During the in depth ‘Prometheus’ chat that a few of us had for the most recent Awards Circuit Power Hour Podcast (found here), one thing that came up a bit was the possibilities that a sequel would hold for the movie. Since recording that, I’ve started thinking more and more about that, and I honestly can’t decide if I even want to see ‘Prometheus 2′ (or more likely a far more original title) in a few years. Maybe I just feel a bit let down by what turned out to only be a good film, and not a great one? Whatever the case may be, it’s strange that in a week where I haven’t batted an eye at unneeded sequels to ‘Eastern Promises’ and ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’ coming down the pike, this far more interesting and ambitious flick is the one I’m hesitant to embrace seeing more of. It really should be the other way around (especially since ‘Prometheus’ was always conceived as the first of a two part project, so I should have made peace with this a long time ago, regardless of the film’s quality). Ironically, I can only think of a few ways that a sequel would be worthwhile to me, whereas I think those other projects have a lot of other directions they could go in, potentially with interesting results. There may be something to the idea of ‘Prometheus’ fatigue after all. Anyway, after the jump I’ll get into the way that Ridley Scott and whomever scripts the potential sequel (hopefully neither Damon Lindelof nor Jon Spaihts), but mostly I want to know what you guys think. Let me know in the comments section, but for now, check out my thoughts below…and of course, beware of some level of spoilers if you’ve yet to see the flick. Consider yourself hereby warned…
The one thing I’d like the next film to do is to more clearly decide if it’s an ‘Alien’ prequel or not. One of my big issues with ‘Prometheus’ was that the prequel elements and the original adventure tale elements didn’t mesh well together, and it dilutes both. The likely story of the sequel would dovetail into ‘Alien’ (as is the stated intention, I believe), but if they’re going to do that, they should just out and out do it. Otherwise, we could get another muddled mess. I liked Scott’s direction, he just needs a better script, one that doesn’t appear to be at war with itself, presumably unencumbered by Spaihts wanting a full on ‘Alien’ prequel and Lindelof aiming for something way on the other end of the spectrum). What could that wind up looking like? Well, let’s get into that now.
Where we were left in the story when the credits ran, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and the head of the android David (Michael Fassbender) were headed off to presumably find the home world of the Engineers. At the same time, the bioweapon that the Engineers had developed (the precursor to the Xenomorph from ‘Alien’ and beyond) was evolving after the organism removed from Shaw merged with an Engineer, creating the type of “alien” that would eventually terrorize Sigourney Weaver. The assumption is that it will hitchhike along and cause problems for Shaw, but it’s handled in such a blase way that it doesn’t whet your appetite one bit. What I’d like to see them actually do is have Shaw and David meet more of the Engineers and have to work with them to contain a threat by the still evolving Xenomorph, leading to a downed craft on the planet that the Nostromo would eventually visit. I know it’s not the most amazing idea, but it’s indicative of the odd taste left in my mouth by ‘Prometheus’ that I’m not obsessing over the possibilities (there are dozens of other articles elsewhere on the web more focused on that). Maybe another viewing will change my mind, but right now I’m rather indifferent to the idea of a sequel.
Anywho, it’s time for you all to have your say on the matter. Do you even want to see a sequel to ‘Prometheus’? Are you happy leaving things off as is? Were you let down by the flick, or did it meet your expectations? Have at it!
-Thoughts? Discuss on the Forum!
Related Stories:
Tags: Damon Lindelof, Prometheus, random, Ridley Scott, rumor, sequel, upcoming projects
36 Comments
In the end I’d of course see one if it got made, but I’m hardly chomping at the bit…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I’d take a sequel if for no other reason than to tie Prometheus to Alien better. This, sadly, is my one complaint about Prometheus, and could have been avoided all together had the “pregnant” engineer managed to stumble his way back to the ship, end up in the pilot chair, and then had a chest-bursting scene.
That, and if they would have just put them on the right moon to begin with.
Mark Johnson(Quote) (Reply)
Indeed. I’d like the connective tissue to synch with the film itself better the next time around.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I would like to be completely surprised by the Prometheus sequel (just as I was by the first one) so I hope they wouldn’t over-share in the trailer! I purposely avoided the trailers as they became more and more revealing. I agree with you – the one thing I would like most from a sequel would be sorting out its relationship with the Alien movies.
Jessie Makowski(Quote) (Reply)
One can only hope…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t think I’ve ever been as excited for a sequel, so a big YES from me. However, the commentary for the ‘Prometheus’ Blu-Ray: Extended Edition is what I’m looking forward to most (it better be on there!).
Joseph Braverman(Quote) (Reply)
I’ll be curious to see that version of the film, I’ll admit to that.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
Won’t it just come down to money anyway?
Kim(Quote) (Reply)
Sadly, that’ll be a big factor.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
do not
John Rivera(Quote) (Reply)
Duly noted.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t agree with your assessment of Prometheus and wonder if you only saw the film once; if you were making assuptions based on your limited understanding of the universe as compared to that of the films; if you are just looking for a correlation with Alien and failing to find anything concrete and so you are frustrated with the plot; I saw this film 5 times. I saw all of the marketing material. 4 Stars/4 Stars. Smart engaging intelligent sci-fi that ranks up there with 2001. But don’t take my word for it. I doubt half the audience understood it – much like 2001 when it was first released. A sequel would be good – but read scifiman’s review of this on rottentomatoes and also read Double.Dubs review on there. Lots of conflicting opinions are out there and the mystique and greater unknown (which is natural in our universe and our understanding of reality anyway) brings out the best in this sci-fi epic.
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve seen it more than once Andrew, and I liked it even less…it’s still just as flawed, and the wonder was gone after the initial viewing. I still like it, just not nearly as much as you did.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
And while we are at it – why don’t you answer for me why District 9 got snubbed in the academy awards department. Hurt Locker was a piece of garbage that could not afford a helicopter on the set vs District 9s dozens of helicopters. Not to mention the late release pushed by Bigelow – just so she could campaign a bit more. Tell me something – you think these “awards” that get handed out are handed out for political reasons? And do you think that the awards systems that are in place exact fairness across the board on all films and genres of film? Further, how would you compare Sharlto Copleys performance in District 9 to the performance of Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart? Did the word “snub” ever cross your mind?
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
One last thing – and then I am done. The Sci-Fi (not to be confused with fantasy) has no winners in:
Best Actor/Actress
Best Supporting Actor/Actress
Best Director
Best Picture
The Academy Awards. Wow. Justice has clearly been done to the millions of people wrapped around city blocks ready to see Star Wars (thanks Woody Allen for releasing that other movie that noone in my office knows what it is)… Justice has been done to 2001. Justice has been done to films that were un-nominated like Empire Strikes Back which is clearly one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time.
Yep. Justice.
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
Well, I prefer The Hurt Locker to District 9 and Annie Hall to Star Wars (though I think all are terrific films and 3 of those 4 are in my top 50 of all time), so perhaps it’s all a matter of personal opinion?
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
I Guess the final thing that needs to be said (Which may or may not be pretty damning to this whole Academy Awards bit) is that these awards have lost credibility with millions and millions of people because of failures like the sci-fi genre snub over the past 100 years or so; the campaigning of movie makers to get their foot in the door in the “awards circuit” to win that golden prize.
I will express the general consensus among the more educated award show watchers and viewers, “Bah Humbug!”
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
What piques my interest is Andrew Turner’s assertion that The Hurt Locker was a “piece of garbage” because it “could not afford a helicopter on the set” (???). I have this odd habit of believing a film’s budget doesn’t have much bearing on its actual quality. What’s next, Jurassic Park deserved the Oscar more than Schindler’s List because the latter couldn’t afford any dinosaurs?
Robert Hamer(Quote) (Reply)
Robert, I just literally laughed out loud about the dinosaur comment. My office is staring at me.
Andrew, while you make some unbalanced points, I understand your frustration when it comes to sci-fi and the Academy Awards. It is my favorite genre (along with Noir), and it is unsettling how often they snub films of that ilk. Just keep in mind that we should never measure how great a film is based on how many awards it receives any more than we should degrade a film just because it has a lower budget than Transformers 3.
Mark Johnson(Quote) (Reply)
Robert. No. When more money is spent on the production of a film the probability is raised that the film will be good, will win awards, will be more appreciated by audiences… It’s like a pinto (cheap) vs. a Rolls Royce (expensive) or open heart surgery (expensive) vs. pouring water on someone’s head. If you spend money you raise the probability of success and while I will not say that movies in general that don’t spend money are bad, I will say that there is a greater probability for contention and success and appreciation if you do. I work for an IT staffing company and we can get a consultant that costs $30,000.00 USD per year that can program in ASP .net right out of college. But you can also get a consultant that will cost $120,000.00 per year who has 20 years of experience doing web based application development and can do double the workload in half the time. The money thing is all a very simple calculation from my perspective – but you cannot put a price on the performance of an actor or the effectiveness of a storyline. But it would be naive if you to say that the amount of money spent on the production of anything did not play role in its effectiveness or its ability to please a crowd. Hundreds of millions of dollars went into the production of Avatar and they got Billions back. Also, the other thing to point out money wise is that of the films that are the highest grossing of all time (after adjusting for inflation) 9 of the top 10 were all nominated for Best Picture. (Snow White being the odd one out) So success at the box office also is related to the awards status of a film.
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
I would really appreciate it if someone would post on why these awards fail to be impartial and why sci-fi has been snubbed. I guess my postings are just here to raise awareness (I have definitely had this debate on other forums) but it does seem a bit odd doesn’t it?
And who wants to comment on the statement that I made about the campaigning for awards and the political nature of how some of these awards are dished out?
eh?
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
And I have to admit, I was moved by Jeremy Renner’s performance in Hurt Locker – but I still felt that the film as a whole was very much inferior to District 9. In more ways than just financially. Let’s try thematically. War is a Drug vs infinite monkey theorm and social ramifications of alien visitors and correlations to Apartheid – not to mention gripping effects and feelings of shame towards your own race and SYMPATHY for Wikus (and Sharlto was snubbed for an award – who wants to argue that point with me?). ……
……
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
I think it is really sad too – Mr. Fassbender turned in a very very admirable character and you guys are not even considering that he might be worth giving a best actor award to… I liked his work a lot and saw some brilliance in what he did. I also liked the shorts that were done by him – the David viral that came out months prior to the movie. I doubt that will get any traction either. It really is a shame.
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
Honestly, I think you just have a different interpretation about the Oscars and quite admirably wish they considered a broader scope of films…that’s just not the way that it is.
That being said, a budget has absolutely zero to do with a film’s quality. The Transformers films are some of the most expensive of all time, and some of the worst. Whereas a film like Chasing Amy was made for about a quarter of a million dollars and is my second favorite of all time. It all comes down to perspective…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
that is why I said that they have a greater PROBABILITY of being in contention for awards and being considered better – in no way am I insuating that this is some sort of guarantee…
And my perspective of the Oscars is that they are to be fair and impartial to all films that come out and judge each on their merits and give credit where credit is due. I don’t think that is out of bounds for the Oscars and I certainly don’t think I am asking too much.
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
**insinuating
(I hate typos that I cannot edit and fix)
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
The budget really doesn’t give a film a better chance of critical or awards success at all…there’s a lot wrong with the process, but that’s not one of things.
It’s nothing new that the Academy recognizes the types of films they like, and they typically don’t include genre fare…
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
Actually I am glad you said that, I agree 100% – the process needs some change…
And until then I will keep posting on forums and criticizing the awards givers and critics alike! =)
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
Go for it…might I recommend Safety Not Guaranteed for a small budget sci-fi film?
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
You know Joey, I think I am going to watch District 9 again. And then again. I love the music in that movie… (is that wierd?) The “Enigma” like music sends goose bumps up my spine. Same with the lightning bolt gun that makes people explode. (maybe I am just a glutton for punishment)
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
BOOM!
Andrew Turner(Quote) (Reply)
Well, whatever you prefer.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
No Way! This was so close to being a masterpiece, and yet in the end made a ludicrous mockery of 1) the Alien mythology,2) self-contradictory “science” references (in one scene, it is claimed the engineers have same DNA as ours, in another that “ours developed from theirs” – well, you can’t have it both ways, dude, it’s like saying 2+2=5); not to mention that the animals from the Cambrian explosion of life diversity – this is approx. when the seeding is taking place – actually look EXACTLY like something designed by Giger, and could very plausibly have been spawned by something that looks like the original Space Jockey (not by the ludicrously humanoid “Imhotep” in the suit, but if the suit itself were the body – well, one Cambrian animal called Opabinia actually has five eyes and a prominent snorkel!) Nature offered the screenwriters everything they needed to make this movie great on a silver platter, and yet they tossed it all away, maybe because they thought they were cleverer than nature (hah!), or because they thought non-humanoid creators may upset the audience (in an Alien universe film? Come again? Wouldn’t us being spawned by a vaguely elephantine exoskeletal creature be WAY creepier than a Space Imhotep with a steroid problem?) Furthermore, on a genetic level, it turns out the building of all functioningly “biomechanical”multicellular beings uses the same basic toolkit of a small set of conserved HOX genes (use one from a chicken in a fruit fly, and a fruit fly will develop.) – now that’s a scientifically plausible way of seeding life if I’ve ever heard of one. And the final reason I don’t want a sequel is that they also ruined one of the great experiences of my teenage years, namely playing The Legend of Zelda; The Ocarina of Time. (To be fair, this game was inspired by Ridley’s movie Legend, so now he has to steal back what was once stolen from him?) First there was the flute (what were they thinking? were they at all?), and then the New Xeno ended up looking a lot like Dark Link from the same game. Bad ripoff (ok, re-ripoff), from wrong universe. I guess I’d like a sequel only if Ridley first bought a good set of screenplay reading glasses, and then brought for screenwriters say David Peoples possessed by the spirit of the late Dan O’Bannon. Or someone just as good. Although that is a tough call to find.
–
.
Antonius Hybrida(Quote) (Reply)
Duly noted there.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
Regarding the Academy Awards and the snubbing, it’s not just SF. (I guess it may be a good idea if they added a special category for SF, but, as we alll regretfully know, too few quality SF movies get made, so they may not find enough of those to nominate every year.)
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Oscar ceremonies. But those who get eternally snubbed, SF included, are actually in great company:
Consider the following Oscar snubs:
Directors: Orson Welles, Sergio Leone, Alfred Hitchcock, Ridley Scott (even though I’ve had a lot of problems with Prometheus, I find it beyond ludicrous they never gave Scott an Oscar)
Films: Citizen Kane, Psycho, The Shawshank Redemption…and let it be mentioned that Apocalypse Now lost to Kramer vs. Kramer, that Pulp Fiction lost to Forrest Gump, and that The Pianist lost to…Chicago (none of those three winners were bad movies, but compared to the ones that lost – oh, you’ve got to be kidding me…)
It seems that the Academy voters generally prefer less controversial films, even if they end up waaay less remembered or influential.
When it comes to acting awards, a simple rule of thumb is that the actor/actress whose character experiences the greatest misfortune is the one that wins – sometimes deservedly, sometimes less so. Occasional exceptions are made for truly fascinating villains – think Sir Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, or Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa.
Any thoughts?
Antonius Hybrida(Quote) (Reply)
I think you’re right in broad strokes, but that it’s somewhat of an oversimplification…in truth, the Academy simply votes for what they like best, plain and simple.
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)