Damon Lindelof Developing ‘Leftovers’ Post-Rapture Series For HBO | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Damon Lindelof Developing ‘Leftovers’ Post-Rapture Series For HBO June 28, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity,Lindelof , trackback

Star Trek sequel co-writer/producer Damon Lindelof is adding a new writing project to his slate, and it is his first return to television since Lost wrapped up two years ago. Now he is set to adapt the post-Rapture novel "The Leftovers" into a series for HBO.

 

Lindelof to adapt Rapture novel for HBO

After two years out of the TV waters, Damon Lindelof is diving back in to develop another show with a deep mystery at its core. This time the Lost co-creator (and member of the new "Star Trek Supreme Court") is adapting Tom Perotta’s 2011 novel "The Leftovers" into a series for HBO. The widely acclaimed book (described by Stephen King as "the best Twilight Zone episode you never saw" tells the story of a small town in a post Rapture world, coping with what happens after millions just disappear.

This is the first show in Lindelof’s new Warner Brothers TV deal. Joining Damon in writing the pilot will be Perotta (who also scripted the 1999 film Election). After reading the book last year, Lindelof approached HBO (who had already purchased the rights) to see if he could get involved and obviously they were delighted to have him.

Like with Lost, The Leftovers has a mystery at its core, in this case: where did all the "disappeared" people go? Speaking to Vulture, Lindelof admitted that he as returning to a "buzz saw" noting…

"I guess I can’t help myself," he quips. "I’m sure there’s a certain subset of viewers who watched Lost until the bitter end and will say, ‘I’m just not going to put myself through that again.’ But I’m so incredibly magnetized to this concept and the people in this story. It’s firing all my creative pistons in a way they haven’t been fired since Lost."


Lindelof to return to TV for series based on "The Leftovers"

The Leftovers is being added to Damon’s growing list of projects which also includes rewriting the troubled World War Z movie for Paramount and 1952, his mysterious original sci-fi film for Disney, who recently tapped Brad Bird to direct. And then of course there should be a third Star Trek movie sometime in Damon’s near future as well.

Comments

1. NanoTechDudeLA - June 28, 2012

One thing is almost certain, knowing Mr. Lindelof’s writing philosophy – we will definitely NOT find out where did all the “disappeared” people go :)

2. zillabeast - June 28, 2012

@2

But we will be misled, teased, and tortured with snippets of revelations of what happened in order to keep as many people as possible sucked in.

3. Cap'n Chris - June 29, 2012

I liked him best as the music agent in Chipmunks.

4. Romulus - June 29, 2012

I wonder how the logistics of the Rapture will happen in the show.
Will it be only humans?
Will it be only Christians?
Will it be only Christians that subscribe to one particular sect?
for example if members of Westboro Baptist church were to suddenly disappear I would be
1} relieved
2} worried about what sort of god supports their hate enough to find only them worthy of salvation.

5. Chris Roberts - June 29, 2012

I thought for a second there Lindelof had become the new face of foot odor products! ;)

6. Markonian - June 29, 2012

Sounds a lot like “Afterworld”. Good concept.

7. ados - June 29, 2012

That World war Z movie is becoming a nightmare…

8. Nuallain - June 29, 2012

#1. I don’t see why you’d think that. Lost did a great job of bringing up questions and then answering them in smart and interesting ways.

From what I can see, complaints about Lost ‘not answering questions’ can be answered as belonging to three subgroups:

(a) That actually HAS been answered, you just needed to pay more attention
(b) You’re not liking the answer isn’t the same thing as it not being answered
(c) What does that have to do with anything?

Now, I’m pretty sure there’ll be people who watch Leftovers and miss the answers to questions, or don’t like the answers to questions, or obsess about trivial details they seize on as important though its clear the showrunners don’t. But that doesn’t mean it won’t answer its own relevant questions on its own terms.

9. gump - June 29, 2012

All people wanted to know in LOST was “what was this Island?”. All the mythology of the generations of people who had been there, the giant foot sculpture, the bottle of “evil”, the black smoke, all were teasers that pointed to something and in the end we’re still asking “what was the Island” and the best Lindeloff can offer is it was about people experiencing a sort of purgatory where the come to grips with their past. That was cool, but what the heck was the Island?

NanoTechDudeLA and zillabeast are right. Rest assured he will not answer the central question but will drop lots of clues to raise questions that go nowhere. I for one am still feeling ripped off by LOST

10. Magic_Al - June 29, 2012

Let me guess… the central characters who are supposedly left behind…oops, “leftover” …find out they are actually the ones who were taken! Emmy, please!

11. Teddy Salad - June 29, 2012

So, Tom Perotta was the screenwriter for “Election”.

I loved that film’s dark satire. Hopefully Perotta could bring some of that edginess to this project.

12. anotherscott - June 29, 2012

I’m hoping for an SF series that, while it may have an underlying arc, focuses on telling complete, satisfying stories in virtually each episode or two, as opposed to turning into a giant soap opera where the on-going story is essentially the whole story.

This was the success of Dollhouse, and the failure of Battlestar Galactica.

13. rogue_alice - June 29, 2012

#4. There is not rhyme or reason for who is “raptured” in this take on the “rapture”. That is the main crux of the story. Saints, sinners, gay, straight, drug addicts and teatotalers are among those that disappear.

14. Curious Cadet - June 29, 2012

@10 LOL

Exactly! And after investing all that time in a giant misdirect, we’ll never find out what happened to the people who were left behind, or why the people remaining in the town were taken in the first place, or what any of it means!!

LOST failed, because the buildup was huge and then the answers we got were lazy, and many of the minor (and more interesting) puzzles were never explained. There was also the fact that the fans guessed the survivors were in purgatory from day one, something the producers vehemently denied, along with all the other discredited theories.

HINT: when the fans guess your end game, don’t deny it and do it anyway, come up with something different and more creative.

15. dmduncan - June 29, 2012

Lindelof: “I’m so incredibly magnetized to this concept and the people in this story. It’s firing all my creative pistons in a way they haven’t been fired since Lost.”

Translation: “Okay, I admit it. I barely even qualified as conscious during the writing of the Star Trek sequel.”

Bob, I think Damon needs some coaching on how to phrase things. ;-)

16. Curious Cadet - June 29, 2012

@10 LOL

Exactly! And after investing all that time in a giant misdirect, we’ll never find out what happened to the people who were left behind, or why the people remaining in the town were taken in the first place, or what any of it means!!

17. Curious Cadet - June 29, 2012

LOST failed, because the buildup was huge and then the answers we got were lazy, and many of the minor (and more interesting) puzzles were never explained. There was also the fact that the fans guessed the survivors were in purgatory from day one, something the producers vehemently denied, along with all the other discredited theories.

HINT: when the fans guess your end game, don’t deny it and do it anyway, come up with something different and more creative.

18. Battle-scarred Sciatica - June 29, 2012

@12

Not all people want the same things out of their sci fi shows.

I hate the fact that the story has to be told in one or two episodes. I love wide interesting stories and situations that make you see the effect on individuals.

In my mind, BSG was the best drama I have ever seen. It was truly awesome.

But each to their own. I suppose there will never be a show to please everyone.

Another fact that just makes the world an interesting place. It would be damn dull if we all liked and wanted the same things.

:)

19. fansincesixtynine - June 29, 2012

This looks like a great concept. Can’t wait to see it.

20. Lore - June 29, 2012

@4. No one is worthy of salvation. It is a gift from God so that no one can ever boast that they were more worthy than anyone else.

21. Ahmed - June 29, 2012

@1. NanoTechDudeLA – June 28, 2012

“One thing is almost certain, knowing Mr. Lindelof’s writing philosophy – we will definitely NOT find out where did all the “disappeared” people go :)”

Exactly, I’m going to pass that show

22. Michael Hall - June 29, 2012

“Translation: “Okay, I admit it. I barely even qualified as conscious during the writing of the Star Trek sequel.”

Hope not. But having seen it last weekend, I have to reluctantly admit (because I was really looking forward to it) that I’m not sure anyone behind the cameras was fully conscious during the making of PROMETHEUS.

23. Dave - June 29, 2012

Since the end of Lost made the entire show a complete waste of time, and Prometheus was so poor, I’m going to skip this, thanks.

24. Michael Hall - June 29, 2012

“In my mind, BSG was the best drama I have ever seen. It was truly awesome.”

Well, I’d probably reserve the title of “Best TV drama, ever” to HBO’s Deadwood myself. But at its best, BSG was as good as anything out there.

25. MJ - June 29, 2012

“Deadwood/” W-T-F ?

26. Red Dead Ryan - June 29, 2012

I’ve never seen “Deadwood”, but I recently watched the first season of AMC’s “Hell On Wheels”. Its a great show, and stars “Deep Space Nine”s Colm Meaney.

27. Obsidian - June 29, 2012

26 – I watched some of Deadwood. While obviously well made, written, and acted, it was ultimately quite a downer. Deadwood is not a pleasant place, and was constantly portraying the absolute worst in humanity. Accurate? Probably. And, like I said, certainly well made, but I quit watching as it was so… depressing. Also, I’m no prude, but the constant swearing wears on you.

28. Vultan - June 29, 2012

I never got to see Deadwood, but I’ll second that Hell on Wheels is an entertaining show. Colm Meaney is a lot of fun to watch as the railroad’s boss man.

But when it comes to the best drama (for me), I’ll go with an another AMC show, Mad Men. The Walking Dead is also pretty good.

29. Battle-scarred Sciatica - June 29, 2012

I never got round to seeing Deadwood but now I intend to get into it.

30. Glob - June 29, 2012

Prepare for another make-it-up-as-you-go-along ultimate dead end.
LIkely with lots of christian bashing in the mix.

Today’s writers cannot simply tell a story. Their whole gimmick is to get the hook in your mouth and yank you around from week to week for as long as they can get away with it. It’s the same tawdry gimmick as soap operas and chapter serials. It isn’t writing; they aren’t stories.

I want a damn beginning, middle, and end in the SAME HOUR.

31. Basement Blogger - June 29, 2012

Damon Lindelof says, “I’m sure there’s a certain subset of viewers who watched Lost until the bitter end and will say, ‘I’m just not going to put myself through that again.’ ”

Yep. I’m not going to put myself through any series where you invite the audience to watch because of the mysteries you tease them with. Because we know from Lost, you are not going to answer them. I loved Lost seasons one through five. Then you jumped the shark with the sixth season episode “Across the Sea.” Lost had many science fiction ideas. It then turned into a show about New Age religion.

Regardless, in Lost, you heaped mystery upon mystery on the audience. And in the end, you refused to answer many of them. If I had known that you weren’t going to answer many of the questions, I would have never watched Lost.

I liked your Prometheus. But I screamed, “Oh Damon” at the end. You made us ask questions and refused to answer them. I will love Prometheus if there is a mind blowing sequel that answers the questions. So Damon please try to write something that has adequate exposition and an ending. Stop being afraid of midi-chlorians.

32. Ctrl-Opt-Del - June 30, 2012

@3. Cap’n Chris – BAWHAHAHA!!! XD

33. Nuallain - June 30, 2012

#9; #14

We do find out what the deal with the Island is — it’s the creation point for the life-force of the planet and everything on it.

And people who thought they were in Purgatory all along were wrong. And the creators didn’t offer that it was something to do with Purgatory and addressing their past. The writers expressly say the exact opposite.

They’re NOT in purgatory. The Island is a real place in the real world. Only the flash-forwards in the final season, set in the future long after the main part of the show and after all the characters have died is set in anything resembling ‘purgatory’. Everything else is set in the real world and anyone who watched Season One and concluded the Island is Purgatory was, like I said, dead wrong.

But I suppose in terms of Leftovers this just underlines my original point. Yeah, there’ll probably be answers to all the questions. But, yeah, there’ll probably still be viewers who don’t pay attention enough to notice them or get upset because they’re not the answers they’re expected.

34. rebecca - June 30, 2012

I was never into Lost, but all of you who are still angry because not all of your questions were answered to your satisfaction… do you really think it’s not possible to tell a good, satisfying story that remains open-ended? The example I think of is the original (British) version of the TV show Life on Mars, where even in the finale you don’t really get a single solid answer on the nature of the main character’s experiences. (Later they did a second TV series as a sequel to it where they did give much more explicit answers, and while it was enjoyable it also took away some of the wonder of it.)

35. dmduncan - June 30, 2012

I liked Lost in the beginning, and I liked Lost in the end.

What bothered me about Lost was the stuff in the middle where I felt like a fish on a hook that the fisherman wouldn’t let go and wouldn’t pull in the boat.

It wasn’t enjoyable, so I got loose and just went back for the finale.

On Prometheus and other films that don’t give you all the answers, I think your response to that type of film is a reflection of your own personality.

Unlike other types of criticism which have broad relevance among different people, like acting failures or unconvincing VFX, being unhappy with not getting answers you want is the result of personal taste, and not a flaw of the movie that intentionally does not provide them. Sure, not getting answers is clearly an issue for the movie where the filmmakers intend to provide them and they fail to do so, but it is not one where the lack of answers is a feature of the project, which was the case with Prometheus.

If you don’t like tomatoes, it is best not to eat them. Criticizing a tomato for tasting like a tomato is pointless. And of course I say that realizing that some people who don’t like them still cannot stop themselves from eating them merely because the color red makes them look so tasty.

Everyone knows how Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott roll (Alien and Bladerunner were not exactly chock full of answers either, friends). Why so many found the lack of answers in Prometheus surprising, they have to have a one-on-one sit-down with themselves to discover.

36. Spermaid - June 30, 2012

Never trust a grown man wearing puka shells!

37. Kokolo - July 1, 2012

After Prometheus it is obvious to me that Lindelof is a total hack.

38. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 18 BsS~

I agree about “Battlestar Galactica”.
Right alongside TOS ST, Twilight Zone and The Prisoner?
BSG is one of my favorite TV series of all time. ;-)

As for Lindelof’s deliberate ambiguity in his writing? I have no problem with ambiguity here and there (for example, “2001” and “Solaris” are two of my favorite scifi movies). Sometimes these kinds of movies are like Rorschach tests; the audience sees in them what it wishes (or needs) to see. When used in that manner, such ambiguity assumes audience intelligence and participation. But when it’s done because the writers have simply painted themselves into a corner? Then it’s just another crutch disguised as an artistic choice, used to cover poor writing. There’s a fine line between deliberate ambiguity and a garden variety plot-hole….

I very much enjoyed Lindelof’s recent “Prometheus” but I’d be lying if I said I also didn’t have major issues with it as well. Sometimes it’s deliberate ambiguity seemed to be designed more as a cover for a lack of true intellectual depth. But all the same, it’s almost enough to have ANY big-budget scifi movie these days attempting to ask the ‘bigger questions’ even if it’s maddeningly skittish about addressing them in any particular depth….

I had no such feelings about Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” for example; that movie also raised big questions; the future of technology, the limits of sentience, what does it mean to be really human, etc. But it still took care of the business of the A to B storyline as well. Questions were raised and left to the audience to decide on their own ‘answers’ to them (especially so in BR: The Final Cut; my favorite version), but the PLOT of the movie still had a sequence and made sense even to a casual viewer, while a deeper look was rewarded elsewhere within the layers of the film. “Prometheus” just didn’t do that for me. The mechanics of the story aren’t particularly well-covered, and the deeper questions are also maddeningly avoided as well. Still, it has a lot of promise and it’s a beautifully crafted movie as well.

I’m not saying I’d prefer a “Prometheus” cut where all the answers are spoonfed to me, but as it exists now (without a longer directors’ cut)? It just felt like the writing dropped the ball in places; both intellectually and philosophically. But still, there is much to admire even in the attempt. That’s a rare enough thing these days…

39. Hugh Hoyland - July 1, 2012

I really must have missed the “plot holes” in Prometheus some fashion. Most of the complaints I read are about the two guys acting “so dumb” in the temple and how that would never happen in real life. Or the black goo (and unless my eyes are failing wasnt the stuff he drank more gold than black?) and why did it break apart the engineer but is used as a weapon later.

IMO I think there are unaswered questions yes, but I dont see them as plot holes. In my mind the engineers on LV233 are not the same group we see at the start of the film. My guess would be a their rebel faction, or the military arm of the race. But I’m going with the “Dark Angel” group. They are clearly physically different than the early group, more Biomechanoid.

I also love 2001 and Solaris 1972, and of course one of my all time fav films Blade Runner, but I cant agree that those movies are easily figured out by most. Ive had more than a few people say they couldnt make heads or tails out of the plots of any of em. My dad has actually attempted to watch Blade Runner three times and still failed to. (He says the movie was a confused mess.lol)

Also would Inception fall under this ambiguity category?

40. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 39 HH~

I found Inception to be pretty straightforward, really; the only people I know who didn’t really understand it were people who didn’t really pay attention, or who didn’t like it for other reasons. The only ambiguity of it was the very end (and it was left deliberately so; much like the ending of 1990’s Total Recall…. was it a dream or wasn’t it? I liked that; it gave the audience the choice to decide what the experience ultimately was to them).

The points you brought up in your opening paragraph to me are a few of the issues I had with “Prometheus”; not that I didn’t enjoy or like it, I just felt that it wasn’t all it could’ve been for want of better writing, that’s all….

The idea of the ‘rebel faction’ is implied (vaguely) but like so much in this movie it’s addressed without any kind of substantial depth. That was my main issue with this movie. So much is raised, implied or hinted at, but really very little is truly explored. It left me with the feeling that the writers wanted to touch on these bigger questions, but perhaps lacked to skill (or the guts) to see any of them through. Again; I hope there’s a more substantial director’s cut or a good sequel on the way that REALLY digs deep into the intriguing questions raised….

But “Prometheus” (despite it’s shortcomings) is enjoyable, and I applaud the movie for what it is as much as I’m left wondering what it could’ve been. As it is, it’s an incomplete (however beautiful) puzzle where sometimes even the related pieces don’t seem to fit ….

41. dmduncan - July 1, 2012

40: “found Inception to be pretty straightforward, really; the only people I know who didn’t really understand it were people who didn’t really pay attention,”

Well that’s what I find about so many criticisms of Prometheus — Vickers’ “half a billion miles” remark to name just one, and the complaint that nobody helped Shaw after she stapled her belly, to name another.

I also think that answering deep questions was never the intent of Prometheus. If it had been then I can certainly see where they failed. But since I see no evidence of that intent, I cannot reasonably fault them for that or treat that as a failure. It uses creation and ancient astronaut mythology in the story structure, but in the end it remains a prequel to a SF horror film and is itself primarily a SF horror film. It’s a horror film on an origin story skeleton.

Based on all the numerous — and EXTREMELY informative — trailers, that is what I expected. And that is what the film was. If anybody feels deceived, I don’t think they can blame the filmmakers for misleading them.

42. dmduncan - July 1, 2012

Is Deckard a replicant? No answer.

And if you went to Prometheus looking for answers to Alien, as many did, it is because Alien itself did not have them.

Yet Alien is almost universally praised.

43. Vultan - July 1, 2012

After watching Blade Runner: Final Cut recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that the “Is Deckard a replicant?” question does little for the story. At least for me. Seems Scott put it there to add another layer of mystique to later versions of the movie (the unicorn dream, etc.), but in doing so it also hurts the ending a bit, I think.

If Roy Batty spares the life of a human and shares with him a few dying words of wisdom, it has some ironic meaning to it—a dangerous non-human showing mercy and demonstrating an appreciation for the beauty and meaning of life to a human who would have surely “retired” him if he had had the chance.

If Roy spares the life of a fellow replicant, it’s just that: one manufactured man helping another. There’s no real connection of opposites, just a continuation of the machine, and no more meaningful than transferring a picture of Tannhäuser Gate from one hard drive to another.

Anyway, that’s my two cents. Still a wonderful movie.

44. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 42 dmduncan~

I didn’t go to see “Prometheus” to see a direct ALIEN prequel; it’s a story set in the same universe, but not a direct prequel (nor did I expect one; the early buzz made that very clear, IMO). What my frustrations with it were the raising of important (and largely unexplored) issues and questions (within it’s own framework, not ALIEN’s) without any real attempt to properly explore those questions. If it were a straight horror movie, I could accept that. Most horror films don’t tend to ask the ‘big questions.’ But “Prometheus” clearly had aspirations of being ‘important’ science fiction, and that is where (for me) it faltered a bit. Very ambitious (commendably so), but lacking in substance…..

And ALIEN told a complete story; it had proper structure. It had a clear cut beginning, middle and end. It didn’t really leave anyone hanging. Crew accidentally acquires alien, alien kills crew, Ripley kills alien. Simple. It didn’t raise any questions about the origins of the human race and religion or our role in the universe, and them just abandon them without any exploration. ALIEN was never more than a B movie framework propped up by A-list production design and actors. “Prometheus” clearly aspired to be more, and IMO (unless I see a more substantial director’s cut or a sequel with more exploration) it stumbled. It’s not a bad movie (it’s very well made and I enjoyed it), it just could’ve been so much more if it explored the very questions it raised a bit more deeply….

As for Deckard being a replicant in “Blade Runner”?
IMO (and apparently Ridley Scott’s) he was. The fact that Gaff knew all about his unicorn dream (with his origami) and other clues that are dropped (he and Rachel and the synthetic owl all have the ‘glowing eyes’). As for Deckard’s almost preternatural skill with sniffing out replicants? Well, it takes one to know one. But, like “Total Recall” and “Inception”, BR could still be interpreted either way…. nothing wrong with a little ambiguity as long as it’s not a crutch for lazy storytelling….

45. Vultan - July 1, 2012

#44

I’m fully willing to accept that Deckard is a replicant, even if it confuses the message of the story for an all too obvious stab at irony, in my opinion (What if Elmer Fudd is secretly a wabbit?). But if Tyrel (or a competitor) built and programmed Deckard to be a Blade Runner, why make him such a weakling? Surely they’d want him to be as strong or stronger than the Roy Battys of the world… or off-world.

46. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 45

Vultan~

Good point.
Maybe making him a Roy Batty type combat model would’ve been tipping Tyrell’s hand, so to speak. Either way one chooses to interpret it, as you said in your earlier (very interesting) BR post, # 43, it just adds another layer of mystique one can read into the story. Deckard could be a replicant-terminating replicant; programmed and specially built to murder his own kind, but then he falls in love with one; his OWN emotional responses have taken over. It also adds intrigue to the scene where he admits to Rachel that he’s never taken the Voight Kampff test himself (because he’d fail). ;-)

Either way, that conclusion is interpretive; much like the ‘is it or isn’t it a dream’ quality of both “Totall Recall” and “Inception.” Remember in Total Recall, before Quaid went under at Rekall, the young male tech loading Quaid’s dream program quipped “that’s a new one… a blue sky on Mars.” Which actually happened at the very end of the movie. And in “Inception”, Cobb hadn’t seen his kids in years, yet at the end they look (and dress) exactly the same as he’d remembered them before in his dream… ;-)

47. Vultan - July 1, 2012

#46

Well, now you’ve made me rethink BR yet again! But good points, Sebastian. Oh, and it’s a shame how Pris and Roy used you like that…. ;)

I wonder if Scott will release a Final-er Cut in a few years, suggesting maybe EVERYONE in the movie is a replicant—even Tyrel himself! Maybe the entire Earth is replicant inhabited and all the real humans have moved off-world. And maybe they’ve become so human they’re paranoid about off-worlders, hence Deckard’s quest to retire the intruders. A new commentary on illegal immigration! :D

Or topics to be covered in the rumored sequel….

48. Vultan - July 1, 2012

#46

By the way, I did enjoy the ambiguity of TR and Inception, too. I remember seeing the latter in a theater, and as we see the top spinning at the end and then cut to black, a guy in the audience went: “Awh! Come on!” As if that sort of ending was painful to his central nervous system.

Another chapter for my book about movie-going horror stories.

49. dmduncan - July 1, 2012

44: “But “Prometheus” clearly had aspirations of being ‘important’ science fiction,”

Hmmm, I don’t know about that. At least I don’t know where you get that impression from. I didn’t detect any pretentiousness surrounding the movie, and the ancient astronaut idea doesn’t make me think “profound.”

But any time Ridley Scott makes a big budget film you can expect it to be visually stunning at the very least, which everyone seems to agree Prometheus was. And yes, Scott is superb at world building. But that doesn’t equate to profound.

It was a monster movie with an unusual layer of curiosity and humanity that horror movie’s typically do not have, which made it more interesting, because it was different. And the world he created was so real in 3D that I felt like I was there.

“And ALIEN told a complete story; it had proper structure. It had a clear cut beginning, middle and end. It didn’t really leave anyone hanging.”

Prometheus also had a clear beginning, middle, and end — message from creator received, go find creator, kill creator before creator destroys earth — but it was also meant to have a sequel. Two, in fact. Prometheus is the first part of an intended three movie story, so the overall story is no more complete than the first movie of the Harry Potter saga was. The Harry Potter series left people hanging for seven movies until it all got wrapped up in the eighth. And that was part of their charm.

Alien — an obvious reboot of the 1950’s movie It! The Terror From Beyond Space — was not conceived that way, despite all the sequels that derived from it.

Neither was Bladerunner.

Prometheus is just a different type of movie, and I am not even sure at this point if Prometheus even will lead into a direct prequel to Alien or if it will end up as a reimagining of the franchise.

50. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 49 dmduncan~

I would counter your point that Blade Runner and Prometheus were not intended to be important science fiction movies, but that’s my conjecture, of course. BR was (by today’s standards) almost a European art-house movie compared to it’s more commercial contemporaries (“Tron”, “Poltergeist”, “Star Trek 2″, “E.T.” etc.). And whenever I hear Roy Batty’s final speech, I simply don’t believe I’m watching a B movie with a big budget. It was intended to be MUCH more. Ridley Scott knew damn well he was making a movie with heavy philosophical aspirations (ditto with his work in “Prometheus”, IMO)…
;-)

By the way, ALIEN (as admitted by the writers in the DVD bonus features) had MANY fathers; also including “Queen of Blood” (about a green martian vampire who kills a spaceship crew and lays eggs), as well as just about every monster-on-a-spaceship B-movie ever made in the 1950s-60s.

But any time a movie such as BR or P can leave it’s audience with so many interpretations and ideas in their heads? It’s automatically a far deeper, more meaningful experience than say, an Adam Sandler comedy or a Vin Diesel action movie. And don’t get me wrong; I very much APPLAUD “Prometheus” for the ambition of it’s ideas; I just wish there’d been a little more exploration, that’s all (perhaps in a sequel).
__________________________________

# 48 Vultan~

I so can’t wait to read that book… ;-D

As for the new outlook on BR? It’s the kind of movie that I think of new scenarios for each time I watch it (and I’ve seen it an unhealthy number of times…).

As for Roy and Pris using that ‘other’ Sebastian? Hopefully, poor J.F. at least got a bit of use of that particular ‘pleasure model’ for his troubles….
;-D

51. Vultan - July 1, 2012

#50

I like to think Sebastian did get a bit further with Pris, but I seriously doubt it. And if her fighting techniques are any indication of her lovemaking techniques, I’m not sure I would want to get anywhere with her.

Legs around the neck… fingers in the nostrils….
Kinky.

52. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 51 Vultan~

Death by a 20-something Daryl Hannah’s legs around one’s neck….

I can think of worse ways to go. ;-D

53. dmduncan - July 1, 2012

50. Sebastian S. – July 1, 2012

No, Bladerunner is not a B movie, and I agree that Hampton Fancher and Ridley Scott were going for something different in that case. But Fancher is a different screenwriter and Bladerunner wasn’t a sequel/prequel to a monster movie. And it was never conceived as the first “chapter” of a series — which is how Spaights conceived Prometheus — and whose lineage as such was never erased by the inclusion of Lindelof as a cowriter.

That’s how the movie still appears (David’s head and Shaw riding off toward some unknown Alien destination in the search for answers), and I am very sure that Spaights has his fingers crossed that he gets to tell what happens after that.

Whether 20th Century Fox lets him or not, Prometheus stands independent of Alien as an interesting mix of horror and faithful optimism, delightful in it’s unusual flavor. And if the rest of the story doesn’t get told, Prometheus will end up as a fairly accurate reflection of life as a search for answers that we seldom get.

In a very real sense, we each have to be Shaw and search for them ourselves.

54. Vultan - July 1, 2012

#52

Okay, okay, the legs thing is alright, but the nostrils….
What did she hope to accomplish with that?

By the way, Daryl Hannah is still a hottie. Just an older hottie.

55. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 53

“And if the rest of the story doesn’t get told, Prometheus will end up as a fairly accurate reflection of life as a search for answers that we seldom get.

In a very real sense, we each have to be Shaw and search for them ourselves.”
_________

Very well said…. ;-)

# 54

The nostrils grip? Yeah, that was just messed up… no defense; no explanation. ;-D

And agreed on Ms Hannah; as a teen I had a serious post-“Splash” crush on her as I remember….

56. Vultan - July 1, 2012

#55

Maybe it’s a Ridley Scott thing. Remember Ash and the rolled up magazine in “Alien”?

Weird.

57. Sebastian S. - July 1, 2012

# 56 Vultan~

Too true!
Almost as if Scott imagines the most illogical, impractical way for an android to try and subdue or kill someone and then immediately puts it in his movie.

I wonder if “Prometheus” had a deleted scene of David trying to kill Shaw with a fly swatter or a can of hair spray….

;-D

58. Caesar - July 2, 2012

Lame. nobody cares.

59. dmduncan - July 3, 2012

I can’t see People Like Us until Thursday. Anybody else besides me going to see it (or has already seen it?)

60. Sebastian S. - July 4, 2012

I saw “Prometheus” again last night.
And while I thought it would clear up some of my ambiguous feelings about it, it didn’t. I feel exactly the same about it as I did when I first saw it; it’s a beautiful movie with many intriguing ideas and high concepts that it never fully develops or explores any of them in any kind of depth.

Sadly, in 2D (as I saw it last night) it really loses a lot as well; the image seemed overly bright and literally flat (obviously made for the darker contrast of 3D). Like Avatar, 3D is the only proper way to watch this movie (as I saw it on first viewing). Anything less is like watching Star Wars on a 19″ TV with mono sound. But the potent images and the otherworldly feel of LV-223 are still very much intact….

I still enjoyed Fassbender’s David android; a delightful mix of Data and HAL9000. And Noomi Rapace is a gutsy heroine who creates a strong impression, especially in the last 40 minutes of the movie (although on second viewing, her religious tenacity seems more like obstinance and self-delusion, rather than genuine belief or conviction). There aren’t any moments in the film that would seem to reaffirm or justify her strong faith, other than being a means of holding onto a dead parent (definitely something to explore in a sequel).

Still a beautiful, well-worth-seeing movie. But I also still have very conflicted feelings about it, sadly.

61. Keachick - July 4, 2012

“(although on second viewing, her religious tenacity seems more like obstinance and self-delusion, rather than genuine belief or conviction). There aren’t any moments in the film that would seem to reaffirm or justify her strong faith, other than being a means of holding onto a dead parent (definitely something to explore in a sequel).”

Dr Elizabeth Shaw continued to LIVE. She survived as did the android – the one most able to help her get away from the doomed world. She still had some hope, along with a certain amount of faith that kept her going and will keep her going… It is about having the *grace* to respond… (Christianity says that grace can only come from God, the greatest of gifts). I guess it was not her time to die…

As I see it, most of the other characters in the movie lacked much of what Elizabeth had and their own more or less negative *karma* caught up with them in this very hostile environment.

I am not sure about her conclusions that these people were Earth’s humanity’s direct ancestors. Beings with the same DNA/genetic makeup could exist in other places independently of Earth. The only thing known is that these people were technologically much more advanced than humans in the past and were able to visit the earth in the past. These events gave rise to the cave paintings.

The truth is that the more answers you get, the more questions arise and so it goes on. It is really a never ending cycle. It depends on the question as to what answer is received and not all answers are ones we want to hear…including the scariest answer of all – ie, there is NO ANSWER.

I suspect that many of you will be irritated by my post – so be it.

62. Sebastian S. - July 5, 2012

# 61. Keachick~

I’m certainly not irritated by your post; in fact, I agree with much of it. A lot of what you said made much sense to me. The more we answer, the more new questions arise. Well said, Keachick…

But as an atheist I suppose I also see Shaw’s ‘conviction’ differently. To survive (IMO) is not necessarily proof of divine intervention, God ‘singling you out for something greater’ or a test of one’s faith; it just means you haven’t gotten yourself killed yet. Again, just my ‘atheist’ opinion on that…
;-)

Disagree with you on the engineers, though.
As for the engineers? I thought the opening prologue sequence (on primordial Earth) with the engineer ‘seeding’ himself and the fact that their DNA is a match for ours meant that they in fact WERE our ancestors. The odds of life across the universe sharing our exact DNA combination is so low as to almost be declared impossible. It was implied that the engineers WERE the source for some of our ‘god myths’ (even the title of the film implies that, with the legend of Prometheus).

But the movie is vague enough in places to allow for multiple interpretations, so no single opinion or conclusion is necessarily the right one or the wrong one….

63. Hugh Hoyland - July 9, 2012

A little off topic but AICN (along with other sources maybe) are saying the villain in Star Trek (2) is Gary Mitchell. Take it for what its worth.

64. Frederick - July 10, 2012

NO way they are going to make it actually be the rapture of the believers by Jesus. No way it’s going to be a biblical series based on Revelation and the 7 year Tribulation. As cool as that would be, it will probably reveal the disappearance to be because of aliens or some such thing, as it probably will be after the real thing occurs.

Another attempt to explain it away before it happens. I happen to believe in it.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.