Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/06/14 19:05:42
Subject: Prometheus, I am disappointed (Spoilers) from the start
I think you will find that there is quite a lot of character development.
There really isn't.
There really is. You even cited some of it in your bizzare argument for its non-existence. Maybe it's a confusion of terms? When we throw around the term "character development" we are actually talking about characterization, i.e., conveying information about characters. Calling a character "underdeveloped" simply means that we don't know enough about a character in order to understand their role in the story. Not all "developed" characters need to go through dramatic changes. But even if that were the case, Holloway would still qualify as we see him go through several crises. Indeed, by asking Vickers to take him out, we can tell that Holloway has "grown up" quite a bit (it was a painful but clearly necessary decision; his first and last good one in the movie, too).
Strangely enough, it is David who is underdeveloped and almost undeveloped. We know basically nothing about him. We aren't even sure if he likes Lawrence of Arabia or if he was programmed to (clearly, his programmer is a big fan of the movie). I say this is strange, because you and others who think the film has problems with character development often cite him as the exception.
You keep using that term. i do not think it means what you think it means.
LoH: Now you're using a new word, "engaging," and you seem to contrast it against characters just being plot devices.
First, all characters are plot devices first and foremost. Characters are elements in a story that help drive plot and drama. Characters are no more privileged in this regard than setting, for example. Look back at Hesiod's account of the titan Prometheus in Works and Days: does he meet your criteria for "engaging"?
Also, could please list some things that we learn about David in the film?
Character development may refer to: The change in characterisation of a dynamic character, who changes over the course of a narrative.
Tell me more about your masters degree in literature. willywonka.jpg
Wikipedia also wrote:Character development
A well-developed character is one that has been thoroughly characterised, with many traits shown in the narrative. A well-developed character acts according to past instances provided by its visible traits unless more information about the character is provided. The better the audience knows the character, the better the character development.
Manchu wrote:Now you're using a new word, "engaging," and you seem to contrast it against characters just being plot devices.
Because good characters tend to be engaging for the audience to watch, read about, etc.
First, all characters are plot devices first and foremost. Characters are elements in a story that help drive plot and drama.
No. That's bad writing. Real people do not exist in the immediate moment. They have history, future hopes, etc etc all that good stuff. Character's who are well written and engaging, exist beyond the plot. They are in the plot, are driven by it or drive it, but they don't exist solely for the plot's convenience. The characters of Prometheus do not exist beyond the immediate needs of the plot, so its a double whammy. They do what the plot needs them to do, and nothing else. They are not their own entities within the plot. Hence, poorly written, boring, and unengaging.
This is of course now debating literary theory, which no one will ever agree on.
Also, could please list some things that we learn about David in the film?
Its mostly the actor (imo). The way David is played, there's this undercurrent of hostility (especially notable with Charlie). He's very passive aggressive. Since he's also related to major plot points, the context of his exact behavior constantly changes, but that's partially why I say he develops. Trying to figure out David's motives is engaging for the audience because they constantly need to watch to even attempt to understand.
A well-developed character is one that has been thoroughly characterised, with many traits shown in the narrative. A well-developed character acts according to past instances provided by its visible traits unless more information about the character is provided. The better the audience knows the character, the better the character development.
Charlie doesn't fit this in the slightest. He's the exact opposite. He displays extremely erratic behavior (from rash and excited, to arrogant and brooding, to self sacrificing) with no real explanation at all for why he behaves the way he does.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 19:20:02
LordofHats wrote:Because good characters tend to be engaging for the audience to watch, read about, etc.
Define 'engaging'
No. That's bad writing. Real people do not exist in the immediate moment. They have history, future hopes, etc etc all that good stuff. Character's who are well written and engaging, exist beyond the plot. They are in the plot, are driven by it or drive it, but they don't exist solely for the plot's convenience. The characters of Prometheus do not exist beyond the immediate needs of the plot, so its a double whammy. They do what the plot needs them to do, and nothing else. They are not their own entities within the plot. Hence, poorly written, boring, and unengaging.
lol, you've got the cart in front of the horse here. If the history, future hopes and 'all that good stuff' do not serve a purpose in the story, then what purpose do they serve?
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/06/14 19:30:27
Subject: Prometheus, I am disappointed (Spoilers) from the start
LordofHats wrote:Because good characters tend to be engaging for the audience to watch, read about, etc.
That's the same as saying "good characters are good" but changing one of the "goods" in that sentence to "engaging."
This is of course now debating literary theory, which no one will ever agree on.
It's not actually a matter of opinion. There is more than one way to write a technically good story. Some stories are character-driven and some are plot-driven. Saying a plot-driven story is not good because it's not a character-driven story is a bad argument. Preference is not the same thing as criticism.
Also, could please list some things that we learn about David in the film?
Its mostly the actor (imo). The way David is played, there's this undercurrent of hostility (especially notable with Charlie). He's very passive aggressive. Since he's also related to major plot points, the context of his exact behavior constantly changes, but that's partially why I say he develops. Trying to figure out David's motives is engaging for the audience because they constantly need to watch to even attempt to understand.
That is not the same as knowing things about him. Wasn't it you who just criticized people for reading things into the character?
Charlie doesn't fit this in the slightest. He's the exact opposite. He displays extremely erratic behavior (from rash and excited, to arrogant and brooding, to self sacrificing) with no real explanation at all for why he behaves the way he does.
This does not express an accurate account of the film.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/14 19:31:27
I would think that's a word that doesn't need to be defined.
lol, you've got the cart in front of the horse here. If the history, future hopes and 'all that good stuff' do not serve a purpose in the story, then what purpose do they serve?
They serve to make the character real (and typically explain actions and behaviors).
Manchu wrote:That's the same as saying "good characters are good" but changing one of the "goods" in that sentence to "engaging."
No. Engaging characters keep an audiences interest through action and their development through a story. A character who does not develop does not engage the audience because they appear to just be going through the motions (which most characters in Prometheus do).
It's not actually a matter of opinion.
No, its something that's extremely complicated and highly subjective. No wait that is a matter of opinion...
Saying a plot-driven story is not good because it's not a character-driven story is a bad argument. Preference is not the same thing as criticism.
Most academics consider plot-driven stories to be bad stories. I don't agree with that position, but I do tend to prefer character driven.
That is not the same as knowing things about him. Wasn't it you who just criticized people for reading things into the character?
That's why I give most of the credit to the actor. As directly written, David himself is as depthless as the rest of the cast. The actor put those things into the movie and they're blatantly obvious so it takes no reading into anything to see it. It takes reading into things to try and figure out David's exact motivations.
And I wasn't criticizing reading things into characters. I was directly responding the post above mine, where I poster accused the artistic vision of the film being dumbed down for the audience, when I'd propose that there wasn't necessarily any artistic vision. People read what they will into a piece, regardless of whether its meant to be there. Its the nature of the beast.
This does not express an accurate account of the film.
Yes it does. Charlie has a very erratic character, and his erraticism is never explained in any manner. Baffling in the same way David's is, but without the actor giving any sense of depth to a rather depthless character.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 19:53:06
Manchu wrote:That's the same as saying "good characters are good" but changing one of the "goods" in that sentence to "engaging."
No. Engaging characters keep an audiences interest through action and their development through a story. A character who does not develop does not engage the audience because they appear to just be going through the motions (which most characters in Prometheus do).
That's much more clear. A "good" character is one that interests LoH. If Manchu is interested but LoH is not, the character is still not "engaging."
Most academics consider plot-driven stories to be bad stories.
No. Or better yet, please prove that this is the case.
Charlie has a very erratic character, and his erraticism is never explained in any manner. Baffling in the same way David's is, but without the actor giving any sense of depth to a rather depthless character.
He's not erratic at all. I outlined how he is consistent, until his existential crisis moment, using a pack of scenes directly from the film above. There's no reason to type it all out again in a slightly different way.
Manchu wrote:That's much more clear. A "good" character is one that interests LoH. If Manchu is interested but LoH is not, the character is still not "engaging."
If that's the way you want to look at it then more power to you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 20:01:10
I would think that's a word that doesn't need to be defined.
Perhaps not, but I want to understand what you mean when you say it.
They serve to make the character real (and typically explain actions and behaviors).
And thus, they (character histories and "all that good stuff") are only relevant in how they affect the story.
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/06/14 20:03:44
Subject: Prometheus, I am disappointed (Spoilers) from the start
Manchu wrote:That's much more clear. A "good" character is one that interests LoH. If Manchu is interested but LoH is not, the character is still not "engaging."
If that's the way you want to look at it then more power to you.
Manchu wrote:That's much more clear. A "good" character is one that interests LoH. If Manchu is interested but LoH is not, the character is still not "engaging."
If that's the way you want to look at it then more power to you.
That doesn't even make any sense.
It means I see no point in further discussion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 20:09:54
You defined "engaging" as "interesting" in response to me objecting to your previous definition (of "engaging" as "good") as being a tautology. I haven't just dismissed your point as a whim. I addressed it as another bad argument.
Manchu wrote:You defined "engaging" as "interesting" in response to me objecting to your previous definition (of "engaging" as "good") as being a tautology. I haven't just dismissed your point as a whim. I addressed it as another bad argument.
Definiting what makes a good character as 'interesting' (ignoring that that's hardly accurate to what I said), is not a tautology. I argued that good characters are engaging, defining engaging as holding an audiences interest through ongoing development and action. Seeing as Prometheus' characters do not develop that much beyond their initial starting point, and some have erratic/inconsistent characters, I consider them to be unengaging, and hence, not good.
This all goes back to you saying that "character development" is about characters being "engaging." You refuse to answer the question, "what makes something engaging?" When I asked you to do it, you said that we know a character is engaging because the audience is interested in them. Being interesting means exactly the same thing as being engaging, hence a tautology. And the question remains: what makes a character "engaging" or "interesting"?
I posed this question to you more specifically. I asked you to look at Hesiod's account of Prometheus in Works and Days. You said that people will not talk about Ridely Scott's movie Prometheus in ten years because the characters are not engaging. So please, let me know if Hesiod's character Prometheus is engaging. He wrote Works and Days nearly three millennia ago, so he must have had some engaging characters given that we're still talking about it. And if you can tell me what is engaging about Hesiod's Prometheus, maybe we can see if that same characteristic applies to Sir Ridley's characters.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/06/14 20:30:25
Manchu wrote:This all goes back to you saying that "character development" is about characters being "engaging."
That's not what I said.
You refuse to answer the question, "what makes something engaging?"
I did answer the question, you just didn't like the answer, or aren't getting what I'm trying to say.
When I asked you to do it, you said that we know a character is engaging because the audience is interested in them. Being interesting means exactly the same thing as being engaging, hence a tautology. And the question remains: what makes a character "engaging" or "interesting"?
As I've posted several times. Ongoing character development. Once a character ceases to develop, they cease to be engaging. Your confusing the technical definition of 'interest' with what I'm trying to say (I'm only using interest because I can't think of another word, but maybe what I'm trying to convey doesn't fit into words very well). Dante (DMC) is one of the shallowest most unegaging characters I can think of. He's still interesting but solely because he's quirky and excentric. He's a weak character who is 'interesting' because he's fun to watch, but lacks engaging development.
He wrote Works and Days nearly three millennia ago, so he must have had some engaging characters given that we're still talking about it. And if you can tell me what is engaging about Hesiod's Prometheus, maybe we can see if that same characteristic applies to and of Sir Ridley's characters.
Literary trope has advanced substanitially in the past 3000 years. Prometheus survives because he is 'novel' and engrained into popular culture. He doesn't have to be engaging. I never even said something that to be engaging, or even good, to survive the test of time. You're combining all my posts together in a manner I did not intend.
There is nothing remotely novel about the movie Prometheus. In the end, its an okay movie with a plot that keeps the viewers interest, but boring characters. There's nothing remarkable about it. Hence why years from now no one will care.
"Character development is what makes a character engaging."
Okay, we're back to character development. As you now know, character development means conveying information about the character and having the character act in accordance with either that information or new information. Which is exactly what we have with Halloway in Prometheus.
Spoiler:
(1) We are introduced to Halloway on an expedition where, in contrast to Shaw, he is not the one working to make the big discovery.
(2) Halloway and Shaw give their presentation. Halloway is unexpectedly contradicted by Shaw. It seems that he has a more superficial understanding of their work than Shaw.
(3) But we know that he is passionate. He demands to go to the structure as soon as the ship lands. We realize that he is not very cautious.
(4) He is also condescending to David. He seems to get along okay with everyone else.
(5) In the structure, Shaw takes a big risk by taking his helmet off while everyone else sensibly objects. Again, not very cautious and contrary to Shaw's more professional approach. (She later informs him that they have changed the atmosphere in the main chamber, too)
(6) Halloway throws himself into the storm to save Shaw, obviously with no clear plan as to how he will do it. Again, he's not a cautious person. This is contrasted to David, who has ropes attached to him and ends up saving them both. Shaw thanks David. Halloway does not.
(7) Back on the ship, Halloway is so despondent about the discovery ("this is just another tomb") that he is not even examining the Engineer head. This is just like him not being the person making the discovery in the cave at the beginning. And again the person who is doing the work is Shaw.
(8) David asks Holloway what he would do to make his discoveries. Holloway, who is not a cautious person, says "anything and everything." David gives him the tainted glass and Halloway become infected.
(9) In their quarters, Halloway insensitively talks about his disappointment, making Shaw cry about being barren. Once again, he is a thoughtless person but he is passionate. He tries to comfort her and they have sex.
(10) Holloway hides not feeling well despite seeing the weird thing in his eye. Here he is being consistently incautious yet again.
(11) Everything goes to gak, including Holloway getting extremely and terrifyingly sick. We see him go from being self-deceptive about not being sick to insisting that Shaw tell him what he really looks like and how bad it really is. In the face of death, he is having to come to terms with the consequences of his actions.
(12) The party gets back to the ship and Vickers insists Holloway cannot come in. Shaw gets angry but Holloway realizes that his lack of caution has led to all of this. Shaw says she won't leave him so he sacrifices himself so that the others can be safe from whatever is wrong with him.
So there you have it: a complete character arc that plays exposition and consistency off of dynamic crisis to a resolution of personal growth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Prometheus survives because he is 'novel' and engrained into popular culture. He doesn't have to be engaging.
That simply makes no sense on its face.
There is nothing remotely novel about the movie Prometheus.
The movie is incredibly novel in the sense that it is told as myth instead of documentary. The dominant way of making films to day is with the assumptions of documentary (I don't mean the explicit style, like Blair Witch or Paranormal) and Prometheus cuts against that. If nothing else (and there is in fact so much more) the film will be talked about for that reason.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/06/14 21:16:55
Manchu wrote:"Character development is what makes a character engaging."
Okay, we're back to character development.
No, I never started there. That might be where the conversation began, but its not where my train of thought for what makes good character began.
Spoiler:
(1) We are introduced to Halloway on an expedition where, in contrast to Shaw, he is not the one working to make the big discovery.
Shaw and Halloway are after virtually the same thing. There is no contrast.
(2) Halloway and Shaw give their presentation. Halloway is unexpectedly contradicted by Shaw. It seems that he has a more superficial understanding of their work than Shaw.
(3) But we know that he is passionate. He demands to go to the structure as soon as the ship lands. We realize that he is not very cautious.
He just travel light years to find aliens. We already know hes passionate.
(4) He is also condescending to David. He seems to get along okay with everyone else.
Which is strangely odd given his enthusiasm and optimistic demeanor. Why he dislike's David is unclear, and really only seems to be there for the sake of being there, or dare I say, make us sympathize with David poisoning him and hate David a little less when he does? Damn Holloway sure makes things convinient.
(5) In the structure, Shaw takes a big risk by taking his helmet off while everyone else sensibly objects. Again, not very cautious and contrary to Shaw's more professional approach. (She later informs him that they have changed the atmosphere in the main chamber, too)
(6) Halloway throws himself into the storm to save Shaw, obviously with no clear plan as to how he will do it. Again, he's not a cautious person. This is contrasted to David, who has ropes attached to him and ends up saving them both. Shaw thanks David. Halloway does not.
(7) Back on the ship, Halloway is so despondent about the discovery ("this is just another tomb") that he is not even examining the Engineer head. This is just like him not being the person making the discovery in the cave at the beginning. And again the person who is doing the work is Shaw.
This behavior is radically erratic. The man believes we were created by aliens, travels light years to a planet on a ship funded by a billionaire, and just because the first site show'd no results, he collapses into self introspection and depression? The man was widly enthusiatic just before this, and he's an archeologist! Finding 'nothing' on the first try is standard procedure. He collapses into depression for no real reason. Its not a believable behavior.
(8) David asks Holloway what he would do to make his discoveries. Holloway, who is not a cautious person, says "anything and everything." David gives him the tainted glass and Halloway become infected.
That scene says a lot more about David than Halloway. Hell it seems to contradict Holloway, who has for no substantial reason, just given up, when he claims he'd do anything and everything.
(9) In their quarters, Halloway insensitively talks about his disappointment, making Shaw cry about being barren. Once again, he is a thoughtless person but he is passionate. He tries to comfort her and they have sex.
(10) Holloway hides not feeling well despite seeing the weird thing in his eye. Here he is being consistently incautious yet again.
(11) Everything goes to gak, including Holloway getting extremely and terrifyingly sick. We see him go from being self-deceptive about not being sick to insisting that Shaw tell him what he really looks like and how bad it really is. In the face of death, he is having to come to terms with the consequences of his actions.
(12) The party gets back to the ship and Vickers insists Holloway cannot come in. Shaw gets angry but Holloway realizes that his lack of cautious has led to all of this. Shaw says she won't leave him so he sacrifices himself so that the other can be safe from whatever is wrong with him.
Holloway doesn't clearly realize anything. He just goes up and says 'do it.'
So there you have it: a complete character arc that plays exposition and consistency off of dynamic crisis to a resolution of personal growth.
No. His 'resolution' is to be the plots canon fodder. Everything he does and says is done with the sole purpose of advancing the plot. He's a slave to it. Contrasted to David and Shaw, who are the only characters who develop as entities within the plot rather than being slaves to it. Holloway is along for the ride for its convenience, rather than interacting with it, if that makes any sense. Nothing past the first fifteen minutes of the film really reveals anything new or interesting about Holloway. He shows up, moves the plot forward, and dies when the plot no longer needs him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 21:39:18
He completely changes as a person, which development costs him his life, all of which is a significant component of the overall theme of the movie. That is the opposite of "cannon fodder."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Okay, we're back to character development.
No, I never started there. That might be where the conversation began, but its not where my train of thought for what makes good character began.
By all means, give a coherent account of your position.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/14 21:43:49
He doesn't change at all. If you want to read in the change, go for it, but nothing directly from the film supports an resolution of any personal growth, because he doesn't really grow at all.
By all means, give a coherent account of your position.
I have. Thrice in fact. Unfortunately, you keep demanding I give one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 21:48:14
Manchu wrote:He completely changes as a person, which development costs him his life, all of which is a significant component of the overall theme of the movie. That is the opposite of "cannon fodder."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Okay, we're back to character development.
No, I never started there. That might be where the conversation began, but its not where my train of thought for what makes good character began.
By all means, give a coherent account of your position.
He changes from 'eager dude' to 'roasted dude', its the very definition of cannon fodder
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/06/14 21:58:35
Subject: Prometheus, I am disappointed (Spoilers) from the start
LordofHats wrote:If you want to read in the change, go for it, but nothing directly from the film supports an resolution of any personal growth, because he doesn't really grow at all.
I give you a scene-for-scene report of the events that happened in the movie and you tell me I'm reading into things.
- Man begins with devil-may-care passion. - Man ends allowing someone else to end his existence because it's better to be safe than sorry. - LoH tells me man did not change.
I have. Thrice in fact. Unfortunately, you keep demanding I give one.
Sorry man but unless you accidentally posted it in another thread three times, no you haven't. I have explicitly chased your moving targets down one by one and every time you just say "you don't get it" without any further explanation or evidence. So, again, by all means post a coherent statement of your position.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/14 21:59:10
Manchu wrote:- Man begins with devil-may-care passion.
- Man ends allowing someone else to end his existence because it's better to be safe than sorry.
- LoH tells me man did not change.
You speak of some revelation he apparently had that must have been off screen. He's already disregarded his safety, and a willingness to go into harms way to help another. Its admirable, but its not new for his character or a change from previous behavior. Everything we need to know about Holloway is revealed in the first twenty minutes. From that point on, nothing new is presented.
So, again, by all means post a coherent statement of your position.
I'm afraid the 'please explain it to me again' retort is unbeatable, and I choose to withdraw rather than continue to waste my time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/14 22:08:44
LordofHats wrote:You speak of some revelation he apparently had that must have been off screen.
Nope, I've already explained that it isn't the case.
- Going into the structure on trip 2, he pretends to himself and others that he is okay, disregarding everyone's safety/
- At a crucial moment, when things get dangerous, he demands to know how bad off he really is.
- Back at the ship, he allows Vickers to kill him because he realizes he is incurable and a danger to others.
All of it was on the screen.
I'm afraid the 'please explain it to me again' retort is unbeatable, and I choose to withdraw rather than continue to waste my time.
I am not asking for it again because I don't believe your assertion that you have done it yet.
Manchu wrote:- Going into the structure on trip 2, he pretends to himself and others that he is okay, disregarding everyone's safety
The guys probably scared, or in denial. Hardly irregualr behavior for any human being. If anything, his constant back and forth between disregard and regard is only evidence of his inconsistency. He cares when Shaw gets tossed in the storm, doesn't care right before trip 2, and then goes back to caring?
I am not asking for it again because I don't believe your assertion that you have done it yet.
Normally its called moving the goal post, but you've gone a step further and denied the posts existence. Now we just need a way to make a meme out of it.
LordofHats wrote:The guys probably scared, or in denial. Hardly irregualr behavior for any human being. If anything, his constant back and forth between disregard and regard is only evidence of his inconsistency. He cares when Shaw gets tossed in the storm, doesn't care right before trip 2, and then goes back to caring?
I already painstakingly explained, with scene-for-scene reporting, that he is not erratic. When his character changes, this is part of his development. I even mentioned the storm thing explicitly. Yeah, he goes after her -- but obviously disregarding any real possibility of saving her since he quite logically almost dies himself in the process.
