or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Alien Prequel - Prometheus
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Alien Prequel - Prometheus - Page 75

post #2221 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

Spaceship full of the black goo seems like an odd way to "turn the other cheek"! biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

All fine and good but why did they send an emmisary who preached about a loving and forgiving God, if they themselves are in fact jealous and vengeful? Trick question for our ancestors?
Jealous and vengeful may be a point of view from earth to heaven. It could be viewed as "maker repair what he makes" (line from another movie of Ridley Scott).
Quote:
It seems no matter what road you go down with this movie, it requires a lot more mental gymnastics and benefits of the doubt to come up with explanations for various aspects than just to accept that it's half-baked (or over done depending on your perspective).
For a R-rated movie, it's a good ingredient to have in its recipe.
Edited by bcruiser - 11/27/12 at 12:21pm
post #2222 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

My Bible study is rather rusty - are we talking Old or New Testament? Space Jesus delivered the content for the New, don't recall the vengeful God showing up much in that half. Spaceship full of the black goo seems like an odd way to "turn the other cheek"! biggrin.gif

Well, amongst the religious set, you have the OT people and the NT people. They tend to look at the world and the people in it differently.

It would appear as though Ridley Scott was basing his Engineer template on the OT God, the angry and vengeful one who didn't want you to love Him as much as fear Him (or as that Death Cab For Cutie song puts it: "Fear is the heart of love"). The NT God is somewhat different, and has different priorities for His children. It's almost as if the two parts of The Good Book were written by.... different people in different eras. wink.gif
post #2223 of 2359
I never thought of it that way (comparison of Engineer to OT God), but that is an interesting connection.
post #2224 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

My Bible study is rather rusty - are we talking Old or New Testament? Space Jesus delivered the content for the New, don't recall the vengeful God showing up much in that half. f
My point was more to the OT God (Yahweh).
However, it is VERY important to remember this:
When asked by a disciple, Jesus did identify himself as the Son of Yawheh,
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Jealous and vengeful may be a point of view from earth to heaven. It could be viewed as "maker repair what he makes" (line from another movie of Ridley Scott).
For a R-rated movie, it's a good ingredient to have in its recipe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post


It would appear as though Ridley Scott was basing his Engineer template on the OT God, the angry and vengeful one who didn't want you to love Him as much as fear Him (or as that Death Cab For Cutie song puts it: "Fear is the heart of love"). The NT God is somewhat different, and has different priorities for His children. It's almost as if the two parts of The Good Book were written by.... different people in different eras. wink.gif
+1
post #2225 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Well, amongst the religious set, you have the OT people and the NT people. They tend to look at the world and the people in it differently.
It would appear as though Ridley Scott was basing his Engineer template on the OT God, the angry and vengeful one who didn't want you to love Him as much as fear Him (or as that Death Cab For Cutie song puts it: "Fear is the heart of love"). The NT God is somewhat different, and has different priorities for His children. It's almost as if the two parts of The Good Book were written by.... different people in different eras. wink.gif

The NT has quite a bit to say about divine justice, retribution and damnation, and the OT has quite a bit to say about love, mercy, and kindness. Its not even accurate to say the two parts were written in different eras since large portions of the OT itself was written in different eras... and Jews primarily wrote both testaments. It appears to me that Ridley Scott was basing his Engineer template on both testaments.
Edited by adrift - 11/28/12 at 2:03pm
post #2226 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post

The NT has quite a bit to say about divine justice, retribution and damnation, and the OT has quite a bit to say about love, mercy, and kindness. Its not even accurate to say the two parts were written in different eras since large portions of the OT itself was written in different eras... and Jews primarily wrote both testaments.
As most of the OT survives in manuscript B.C.E., it's hard to believe a non-Jew wrote any of it.

However, it is a different case with the NT.
Church legends aside, it's hard to say exactly who the authors of NT were, although no doubt most of the NT was written by Gentiles.
There is a strong probability the Vatican has the answers in its archive, but it isn't likely we will ever know.
post #2227 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

As most of the OT survives in manuscript B.C.E., it's hard to believe a non-Jew wrote any of it.
However, it is a different case with the NT.
Church legends aside, it's hard to say exactly who the authors of NT were, although no doubt most of the NT was written by Gentiles.
There is a strong probability the Vatican has the answers in its archive, but it isn't likely we will ever know.

? There's very little debate among contemporary scholars of all stripes that Paul, a first century pharisee, wrote the majority of letters ascribed to him. And the traditional ascription of gospels goes as far back as Papias (a hearer of John) in the late 1st/early 2nd century, and Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus in the 2nd century with no other competing authors put forward. Its just not accurate to say that there's "no doubt most of the NT was written by Gentiles". I don't think you could even get someone like Bart Ehrman to agree with a statement like that. Higher criticism can tell us a lot about the origins and authors of the NT letters, and they more often than not point to Jewish origins. I highly suggest you check out the social-scientific commentaries put out by Context Group members like professor Richard Rourbaugh, John Elliott, and Bruce Malina, and the socio-rhetorical commentaries of professor Ben Witherington, and the thoroughly exhaustive academic work put in by scholars like NT Wright.
post #2228 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

There is a strong probability the Vatican has the answers in its archive, but it isn't likely we will ever know.

They have such nice caps. People are not wearing enough hats wink.gif
post #2229 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post

? There's very little debate among contemporary scholars of all stripes that Paul, a first century pharisee, wrote the majority of letters ascribed to him. And the traditional ascription of gospels goes as far back as Papias (a hearer of John) in the late 1st/early 2nd century, and Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus in the 2nd century with no other competing authors put forward. Its just not accurate to say that there's "no doubt most of the NT was written by Gentiles". I don't think you could even get someone like Bart Ehrman to agree with a statement like that. Higher criticism can tell us a lot about the origins and authors of the NT letters, and they more often than not point to Jewish origins. I highly suggest you check out the social-scientific commentaries put out by Context Group members like professor Richard Rourbaugh, John Elliott, and Bruce Malina, and the socio-rhetorical commentaries of professor Ben Witherington, and the thoroughly exhaustive academic work put in by scholars like NT Wright.
Here ya go sports fans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible
post #2230 of 2359
Oh. A Wikipedia page. One that doesn't even refute my point. I love the internet, but one things that's always bothered me about it is that one can pretend to be an expert in anything without actually picking up a book. The problem with Wikipedia in particular is that anyone can edit it (heck, I've edited it plenty). And because of this, rigorous attention to detail is often missing, and bias sources are often presented.

Let's look at one example in the page linked:

"Early Christian tradition held that the Gospel of Matthew was written in "Hebrew" (Aramaic, the language of Judea) by the apostle Matthew, the tax-collector and disciple of Jesus,[77] but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness[78]."

That's not what the source [78] (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church edited by F.L Cross) actually says though. What the source actually says is, "The Gospel is probably to be dated c. ad 80–90, and unlikely to have been written by an eye-witness. Most scholars hold that the author drew extensively on Mark..."

The Wikipedia article would have you believe that the majority of scholars believe Matthew wasn't written by an eyewitness, but even if that were true, its F.L Cross, the editor, that's saying that. What most scholars hold is simply that Matthew draws from Mark.

For someone who doesn't care where they get their information, that distinction may not matter much, but it's an important one nonetheless. It is true that most scholars believe that Matthew (and Luke) draw heavily on Mark. This is called Markan priority. And though its now a minority position, some scholars believe that Mark and Luke draw from Matthew instead (Matthean Priority). What's far more contentious is the dating of Matthew (the major reason for dating it post-70 AD is because of the prophetic mention of the temple's destruction), and the actual authorship of the book. Just because Matthew borrows from Mark, does not mean that Matthew is not the author of Matthew as very early (we're talking just decades) church writings attest.

And at any rate, if we're to go by Wikipedia as a reliable source, we can still cross Matthew off as a book written "by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_matthew

I didn't mean to get on a religious tangent on this thread, but it irks me when I see smug misinformation on a topic I'm passionate about. If anyone is seriously interested in some great books on this subject from scholars with superb academic qualifications, give me a PM.
Edited by adrift - 11/29/12 at 1:39am
post #2231 of 2359
Do I have to point out there are NO KNOWN MANUSCRIPTS WRITTEN BY THE AUTHORS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN EXISTENCE?
The Christian Church has old manuscripts of the NT, but none (as in ZERO) are dated to the time of the supposed authorship.

It is a matter of faith that what is in the NT has been legitimately and spiritually handed down correctly, as there is no scientific proof.
The identity of the assumed authors is a Church tradition, not an absolute, provable fact.
post #2232 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Do I have to point out there are NO KNOWN MANUSCRIPTS WRITTEN BY THE AUTHORS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN EXISTENCE?
The Christian Church has old manuscripts of the NT, but none (as in ZERO) are dated to the time of the supposed authorship.

That is true about absolutely every work in classic antiquity. What's interesting though is that we have more copies of the NT (by far), that are earlier (by far) than any other work in classic antiquity. And besides that, we have some great, early attestation for the writers of the NT, and no attestation for alternative authors of the NT.
Quote:
It is a matter of faith that what is in the NT has been legitimately and spiritually handed down correctly, as there is no scientific proof.

What spirituality has to do with this, I have no idea. I'm not making any spiritual claims. The claims I'm interested in are based on the historical-critical method. As far as scientific proofs are concerned, there are no "proofs" in science. Proofs are the domain of mathematics and logic. Science deals with making observations from available evidence to form a hypothesis, then creating repeatable experiments to confirm or refute those hypothesis to form theories. The historical method, by nature, requires a different set of procedures to come to widely agreed upon conclusions.
Quote:
The identity of the assumed authors is a Church tradition, not an absolute, provable fact.

Who's talking about absolute provable facts? There are no absolute provable facts when dealing with history (especially ancient history).
Edited by adrift - 11/29/12 at 4:13am
post #2233 of 2359
Space Jeez.
post #2234 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

The Second Coming of Space Jesus
http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/585579.html Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The Second Coming of Space Jesus
It’s been a while since my original Prometheus piece made the rounds. Now that some additional material has come to light, I think it’s time to revisit the whole question of ‘Space Jesus’ and what it may potentially mean for the future of the story.
Firstly, let’s recap. The Space Jesus theory, in a nutshell, is this: part of the backstory of Prometheus is that Jesus was an emissary of the Engineers, and that our crucifying him was what turned them against us.
Please note that this is backstory. It isn’t upfront or explicit, and it wasn’t meant to be. That’s not Ridley Scott’s style. Consider the issue of whether or not Deckard from Blade Runner is a replicant. Perhaps you remember the discussions that raged over this topic. Even Ridley Scott outright saying ‘yes, Deckard is a replicant’ didn’t end them; nor, apparently, did the discovery of the original ending. (If you think my musings on Prometheus were insane, then go and check out this wonderful Blade Runner theory from Gavin Rothery. Minds may be blown, I warn you.)
Now, I’ve seen several objections to the Space Jesus theory in various places across the Internet. While there’s always room for debate, some of these objections seem to be based on a misreading of Ridley Scott’s comments coupled with a lack of awareness of what other people involved in the project have said. I’m talking about objections like ‘But Ridley SCRAPPED the Space Jesus idea! He SAID so!’
No, he didn’t. What he did was to give a surprisingly lengthy description of the backstory we’re discussing here, while adding that the original scripted reference was ‘too on the nose’. The key word here is scripted. Ridley Scott didn’t want Space Jesus to be upfront, he wanted the idea to be conveyed with subtlety.
This is as good as confirmed in the following interview excerpt with Damon Lindelof:
“… there were drafts that were more explicitly spelled out. I think Ridley's instinct kept being to pull back, and I would say to him, 'Ridley, I'm still eating **** a year after Lost is over for all the things we didn’t directly spell out - are you sure you want to do this?' And he said, 'I would rather have people fighting about it and not know, then spell it out, that's just more interesting to me.' Maybe that's why he sought me out in the first place. I know it's horribly obnoxious to say you need to see the movie a couple of times in order to truly appreciate it, but I do feel like it was designed that way, and there are little things that seem like a throwaway on first viewing. For example, when they do the carbon-dating on the dead engineer and realise he has been dead for 2000 years, then you wonder about when, 2000 years ago, the Engineers decided to wipe us out. What happened 2000 years ago? Is there any correlation between what happened on the earth 2000 years ago and this decision that was already in motion? Could a sequel start in that time period and contextualise what we did to piss these beings off? I think it's a very interesting question to leave dangling. Is it a loose end?”
We’re now in the position of being able to compare some of those earlier drafts with what we got in the final movie and see first-hand what Damon Lindelof says was ‘more explicitly spelled out’. An original Jon Spaihts draft of Alien: Engineers was posted on Prometheus-Movie.com; soon after, a draft of Paradise by Damon Lindelof was posted on Collider. Both gentlemen have been kind enough to confirm these scripts as genuine. It’s worth noting that Damon Lindelof’s draft isn’t final. The ship is still called the Magellan, so it may be several drafts before the final one for all I know.
The Jon Spaihts script is indeed full of explicit references. He has Holloway make the following observation:
'But I guess we know why they never came back to us. Something killed them off - back around the time of Christ. Maybe He was one of them! A great teacher, sent from Heaven? Jesus. The last Engineer.'
If that wasn’t enough, the following exchange takes place during the presentation:
WATTS
By the pattern, they should’ve come to Earth seventeen centuries ago. And again six centuries ago. But no sign. After twelve thousand years...they stopped coming.
BRICK
Why?
HOLLOWAY
Exactly. Why?
JANEK
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Janek’s words here cleverly describe not only the forsaken condition of humankind no longer visited by the Engineers, but hint at the very event that led them to abandon us.
The Sacrifice Engineer at the film’s beginning is also described as ‘standing cruciform’.
By Lindelof’s draft, the explicit verbal suggestions of a Space Jesus backstory have (at Ridley Scott’s instigation, one supposes) been reduced to far more symbolic hints. Instead of outright speculation about Jesus, we have additions such as Janek’s Christmas tree:
Now, Janek plucks a small ORNAMENT from a plastic box – BABY JESUS IN THE MANGER. Gently hangs it from a branch, taps it with his finger, softly says --
JANEK (CONT’D)
Happy Birthday, you little bastard.
Janek also – endearingly, in my book – exclaims ‘Jesus, Mary and Joseph’ when he first sees the alien juggernaut.
When we reach the dead Engineers, we no longer hear Holloway speculate openly about Jesus. Instead, there is only this:
HOLLOWAY
How long’s it been dead?
Shaw looks at the DIGITAL READOUT. Frowns --
SHAW
Two thousand years. Give or take.
A moment for that to settle in. The implication. Shaw looks up at Holloway and asks the only question worth asking --
SHAW (CONT’D)
What... is this place?
‘The implication’? Reader, your guess is as good as mine.
We haven’t seen the last of Baby Jesus in this draft. There’s a later scene with Holloway that warrants attention:
Holloway.
Sitting alone with an empty bottle of CHAMPAGNE. He’s drunk.
Turns to the CHRISTMAS TREE beside him. Glares at the ORNAMENT of BABY JESUS --
HOLLOWAY
When you grow up?
(a sympathetic whisper)
They’re gonna kill you.
Now, it seems pretty obvious to me that what Damon Lindelof was trying to do here was to convey key ideas to the audience as subtly as possible, getting us to think about the Jesus story and allowing our imagination’s spark to jump the gap between those familiar images and the dead Engineers from two thousand years ago. But even these references, delicate as they are compared to Jon Spaihts’ overt ‘what if’ dialogue, must have been too blatant for Ridley Scott.
Damon Lindelof says that Scott’s instinct ‘kept being to pull back’, suggesting that the Space Jesus implications were repeatedly refined away into greater and greater subtlety. This is certainly borne out when we compare the Spaihts script with the Lindelof one, and then compare that in turn with what we got on the screen. Indeed, by some accounts, the viewer’s only hope of gleaning any idea of the Space Jesus backstory at all was to read a lengthy insane rant that some dude put up on his Livejournal, and what the **** was up with that.
In the interview with Damon Lindelof cited above, he suggests that a sequel to Prometheus might begin with a sequence set 2000 years ago. This would, presumably, depict the crucifixion of Jesus-the-Emissary and the Engineers’ fury. I now wonder if we’ll ever see such a thing. For my part, I would love to.
But until and unless we do get a sequel that puts all this stuff upfront, Space Jesus is – and can only be – one of many feasible backstories. Like Deckard’s is-he-isn’t-he status, no amount of digging into the movie’s thematic DNA or production history can answer this question definitively. If we don’t know, it’s because Ridley Scott doesn’t want us to know. He wants us to fight over it. Damon Lindelof quotes him as saying: ‘I would rather have people fighting about it and not know then spell it out, that's just more interesting to me.’
In conclusion, I want to speak in Mr Lindelof’s defence. The man has copped a ridiculous amount of flak over Prometheus, and I don’t believe it was deserved. Ridley Scott quite clearly instructed him to winnow away some of the movie’s big ideas into a more subtle form, in order to create just the sort of open-ended stimulus of furious debate that the film has become since release. Yes, there are other issues with the movie than just the open-endedness; but the slating that Lindelof has received has been ugly and over-the-top, given that he did exactly what he was brought on board to do and – in my book – did it exceptionally well. Unlike LOST, which (so far as I am aware) did not have a clear outcome in mind from day one, Prometheus began with a clear backstory and was deliberately filtered through layer after layer of rewrites in order to create something much more textured, in which ideas are implied rather than stated outright. It’s not as easy as it looks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Good read. Most of us probably figured as much.

Agreed.

I would still take Spaihts script over the Spaihts/Lindelof version.
post #2235 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Agreed.
I would still take Spaihts script over the Spaihts/Lindelof version.
Hmm... confused.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

You are comparing apple and orange (script and released movie).
Yes, exactly. That is the fun part. smile.gif
post #2236 of 2359
sure don't want to get into this biblical sources argument.

where's josh when you need him.
post #2237 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

sure don't want to get into this biblical sources argument.
where's josh when you need him.

the Fifield/Millburn debacle burned him perhaps. biggrin.gifwink.gif
post #2238 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

the Fifield/Millburn debacle burned him perhaps. biggrin.gifwink.gif
You just coined a term "millburnt". biggrin.gif
post #2239 of 2359
Quote:
Millburnt

Pronunciation: /ˈmilbuRnt

Definition of millburnt

adjective

Defintion of an Alien fan that feels disillusioned after watching the movie Prometheus.

Alternative use

Definition of a fan that feels disillusioned after watching a sequel or prequel of a beloved movie.
post #2240 of 2359
^^ LOL! we should put this on wiki biggrin.gif
post #2241 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

^^ LOL! we should put this on wiki biggrin.gif
Agree.
Our friend across the pond has a wicked sense of humor.cool.gif
post #2242 of 2359
post #2243 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

DNA has spread already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIAaBOb5Bo
That isn't the droid you are looking for....tongue.gif
post #2244 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

DNA has spread already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIAaBOb5Bo




sounds like the engineers are getting busy again.
post #2245 of 2359
That was some bad makeup on Guy Pearce. Amiright?

post #2246 of 2359

I don't think the makeup was that bad. I mean he's supposed to be really old.

post #2247 of 2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizzack View Post

That was some bad makeup on Guy Pearce. Amiright?

That is from the scene when David is washing his feet...tongue.gif
post #2248 of 2359
Sheesh, I hate it when people point this out..biggrin.gif
post #2249 of 2359
post #2250 of 2359
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Alien Prequel - Prometheus