or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › “Prometheus” sequel due out in 2014 or 2015
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

“Prometheus” sequel due out in 2014 or 2015 - Page 2

post #31 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

It's a self-evident objective fact that the movie stinks.
Fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

If Prometheus suggested that Jesus could have been an engineer in a slightly more apparent way, AND cleaned up a couple little things, this would have been earth shattering scifi to me.
True that.
My biggest complaint is the "scientists" in Prometheus reminded me of the "scientists" in Ghostbusters.
post #32 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

If Prometheus suggested that Jesus could have been an engineer in a slightly more apparent way, AND cleaned up a couple little things, this would have been earth shattering scifi to me.

Do you really believe that would have made the movie better, and not a million times worse than it already is?
post #33 of 286
Noomi Rapace Provides Prometheus 2 Update. Thank god this thing is on schedule and rightfully so. I know RS will do even a better job with the sequel now that he's got the tough 1st chapter out of the way and with all the feed backs good and bad I'm he's aware of. And biggest positive yes is that Lindelof will NOT be back..best news yet. He's the primary reason so many had problems with the script.

It's been known since Prometheus was released that a sequel was quietly being discussed, that is, until August when it was publicly revealed Prometheus 2 was definitely in development.

Then, in December, Damon Lindelof told the press he was not returning to script the follow-up.

Now, Noomi Rapace, star of the first film, tells The Playlist, "They're working on the script. I met Ridley in London a couple of weeks ago. I would love to work with him again and I know that he would like to do another one. It's just like we need to find the right story. I hope we will."

She added, "It's interesting because people, most people I've talked to who see the movie, see things that are quite different. Some people who see the movie many times and discover new things. There are all these religious aspects and there are very interesting conversations. And for me, if we do a second one, there are a lot of things to explore in there and to continue."

It is unknown as to who is writing the script, but we'll keep you posted.
post #34 of 286
I found the first one almost completely forgettable, other than some special effects work. It has the same sort of feel that these types of sci-fi CGI fest movies seem to often have have, where it almost feels like character development is against the rules, and it was almost atmosphere free to me. I felt nothing for any of them, or felt that any of them really ever became more than cardboard cutouts. Hate to be so harsh, but that's the feeling I had while watching it. Noomi was good within the limits of the overall low bar.
post #35 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

And biggest positive yes is that Lindelof will NOT be back..best news yet. He's the primary reason so many had problems with the script.
You mean the movie? Because his script and the released movie aren't the same. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155877/alien-prequel-prometheus/2310#post_22770238
post #36 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

She added, " There are all these religious aspects and there are very interesting conversations. And for me, if we do a second one, there are a lot of things to explore in there and to continue."
She is right.

Many viewers missed many of the references in the film, although not too surprising.
In spite of their identifying themselves to pollsters as being "religious," few Americans know much about "religion."
post #37 of 286
Does "working on a script" and "It's just like we need to find the right story - I hope we will" really confirm it? As far as I know, Fox hasn't confirmed anything yet. We just know that the film was successful enough for them to consider a sequel and that Ridley Scott wants to continue the story. But so far the confirmation hardly sounds official. Not that I don't want a sequel, on the contrary.
post #38 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Many viewers missed many of the references in the film, although not too surprising.
In spite of their identifying themselves to pollsters as being "religious," few Americans know much about "religion."


Which is exactly how their religious "leaders" prefer it. Nothing new there. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church and their royal allies prevented the peasantry from learning to read and write, often under punishment of death. Heaven forbid the Great Unwashed were actually able to read the Bible and form their own opinions of its content, or even worse, disseminating those opinions to their fellow peasants. It was, and to a certain extent still is, all about control.

I think the religious overtones in Prometheus were kind of overblown anyway. If Scott tries to make a connection with the Engineers and early Christianity in the sequels, they will be barking up the wrong ecclesiastical tree, IMO. Keep it secular and scientifically grounded and you'll have a better science fiction story.
Edited by archiguy - 2/28/13 at 7:32am
post #39 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Does "working on a script" and "It's just like we need to find the right story - I hope we will" really confirm it? As far as I know, Fox hasn't confirmed anything yet. We just know that the film was successful enough for them to consider a sequel and that Ridley Scott wants to continue the story. But so far the confirmation hardly sounds official. Not that I don't want a sequel, on the contrary.

The sequel was green lit about 4 weeks after release. Now they're starting to plan out the details and getting preproduction/scripting rolling.
post #40 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

It was, and to a certain extent still is, all about control.
Which would you rather have, society with or without control? But then, like they say, too much of anything can be bad.
Quote:
I think the religious overtones in Prometheus were kind of overblown anyway. If Scott tries to make a connection with the Engineers and early Christianity in the sequels, they will be barking up the wrong ecclesiastical tree, IMO. Keep it secular and scientifically grounded and you'll have a better science fiction story.
Unless RS is funding the whole thing out of his own pocket, he will have to abide by what brings the profit. After all, it's still a business.
post #41 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Which would you rather have, society with or without control?

I thought that's what laws were for.

Control by fear and hypocrisy (i.e religion) no thanks.

...so back on topic, yes, hopefully we'll get another science fiction movie.
post #42 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I thought that's what laws were for.
It's not the only thing.
Quote:
Control by fear
Works well, doesn't it? Is there something more effective when dealing with people?
Quote:
and hypocrisy (i.e religion) no thanks.
People used to live without it long time ago. How did that work out? We still have society without it (communist nations) but they still do have something to fear (recipe for control) and call it something other than "religion".
Quote:
...so back on topic, yes, hopefully we'll get another science fiction movie.
Come on now, do you fear that there's a chance it won't be? eek.gif
post #43 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Come on now, do you fear that there's a chance it won't be?

Not really ...I just don't want it to "address" the existence/purpose/youname it of jesus or any other religious nonsense*. Proposing a fictional theory about our origins and our quest for the "why" is something, but mixing it with religion? that's too much fiction!

*I don't want to offend anyone by saying this. I understand it's more than a sensitive subject - I just have my opinion on it and it's a strong one. I'll try to refrain myself from now on and concentrate on the film(s) only.
post #44 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

People used to live without it [religion] long time ago. How did that work out?

I would maintain that we've never lived without it. From the time of first sentience man has sought to understand and explain the physical world around him. What our ancestors didn't understand, they attributed to supernatural sources. Gradually, those early gods and associated religions dropped away as the scientific and practical knowledge of our world steadily increased. The ones that have sprung up in the last couple of thousand years, however, are more stubborn. They have very committed constituencies.
post #45 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I would maintain that we've never lived without it.
What I meant by "it" was the established institute.
Quote:
From the time of first sentience man has sought to understand and explain the physical world around him. What our ancestors didn't understand, they attributed to supernatural sources. Gradually, those early gods and associated religions dropped away as the scientific and practical knowledge of our world steadily increased.
But some withstood the test of time. Hmm... something must've happened. confused.gif
Quote:
The ones that have sprung up in the last couple of thousand years,
Back to Damon Lindelof's script again? tongue.gif
post #46 of 286
I am really looking forward to the sequel. The amount of discussion Prometheus prompted to me is a sign of how interesting the movie was beyond the glossy special effects. There were holes in the story some could not overlook and some could. However the dialogue about what the movie meant and whether not it explained it clearly adds additional enjoyment for me. It was somewhat similar to Inception for me in that it left me thinking. I realize not everyone shares my opinion but that is why it is "my" opinion.
Edited by Frohlich - 2/28/13 at 10:49am
post #47 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I think the religious overtones in Prometheus were kind of overblown anyway. If Scott tries to make a connection with the Engineers and early Christianity in the sequels, they will be barking up the wrong ecclesiastical tree, IMO.
RS didn't reference only Christianity in Prometheus.
He also alluded to other traditions as well and did so very skillfully.

Quote:
Keep it secular and scientifically grounded and you'll have a better science fiction story
The greatest Sci-fi book of all time (Dune) very deliberately has a religious component, as does the greatest Sci-fi movie of all time (2001).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

We still have society without it (communist nations) but they still do have something to fear (recipe for control) and call it something other than "religion".
Some have postulated THE STATE assumes the role of "religion" in people's lives (North Korea, for example).
post #48 of 286
Society with no control, we call that a society out of control. Who wants to live in such place? frown.gif
post #49 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Society with no control, we call that a society out of control. Who wants to live in such place?

I don't really understand what you're getting at. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were societies with a great deal of central control over their populations, as were the feudal European nation-states and empires under the thumb of despotic monarchs and the R.C. Church. None were particularly great places to live -- if you were a commoner.

Societies become more pleasant and prosperous places to live as they liberalize and cede more centralized control to their individual citizens and democratically elected representatives. In religious theocracies, such freedoms are generally limited in favor of centralized control of the populace based not on common law but on religious dogma. That's been the case for thousands of years, and still is.
post #50 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I don't really understand what you're getting at. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were societies with a great deal of central control over their populations, as were the feudal European nation-states and empires under the thumb of despotic monarchs and the R.C. Church. None were particularly great places to live -- if you were a commoner.

Societies become more pleasant and prosperous places to live as they liberalize and cede more centralized control to their individual citizens and democratically elected representatives. In religious theocracies, such freedoms are generally limited in favor of centralized control of the populace based not on common law but on religious dogma. That's been the case for thousands of years, and still is.
Like I said earlier, too much of anything can be bad and that's what I'm getting at. That also means too little can be bad as well when it comes to dealing with populace.
post #51 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I don't really understand what you're getting at. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were societies with a great deal of central control over their populations, as were the feudal European nation-states and empires under the thumb of despotic monarchs and the R.C. Church. None were particularly great places to live -- if you were a commoner.

Societies become more pleasant and prosperous places to live as they liberalize and cede more centralized control to their individual citizens and democratically elected representatives. In religious theocracies, such freedoms are generally limited in favor of centralized control of the populace based not on common law but on religious dogma. That's been the case for thousands of years, and still is.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Like I said earlier, too much of anything can be bad and that's what I'm getting at. That also means too little can be bad as well when it comes to dealing with populace.
History shows when control by a central authority becomes too onerous for the "commoners," eventually uprisings and revolutions change the Powers-That-Be.
post #52 of 286
And where did the Soviet Union come from? It evolved from a protest against depotic rule by Russian monarchs. Where did the American union system come from? Despotic control of workers by unrestricted capitalists. It just goes around and around. One group of people protest their domination by another group, and then they in turn grow to become the despots or the dominating status quo against whom other people rebel. It'll probably never end.
post #53 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

She added, "It's interesting because people, most people I've talked to who see the movie, see things that are quite different. Some people who see the movie many times and discover new things. There are all these religious aspects and there are very interesting conversations. And for me, if we do a second one, there are a lot of things to explore in there and to continue."

It is unknown as to who is writing the script, but we'll keep you posted.[/I]

If there is ONE thing I don't want in a sequel is Noomi getting all talky with her religious, inner feelings and talking about it - over and over. First she is a believer, and the dreams with her Dad etc, then she isn't (like in the blink of an eye), and then she is all over again - and every time she has to preach about it. I would rather have her team up with Fifield and Milburn's DUMBER brethren for her assualt on Engineer homeworld, or whatever, than have to go through that momentum killing prattle all over again.

An ambiguous reference to two thousand years ago is fun but the connection of Shaw's faith to the cave drawings and what it meant, did not add up or carry much weight to me, and then to have so much exposition put into her religious position killed any fun, or momentum, the movie had previously built up. Can we just concentrate on finding out about the engineers and aliens in the next one?
post #54 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

If there is ONE thing I don't want in a sequel is Noomi getting all talky with her religious, inner feelings and talking about it - over and over. First she is a believer, and the dreams with her Dad etc, then she isn't (like in the blink of an eye), and then she is all over again - and every time she has to preach about it. I would rather have her team up with Fifield and Milburn's DUMBER brethren for her assualt on Engineer homeworld, or whatever, than have to go through that momentum killing prattle all over again.

An ambiguous reference to two thousand years ago is fun but the connection of Shaw's faith to the cave drawings and what it meant, did not add up or carry much weight to me, and then to have so much exposition put into her religious position killed any fun, or momentum, the movie had previously built up. Can we just concentrate on finding out about the engineers and aliens in the next one?

Shaw's faith is conflicted with her scientific knowledge and search for the truth. She *chose* to have faith, which was more comforting for her than imagining her mother feeding worms. Her faith only comes from her father when she was a kid. She's not convinced of anything. She's looking for answers.

You said first she is a believer, then she isn't, then she is all over again. I don't remember anything suggesting that she actually lost her faith during the film. She is a believer from beginning to end. She's just not sure what she believes in anymore.
post #55 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

And where did the Soviet Union come from? It evolved from a protest against depotic rule by Russian monarchs. Where did the American union system come from? Despotic control of workers by unrestricted capitalists. It just goes around and around. One group of people protest their domination by another group, and then they in turn grow to become the despots or the dominating status quo against whom other people rebel. It'll probably never end.
That may explain the story idea of engineers' visits to earth on regular intervals throughout history. Similar idea was presented in Batman Begins.
post #56 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Shaw's faith is conflicted with her scientific knowledge and search for the truth. She *chose* to have faith, which was more comforting for her than imagining her mother feeding worms. Her faith only comes from her father when she was a kid. She's not convinced of anything. She's looking for answers.

You said first she is a believer, then she isn't, then she is all over again. I don't remember anything suggesting that she actually lost her faith during the film. She is a believer from beginning to end. She's just not sure what she believes in anymore.

I can't argue that and I like that people have faith or are shown to have it in a movie. But the point of showing she was not wearing her cross for a while and then, near the end, she had come to grips with her faith and what she was seeing, so now she has the cross back is the way I remember it. The way RS did it, the beleagured exposition of it took me out of the movie even the first time I saw it. Spaights did not have that in his script and obviously was the angle RS wanted to repeatedly hit on.

I've said it before but Spaights' script was a lot more "believable" to me. The trip was funded to get terraforming technology as the data they had strongly suggested entities from the cave paintings posessed. Straight, believable and on point. Shaw spent more time running and fighting Aliens then talking about her faith. Basically, RS replaced a good chunk of the horror and action element in Spaights' draft to have the faith angle. I guess RS felt he'd been there done that but I am hoping there is more horror, action and believability in the sequel.
post #57 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

But the point of showing she was not wearing her cross for a while and then,
It was taken away from her despite her reluctance.
Quote:
The way RS did it, the beleagured exposition of it took me out of the movie even the first time I saw it. Spaights did not have that in his script and obviously was the angle RS wanted to repeatedly hit on.
RS altered a few things on DL's script and DL adapted some ideas from JS script.
Quote:
I've said it before but Spaights' script was a lot more "believable" to me. The trip was funded to get terraforming technology as the data they had strongly suggested entities from the cave paintings posessed. Straight, believable and on point. Shaw spent more time running and fighting Aliens then talking about her faith. Basically, RS replaced a good chunk of the horror and action element in Spaights' draft to have the faith angle. I guess RS felt he'd been there done that but I am hoping there is more horror, action and believability in the sequel.
I guess RS wanted to put more depth into the movie. I don't know of any horror action movies with deep meanings.
post #58 of 286
I liked Prometheus. Any Alien franchise movie WITHOUT Ripley, at this point, is a breath of fresh air. I look forward to the next one.

Plus, its a good movie to showcase my HT setup. Some nice eye and ear candy.
post #59 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post


I've said it before but Spaights' script was a lot more "believable" to me. The trip was funded to get terraforming technology as the data they had strongly suggested entities from the cave paintings posessed. Straight, believable and on point. Shaw spent more time running and fighting Aliens then talking about her faith. Basically, RS replaced a good chunk of the horror and action element in Spaights' draft to have the faith angle. I guess RS felt he'd been there done that but I am hoping there is more horror, action and believability in the sequel.

I keep deleting all these crude descriptions of all known scripts.
A brutal year for Ridley, so I'll pass.
post #60 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Where did the American union system come from? Despotic control of workers by unrestricted capitalists.
I read it more as despotic rule by a King and a dislike of paying taxes (sound familiar?).
Neverthess I agree 100%: It just goes around and around. One group of people protest their domination by another group, and then they in turn grow to become the despots or the dominating status quo against whom other people rebel. It'll probably never end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post


An ambiguous reference to two thousand years ago is fun but the connection of Shaw's faith to the cave drawings and what it meant, did not add up or carry much weight to me, and then to have so much exposition put into her religious position killed any fun, or momentum, the movie had previously built up. Can we just concentrate on finding out about the engineers and aliens in the next one?
RS has already put it in motion...
Noomi's religious questions and/or crisis of faith will be dealt with in the sequel...it just can't be ignored.

What was hinted at in the movie is the search for the SOURCE of mankind's need for religion, which seems to be inherent to our species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Shaw's faith is conflicted with her scientific knowledge and search for the truth. She *chose* to have faith, which was more comforting for her than imagining her mother feeding worms. Her faith only comes from her father when she was a kid. She's not convinced of anything. She's looking for answers.
She's just not sure what she believes in anymore.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post


I guess RS wanted to put more depth into the movie. I don't know of any horror action movies with deep meanings.
RS has even stated this in interviews.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › “Prometheus” sequel due out in 2014 or 2015