1. NullNaught says

    Ridley Scott deosn’t begin to understand science. He believes aliens have visited him (really!). He writes the most unrealistic cr@p.

  2. Charcus says

    Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Pillars of the Earth are all works of art IMO so the moment this movie hits the big screen i’m there with a gaint bucket of popcorn and 1L of sodapop, just enjoy the ride.
    I realy don’t care if he believes aliens have visited him (weird yes) but if the movie is good i do not care one bit.

  3. Tom says

    I see that the ship is outfitted with a Fassbender. Space travel really can’t happen without one of those. NASA: pay attention here.

  4. James in Bcn says

    Yes..I’m looking forward to new imaging in space travel in movies and getting away from the “airship” metaphor.

  5. Charcus says

    Alien is a freaking classic, the FX may not have been as good as they are now but like Jaws the suspence is much better then some of the crap that Hollywood churns out these days. I have high hopes this movie will bring back the great horror/sci fi of yesteryear.

  6. NullNaught says

    @Rich F
    I don’t understand why you would call me Francis or comment on my weight. Just because I don’t like fantasy sold as science fiction doesn’t mean you have to call me fat. You haven’t argued that anything he has done was at all realistic. He has no knowledge of what he writes,including Roman history, so he rights unbelievable cr@p. That is fine if you like fantasy.
    It is confusing for people to be presented with what he writes and think there is any posibility it ever will (or has) happen(ed). In presenting what he has written as any image of a possible reality, he confuses people about what is possible. This is anti-intellectual and leads to such things as NASA landing a man on Mars when that is ruinously expensive and there is no advantage to it other than it panders to the romantic notions of a confused public – a public raised to believe colonization of space is a good or even realistic idea. Cr@p as such that wich Mr. Ridley writes contributes to such wasting of valuable resources by convincing the public that space flight beyond Earth orbit in a big way is in man’s future. It isn’t. Ever.

  7. red says


    Okay Sheldon, let’s walk through this.

    One, let’s just get this out of the way: “lighten up” is not a literal call to lose weight. It’s just a phrase, in the same vein as “calm the f-ck down, you’re being hysterical”.

    And two, criticising a HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR famous for his SCIENCE-FICTION FILMS simply on the basis of his FICTITIOUS FILMS being too unrealistic is like complaining about the bacteria in yogurt. The purpose of his FILMS is to ENTERTAIN FANTASIES, not present some sort of viable historical insight or future-proof premonition. The headline ISN’T SERIOUS. It is simply a HEADLINE. It has NOTHING to do with either Ridley Scott, the studios behind ‘Prometheus,’ or NASA.

    Your problems with the goals of our Space Program are your own, and blaming Ridley Scott for them is, in a word, silly. So, like the two others before me, I’d advice you to LIGHTEN UP.

  8. NullNaught says

    You use the word fantasies and the pharse science fiction as if they meant the same. Science fiction by definition does not break the rules of physics as we know them. His films do. Were they called fantasy, I would have no problem. I understand some people like fantasy. No the space program problem is not Ridley Scott’s personal fualt; it is the fualt of eveyone like him presenting fantasy as science fiction. It is a real problem to people like me who enjoy the results of science and not the product of fantasies.
    I am autistic. I took the headine litterally. That is my fault. Had I not done so, I would not have looked at the article and commented; so in a sense this is a misunderstanding. I still think he does the above disservice to the world.
    To the extent I am defending actual science fiction and you are defending fantasy, we are talking past each other. Call it fantasy and I no longer care.

  9. AladinSane says

    Nullnaught, what you are speaking of is called “hard science fiction” and has ALWAYS been the minority even in written scifi. Science fiction is not necessarily about exploring the world through physics, but extrapolating what technology or a wider scope on the universe might mean to us as humans. It asks us to wonder about existence, questions how we experience life, and imagine the possibility of things different than as they are. If you don’t think Ridley Scott has accomplished this you are wrong. Alien redefined horror and scifi movies. Blade Runner is considered one of the most influential movies ever made by the vast majority of people writing, reading, and viewing the genre. The greats of scifi, Norton, Heinlein, Herbert, Le Guin, Asimov, Pohl, et al would strongly disagree with you since every one of them consistently wrote stories at odds with actual science as it was understood in their day.

  10. NullNaught says

    To the extent you started by recognizing what I was talking about and then veered off into something I was not talking about, we are talking past each other. There is what you call “hard science fiction” and there is fantasy. There is a bright dividing line betwixt the two. Niven and Pournelle, Arthur C. Clark (all of whom are actual scientists) and others knew where the line was. That is what I am speaking to. I never questioned the reasons for fantasy, but I object to presenting fantasy as science fiction when it isn’t. Notice you yourself said Alien redefined HORROR MOVIES, yet you claim he is writting sci-fi. Hahaha, make up your mind, which is it? Or are you making up a new sub-genre sci-fi-horror-fantasy-any-cr@p-you-want-to-include?
    Asimov was the only scientist you named. Just because that one man was confused about what he was writting doesn’t mean he was actually writting sci-fi now does it? You can’t expect the other non-scientists you named to know when they are actualy writting science and when they are writting fantasy, can you?

  11. AladinSane says

    Sorry buddy, we aren’t talking past each other. You presume to define what the genre is even though EVERYONE who writes it disagrees with you. You are speaking solely of “hard scifi” and if you kept to that you would have my agreement. However, almost all science fiction is NOT as you describe it. The awards, the leaders in the field, and the originators of the field do not believe as you do. Niven (wrote for Land of the Lost), Pournelle (the planet Tran has various groups of warriors from Earth’s history fighting each other), and Clark (aliens that look like demons descend upon us as our children mutate in one generation to a transcendent single being) all wrote things that were not scientifically plausible and they all call what they wrote science fiction.

    Maybe because you have autism you are unable to detect nuance or have to put everything into an either/or category. Life, literature, movies, etc rarely are so easily categorized. You don’t get a win because something doesn’t fit into boxes you define against the preponderance of professionals in their field. Something can be both horror and scifi. Dramas can be comedic. Also notice you didn’t touch on Blade Runner.

    And here is the point you’ve missed entirely about science fiction. It’s FICTION!!! No author in the genre thinks they are writing science, they aren’t! People who do that call what they write textbooks!

    Your tone suggests you think you have a clever argument. What you write suggests to me that you fundamentally misunderstand the genre.

  12. NullNaught says

    people read in their own voice. I don’t feel clever; actually I most often feel correctly that I am missing something. I am probably conflating sci-fi-fantasy lovers with string theorists and others who don’t apreciate actual science in my subconscience. I was not aware of this until I read your post and reflected upon this. I feel the same towards both.
    As far as Autism and nuances: THANK YOU!!!!
    Most people refuse to understand I think the way I do and argue the way I do becuase I take what I see mostly litterally. It is very hard for me to read between the lines.
    For me, this is simple; Science is possible everything else is fantasy. I have always misunderstood this point about fiction. I have been satisfied by little that I have read because I can’t understand the very point you are making. People get something out of contemplating the utterlly impossible as if it were realistic; This is called “suspending disbelief,” I think. I am very bad at this. I don’t watch movies. The fiction I read is mostly mysteries, police procederals. Mostly I read non-fiction. I miss out on what you get out of fantasy.
    I can’t talk about the weather either. I know few people because I give up on so many so rapidly. I have no patience for frivolous things or people. I don’t mean to be anti-social. I am just not able to understand that stuff.
    Thanks for clearing this up, even though I think you may be mad at me for appearing to think myself clever. Really, I don’t know how I come off that way when I compose these sentences in a very matter-of-fact frame of mind.

  13. epic says

    blah blah blah…ok except the giant dictionary nerds who else does not want this movie to suck….please o who ever is responsible for movies not sucking, please make this movie not suck…ok carry on

  14. says

    Thus leaving his fate the same, and not changing history in the slightest. With the idea of time travel comes the fantasy of going back and seeing the dinosaurs, and meeting the long lost grandpa. But if travel is achieved by means of a time machine,