The Mixed Bag of Sci-Fi Nostalgia: Star Wars, Alien, and Blade Runner

(NewsRadio was originally going to be my next post, but I decided to postpone that and write something a bit more relevant since Blade Runner 2049 is coming out this week. NewsRadio is written and will be posted in a week or so.)

Nostalgia seems to be fueling the biggest movies and TV shows recently, and that is not going to change anytime soon thanks to the popularity of Star Wars returning to the original trilogy characters. Star Wars didn't start this trend or anything, but the massive success likely led to the greenlighting of new entries in other older properties. I can't help but think that Alien: Covenant was able to be made because of a promise to be more like the original Alien than the recent, divisive Prometheus. And based on the previews of Blade Runner 2049, it looks like the studio provided a huge budget; it's not a stretch to assume this is because of the Star Wars effect. While I love the resurgence of all these films I loved growing up, the nostalgia factor makes it a mixed bag (though I'm crazy optimistic for Blade Runner 2049). So is nostalgia helping or hurting the integrity of these franchises? Let's start with Star Wars.

The Force Awakens, many claim, gave the fans what they wanted whereas the prequels gave them what they didn't want. Not to get into a prequel vs. original trilogy debate, but one thing that can be said for the prequels is that they are different. For a lot of fans, that means they're terrible (I happen to hold them in the same regard as the original trilogy, but that's not the point). So when The Force Awakens came out, there was this collective sigh of relief: Star Wars was truly back. 

I enjoyed The Force Awakens, but the more I watched it, the more the nostalgia wore off. I still like it, but I also realize that it is an unapologetic rehash of A New Hope. People have pointed this out, but it seems like most give the film a pass. "Yeah, it's basically a remake, but, man, it really felt like Star Wars!" In other words, "Yeah, I've seen this movie before, but, man, it's a really good movie!" 

This is where I disagree with fans of The Force Awakens. Nostalgia is all about feeling, but I didn't think The Force Awakens felt like a Star Wars movie. It had all the right parts and whatnot, but it felt different. Not bad, just different. It's to the point now that I don't even consider that film's success the product of nostalgia; it was successful simply because of recognition. 

This is where the Alien and Blade Runner franchises come into play. Obviously nostalgia and recognition are part of the appeal (hell, Harrison Ford returns in Blade Runner, just like he did in Star Wars [PS - it's my theory that Ford is going through his most iconic characters and killing them off one by one; Deckard is probably going to die in the new Blade Runner, and he could also kill off Indiana Jones in the announced fifth film]), but one major difference with these two properties is that the original director, Ridley Scott, is heavily involved. Meanwhile, George Lucas, to the delight of most fans, has almost nothing to do with the new films. 

Scott's involvement is so important because he's not a fan. Everyone working on the new Star Wars films are fans, so, in essence, all the new stuff is fan fiction. Fan fiction can be good, but it will always feel a step removed. Just like Lucas was willing to do something vastly different (even if a lot of fans hated it), Scott can do whatever he wants with Alien and Blade Runner.

This has happened a bit already. The Alien prequel Prometheus, while certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, received a lot of negative blowback online. The film, in my opinion, has been nitpicked excessively possibly because it didn't deliver enough answers and/or the same experience of the first Alien film. The issue here is that Scott didn't set out to do either. Prometheus is not technically an Alien film as Scott has been following a multi-film plan to lead up to the original Alien. That's why there isn't a proper xenomorph in the film, and it's also why there are plenty of unanswered questions.

The more recent Alien: Covenant is different. It's as if Scott listened to the upset fans of Prometheus and tried to do two separate things: continue his multi-film plan and give the audience something very similar to the original Alien. I think the film accomplishes that, but that makes it the lesser of the two new films. I enjoyed the xenomorph sequence at the end of Covenant, but I was much more interested in the continued story from Prometheus. Pleasing fans is important, but when you give into them, it's like giving into a child who wants candy for dinner. Sure, the child will be full, but it's empty nourishment. Here's hoping that the next Alien film leans more towards Prometheus than Covenant. (To be clear, though, I really liked both movies.)

One thing that is undeniable about the Alien prequels is that Scott is still able to create the Alien atmosphere. Rewatching Alien recently, I realized that the atmosphere is why I love that first film more than Aliens. It's slow and brooding and effective. It also took what the original Star Wars presented (a futuristic sci-fi that looks lived rather than shiny and new) and perfected it. I recall Alien being described as truckers in space, and that's exactly what it is. This is best exemplified by the great Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton (R.I.P.). How often in a film set on a spaceship do you have characters arguing about wages? All of these elements add up to a nearly perfect film. A film that could not be replicated today because of pacing alone. Look at Covenant; they essentially remade Alien in the last twenty minutes. Audiences don't have time for slow burn tension these days.

Perhaps Blade Runner 2049 will prove me wrong, though. With a running time nearing three hours and a director (Denis Villeneuve) who specializes in mood, this could be the film that gets it right. Blade Runner 2049 could placate fans and retain the atmospheric feeling of the original. 

Blade Runner 2049 may have found the perfect formula for nostalgic filmmaking. Rather than shutting out the original director, allow him to be involved in the process (as Scott is on 2049 as a producer) without giving him total control. Star Wars could benefit from George Lucas's input, as blasphemous as that might seem to certain fans. Don't let him go full prequel with it, but let him in on the process. The guy who started it all just might have a few ideas for where the story can go.

Back to Blade Runner, what made me fall in love with this film over the years was the mood and atmosphere. Judging it on face value, it's a boring film. (SPOILERS throughout the rest of this paragraph.) Deckard is very low energy and is no match against a replicant in a fight, and he only survives at the end because Batty lets him. It's not meant to be much of an action film, though. It's an atmospheric consideration of what life is, especially in a technologically advanced world. It's slow and beautiful. I don't rewatch it at least once a year for the badass action sequences; I watch it because I want to revisit the world of the film.

Of course, simply wanting to revisit the world of a film is what led to some of the problems with nostalgic filmmaking in the first place. I guess the best way to describe it is that The Force Awakens felt like I was looking at a picture of the Star Wars universe, and I hope that Blade Runner 2049 feels more like a return to the world. 

Based on early reviews for 2049, it appears that they got it right with this one. I hope so. Because nostalgia will continue to drive the content of Hollywood as long as it's profitable. Nostalgia doesn't have to be a bad thing. When done right, filmmakers might be able to recreate the magic of the past. I'll find out this weekend when I watch Blade Runner 2049.

"The Martian": The Anti-"Alien"

The Martian

Director Ridley Scott’s recent return to sci-fi, Prometheus, was not very well-received (though I really enjoyed it) partially because it did not live up to the expectations created from Scott’s early sci-fi classic, Alien. Scott returns to science fiction again with The Martian, a film that could be called the anti-Alien.

Comparing The Martian to Alien simply because they are both sci-fi films directed by Scott is not fair. But the opening credits and score invite the comparison. The film begins with ominous music very similar to Alien as the title appears and then fades away one piece of a letter at a time, which is the reverse of the title reveal of Alien. That subtle nod lets the viewer know this is not going to be like Alien.

The difference is important to note because Scott’s filmography is filled with dark, ultra-serious movies. It would be easy for Scott to take the novel The Martian is based on, which is actually quite light-hearted despite the serious situation, and turn it into a much darker film. The intro makes it clear that Scott is venturing into new, nearly opposite territory, meaning The Martian is going to be fun, which is not a word typically associated with Ridley Scott.

The Martian has a setup that should be devoid of fun, however. Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed dead while his team aborts a Mars mission to return to Earth. It turns out he is still alive and must figure out how to survive on an inhospitable planet, alone, for four years. That alone sounds more like a depressing survival story than a fun movie, but add to it the logical higher-ups at NASA constantly discussing how impossible it will be for him to survive, and it sounds downright miserable. This is why tone is so important in writing and filmmaking. The source material (written by Andy Weir) deserves the most credit, as it is filled with sarcastic humor. Screenwriter Drew Goddard retained that comedy, and Ridley Scott finalized it with a bit of help from a great cast, many of whom are known for comedy. So instead of a depressing slog of a movie, we get a fast-paced space movie in which a funny astronaut solves every problem thrown his way.

The casting of Mark Watney is critical, and Matt Damon is the perfect choice. Watney needs to be someone you want to see saved, and Damon is very likable (despite his recent brushes with controversy in interviews and on Project Greenlight). He is also capable of carrying a film by himself for long stretches of time. Part of this is thanks to the fact that Watney is constantly talking to the NASA cameras tracking everything, which allows Watney’s portions of the film to be more dialogue-heavy than you would think. The other part of that is Damon’s abilities as an actor. This performance might get dismissed later in the year since the film is light-hearted at times, but he is truly impressive with seemingly no effort. But when you consider that he has make you laugh, cry, and care about him in general, all while talking to himself and reacting to typed messages, it becomes much clearer how great a performance this is. The rest of the cast is great and impressive, but this is definitely Matt Damon’s movie.

Performance and tone aside, any film that takes place on Mars needs to look great to work. This is where Ridley Scott truly shines. Say what you will about his less popular films, but Scott’s movies always look amazing. The sets look so intricate and realistic it’s easy to buy into this near-future of manned Mars missions. And Mars, created with a combination of a practical location (the Wadi Rum in Jordan) and CG, looks beautiful.

All of these elements combine to make The Martian the most exhilarating movie about space exploration in years. In fact, it almost felt like a promotional movie to get people interested in manned Mars missions (and with NASA’s obvious cooperation, I think it’s safe to say they see it that way too). But that doesn’t take away from the film at all. It’s refreshing to see a movie set in a world where space exploration is done for exploration’s sake rather than as a quest to save the world or escape a dead world or (insert depressing plotline here).

This is not to say The Martian is just some fun, empty, forgetful experience. Ridley Scott cannot make a film without plenty of thematic elements. The most dominant theme concerns how important a single human life is. The movie spells it out in no uncertain terms that every life is worth saving, and saving one person on a distant planet can unite everyone on this planet. Is this true? No. Of course not. If this were to happen in the real world, there would be an entire subsection of the population that would doubt that there was actually a mission sent to Mars at all. But The Martian is not the real world, which is why it’s a great, fun film. Alien is still the better film, but it’s hard to compete with the feeling you will have after watching The Martian.

The Martian receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Hats off to Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain not being too afraid of doing similar projects to accept this role. Chastain's role isn't all that similar to Interstellar, but Damon's is. In fact, Interstellar works as an alternate ending. A kind of "This is what could have happened" warning.  

I loved that they kept the Elrond joke, especially since Sean Bean (Boromir) was in the scene. Speaking of Sean Bean, good for him for not dying in this one.

I'm getting pretty sick of seeing China pandered to in movies, but at least in this one, it was part of the book, and it makes much more sense as they do have a space program. In other movies (like Transformers: Revenge of the Returned Fallen or Whatever) the characters almost randomly end up in China. And the China stuff paid off in this film as we see a Chinese astronaut on the next Ares mission during the credits sequence.

Didn't see this one in 3D, but I can imagine some of it might have looked great. Visually speaking, it was plenty impressive in 2D. 

Finally, the ending is nearly sappy with optimism, but I still liked it. There was a time that maybe the "good" ending would have bothered me, but not anymore. I love darker sci-fi films like Alien, Blade Runner, Interstellar, etc. but sci-fi movies that honestly make me feel good for humanity at the end are so rare that I was okay with it. Plus, I truly wanted Watney to make it, and the tone of the film does not allow for a down ending.

Top Ten (and then some) of 2012

I am going to give the same warning for this top ten list that I did last year: these are my top ten (and then some) “favorite” films of the year.  I am in position to claim one film is technically “better” than any other film.  Sure, I might be more likely than most to comment on filming techniques, score, acting, etc., but at the end of the day, or year, I still simply pick which movies I enjoyed the most.  Was Anna Karenina more impressive from a filmmaking standpoint than Lincoln?  Yes, absolutely.  But while I enjoyed Anna Karenina, it didn’t contain subject matter that I found particularly interesting nor did it have any performances that match up with Lincoln.  The point is that these top ten lists that flood the internet and magazines around this time of the year are all subjective.  It’s all personal taste.  That said, I have kind of a boring list, as my top three films are on nearly all of the top ten lists.  I’m not one to lie just to be different, though, so I stuck with the ten films I enjoyed the most this year.  I found 2012 to be a great year for movies, which is why I also added a few comments for five more films, and have a lengthy honorable mention list.  So here it is.  Feel free to completely disagree with me.  All I ask is that you keep an open mind, especially about the movies on the list that you haven’t seen.  It’s always okay to hate a movie, but only if you’ve seen it.

Also, I did miss out on a handful of films that some people have been praising, such as Holy Motors, End of Watch, Rust and Bone, Alps, and Compliance.  

1. Lincoln
 


I honestly did not expect this to end up as my number one film of the year.  I knew Day-Lewis would give a great performance, but I was skeptical of Spielberg.  I was afraid this was going to be a safe, plain patriotic film.  I wasn’t entirely wrong, but I was floored by how effective, and entertaining, the film was.  Many have complained of the film being boring, and I understand that, with all of the politics and long conversations, but I love that stuff.  While some were falling asleep, I was paying close attention.  The entire film works for me.  But it was Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance that sealed the deal for me. 

 

2. Django Unchained



An extremely close second because of the entertainment value in Quentin Tarantino’s edgy film.  Some are offended by the very premise of the film, but what can I say?  It’s kind of hard to offend me.  I enjoy movies and that is what this is: a very enjoyable movie.

 

3. Zero Dark Thirty



An important but riveting film.  It’s catching a lot of flak concerning torture and all that, but if you can get past that, this lengthy film expertly recreates the nuts and bolts of the manhunt that brought Osama bin Laden to justice.  More importantly, though, the film leaves the viewer with some questions about the war on terror and how it’s being waged.

 

4. The Master

 

Paul Thomas Anderson is a filmmaker I will always find interesting, and that is the basis for this pick.  Some will watch this and absolutely hate it, and I understand that.  It’s a strange film.  I started to doubt my enjoyment of the film weeks after my initial viewing, but watching it again recently, I realized once again that I love this movie.  It’s endlessly fascinating to me.

 

5. Prometheus

 

This is one of my controversial picks and the one that will have some people completely dismiss me.  I don’t know why everyone on the internet chose this film to nitpick incessantly.  I suppose it didn’t live up to their expectations, whatever those were.  I enjoyed the film very much, though.  It’s a science-fiction film with a brain.  Yes, with a brain.  Most people criticize the film because of the “stupid” things the characters do, but that says nothing about the themes of the film.  I don’t know, maybe I’m just easily pleased, but I thought director Ridley Scott’s return to sci-fi was entertaining and thought-provoking.  Also, this is a sci-fi film that relied surprisingly heavily on practical effects.  In today’s movie world, that is something that should be appreciated.

 

6. The Dark Knight Rises

 

Another film people are now ripping to shreds because of plot holes online.  (Because the first two films of the trilogy were documentaries, right?)  I thought this was a pleasing and fitting conclusion to my favorite superhero series of all time.  I know the battle was between this and The Avengers, but I liked both.  I just enjoyed this one more.  And as with Prometheus, the amount of practical stunt work and visual effects deserves much more credit than it has received thus far.

 

7. Cloud Atlas

 

This film could have easily been a complete mess (and some would argue that it is), but somehow the filmmakers took a complex book and compiled an amazing film experience out of it.  It gets bonus points from for the sheer ambition of it, but more than that, the film grabbed me and made me care about what was happening. 

 

8. Wanderlust

 

This pick might leave people simply asking, “What is Wanderlust?”  Unfortunately, this hilarious comedy failed to find much success at the box office or on home video.  I think this movie is worthy of cult status and hopefully time will rectify that.  Maybe not, though.  It is a truly absurd film, and is certainly not for everyone.  But in a year filled with great comedies, I found this one to rise above the rest.  It features that rare self-aware comedy that never has to sink to the level of actors winking at the camera.  If you like comedies off the beaten path, check this out.

 

9. Looper

 

I’m a sucker for sci-fi and even though the paradoxes of time travel films tend to bother me, this film does it right.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is terrific and his Bruce Willis impression is worth watching alone.  Thankfully, writer-director Rian Johnson makes this stylish, interesting film much more than a lengthy Willis impression.

 

10. Lawless

 

This is a film that I feel has been unfairly forgotten by year-end lists and awards.  This story of bootlegging in Virginia is an interesting period piece that features a great cast.  Definitely one of the most crowd-pleasing films on my list (I have yet to talk to someone who did not like it).  I really just think this film needs to find a larger audience because it is a very fun film.

 

Five close picks

 

The Cabin in the Woods – Any horror movie fan should check this horror-comedy out.  Don’t expect an actual horror movie, though.

 

Moonrise Kingdom – Wes Anderson being Wes Anderson.  At this point you either like it or you don’t.

 

The Avengers – A truly entertaining, fun time.  I just like Batman more.

 

Argo – Terrifically tense film that is getting plenty of love for Affleck’s directing and rightfully so.

 

Skyfall – An extremely satisfying Bond film that might even please old-school fans…might.

 

Honorable Mention

Flight, The Grey, 21 Jump Street, Ted, Anna Karenina, Room 237, and Silver Linings Playbook

"Prometheus"

Directed by Ridley Scott, written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba - Rated R

"Big things have small beginnings." 

The main discussion concerning Prometheus is whether or not the film is a prequel to Ridley Scott’s classic, Alien.  The cast and crew have been vague about it, at most admitting that there’s some Alien DNA in the film.  I think they’ve been dodging the question not because of spoilers but because of revenue.  If Prometheus had been billed up as a straight up sequel to an old sci-fi film, then interest in it might lessen.  The big question, then, is if Prometheus can be enjoyed by someone who has never seen Alien.  The short answer is yes.  This film does stand on its own.  But only Alien fans can fully enjoy it because no matter what the filmmakers have to say about it, this is a prequel. 

Prometheus is great without any prior knowledge, though, because of the questions asked within the film.  The main question is the age-old question of humanity, “Why are we here?”  That question takes on different variations as the film continues, but it is that initial curiosity that sends the crew of the titular spaceship Prometheus to a planet light years away from Earth to investigate a message left by multiple ancient cultures.  Asking a loaded question like “Why?” can make or break a film because it has to deal with religion and science and how it can co-exist.  Not to go into spoilers, but the film dodges the issue in a satisfying way.  But anytime an issue is dodged there will be complaints.  Could Prometheus take a risk and answer the question in a definitive and dividing way?  Yes, the film could have done that and made a small group of obsessed fans (myself included, most like) extremely happy, but instead the filmmakers left it open.  That not only makes the film more accessible for the population; it also allows the viewers discuss the film.

That is what makes Prometheus truly great.  I am writing this review twelve hours after I watched the film and I am still rolling ideas around.  If all my questions had been answered then I would have very little to write about.  Instead, I am left with so many questions and theories that I can hardly focus on just one.  I find that exhilarating.  I’m usually happy if a film simply makes me feel something.  When a movie makes me think deeply about life: that’s special. 

I realize that I have not given a proper synopsis for this film yet, but I don’t intend to.  Prometheus is science-fiction and it’s about the origin of life.  If that interests you (and it should), then watch it.  If that sounds like a bit too much for you, then skip it.

But Prometheus is still a movie and should be judged as other movies are judged.   First, the visuals.  Sci-fi films are typically the most impressive visual films and this movie does not disappoint.  Director Ridley Scott insisted on using as many natural landscapes and practical sets as possible and the film benefits from it.  The locations are otherworldly and impressive because most of them are real.  The title sequence is so beautiful it seems like Werner Herzog or Terrence Malick took over directorial duties for it.  As for the sets: they were great.  The ship looks polished a bit, but it still fits into the technology of Alien in a very satisfying way. 

Of course, a sci-fi film has to feature some CG effects.  It’s all handled very well, though.  The film is in 3D, as well, and it is better because of it.  Prometheus is a visual spectacle and it should be presented in 3D.  I have decided that all science-fiction films should be in 3D because the vastness of space is best shown in the third dimension.

“Prometheus” also works thanks to the amazing cast.  Noomi Rapace is tasked with the leading role and she does a fine job.  She doesn’t make quite the tough heroine that Sigourney Weaver did in the Alien films, but she certainly holds her own, especially late in the film.  Idris Elba has some interesting scenes as the benevolent captain of the ship, and there are a few questions raised by his actions.  Charlize Theron makes for an effective and emotionless corporate minder.  Sean Harris provides some lively moments as a disgruntled geologist.  And Logan Marshall-Green does fine in a slightly boring role.

It’s Michael Fassbender, though, who steals the show as an android named David.  Who better than Fassbender to play a robot?  Not to mention a robot that watches actors like Peter O’Toole and emulates them.  Fassbender constantly propels the film and every scene he is in is instantly better than those without him. 

But the real star of the film is director Ridley Scott.  I am a huge fan of his work, most notably his sci-fi efforts, Alien and Blade Runner.  A lot has been made about Scott’s return to his best genre, so I don’t need to add much to that discussion apart from saying that I am glad Scott is back in sci-fi.  He has always been an ambitious filmmaker and sci-fi is the perfect place for lofty ideas and questions.  Scott has tried to insert themes and ideas about life in general into recent works like Robin Hood and Kingdom of Heaven to mixed results.  The vastness of space is a much better place to present ideas about humanity than historical settings are. 

It was also nice to see Scott return to the Alien universe for both his style and his attempt to shock.  Scott emulates the style of the original film with his long tracking shots throughout the ship.  It’s pretty much mimicking Kubrick, but who better to copy?  Also, Scott doesn’t turn the camera away when things get gory.  Prometheus earns its R-rating (something fans were worried about for a while) by featuring some truly gruesome moments.  Is anything as shocking or iconic as the chest burst scene from the original?  No, but it is definitely some disturbing, cringe-worthy stuff. 

Overall, Prometheus is an incredibly ambitious film made with great style by one of the best working directors out there.  The film doesn’t answer many questions for the viewer and, honestly, a truly great film never tells the audience much.  Prometheus is an excellent film to discuss and think about.  Just check out some message boards and you’ll find multiple complex debates going on about this film.  Even if you hate it, you have to respect that it presents some interesting ideas about humanity, technology, religion, abortion, faith, and…well, life.  It helps that the film is absolutely beautiful and features some great performances.  It’s my favorite film of the year thus far and will certainly be near (or at) the top of my list by year’s end.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, I have a lot more to write about on this one.  First: all the potential issues this film raises.

I loved that the question changed from the why of our origin into the why of our attempted annihilation.  And I am okay with our why simply being because the Engineers could.  It ties into our issues with technology.  Why do we create a lot of the technology we have?  Because we can and we want to make things better and better.  In the world of the film, it is brought up in a very effective scene between David and Holloway.  It is also extremely interesting when you factor in the timeframe when the Engineers decided to destroy humanity, which is roughly the time when Jesus walked the earth.  Scott has made this reference himself in an interview, going so far as to say that Jesus may have been an Engineer (i.e. alien).  But they strayed from that idea, for better or worse.  (If you want to check the interview, just Google "Ridley Scott moviefone interview.")

Religion is definitely a major factor in the film, though it isn't given the main focus.  It's more about faith and how someone can still believe after being put through trials and the answer given by Shaw is that she simply "chooses" to believe.  Not a groundbreaking answer and really kind of a boring answer, but it doesn't make it any less logical and it is still a statement about belief systems. 

The religion aspect is what I had in mind when I mentioned that Idris Elba's character, Janek, raises questions.  It is almost out of nowhere, but Shaw talks to Janek near the end of the film as he was God.  She asks how he can just sit back and watch horrible things happen without getting involved.  If you think back before that scene, we get to see Janek watching over all of the characters and even though they appear to be in imminent danger, he is very nonchalant and even uncaring a bit.  Kind of sounds like a certain deity who gets prayed to but seems to never intervene, right?  Of course, this changes a bit when Janek decides to care at the end and basically saves humanity.  So God was finally forced at act, basically.  Hey, at least this deus ex machina didn't simply magically show up...

Now, looking into how the technology of this film matches up with Alien.  An issue with a sci-fi prequel is that technology is better today so even though the film takes place before the original, the ship looks much better.  This has been explained in an interview I read a few weeks ago (so I don't remember who said it), but the basic idea is that the Prometheus is filled with scientists, which explains why they would have all the bells and whistles that the Nostromo does not, since that ship was basically an 18-wheeler in space.  Aside from that, the corridors still look similar and the ship does fit in nicely within the franchise.

Lastly, there is the issue of where this film takes place.  At first, I just assumed this took place on the same planet that the first film took place on.  That is not the case.  This is a completely different planet, but it is very similar in that it is also used as a cache for the Engineers' deadly weapons.  Presumably things went bad at all these locations which is why such a similar ship and issue occurred on an entirely different planet.  I know, I know, wouldn't it have been much easier just to make it the same?  Yes, but the story can go in more places if it isn't, so I'm cool with it.  Plus, it still explains the origin of the Space Jockey in an interesting way.  So Prometheus didn't end up being a true prequel, but it's still pretty damn close.