GlasgowSpacer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 23
Scott’s a director whose at his best when he’ tethered to a strong script writer. When he’s working with someone like Dan O’Bannon or David Webb Peoples he’s phenomenal, but otherwise he can very easily descend into mediocre rubbish like Hannibal.
The quote Clovis Man showed actually sums up one of the film’s biggest problems: it’s fixated on its central idea to the point where everything else in the film feels secondary. Aside from David most of the characters are thinly sketched. On its own this wouldn’t be enough to kill the film (2001 didn’t have any particularly deep characters aside from Hal. Why is it that in so many sci-fi works the aliens and robots are the only ones who feel like fleshed out human beings?) except for two things.
Firstly it clearly wants us to engage with the characters, but doesn’t flesh them out or develop them enough for us to relate to them. Despite everything that happens Shaw seems almost unaffected by the end. 2001 on the other hand is clearly idea driven from the start so we don’t really need to engage with the characters. Secondly, one the film raises its initial questions, it doesn’t develop them. We know right of the bat that the Engineers created humanity… and by the end, that’s still pretty much all we know for sure. While a film shouldn’t spoon feed the audience everything there’s still a difference between leaving things to our imaginations and being needlessly vague. 2001 left the exact nature of the monolith vague, but still developed its themes and concepts enough to make its story genuinely compelling. Sequences like Dave aging in the hotel and the starchild, while ambiguous still show the writers genuinely developing a concept.
Prometheus on the other hand just throws around a lot of vague suggestions without really fleshing out its ideas. Granted it could be argued that they’ll develop it in the sequel, but then again they might not, and even if they do it weakens the film as a stand alone picture. For contrast, thought the Empire Strikes Back ends on a cliff-hanger, Vader’s revelation means that the film has a genuine sense of development. In Prometheus Vader would probably just say, ‘Luke, at some point in the theoretical past I might possibly have had a theoretical connection (possibly) to someone who could possibly have had a bearing (maybe) on someone who might have been part of your immediate family. In theory.’
The quote Clovis Man showed actually sums up one of the film’s biggest problems: it’s fixated on its central idea to the point where everything else in the film feels secondary. Aside from David most of the characters are thinly sketched. On its own this wouldn’t be enough to kill the film (2001 didn’t have any particularly deep characters aside from Hal. Why is it that in so many sci-fi works the aliens and robots are the only ones who feel like fleshed out human beings?) except for two things.
Firstly it clearly wants us to engage with the characters, but doesn’t flesh them out or develop them enough for us to relate to them. Despite everything that happens Shaw seems almost unaffected by the end. 2001 on the other hand is clearly idea driven from the start so we don’t really need to engage with the characters. Secondly, one the film raises its initial questions, it doesn’t develop them. We know right of the bat that the Engineers created humanity… and by the end, that’s still pretty much all we know for sure. While a film shouldn’t spoon feed the audience everything there’s still a difference between leaving things to our imaginations and being needlessly vague. 2001 left the exact nature of the monolith vague, but still developed its themes and concepts enough to make its story genuinely compelling. Sequences like Dave aging in the hotel and the starchild, while ambiguous still show the writers genuinely developing a concept.
Prometheus on the other hand just throws around a lot of vague suggestions without really fleshing out its ideas. Granted it could be argued that they’ll develop it in the sequel, but then again they might not, and even if they do it weakens the film as a stand alone picture. For contrast, thought the Empire Strikes Back ends on a cliff-hanger, Vader’s revelation means that the film has a genuine sense of development. In Prometheus Vader would probably just say, ‘Luke, at some point in the theoretical past I might possibly have had a theoretical connection (possibly) to someone who could possibly have had a bearing (maybe) on someone who might have been part of your immediate family. In theory.’