or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Prometheus *PLOT SPOILERS* discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prometheus *PLOT SPOILERS* discussion - Page 6

post #151 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Regarding 2000 year time frame, so a small group of engineers got wiped out by some outbreak except for one which was put in suspended animation for 2000 years, during that time the engineers' home planet looses contact with this group and did nothing? Not even a rescue team in 17 days, 17 weeks, months or years?


let me take a crack at this.

we're supposing that somehow the "engineers" had somehow been contaminated from being on earth and came back into their own space. then somehow the contamination affects the black goo and causes hell to break out. well we all know how contamination/germs/viruses can spread from place to place. all you would need is for some one from the earth mission to come into contact with someone else who would go to another base station/ weapon station whatever you want to call it and so on and so on.

let's assume one contaminated being came into contact with another "alien" being(or beings) who went to different locations and spread the "infection" causing multiple instances of breakouts across the galaxies or whatever. so you end up with not only one break out but many break outs everywhere spreading so fast and fierce that the only way of containment was to abandon all the sites for good.

maybe they sent help and the help ran and carried off the infection with them.

the fact that Alien is on a different planet than Prometheus supports this idea doesn't it?

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #152 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post


the fact that Alien is on a different planet than Prometheus supports this idea doesn't it?

The ship in the first movie can very well be alot older then the "old" events in Prometheus. So it may not have any connection to the events in Prometheus.
post #153 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

A myth about another myth....
It's a movie, not a myth, and it's loaded with christian references (heck, the first time we meet the captain, he's setting up a Christmas tree).
post #154 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosng View Post

we're supposing that somehow the "engineers" had somehow been contaminated from being on earth and came back into their own space
They never made it to earth; died before ever taking off.
post #155 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

But what explains the ship full of chemicals than?
They were planning on re-booting life on earth, wiping us out in the process. Like Noah's flood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

I thought that engineer was already hell bent on killing humans when he woke up
He didn't do anything until David asked him for something. Probably the same thing Roy Batty asked his creator in Blade Runner.
post #156 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The corpses of the engineers were dated to be about 2,000 years old. Which means they were on their way to wipe out their own children (us) 2,000 years ago. Why? What did we do roughly 2,000 years ago to make them so angry? See Scott's explanation.
Interesting...
It seems a lot like Scott's explanation of "Decker is a replicant."wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It's a movie, not a myth, and it's loaded with christian references (heck, the first time we meet the captain, he's setting up a Christmas tree).
If this WAS and I stress WAS conceived to have Christian mythology "references," I must award the movie 2 demerits for absolute and completely unnecessary stupidity.mad.gif
post #157 of 472
IIRC, there was a movie that came out in recent years which some claimed to have "Christian" themes....
And it turned out to be complete Horsepoop.

The problem with religion is if a faith-based person looks at....oh, a rock LONG enough, it becomes God.
post #158 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Interesting...
It seems a lot like Scott's explanation of "Decker is a replicant."wink.gif
If this WAS and I stress WAS conceived to have Christian mythology "references," I must award the movie 2 demerits for absolute and completely unnecessary stupidity.mad.gif

There's one thing that I like though from this perspective...it's that religion was basically "invented" by the Engineers or whatever their true name is. Religion is a myth and no more than a bedtime story. Zealots must be pissed. Regardless, the ultimate question still stands: why? why something rather than nothing?
post #159 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

He didn't do anything until David asked him for something. Probably the same thing Roy Batty asked his creator in Blade Runner.
eek.gif No wonder... If your child calls you "f#*ker" wouldn't you smack him / her?
post #160 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

They never made it to earth; died before ever taking off.
This crew didn't but the cave paintings are supposed to be the depictions of previous engineer's visit to earth.
post #161 of 472
It is an entertaining movie (much more palatable than the AvP spinoffs or latter 2 Alien movies, for sure), but not a groundbreaking work from RS by any stretch (as far as all the hubub with RS being tied to this production). I went in with modest expectations, and I did not come out disappointed. tongue.gif The core elements are essentially a rehash of various Bladerunner themes, set in the Weylan-Yutani universe, on a Mission to Mars screenplay, with a dash of Ancient Aliens series courtesy of the History Channel. The Ancient Aliens element probably answers questions to the Alien mystery that traditional fans will wish Ridley just left unanswered, for lack of a more clever explanation.

This would easily have waited for a rental viewing for me, if someone had not invited me to go see it in a theater...of course, I have a pretty high bar as to what will draw me into a theater at this point. wink.gif

Note to self...evidently that does work to get a hot blond chick into bed, if you inquire if she is robot. That strategy would never have occurred to me, but I'm going to try it out!
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 6/17/12 at 10:43am
post #162 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

It seems a lot like Scott's explanation of "Decker is a replicant."wink.gif
Scott made absolutely no mention of that until decades after Blade Runner, giving the impression of re-writing history. By comparison, the Jesus incedent is built into the Prometheus story (you quoted the interview where he states it explicitly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

If this WAS and I stress WAS conceived to have Christian mythology "references," I must award the movie 2 demerits for absolute and completely unnecessary stupidity.mad.gif
Other way 'round for me. I would have awarded demerits to a science fiction movie about creation that pretended other popular explanations didn't exist. And if not Christianity, then what other religion could they have referenced for the movie? I doubt they were as familar with creation stories from other religions (and even if they were, their audience would probably not get the clues as easily). Besides, if they had tried anything this blasphemous with Islam, Scott and Lindelof would immediately have fatwas on their heads.
post #163 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

This crew didn't but the cave paintings are supposed to be the depictions of previous engineer's visit to earth.
Sure, but there's no indication in the movie that any of those engineer emissaries brought back anything infectious. However, the film does lay down clues that they lost control of their fast-working bio-weapon, leading the captain to conclude that this was possibly a military outpost (it certainly wasn't their homeworld). I don't see why the explanation has to be any more comlicated. Dr. Frankenstien lost control of his creation, so it's not a new theme in pop culture. The Engineers sometimes lost control of their creations, whether those creations are humans on other planets or the black goo. They make mistakes; after all, they're human (DNA match and all).
post #164 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Dr. Frankenstien lost control of his creation, so it's not a new theme in pop culture.

Its interesting that Frankenstein was from the beginning named

"Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus"
post #165 of 472
A thought about why did the Gods/Creators changed their minds about their precious creation, and stock piling bio weapons to destroy man kind as we know/ lawless murderous germs. I would think that the Engineers saw the Humans as being just as dangerous spreading, threatening as the Black goo in it's infectious state...Humans are resourceful, and resilient intelligent F***KS, that has to scare the engineers too, Hell they kill each other without much concern, hm they'll Kill us too someday.

I can't help but think in the first Matrix as Mr. Smith talks to Mr. Anderson in the room with the giants window and the vast open city view, running his monologue about what he thought about use, and compare us to an infectious germ with no little purpose.

Djoel
post #166 of 472
Perhaps that is truly the overlying theme that RS wants us to ponder for ages well past when this film has left theaters...to ponder the possibility that the answer to the question of "Why are we here?" is we are simply the "science experiment", or worse, constructed fish food of some other intelligent life form, rather than any grand and divine creation of a God in his own likeness? To steadfast think we could only come from a God as his children, whose only purpose is to exercise free choice between good and evil seems arrogant in contrast with having the (proper?) humility to consider we may just as well be the hobbyist creation of some other advanced life form. In a sense, RS is having the last laugh on us with the "Decker is a replicant" idea in suggesting that YOU are just somebody's replicant. Perhaps we justify our specialness in that we have "souls", but maybe that is even superficial? Maybe we have no idea what a "real soul" is, and it is arrogant for us to presume we know what "soul" really means, as what we got is embarrassingly simplistic compared to the level of awareness and "soul" of those Engineers? They would see us as not much more as folly (with the sentience of a house pet), just as the humans frequently cut down David the synthetic in the movie for not having his "fully human" badge? That's a sufficiently deep thought for an everlasting theme to this movie, but unfortunately the movie itself is just not on par with Blade Runner when it comes to dwelling upon those themes with jewels of philosophic statements introduced throughout the dialogue, painstakingly crafted by master writers.

Other notes I have of the movie...anybody notice the musical garnishments throughout the movie sounded sort of Star Trek-ish? ...and what's with Weylan-Yutani's synthetic humans? It seems they were clearly amoral concoctions until at least the generation that appears in use in Aliens (Lance Henrikson model), where there clearly are the classic robot precepts in play. You'd think putting such unhinged synthetics into service for so long would have been a huge legal liability for the corporation as far as "mishaps". wink.gif Weylan-Yutani as a corporation is certainly made out to be as despicable as can be, with purely corporate motivations and inherently expendable personnel. I guess they could not help but to make a synthetic from the start with that level of ethics? The whole idea of a synthetic would be to capitalize on their expendable-ness, right?...or maybe the synthetic crew member premise is to simply ensure there is a dead-to-rights loyal "company man" that will operate without a conscience, to ensure the human employees are expendable as needed, per operations and agendas? The synthetic isn't the expendable one (in a wink-wink way), but to reliably facilitate that the human employees are expendable as the situations present. wink.gif

Note to self...do not seek employment with Weylan-Yutani no matter how good the pay! You are absolutely a red-shirt on that mission, no doubt!

...looking forward to James Cameron's extremely slick action movie sequel to this!... tongue.gif
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 6/17/12 at 2:23pm
post #167 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...looking forward to James Cameron's extremely slick action movie sequel to this!... tongue.gif



I would love to see Danny Boyle take a crack at it..


Djoel
post #168 of 472
...extending on the concept of "expendable assets", would it not fall into place just as well that any advanced race that saw fit to create Earth humans would see us as expendable for whatever suits the situation just as we would create a replicant or synthetic to be expendable for whatever our agenda or objectives are?

Maybe that is the more pressing question that Mankind needs to ask (2nd to "Who is our Creator")...does our Creator view us as "children" to their "parent", or are we just expendables for a project? The answer to that would seem to matter greatly as to what to expect to find (or if we should seek our origin) if the opportunity to contact the Creator ever emerged. wink.gif
post #169 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Oink, did you read this link I posted earlier in the thread?"
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/12/21/and-we-shall-call-this-moffs-law/
It's quite appropriate here because your response seems to boil down to essentially the same "point" some people think they are making "Relax, it's just a movie, it's just fiction, why think
about it so much?"
Read the link and understand how that comes off. biggrin.gif
And on that note, because I see some people repeating the sentiment you've expressed...I feel a bit of a rant coming on...smile.gif
Merely waving the word "fiction" is hardly justification for ignoring whatever lapses of logic or believability stick out to you as a viewer. Take a movie that has someone lost in a forest, battling the elements, trying
to find a way to survive. The whole movie depicts all sorts of realistic problems the character can't seem to beat. Everyone wondering "how is he going to get out of this?" Then, suddenly, at the end, he simply happens upon
a nice hot meal, a car, a road and a map placed neatly for him. He eats, gets in the car, drives away, happy ending. Why would this produce such a huge groan of dissatisfaction from the audience? Because it's such a cheat. It's such
an in-your-face leap of logic. It manifestly feels like the screenwriter had simply lazily made a move to get the character out of a problem that would have otherwise taken logic, thought and work to get through.
The very issue of logic, both in terms of character, internal logic to a movie, and connection to the real world, are things that keep screenwriters up at night. Read any book on screen writing, especially interviews with screenwriters, and you''ll see just how much of screen writing is concerned with NOT making the type of bloopers that cause audiences to say "I don't buy it." Screen writers/producers/directors often struggle for months, even years trying to crack the "problems" of a story or screenplay, and those "problems" are inevitably finding pluaislble ways to progress the logic of what is happening. Scripts are often even completely abandoned because a writer can not do this, it's such a central issue to the craft.
Similarly, say you have a cop chase and catch a bad guy. Will the bad guy actually get off on some legal technical issue as the movie hints? No! Luckily in this cop movie the cop also shows up as the judge, in judge's gown, and he sentences
the bad guy as well. People will be jarred. They'll say "Wait a minute, cops aren't judges too. That's not the way the legal system works. That's not real." Here's a retort that would be ridiculous: "What are you complaining about? Did this movie ever claim to be a documentary? It's a FICTIONAL story." Why would that excuse not be accepted? Because we do, in fact, want to see coherence with the real world and to how people act in the real world. Unless a movie wants to pretend to be ENTIRELY disconnected from humans and the reality we know, which is quite rare, then movie makers are expected to keep some believability insofar as the movie references the real world. So if you have a "scientist" in a movie who acts nothing like a scientist - e.g. basing a scientific expedition or sceintific proposal on "faith" or acting in certain situations in a way utterly at odds with their being a scientist, that can legitimately jar the experience for the audience. Unless of course you advocate for simply turning
your brain and reasoning off during every movie. In which case, I again refer you to the rant above.
As for Prometheus and why would anyone give thought to the "science" in the film...it's because it's a SCIENCE fiction movie. (As opposed to science fantasy, e.g. Star Wars, where no attempt is made to associate with or extrapolate from our real world occurs). Prometheus has the pretense, though, of SCIENCE fiction - looking at real world questions and concerns and extrapolating from those to make a movie. Ridley Scott, for instance, has stated he doesn't seem to buy the current strictly evolutionary account of our origins. Scott: "Because as science reveals all -- if there ever will be "all" -- How far will it come close to coming up with a proper prognosis about our creation and where we began, how we began? And was it biological, by accident? I don't think so. Because to come from a dirt ball that's created [more than] four billion years [ago]… To actually have some little creature crawl out in the water called a salamander to where we are sitting here today -- that's a lot of evolution by accident."
His movie muses on another answer to our origins - doesn't posit it as the truth at all and uses it to make a piece of entertainment, but it does arise from his philosophical consideration and from his view of the science we have on the subject. If it did NOT have this connection to reality it wouldn't be the deep, thoughtful film he wants it to be. He's talked about how one of the things that he bemoans in fantasy and science fiction these days is that "anything goes" and people are not trying to keep without ground rules. He says "it’s up to you to not do anything foolish or silly or daft, or non-credible." And: "I try to keep these films in an area of reality, so it has to feel real."
Prometheus screen-writer Damon Lindelof has said in interviews that one of the things that attracts him to Ridley's Science Fiction films over the others (e.g. Star Trek) is the grounding in reality, the PLAUSIBILITY factor, the extrapolating from real world
to guess plausibly about the future - Blade Runner being a prime example in his and many people's book.
If any attachment to scientific reality were beside the point and unnecessary, why in the world would Scott have consulted so extensively with NASA scientists for the design of the Prometheus, and have brought in cosmologists and biologists to CONSULT THEM on the science as it related to his movie? Why bother if he could have made it have no connection with scientific plausibility and just waved the "hey guys, it's all just fiction" flag. It's because he knows that's a cop out. He wants SOME believability in the movie and the attempt is to operate within SOME level of scientific plausibility, coherence and logic.
Further, in responding to the idea that Prometheus leaves unanswered questions because they were too lazy to follow the logic through as scriptwriters, Damon Lindelof has stated that he and Ridley did indeed go through the logic of the film. And that there are "answers" to the apparent plot wholes. And that he would agree he should be condemned if that had not been the case. And that the point is to challenge the audience to THINK ABOUT and DISCUSS what they see in the movie, and try to figure things out themselves.
So why you would think that discussing the science in Prometheus is silliness is just bizarre. It's like the "don't think about it" approach to movie making and watching. No. We have brains. We like them stimultated. Damon Lindelof and Ridley Scott wanted to stimulate discussions like these "Why, how...?" It's not only fun and intellectually stimulating to discuss where the science in Prometheus strikes us as sound or unsound, the genre and the very effort of film-makers like Scott to take off from known science itself invites such discussions.
Yeesh.
Rich, that's one of the best posts I've ever read on the subject. Superbly said.
post #170 of 472
the more i think about the parallel's of how we the humans have infected the black goo causing the engineers to want to destroy their "creation" with our knowledge and fear of the xenomorph aliens the better prometheus gets in my mind.

maybe the attitude is not just displeasure in the minds of the engineers but fear that we would spread death and destruction across the galaxy.

one emotion i clearly remember feeling when the main character escaped death was one of wanting to get even for their intent to kill life on earth.

i wanted her to find the engineers home planet and drop a nuke on their heads.

of course that isn't being cool or level headed. just an emotion/thought i remember having.

i can see that maybe the engineer may not have just been disgusted by our arrival but feared it as well.

the "event" that happened 2000 years ago was the tipping point that indicated that the human race was too violent to let live.

Ridley in this movie has turned the human race into the Aliens that we so fear from the original movie.

wow
post #171 of 472
A problem with the movie I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is Weyland's actions. It seems to me that it's a ludicrously, stupendously large leap of logic to go from cave paintings to "golly, these people must have the secret of eternal life", with nothing to support such an idea. He spends a trillion dollars based on nothing more than wishful thinking? Ok, so maybe he thinks he has nothing to lose. Even so, his subsequent actions make no sense. "I'm going to rush right in and walk into this alien structure that's barely been explored, and hasn't been thoroughly investigated at ALL". No rational executive who fears death so much does that. He PAYS people to do the dangerous exploring. Why wake up at ALL until and unless your supposedly crack scientists (part of the trillion dollar budget) know exactly what they're dealing with, and whether there's any prospect of the hoped for rejuvenation?

I had no empathy for or interest in any of these people (it doesn't help that the "scientists" didn't behave as such), except for the nonhuman one. I also thought the script was mediocre.
post #172 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Similarly, say you have a cop chase and catch a bad guy. Will the bad guy actually get off on some legal technical issue as the movie hints? No! Luckily in this cop movie the cop also shows up as the judge, in judge's gown, and he sentences
the bad guy as well. People will be jarred. They'll say "Wait a minute, cops aren't judges too. That's not the way the legal system works. That's not real."
If you've seen 90's Sci-Fi movie 'Judge Dredd', you may remember that in that movie (future time line), police, jury and executioner are all in one and they are called Judge. Such idea works in that movie because it hasn't happened yet. It would be totally different if the movie is about the past or present. I see many comments about the scientists in this movie don't act like scientists we know of today and yesterday but we don't quite know how they will act like in the future. So it works in this movie IMO. Or at least I don't get hung up on it so much.
post #173 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

A problem with the movie I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is Weyland's actions. It seems to me that it's a ludicrously, stupendously large leap of logic to go from cave paintings to "golly, these people must have the secret of eternal life", with nothing to support such an idea. He spends a trillion dollars based on nothing more than wishful thinking? Ok, so maybe he thinks he has nothing to lose. Even so, his subsequent actions make no sense. "I'm going to rush right in and walk into this alien structure that's barely been explored, and hasn't been thoroughly investigated at ALL". No rational executive who fears death so much does that. He PAYS people to do the dangerous exploring. Why wake up at ALL until and unless your supposedly crack scientists (part of the trillion dollar budget) know exactly what they're dealing with, and whether there's any prospect of the hoped for rejuvenation?
I think people get anxious when their time is numbered. Perhaps Peter Weyland took a big chance on this one opportunity he may never have again.
Quote:
I had no empathy for or interest in any of these people (it doesn't help that the "scientists" didn't behave as such), except for the nonhuman one. I also thought the script was mediocre.
Sci-Fi movies with good script are hard to come by.
post #174 of 472
It can't be any more rash a decision than cryo-freezing your own body or just the severed head in hopes of some future capability of being revived/reanimated, right? If you have the money and desperately desire eternal life, why wouldn't you? The ramification in the movie that these Creators of Man must have 2000 years more advanced technology at the very least...I'd say that is a fairly good bet they would know about the power of extending life of humans.

That's probably thinking small potatoes for a 2000 yr jump in technology, anyway! wink.gif Who's thinking about longevity, when you can just regrow a host and do a mental transference, right?
Edited by Mr. Hanky - 6/17/12 at 8:31pm
post #175 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

A problem with the movie I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is Weyland's actions. It seems to me that it's a ludicrously, stupendously large leap of logic to go from cave paintings to "golly, these people must have the secret of eternal life", with nothing to support such an idea.

He used logic to reach the conclusion, if they have the power to create they will have the power to extend.

The logic is sound, its just his input data that was screwed.
post #176 of 472
As much as I would like to get into this discussion in depth, I'm gonna have to let others carry the fight.
It's June, and in Central Oregon that means Trout Season....have at it, boys.wink.gif
post #177 of 472
Oink, its barbecue season here, doesnt stop me using the phone for AVS. wink.gif
post #178 of 472
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

.
.
.
And on that note, because I see some people repeating the sentiment you've expressed...I feel a bit of a rant coming on...smile.gif
.
.
.
{snip}
Outstanding post. Would read again. cool.gif
post #179 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoel View Post

I'm guessing I'm the gullible type, redface.gif I believe when Corp heads said they've never encounter any type of Alien life in all the colonies they have been doing Tera forming..I guess is more of that backwards talk from them suit / tie folks.
DJoel

The corporate people said that they'd never encountered an alien life form that matches Ripley's description in any of their colonies, not that they'd never encountered alien life at all.
post #180 of 472
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Prometheus *PLOT SPOILERS* discussion