Skip to main content

Why Prometheus failed to ask the big questions it pretended to ask...

I suppose it's rather late to be commenting on a film from 2012, but I just recently came up with a reason why I didn't like the film Prometheus. Or at least one reason...

When Prometheus came out, all the critics and many fans on the internet praised how the film asked big questions. I never got that. To me Prometheus didn't ask big questions, it only pretended to do so.

For instance, it is made pretty blatant in the film that characters in Prometheus are asking about where we come from. Were we created by a superior alien race?

The answer is given to us right at the beginning of the film. So, yes. According to the opening sequence, the 'engineers' seeded the building blocks of life on primordial planets, presumably including Earth. We're given an answer even before anyone on screen asks the big question.

Surely, this pretty much negates the whole purpose of having a big question in the film...

Also, films that really do address big questions, don't necessarily have to have characters ask those questions on screen, they make the audience think about them.

If Prometheus didn't start with the opening sequence it had, or it didn't even feature a living 'engineer' so the 'engineers' were just as mysterious as the 'space jockey' from the original Alien was, and the whole thing was written much better, then maybe we as an audience would have sat through the film wondering and pondering about how these mysterious 'engineers' related to the origin of mankind...But that's really asking too much of Damon Lindelof, who seems to think that confusing the audience equates to good thought provoking sci-fi, like Lost. Right....

This is why Prometheus failed to ask the big question.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

R for beginners and intermediate users 3: plotting with colours

For my third post on my R tutorials for beginners and intermediate users, I shall finally touch on the subject matter that prompted me to start these tutorials - plotting with group structures in colour.

If you are familiar with R, then you may have noticed that assigning group structure is not all that straightforward. You can have a dataset that may have a column specifically for group structure such as this:

B0 B1 B2 Family
Acrocanthosaurus 0.308 -0.00329 3.28E-05 Allosauroidea
Allosaurus 0.302 -0.00285 2.04E-05 Allosauroidea
Archaeopteryx 0.142 -0.000871 2.98E-06 Aves
Bambiraptor 0.182 -0.00161 1.10E-05 Dromaeosauridae
Baryonychid 0.189 -0.00238 2.20E-05 Basal_Tetanurae
Carcharodontosaurus 0.369 -0.00502 5.82E-05 Allosauroidea
Carnotaurus 0.312 -0.00324 2.94E-05 Neoceratosauria
Ceratosaurus 0.377 -0.00522 6.07E-05 Neoceratosauria
Citipati 0.278 -0.00119 5.08E-06 Oviraptorosauria
Coelophysi…

The difference between Lion and Tiger skulls

A quick divergence from my usual dinosaurs, and I shall talk about big cats today. This is because to my greatest delight, I had discovered today a wonderful book. It is called The Felidæ of Rancho La Brea (Merriam and Stock 1932, Carnegie Institution of Washington publication, no. 422). As the title suggests it goes into details of felids from the Rancho La Brea, in particular Smilodon californicus (probably synonymous with S. fatalis), but also the American Cave Lion, Panthera atrox. The book is full of detailed descriptions, numerous measurements and beautiful figures. However, what really got me excited was, in their description and comparative anatomy of P. atrox, Merriam and Stock (1932) provide identification criteria for the Lion and Tiger, a translation of the one devised by the French palaeontologist Marcelin Boule in 1906. I have forever been looking for a set of rules for identifying lions and tigers and ultimately had to come up with a set of my own with a lot of help fro…

Top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

I thought I'd do a fun post for once. And since list based articles are the norm for fun on the internet, I thought I'd do one on dinosaurs, but given that I know most about theropods, I've decided to restrict my list to theropods (...maybe in a future post, I'll do other clades).

My ranking is based mostly on scientific importance so it may not reflect awesomeness, and it is obviously subjective as to how I rank importance to science. For instance, interesting discoveries or unique palaeobiology are ranked relatively low compared to wealth of information and data or completely revolutionising our understanding of the evolution of theropods.

So here are my top 10 scientifically important theropod dinosaurs of all time (off the top of my head)

10. Megalosaurus

Being the first dinosaur to be named, Megalosaurus automatically deserves a spot on this list, but given the fragmentary nature of known fossil specimens, and being mostly useless as a meaningful source for biologi…