ideas in this film were actually part of my WIP, although the aliens don't create humans there.

[Dave]

Okay, just seen it and read all your excellent comments. First off, I was very disappointed, but given all the hype, it was hardly going to live up to that sort of hype.

To me, it was just a remake of Alien with knobs on - (and some cheap, fake plastic knobs at that.) It didn't have the real unexpected horror of Alien (I saw the cinematic release without spoilers!) It also didn't live up to it's promise of an answer to the question of the jockey aliens.

Originally Posted by gully_foyle

...the Swiss Cheese plot, and everyone's stunned incomprehension about it, makes me conclude its a pretty crap film.

Originally Posted by iansales

Prometheus is to Alien what The Phantom Menace was to Star Wars.

That's very harsh, but probably true.

BTW Too many alien names now, what are we going to call these now - 'jockey aliens' or 'engineers' or 'gods' or the 'creators'? I'm going with creators.

So, let's begin at the start...

Originally Posted by cesarica

Nobody really discussed the opening scene?

I still haven't a clue about the opening scene. I don't think your explanations make sense (not your fault - the whole film didn't make much sense.)

Originally Posted by iansales

And if their DNA only resulted in humans... why do we share 98% of our DNA with a banana?

Originally Posted by Moonbat

Yet 100% of our DNA with the Engineers?

Precisely! That DNA match scene was completely bananas! Only identical twins match 100%.

Originally Posted by Welsh Andy

I don't get how the "half billion miles" gaffe was sarcasm?

That's just a poor attempt to cover their tracks.

Originally Posted by iansales

Plus, the five circles, described as a "galactic configuration", which is meaningless, are most likely a constellation seen from Earth. 35,000 years ago. But it's also there on artefacts that are 20,000 years old. Stars move, the Earth moves. The constellation would not be the same now and would not be the same at any of the periods during which the artefacts were made. Which renders the whole thing impossible.

Originally Posted by iansales

I'm assuming the filmmakers thought this language was taught to humans 30,000 years ago during one of the Engineer's many visits. In fact, it's a complete distortion of the idea of proto-indo-european, and ignores the fact that are many different and completely unrelated language groups.

Originally Posted by Moonbat

We know we evolved from black Africans into the plethora of skin colours today ...so how did the DNA get all the way to the middle of Africa and black skin humans not white ones.

Originally Posted by Welsh Andy

35,000 years? The earliest evidence we have for human activity in Scotland is from around 10,000 years ago on account that before that it was under a kilometre of ice!!!

Also. The cave paintings were supposed to look like the cave art from Lascaux in France. Which dates from around 17,000 years ago. The people then were able to paint these images on account of France not being under A KILOMETRE OF ICE!!!

A little harder for them to explain away those huge gaffes. I'd toss back the homework book with a D-!

Originally Posted by Phyrebrat

The alien cut out of Elisabeth somehow grows enormous despite being locked in a room with nothing to eat. [I'm glad someone else was bothered by this.]

Originally Posted by Phyrebrat

The original Alien grows incrementally, although you're right in that this is not explained in the film other than the finding of shed skin, and implied.

The lack of a food source is a problem. It is possible that it could also feed off pure energy, but the fact that it eats other organisms seems to discount that. As for growing to maturity very fast, I don't have a problem with that (Animals can be born already pregnant.)

Originally Posted by Aun Doorback

Although such a rate of growth is quite unheard of in Earth's fauna, we should bear in mind that this particular life-form is extra-terrestrial, and therefore not necessarily subject to conventional wisdom about growth and development...
Sounds like a get out of jail card when creating fantastical things

Indeed!

Anyway, moving on from nitpicking the pseudo-science...

Originally Posted by alchemist

The one thing that rankled the most were the cliched, stupid decisions the characters made; such as walking straight into the pyramid, removing helmets where there is a potential biohazard, and the "biologist" who pokes the alien snake creature.

Even Scooby Doo and Shaggy didn't make such stupid mistakes.

Originally Posted by TheTomG

Oh, not to mention Vickers running AWAY from a rotating wheel, rather than off to the side - and she'd seemed so smart and in control and willing to do whatever it takes to survive!

Yes, a very silly scene.

Originally Posted by TheTomG

10 things about the making of Prometheus explains the casting of a young person for an old man - there was originally going to be a sequence where he was a young man.

That is the most ridiculous reason. Was that going to be a flashback, or was he going to find the secret of eternal youth he was looking for from the Creators?

Originally Posted by TheTomG

Why wouldn't Weyland send David in to talk to the engineer and only be woken up afterward? After all he only has limited time to live, and the engineer may take hours or days of conversation to go over the possibilities of immortality. Maybe he'd need weeks or months to prepare whatever was needed to make him immortal. Why not stay safely asleep until all that was uncovered?

Also, makes little sense.

Originally Posted by Judderman

Also I don't think there was much need for the black organic substance. Couldn't they have used the same alien egg style as in Alien? Maybe with one other thing (weapon/creature) for variety.... The geologist came back as some super creature when it seemed he had an acid burn at first?

I agree, that there were too many new versions and larval stages of aliens introduced here. Much too confusing. I can accept that the Alien at the end was different because it had been incubated with a Creator and not a Human - that concept was introduced in Predator vs Alien but aren't the Creators 100% Human DNA???

While we are on the subject, in this film is the whole series still canon, Predator and all?

Originally Posted by Judderman

In AvP hadn't the Predators engineered the Aliens?

That for starters, but it is really hard to reconcile everything that is supposed to have happened/ will happen. As someone mentioned already, they would have been better just going for a complete reboot of the Alien universe.

Originally Posted by Welsh Andy

I do kinda hope they make a sequel but I hope it begins with Bobby Ewing in the shower and Pam realising it was all just a dream...

Well, maybe written a little better than that was.

Originally Posted by TheTomG

And the throw-away connection of [Charlize Theron] being Weyland's daughter, which again added nothing. Surely she'd be a mite more peeved at her dad for choosing an android over her.

Well I wasn't convinced that Charlize Theron was really Wayland's daughter. Was she another Android? In the trailers, both her and David gave me the impression that they were ship's avatars rather than real people. Now I see why David gave that impression, but she still seemed distant. Not to mention...

Originally Posted by Judderman

4) There wasn't a huge point to Charlize Theron's character's amount of screen time other than having quarantine orders ignored. Could have had something interesting to do.

Originally Posted by Huttman

What a waste having Chalize in this film.What was the point, they already had a captain.

Exactly, the ship already had a Captain...

But then, she was the Weyland Company representative. However, Weyland was there himself. Then again, her argument with him about staying behind; not being in control until he had died tends to say she really is his daughter. Only, in that case, who was it they did leave running the Company? Confused!

Originally Posted by James Coote

Charlize's character is the most believable until she bangs the captain a bit too readily.

Did we actually see that happen? Unless, she was a superior model of android, that would certainly discount my idea.

Originally Posted by Phyrebrat

In Aliens we are told that the moon is LV426 yet in Prometheus we were shown LV223. What happened/will happen?

Now, I didn't see that as a mistake. They weren't the same place. It is a different Creator and a different Creator ship that is found by the Nostromo on a different planet. The Nostromo had secret programming to search another such ship.

Originally Posted by James Coote

Then we have all the stuff about David and can androids have souls, something that again isn't something you normally just chuck in there. And then on top of that you mix a bit of 'I can see your dreams'.

And then throw in some vapid shallow christian belief stuff.

There was certainly and Abrahamic theme to the film. Christmas and New Year. Crosses. Baptism in water. Sacrifice. Redemption.

Originally Posted by clovis-man

If you look at [Giger's] images carefully, you can easily see a quasi-religious symbiotic/parasitic relationship. A cult, if you will, which motivated the jockey/engineers to sacrifice themselves irrespective of any secular logic. The statuary and bas-relief (Giger again, it would seem) in Prometheus could easily (rather strongly) hint at that. And Dr. Shaw's cross could well be the counterpoint to that.

Is this film really that deep? I think we may be injecting more into it that the writers thought of themselves.

Originally Posted by James Coote

They decide to hole up in the room with the head and jars?

We were told that this was a stockroom - a cargo hold of sorts. The jars presumably held the weapons of mass destruction that they were developing on the planet. (Someone said that is only what the characters surmised, but are you really saying that they gave us a fake explanation - wasn't the film difficult enough to follow?) Anyhow, didn't the alien David gave Holloway come from one of those jars?

What, then was up with the Easter Island Head? Why were they sending this to Earth? Are these some weapon not yet explained??

Originally Posted by clovis-man

The cave paintings/Egyptian glyphs, etc.: Calling cards? Seems likely, but why an invitation to a military installation?

Originally Posted by TheTomG

"Space Jesus" apparently explains part of it - in some interview, Ridley Scott I believe said that the Engineers sent along an ambassador some thousands of years ago, and we killed him, so they got mad and decided to wipe out their creation. Originally, I guess this wasn't a military installation but a place of peace, love and was all cosy and stuff.

So, Jesus was an eight foot tall white man? I'm sure that would have been recorded.

Originally Posted by Warren_Paul

Clearly their bio-research project got out of control and turned on the Engineers, killing them all on the planet, before they could escape. Otherwise they'd already be on their way to Earth.

So, if I got this right, the Creators made us, then left clues for us to follow to a planet manufacturing weapons that would be unleashed to destroy us all? But, we took so long to come that the weapons instead turned on their creators and wiped them out? So, now we are off to find the homeworld of the creators in a sequel coming soon?

But why did the creators stop trying to send the aliens to Earth? If they failed on the first attempt, they had xx,000 years to try again.

Originally Posted by Warren_Paul

What doesn't make sense to me is that the Engineers don't appear to know the location on Earth until David plucks it out of the map, essentially telling the Engineers where to find the human race. If they had already been to Earth several times, then why did they need David to show them? And why leave it until now?

That wasn't what I took from that scene, but if so, then I would also agree.

Originally Posted by alchemist

I would like to think that the writers have answers to the questions posed here, however bizarre they may be (e.g. Q: why give directions to their military research planet rather than a homeworld? A: this was an "expiry date" for humanity. When you're advanced enough to develop spaceflight, you'll find the aliens and ensure your own destruction, hence preventing your destroying the galaxy with your warmongering ways), but I'm 99% certain they just haven't got a clue. The fact that Damon Lindelof was involved in Lost is telling; a series that disappeared up its own fundament.

That may well have been the problem. I expect Dan O'Bannon just turned in his grave.

[Shane Enochs]

Until reading this thread, the only inconsistency that I originally saw after seeing the movie was that it didn't line up very well with AvP.

AFTER reading this thread, I hate the movie.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Dave

Okay, just seen it and read all your excellent comments. First off, I was very disappointed, but given all the hype, it was hardly going to live up to that sort of hype.

To me, it was just a remake of Alien with knobs on - (and some cheap, fake plastic knobs at that.) It didn't have the real unexpected horror of Alien (I saw the cinematic release without spoilers!) It also didn't live up to it's promise of an answer to the question of the jockey aliens.

That's very harsh, but probably true.

BTW Too many alien names now, what are we going to call these now - 'jockey aliens' or 'engineers' or 'gods' or the 'creators'? I'm going with creators.

So, let's begin at the start...

I still haven't a clue about the opening scene. I don't think your explanations make sense (not your fault - the whole film didn't make much sense.)



Precisely! That DNA match scene was completely bananas! Only identical twins match 100%.

That's just a poor attempt to cover their tracks.

A little harder for them to explain away those huge gaffes. I'd toss back the homework book with a D-!

The lack of a food source is a problem. It is possible that it could also feed off pure energy, but the fact that it eats other organisms seems to discount that. As for growing to maturity very fast, I don't have a problem with that (Animals can be born already pregnant.)

Indeed!

Anyway, moving on from nitpicking the pseudo-science...

Even Scooby Doo and Shaggy didn't make such stupid mistakes.

Yes, a very silly scene.

That is the most ridiculous reason. Was that going to be a flashback, or was he going to find the secret of eternal youth he was looking for from the Creators?

Also, makes little sense.

I agree, that there were too many new versions and larval stages of aliens introduced here. Much too confusing. I can accept that the Alien at the end was different because it had been incubated with a Creator and not a Human - that concept was introduced in Predator vs Alien but aren't the Creators 100% Human DNA???

While we are on the subject, in this film is the whole series still canon, Predator and all?

That for starters, but it is really hard to reconcile everything that is supposed to have happened/ will happen. As someone mentioned already, they would have been better just going for a complete reboot of the Alien universe.

Well, maybe written a little better than that was.



Well I wasn't convinced that Charlize Theron was really Wayland's daughter. Was she another Android? In the trailers, both her and David gave me the impression that they were ship's avatars rather than real people. Now I see why David gave that impression, but she still seemed distant. Not to mention...Exactly, the ship already had a Captain...

But then, she was the Weyland Company representative. However, Weyland was there himself. Then again, her argument with him about staying behind; not being in control until he had died tends to say she really is his daughter. Only, in that case, who was it they did leave running the Company? Confused!

Did we actually see that happen? Unless, she was a superior model of android, that would certainly discount my idea.

Now, I didn't see that as a mistake. They weren't the same place. It is a different Creator and a different Creator ship that is found by the Nostromo on a different planet. The Nostromo had secret programming to search another such ship.

There was certainly and Abrahamic theme to the film. Christmas and New Year. Crosses. Baptism in water. Sacrifice. Redemption.
Is this film really that deep? I think we may be injecting more into it that the writers thought of themselves.

We were told that this was a stockroom - a cargo hold of sorts. The jars presumably held the weapons of mass destruction that they were developing on the planet. (Someone said that is only what the characters surmised, but are you really saying that they gave us a fake explanation - wasn't the film difficult enough to follow?) Anyhow, didn't the alien David gave Holloway come from one of those jars?

What, then was up with the Easter Island Head? Why were they sending this to Earth? Are these some weapon not yet explained??


So, Jesus was an eight foot tall white man? I'm sure that would have been recorded.

So, if I got this right, the Creators made us, then left clues for us to follow to a planet manufacturing weapons that would be unleashed to destroy us all? But, we took so long to come that the weapons instead turned on their creators and wiped them out? So, now we are off to find the homeworld of the creators in a sequel coming soon?

But why did the creators stop trying to send the aliens to Earth? If they failed on the first attempt, they had xx,000 years to try again.
That wasn't what I took from that scene, but if so, then I would also agree.

That may well have been the problem. I expect Dan O'Bannon just turned in his grave.

Um.... a rehash of Alien? I'm astounded that anybody would say that. That had a lot of ideas going on that had absolutely nothing to do with the original movie Alien at all, it's far more than a rehash. I'm sad that none of that came across.

Frankly, it's taken as a given that they don't fully understand what this race's motivations were, that's part of the point. The female protagonist's core motivation was shock and dismay at what our creators were doing, and anger at them for apparently 'changing their minds.' First creating us, and then evidently wanting to destroy us. I think it's ok that it wasn't explained in the film honestly, because well... a lot can happen in a few millennia. If they had somehow tried to explain all that in one movie, I suspect that the same people would be criticizing it for trying to explain too much, and jam too much exposition into the movie.

Why a race to decide to terraform a planet and experiment on it's lifeforms, even seeding something based off of themselves, and then thousands of years later try to clean it off? Maybe humanity wasn't even supposed to get as advanced as we did, and it was all a complex biological experiment. Then thousands of years later, their culture changes, they look at what they did, and decided it all had to go. All of the people who thought it was a good idea in the first place would have been dead by then. I don't find it all that hard to believe, honestly.

Just off the top of my head... maybe their original planet is ruined, and they want to clean Earth of it's current dominant lifeform so they can use it?

I thought it was an extremely different film from the original, and I suspect that maybe the problem is that people wanted a rehash, and are annoyed it wasn't the same movie. That's kind of what it sounds like to me, as a I read these comments. The plot was stunningly original. Yes it was convoluted, but I'd rather have an original, convoluted plot than the same crap I usually see.

I saw it earlier tonight, and I was impressed. Frankly, I didn't think it would be a very good movie. I expected a rehash, and that's not what it was at all.

I suspected Charlize Theron might be a robot too at first, but I thought it was rather obvious she wasn't when the Captain asked her if she was, and she told him to meet her in her cabin in 10 minutes.

I liked the father/daughter subplot. It didn't get much time, but it interested me.

[Moonbat]

Maybe when Charlize took Idris to her room she used her Andriod hypnotism to make him think they had sex and so she wasn't an Android?

There seems to be a lot of problems with the plot of this film, too many whys that don't fit with what normal people (or even the chracters we met) would do in those situations. Is it lazy writing that made it so implausible or a need to satisfy the Hollywood desire for action, aliens and some rousing moments of human spirit that were shoehorned into a screenplay making it appeal to the masses but ultimately a very flawed film.

all this effort by us to explain what happened, how and why it happened is surely something that a good film doesn't make you do, I'm all for a film leaving something unsaid so we have to make our own decisions, but there is too much in this one for us to really come to any kind of consensus on.

I can understand what Shane means, I really enjoyed the film when I watched it, but after seeing all the plot points exposed I feel it isn't as good as I thought it was. But I still enjoyed it at the time.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

Um.... a rehash of Alien? I'm astounded that anybody would say that. That had a lot of ideas going on that had absolutely nothing to do with the original movie Alien at all, it's far more than a rehash. I'm sad that none of that came across.

You want to know why I say that? Then I'll get off the fence, because as others have said, when you sleep on this film, you don't wake up thinking any kinder of it. I certainly did want those other ideas to come across and for it to be about that. I wanted it to be a 'First Contact' film. I wanted to know who the jockey/engineer/creators were. However, we learned nothing about their motives. You say the plot was "convoluted". You are being very kind. The plot was full of holes and practically unfathomable.

You have surmised all of what you say about the jockey/engineer/creators; really the film just left lots more questions unanswered, and those answers it did present, I think we have shown already, made little sense. We aren't even sure if some of what the humans said was true or just their own assumptions.

Take away that and what remains is a ship investigating a planet where there are creatures that grow inside us and burst out of our chests. After the release of Alien in 1979, it literally spawned another film with this same theme every month. It is a tired old concept now.

Alien was a classic 'horror'. The creature was largely unknown and unseen until later in the film. The story was shocking for its sexual themes and the chest bursting (which even the actors didn't know about until filming.)

Dan O'Bannon from http://www.cracked.com/article_18932...rely-rape.html

One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'

Didn't this film just try to go one step further with that abortion?

Only now we already know all about the alien life cycle, and almost everything else about it, so no suspense there at all, just the shock factor remains. That is what all horror films have now become; blood gushing and explicit gore. Nothing is left to the imagination; there is no suspense.

Even the evil Weyland-Yutani corporation was done better in the earlier films - consistently portrayed as exhibiting the worst aspects of company profiteering and corporate greed; quite willing to sacrifice decency and human life for the pursuit of profit.

Here we had that exchanged instead for a vain old man suffering the depredations of ageing and looking for the secret of eternal life from his maker. All a part of this new religious theme that was introduced from nowhere.

Originally Posted by Moonbat

There seems to be a lot of problems with the plot of this film, too many whys All this effort by us to explain what happened, how and why it happened is surely something that a good film doesn't make you do, I'm all for a film leaving something unsaid so we have to make our own decisions, but there is too much in this one for us to really come to any kind of consensus on.

I do think the sign of a good film is one that can be talked about for a long time after, but that should be for the right reasons. As I see it, most discussions here at Chronicles (after the liked it-didn't like it) start with nit picking the plot and the bad science, then they move on to the characters motives and 'mechanics' of the plot (as in which level they were on in Inception). The films people discuss for ever (such as the Matrix and Bladerunner) then focus mostly on the symbolism contained within, together with the questions they pose about our own morality and future.

If we are still discussing the 'mechanics' of the plot here then I agree it can not have been very well plotted. (And I also find the religious symbolism in this film lazy. Even the Da Vinci Code did a better job.)

PS: Some questions that also bothered me:

1. If the, "I'm a F***ing Geologist and I like Rocks" guy, and "I'm a Biologist" who pets extra-terrestrial creatures guy, really stayed behind, and they didn't take that huge, enormous, six-wheeled truck, back to Prometheus, where did the truck go to instead? Who took it?
2. Do people still listen to Stephen Stills eighty years from now? And would his Accordion be something someone would really take on a long space voyage?

And I've been reading some of the links here now. It seems that the ambiguity of Vickers being an Android was deliberate. Hence, her super-human strength, and yet everything else pointing to her humanity. It is a subject close to Ridley Scott's heart, which begs the question even more of why he didn't do the Bladerunner sequel instead, and why tie this film to the Alien universe at all, and not just do a completely different film which would not have had as many problems.

From interviews with Ridley Scott, most of what has been surmised about a 'Jesus Engineer' visiting Earth 2000 years ago is all intended. My problem is that none of that is in this film. I don't want to have read interviews with the Director, to read the things he forgot to put in, to understand the film.

Many people with questions about the Big Giant Head too. One person said it was a crossover to Third Rock From the Sun leaving the possibility of William Shatner being in the sequel.

I'd failed to mention what a visual feast this was, but that's because I need more than that in a film. The cinematography, the design, all of that was good. I didn't watch in 3D, but I expect that even the very, very beginning (the shots of the glaciers and mountains, lakes and streams) would have been 100% better than the other 3D films I have seen. Still, if I wanted that I'd watch David Attenborough.

[TheTomG]

"Space Jesus" would still be a bad explanation, but at least it would have been some sort of explanation, and it is 100% correct that you shouldn't need interviews to fill in what a film should tell you.

I thought on one way this movie could have been really cool. Ridley Scott has discussed suffering from depression before, and the black goo could have been used in a clever way as a metaphor, sometimes bringing about life, sometimes bringing about destruction, in a look at how depression can drive creativity (as it does for Ridley, if I am remembering rightly, where it is his "black dog" that he must constantly create to keep ahead of) or negatively tearing things down. I think much could have been done with the black goo being a force in both directions, with some mystery as to how it works (does it feed off the intentions of the creature it comes in contact with? etc) and would have been a nice way of it seeding life on a new planet, and developing creatures of horror.

It's very true that the whole sexuality of the Alien has been lost, pretty much since Alien in fact, which is shame, that was definitely a part of what made the thing so interesting and fascinating, again a viewpoint on a fundamental part of what it is to be human. This movie could indeed have revitalized that, but failed to do so.

Anyway, a wasted opportunity in my mind, especially given the director at the helm!

PS - the 3D was very good at the start!

[clovis-man]

Amazing how this discussion has taken on a life of its own. Sort of like a Ridley Scott creature. One thing about Scott: He can be relied on to always do it his way. And sometimes his way doesn't follow any normal pattern of logic. But it would be wrong to think he doesn't have specific goals in mind. In this case, it would appear to be to put bums in the seats and pave the way for a profitable sequel. How would that work if all the questions got answered?

[Gordian Knot]

In order to have a profitable sequel he needs to have a profitable Prometheus! Thus far the film has only made 75% of the production costs. Of course, BR/DVD sales will probably save his skin as that seems to be where the real money in profits are these days.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

In order to have a profitable sequel he needs to have a profitable Prometheus!

Yeah. The same guy who did Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down also made 1492, White Squall and G.I. Jane. His crystal ball doesn't always work. But he is singularly unrepentant.