Latest
How Famous Memoirs Were Really Written: What the Collaborators DidStranger in a Strange LandProfiles in CourageDid I Ever Tell You This?: A MemoirFlorida RoadkillTeam of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex WorldMy Share of the Task: A MemoirWe Were Soldiers Once… and Young: Ia Drang, the Battle That Changed the War in VietnamThe Columbia Restaurant: Celebrating a Century of History, Culture, and CuisineA Tiger among Us: A Story of Valor in Vietnam’s A Shau ValleyTop Sergeant: The Life and Times of Sergeant Major of the Army William G. BainbridgeSailing True North: Ten Admirals and the Voyage of CharacterPodkayne of MarsMake Your Bed: Little Things That Can Change Your Life…And Maybe the WorldSam Walton: Made in America: My StoryI, RobotOpen: An AutobiographyShattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of MidwayA World at Arms: A Global History of World War IIL.L. Bean: The Making of an American IconA Higher Standard: Leadership Strategies from America’s First Female Four-Star GeneralLife21 Days to Success Through Networking: The Life and Times of Gnik RowtenCampus BattlefieldThe Bell JarRight Wing RevolutionThe Sage of SagittariusTime for a Turning PointDesigning Casinos to Dominate the CompetitionLove’s Executioner and Other Tales of PsychotherapyBeneath a Scarlet SkyThe Library BookThe Phone Book: The Curious History of the Book That Everyone Uses But No One ReadsTrump: The Art of the DealThe MAGA DoctrineThe College ScamSea Stories: My Life in Special OperationsPa’anNetworking Your Way to SuccessMasters of NetworkingRadioSoldier for Life: Leader Lessons from the 12th Sergeant Major of the ArmyThe Melting Point: High Command and War in the 21st CenturyAmerican SoldierIt Doesn’t Take a HeroStop, in the Name of GodDoes Explicit Sex Sell Books? An Answer to The Absolute Degeneracy of Modern WritingThe Mary Sue: How a 1973 Star Trek Parody Became a Writing TermWhat the AI Writing Survey Says About Jobs, Freelancers and Fiction AuthorsHow Long Does Google Take? Crawling, Indexing and Recovery Times

Prometheus (2012) Review

TL;DR: Prometheus (2012) rates 3 out of 10 on the rewatch scale. Prometheus wastes a director among the most visually gifted in contemporary cinema on a script that requires its characters to be catastrophically stupid. These are supposedly the best scientists humanity could assemble for a trillion-dollar mission to find humanity’s creators.

Official trailer

Prometheus (2012)3 / 10

Prometheus wastes a director among the most visually gifted in contemporary cinema on a script that requires its characters to be catastrophically stupid for the plot to function. These are supposedly the best scientists humanity could assemble for a trillion-dollar mission to find humanity’s creators. Within hours of landing on an alien world they’re removing helmets in environments that haven’t been verified safe, approaching and attempting to handle unknown organisms, separating from the group in an alien installation, and making every horror-movie mistake in the genre’s playbook.

The suspension of disbelief required to accept these people as scientists can’t be maintained.

Few films have annoyed me this much while looking this good. The film had me admiring every set and wanting to throw something at the screen whenever a scientist opened his mouth. Scott gave this script the best-looking production he could, and the script repaid him with a crew of geniuses dumber than the teenagers in a slasher movie.

My rating: 3 out of 10. The production design is extraordinary and gets the 3 on its own. Everything attached to the script costs the film the rest.

The Visual Achievement

Ridley Scott’s visual intelligence is operating at full capacity throughout Prometheus. The Engineer spacecraft, the space jockey chamber, the holographic orrery, the black goo’s specific quality of alien menace, all of it is shot with the precision and atmosphere of a filmmaker who knows exactly what he wants every frame to communicate. The sets and locations feel ancient, biological, threatening in ways that suggest a civilization operating on principles that human understanding can’t reach.

The production design is the correct continuation of Giger’s Alien aesthetic.

What Giger built in 1979, the combination of biological and mechanical, the suggestion of sexuality weaponized into predation, Prometheus develops into a fully realized civilization’s architecture. The Engineer installations look like they were grown instead of built, like the product of a sensibility that doesn’t distinguish between technology and organism the way human engineering does. That’s the right aesthetic for what the Engineers are supposed to be.

I’ll give Scott this much: I’d happily watch these sets with the sound off. The Engineer rooms are the only reason I didn’t rate it lower, and design this good was wasted on a story this careless.

For Writers Prometheus shows that production design and visual achievement can’t compensate for character behavior that violates the premise. Scott built environments that look ancient and threatening and alien. The script put characters into those environments who behave like horror movie victims instead of the scientists they’re supposed to be. The visual promise wasn’t matched by the behavioral reality. Your characters must behave consistently with who they’re supposed to be, especially in situations that test that identity. If your premise establishes that your characters are brilliant scientists, their behavior in moments of stress must reflect scientific training and judgment.

The Character Stupidity Problem

The scientists in Prometheus make decisions that no actual scientists would make and that no competent science fiction writer would give them without dramatic justification. Fifield and Millburn get lost in the installation, the geologist and the biologist, the two people on the team whose instruments and training should make finding their way easiest, and then, when they encounter an alien organism, approach it and attempt to handle it.

No scientist encountering an unknown organism in an alien installation would try to handle it. That’s the most basic principle of xenobiological caution, and anyone on a scientific mission to an alien world would have had it drilled into them before departure. The script sends them toward the creature because the plot needs something to happen. When the plot’s needs trump the characters’ intelligence, that’s bad writing, and the film lost me for good when they reached for that thing.

The helmet removal is a comparable failure. Shaw and Holloway remove their helmets inside the installation because the atmosphere is breathable.

Real scientists on a trillion-dollar mission to an alien world would follow quarantine protocols regardless of atmospheric composition, because the atmosphere might be breathable while still carrying biological threats they have no immunity to. The script requires them to remove the helmets because the plot needs them to be vulnerable. Their vulnerability is purchased at the cost of their credibility as scientists.

The helmet scene made me groan. These people flew a trillion dollars of hardware across space to meet their makers, and then they pull their helmets off like they’ve walked into a nice restaurant.

For Writers Character behavior must be consistent with the premise, especially when the plot needs something to happen. If your plot requires a character to do something stupid, ask whether you can achieve the same plot outcome through a decision that’s consistent with who the character is. A scientist who gets infected doesn’t have to choose to handle a strange organism, they might be infected through a mechanism they took reasonable precautions against. The plot can still advance. The character’s intelligence can remain intact. When your plot requires characters to be stupid, fix the plot.

The Theological Ambitions

The film raises its most interesting idea, that the Engineers engineered humanity, that our creators are out there and might not want to be found, that the relationship between creator and creation might be anything but benevolent, and then doesn’t develop it coherently. The script gestures toward these questions without working out their implications. The Engineers’ motivations are unclear in ways that feel like unresolved writing instead of deliberate mystery.

Genuine mystery requires the film to know the answer and withhold it. Prometheus’s vagueness about the Engineers’ motivations reads more like the writers hadn’t decided what the answer was. The difference between deliberate ambiguity and unresolved scripting is visible to attentive audiences, and the theological questions Prometheus raises fall on the wrong side of that line.

That failure costs the film the most, because it’s the one that mattered. A film that asks who made us and why they might want us dead has a terrific premise, and Prometheus shrugs at its own question. I’d have taken no Engineers at all over Engineers nobody bothered to figure out.

Should you skip Prometheus?

Prometheus gets its 3 on Scott’s eye alone: the production design, the ancient and threatening alien spaces, and the continuation of Giger’s aesthetic into a new context.

The script fails all of it, with characters who behave stupidly on demand and theological ambitions it couldn’t execute coherently. David is the exception, and everything around him is the rule. I’m angrier at this film than at plenty of worse ones, because the people who made it had every tool they needed and still let convenience write the script.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a version of Prometheus that works?
The visual logic of the film works throughout. The David storyline works. A version that centered David’s perspective, his curiosity, his experimentation, his relationship to creation and creator, instead of Shaw’s faith storyline would use the film’s strongest elements and discard its weakest ones. That film wasn’t made but it’s visible in the material.
How does Prometheus compare to the original Alien?
Alien is an 8. Prometheus is a 3. The gap is almost entirely attributable to character behavior. Alien’s crew makes decisions consistent with working-class people following institutional protocols in an unprecedented situation. Prometheus’s scientists make decisions that no actual scientists would make. The visual quality is comparable. The character quality isn’t.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.