Noomi Rapace Says ‘Prometheus 2’ Script In The Works
  |  @   |  

Perhaps one of the most polarizing films of last year was Ridley Scott‘s Prometheus. Some called it a return to the sci-fi horror genre and others called it one of the worst things ever. If it was the latter, part of the blame could be directed towards the screenplay. Regardless, the film made just enough money to garner a sequel, or at least explore the option of one.

Scott is definitely on board to direct one, and it seems that he’s been talking to film star Noomi Rapace about it as well. During a press conference for Dead Man Down, the actress confirmed that she has been talking to the director to discuss Prometheus 2 and what we could possible see in it.

Rapace spoke to The Playlist about the possibility of the sequel:

They’re working on the script. I met Ridley in London a couple of weeks ago. I would love to work with him again and I know that he would like to do another one. It’s just like we need to find the right story. I hope we will.

It always comes down to the story. The issue is that the story was the problem in the first film. It sounded nice on paper, but when stretched out to a full-length film, it was too concerned about the questions and not so much about the story. So hopefully they get it right if a sequel does happen.

She goes on to say:

It’s interesting because people, most people I’ve talked to who see the movie, see things that are quite different. Some people who see the movie many times and discover new things. There are all these religious aspects and there are very interesting conversations. And for me, if we do a second one, there are a lot of things to explore in there and to continue. I would love to do it.

With the way that Prometheus ended, there is definitely room for a sequel, especially for a film that was so polarizing. So what do you think? Should there be a sequel?

[Source: The Playlist]

Amazon.com Widgets


  1. Of course there should (and will) be a sequel. A thought provoking sci-fi film from one of the genre masters and people panned it? Maybe they want their genre film spoon fed to them. For me any film that I leave the theatre thinking about, talking about and wanting to see again to catch things I may have missed is a great film. So few of them these days.

    Comment by Harkonen — February 28, 2013 @ 9:29 am

  2. I completely agree. Cannot wait for the Prometheus universe to be explorer further!

    Comment by PAUL — February 28, 2013 @ 11:51 am

  3. I honestly thought it was one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I thought it was brilliant. I can’t understand the criticism. I think the low IQ haters wanted an Aliens action movie and they’re angry they had to use their pea brains.

    Comment by jwhyrock — February 28, 2013 @ 10:12 pm

  4. Yes, plz!

    Comment by Michael Carroll — March 1, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

  5. Prometheus was brilliant. Something to keep in mind is that it received mostly positive reviews from professional critics and film scholars like John Kenneth Muir, only general audiences were polarized. When you juxtapose substantive and thoughtful essays and analyses with the immature and cynical vitriol you begin to see the genius of Lindelof.

    I think a central problem with the cynics viewing of the film is that they expected it to be something it was not. It is a narrative film in the very basic sense that it has a narrative that propels the film’s action (which I find to be quite easy to
    understand, I’d even go so far as to call its narrative simple, and I’m
    confused as to why many thought it so confusing) but it is not a film that relies
    on or is focused upon its narrative. The narrative serves more as a means to
    the end of exploring the film’s themes and subtext. If you don’t like the kind of film that it is that’s fine and a perfectly legitimate view to hold but it’s not a bad
    film because it’s not committed to a single plot-driven narrative.
    Some of the greatest films ever made are similar in this regard (and of course
    there are also great movies that are very narrative and plot-driven).

    Every scene, every shot means something visually, but it will not help you out by all the dialogue or exposition; since many of the characters rely on their own incidental beliefs and assumptions they are never definitive and in some cases they are plain red herrings. The best way to get at it, I’ve found, is to always be asking, “okay, I see this, I heard that — now what does that mean?”

    I find any art form of sufficient talent worthy of semiotic analysis, especially
    one that was constructed specifically by allegory and symbolism, the very
    ingredients that make for a rich thematic subtext, and the film is swimming in
    it. There simply isn’t anything quite like it. Case in point;

    The more I think about LV-223 being a reference to Leviticus 22:3 :

    “In all future generations, if any of your descendants is
    ceremonially unclean when he approaches the sacred offerings that the people of
    Israel consecrate to the LORD, he must be cut off from my presence. I am the

    – the more I’m convinced that the cave painting at the beginning is a
    reference to Genesis 3.

    There are a cluster of 5 “stars” with the figure pointing at
    the central star / planet – no matter how you count it, he is pointing at the
    3rd object, and the cave painting is about our genesis.

    Genesis 3 being about The Fall Of Man :

    “You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the
    garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.”

    – the star / planet is in the middle of the cluster. There is certainly
    a Serpent present.

    Genesis 1 – 5 are all very pertinent to the themes explored in the film,
    though there may simply have been 5 objects so that its obviously the 3rd one
    that is singled out.

    But that’s my idle speculation, and I think that is actually a positive
    result of the film. Many forms of higher art leave room for interpretation by
    the patron. Think of many of the sci-fi films we get treated to: how many can
    make us marvel at the technological wizardy and then lapse into a theistic
    debate? Few can, and I love this effort for that reason.

    In fact, even more than my later post, drawing parallels with Blade
    Runner, I think it’s easier to understand if you look at the “Holy”
    trinity of Peter Weyland, Vickers and David.

    Weyland = God.

    Vickers = The “Engineers”.

    David = Us.

    Weyland, all powerful as a businessman, is the father of Vickers, and
    the creator of David – but obviously had a father, grandfather etc etc.

    Vickers (possibly named after the weapons engineering company), may have
    been more directly involved in manufacture / management of David, but has been passed over by him in her fathers affections.

    David (despite sharing many character concerns with his namesake in A.I.
    is most probably named after Michelangelo’s sculpture), being “male”
    is seen as Weyland’s “son” and more accurately in the image of his

    Look at the relationship between Vickers and David – she is not at all
    happy taking second place to the artificial son, and is seen to be hostile and
    violent towards him – it seems unlikely (though perhaps not impossible and
    arguably even more relevant) that she would react this way if she were and
    android herself.

    In spite of David’s servitude he is always broadly acting along with
    “Company” policy established in Alien “Bring back life form.
    Priority One. All other priorities rescinded”. Indeed, Weyland’s orders supersede any ethical or moral obligation he may or may not have, but he also wants to be free from Weyland and wants him dead. It’s apparent that he somehow developed emotions and a personality.

    David is made to look and behave like us, to make us feel more
    comfortable around him.

    Look at the giant head in the temple – We look more like that God than
    the “Engineers” do.

    They see us as an abomination, and an affront to their relationship with
    their God – they are jealous that we look more like him than they do, and will
    have his favour over them, just as Vickers feels in her relationship with her
    father and David.

    Extending the “Holy” trinity further outwards, it seems
    reasonable to assume that the giant head sculpture in the temple, is based on a being, which must have had a father and a grandfather etc etc.

    This would appear to be seen / worshipped as a deity.

    The temple features a fresco painting, which whilst bearing a strong
    resemblance to Christian Griepenkerl paintings on the Promethean myth, would
    seem to suggest a parallel with Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel fresco.

    That image is famous for the depiction of God bringing Adam to life with
    the touch of a finger.

    So in another Michelangelo reference, we have David evaluating
    Holloway’s commitment to his ideals with his finger at the ready, to bring new
    life in to being.

    He has moved up the chain, becoming the creator.

    And as David himself says “Doesn’t everyone want their parents

    So the notion of a trinity continues in a generational loop, much in the
    same way that the quest for answers is a continual loop (Shaw starts and ends
    the movie setting off on a never ending quest, to meet the maker and answer the ultimate questions – when she arrives at her next destination, it will only
    lead to more of the same questions). This brings to mind Nietzsche’s eternal

    We are all existing in an Escher print…the human quest for truth and
    answers in its deepest existential sense is and will be never ending and this
    is how the film is paradoxically self-contained and it is quite brilliant
    actually. The ending is the conceit. This is why it’s utterly brilliant and I can’t wait for part II.

    Comment by Peter Vallance — March 2, 2013 @ 1:31 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Topics: Movies, News
Previous Article
Next Article
468x60 AD END ROS -->
2021  ·   2020  ·   2019  ·   2018  ·   2017  ·   2016  ·   2015  ·   2014  ·   2013  ·   2012  ·   2011  ·   2010  ·   2009  ·   2008  ·   2007  ·   2006  ·   2005
Geeks of Doom is proudly powered by WordPress.

Students of the Unusual™ comic cover used with permission of 3BoysProductions
The Mercuri Bros.™ comic cover used with permission of Prodigal Son Press

Geeks of Doom is designed and maintained by our geeky webmaster
All original content copyright ©2005-2021 Geeks of Doom
All external content copyright of its respective owner, except where noted

This website is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.
About | Privacy Policy | Contact