It's English, but it's not Celtic; there is a difference. The English weren't Celts (culturally anyway, genetically there was an impact from the Germanic migrations but not a very big one).

That wasn't even my point. My point was that science consultants - even good ones - don't automatically mean a film's going to have solid science. I point again to the 2009 version of Star Trek.

I'm not one to actually buy into the whole ancient astronaut stuff, but I have to question the article's reasoning that the "spaceship" in the picture happens to look nothing like a real-life spacecraft. Uh, Sputnik, anyone?

Technically, not a spaceship. But yeah.

I was amused when I found that out. I was like, "hey, looks like Neon Genesis Evangelion actually did get something right about the mythology - even if only unintentionally!"

Perhaps a bit of a stretch beyond the warrior woman aspect, but yeah, the fact that there's a scene that allegedly deconstructs the princess myth reminded me of the matchmaker scene in Mulan.

Uh... there's a difference between having a "Celtic influence" (which is possible if unsubstantiated) and being a Celtic myth.

Technically, a villain can be a protagonist. There's even a trope for it. Protagonist does literally mean (one of) the central character(s) who drives the plot and weith whom the majority of our sympathy rests. They don't necessarily have to be heroic or even anti-heroic, so long as the writing makes you sympathize…

Yeah, I kind of agree. While affirmative action in fiction is all well and good, it's nice that the story just occurred to them naturally rather than because they thought they ought to have a female protagonist.

Although the trailers have never excited me they rarely do with Pixar movies even though I eventually enjoy them regardless. And what I've been hearing from io9 has been raising my interest slightly with each passing article.

Well, they might have. Star Trek (2009) had a science consultant from NASA but that didn't stop the film from having glaring scientific errors. In fact, in the article it sounds like they did bring in consultants.

"I think its Alien's simplicity that makes it a great movie."

I thought Close Encounters might be an exception; it came from early and his career and seems particularly Spielberg-ian in many ways. But in any case it seems that neither Scott nor Spielberg are writing directors.

It certainly looks like a skull, but that doesn't mean it is. Again, Gigerism and all that. Point is, it's Ridley Scott's film and so he get to decide what he thinks it looks like.

I'd say his eye for scripts varies from film to film, but I think he gets it right more often than not. And yes, you don't necessarily need an awesomely complex or thought-provoking plot if your characters are written well and you've got good subtext. The Avengers is a recent testament to that.

It just strikes me as circular logic as all. If the creation is creative enough to create, sure, that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't seem like it would be the end purpose.

Personally I found them quite striking visually, but your mileage may vary, I suppose. They're definitely not Giger-esque nor Lovecraftian in appearance.

Ah, gotcha.

"There's a difference between plot/story and writing."

It is, but I've seen it done.