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 11

post #301 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Nope, I won't bite tongue.gif

Speaking of bite

I like what Penn Jillette from Penn and Teller once said about the invention of religion back then in those primitive times, the smarter people invented so they wouldn't get eaten by the stupid ones Can't fault them for that.

Djoel

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #302 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Sure. And not having hair is a hair color. Not having a marriage is being married. Not being part of the FreeMasons is being part of the FreeMasons...
Once you allow yourself to play with words to the point of contradiction, what hope is there in making a point to anyone?
+1


Quote:
the compatibility...or not...of science with religion (they don't mix well IMO).
Only because, historically, the clergy hasn't wanted it to (see Galileo).

Quote:
not sure the film ends up as necessarily mocking Shaw's faith.
I think the religious "controversy" regarding this movie is overblown by the usual suspects.wink.gif

The plot of the movie is about the origins of homo sapiens.
Both Religion AND Science has tried to answer this question for a very long time.
RS was only using these 2 theories to further the story (IMO).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djoel View Post

Speaking of bite
I like what Penn Jillette from Penn and Teller once said about the invention of religion back then in those primitive times, the smarter people invented so they wouldn't get eaten by the stupid ones Can't fault them for that.
Djoel
Nice one....I had forgotten that line.
BTW, seen them in Vegas a few years ago...good show.smile.gif
post #303 of 472
i see the religious references in promo as similar to the themes raised by matthew mcconaughey's character in contact where the plot involves faith and science.

no problem with scott utilizing that theme, it's the conduct of scientists not acting as scientists that is still inexplicable and unnecessary to drive his narrative.
post #304 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

it's the conduct of scientists not acting as scientists that is still inexplicable and unnecessary to drive his narrative.
+1
It really is the weakest part of the production.
post #305 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm not sure the film ends up as necessarily mocking Shaw's faith.
Agreed, I don't think it does, instead choosing to show the effects of her faith (both bad and good). It gives her the hubris to make comments like "because I choose to" when it comes to scientific analysis. The arrogance of this mistake (treating science like faith) eventually leads to other comments like "We were wrong, we were so wrong". At the same time, it forms her connection with the past (her father) and her drive for the future (surviving to go where the engineers came from). I think it's pretty fair treatment of the subject.

BTW, I didn't see the subject as being controversial in this film, any more than the religion-vs-science discussions were controversial in 'Contact'. It's often discussed in real life and in science fiction (the best of which often acts as a proxy for real life situations).
Edited by sdurani - 7/5/12 at 4:44pm
post #306 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

+1
Only because, historically, the clergy hasn't wanted it to (see Galileo).

I think it runs deeper than that. There is a fundamental epistemological incompatibility. Science fits it's theories or fully exchanges it's theories to fit the facts as they are uncovered; faith does it backward, starting with religious assumptions and holding on to them in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, going on to interpret data to be consistent with the assumptions. In other words, science asks "what do the facts indicate?" and faith asks "How do I make these facts compatible with my faith assumptions?" The problem is you can't acknowledge the epistemological virtues of the former while holding it's just as fine to do the latter. It's like acknowledging the virtue of monogamy while also saying it's ok to cheat on your wife, and simply calling the fact you are in a marriage while cheating makes it "compatible." These issues actually come up in Prometheus with the Shaw character, including when David points to the seeming irrationality of her clinging to her cross/faith in the face of contradiction in her experiences.

However, it's typical for Hollywood to going along with the faith-is-a-virtue angle, so it's fascinating that even in a movie challenging these questions, and made by a director hostile to religion,
it still seems to make something out of a virtue of Shaw's faith, as it's used to propel the movie forward (and into a possible sequel).
post #307 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Agreed, I don't think it does, instead choosing to show the effects of her faith (both bad and good). It gives her the hubris to make comments like "because I choose to" when it comes to scientific analysis. The arrogance of this mistake (treating science like faith) eventually leads to other comments like "We were wrong, we were so wrong". At the same time, it forms her connection with the past (her father) and her drive for the future (surviving to go where the engineers came from). I think it's pretty fair treatment of the subject.
BTW, I didn't see the subject as being controversial in this film, any more than the religion-vs-science discussions were controversial in 'Contact'. It's often discussed in real life and in science fiction (the best of which often acts as a proxy for real life situations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I think it runs deeper than that. There is a fundamental epistemological incompatibility. Science fits it's theories or fully exchanges it's theories to fit the facts as they are uncovered; faith does it backward, starting with religious assumptions and holding on to them in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, going on to interpret data to be consistent with the assumptions. In other words, science asks "what do the facts indicate?" and faith asks "How do I make these facts compatible with my faith assumptions?" The problem is you can't acknowledge the epistemological virtues of the former while holding it's just as fine to do the latter. It's like acknowledging the virtue of monogamy while also saying it's ok to cheat on your wife, and simply calling the fact you are in a marriage while cheating makes it "compatible." These issues actually come up in Prometheus with the Shaw character, including when David points to the seeming irrationality of her clinging to her cross/faith in the face of contradiction in her experiences.
However, it's typical for Hollywood to going along with the faith-is-a-virtue angle, so it's fascinating that even in a movie challenging these questions, and made by a director hostile to religion,
it still seems to make something out of a virtue of Shaw's faith, as it's used to propel the movie forward (and into a possible sequel).
Well said, Gentlemen....smile.gif

I had no idea there would actually be sober people on the forum just one day after July 4....wink.gif
post #308 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Well said, Gentlemen....smile.gif
I had no idea there would actually be sober people on the forum just one day after July 4....wink.gif

Well the internet isn't America; I'm Canadian so hopefully that explains it. cool.gif

Though I should add: my youngest son insisted we do a small celebration of the American 4th of July (guess he felt he was missing out) so out came the sparklers...smile.gif
post #309 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I had no idea there would actually be sober people on the forum just one day after July 4....wink.gif
Forum? What forum? If my post made sense, then my fingers must have been typing while I was blacked out.
post #310 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Well the internet isn't America; I'm Canadian so hopefully that explains it. cool.gif
Dang, I never noticed that before....redface.gif
Well, I'm married to a Canadian, if that helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Forum? What forum? If my post made sense, then my fingers must have been typing while I was blacked out.
Hmmm, I think I like you better when you're "blacked out."biggrin.gif
post #311 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I think it runs deeper than that. There is a fundamental epistemological incompatibility. Science fits it's theories or fully exchanges it's theories to fit the facts as they are uncovered; faith does it backward, starting with religious assumptions and holding on to them in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, going on to interpret data to be consistent with the assumptions. In other words, science asks "what do the facts indicate?" and faith asks "How do I make these facts compatible with my faith assumptions?" The problem is you can't acknowledge the epistemological virtues of the former while holding it's just as fine to do the latter. It's like acknowledging the virtue of monogamy while also saying it's ok to cheat on your wife, and simply calling the fact you are in a marriage while cheating makes it "compatible." These issues actually come up in Prometheus with the Shaw character, including when David points to the seeming irrationality of her clinging to her cross/faith in the face of contradiction in her experiences.
However, it's typical for Hollywood to going along with the faith-is-a-virtue angle, so it's fascinating that even in a movie challenging these questions, and made by a director hostile to religion,
it still seems to make something out of a virtue of Shaw's faith, as it's used to propel the movie forward (and into a possible sequel).


well i think you are wrong.

they just found the god particle.
post #312 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

well i think you are wrong.
they just found the god particle.


Not yet...they're just saying that they feel they are close to finding it. (the Almighty can be pretty danged elusive!)
post #313 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

This thread is completely filled with untagged spoilers. You've been warned if you haven't seen it. The unspoiled Prometheus thread can be found here.
~~~~
Wow. I avoided all previews and info on Ridley Scott's latest release Prometheus (the prequel to some of my childhood favorite movies Alien & Aliens), so I had no idea what it was about. Now that I've seen it, I can say the direction they took the story was completely unexpected. I still haven't read any reviews so I don't know how it is being received.
Despite the nods given to various classic plot elements of the earlier films (basketball playing from A4, an android which is from all the movies, small drop ship landing filled with a team from A2, "gut wrenching" terror scene from A1, ship filled with pods from A1 & A2, etc.), Prometheus is a movie that definitely stands on its own. While A3 was criticized in part for being a remake of A1, and A4 for being too much like A2 (I didn't like either of those films), I doubt fans of the series make those claims here.
What struck me most about this rather slow paced, barely-actiony movie is how it turns out to be not an origin story about the aliens but an origin story about the human race. Not only does it try to be a bit more cerebral than most science-fiction films, but more spiritual as well. Sure, anyone who has seen 2001 will right away see its influence on the overall narrative, but the film makers clearly took the concept in its own direction.
There were quite a few philosophical / religious / social issues and questions that were implied or directly brought up in this movie, including: Christianity vs. science. A brief intelligent design debate. The origins of man. The existence of God and an afterlife. Comments on the existence of souls (in humans) as well as the lack thereof (in androids). The lack of ability for non-sentiment beings like an android to desire anything, including "life". The quest for immortality. What to do with unborn life when it is known to be evil.
Interesting stuff that is a notch beyond the typical monsters-hunting-humans movie. As a result, I can see how it wouldn't have mass appeal. To be honest, I'm still not sure how I would rate the film other than to say I liked it enough to be glad I saw it at least once. I can appreciate the effort that went into making an a-typical summer popcorn flick.
It is a bit surprising that thought-provoking angles aren't explored more often in sci-fi movies. The golden age of sci-fi storytelling (roughly 1940s - 1960s) often delved into topics brought up in Prometheus, including stuff written by Asimov, Clark, and Bradbury (R.I.P.!). For instance, check out two excellent examples here and also here. If this movie gets a sequel, no doubt it'll go even deeper in addressing a lot of its ideas, particularly since the main character (living) and android (non-living) are still looking for the fundamental origins of life at the end.
Strictly viewed as a movie, Prometheus had a few plot issues and it takes a lot of time to say what it wants to say. But overall it kept my interest and still has me thinking over a couple of concepts it brought up. For that reason I'd give it a thumbs up; it is worth checking out.

Hey Joe, how's it go?

Leave it to you to not only start this topic, but see the movie for what it is on the first viewing. Something that seems to have been misplaced on quite a few people, or possibly just totally ignored in a trolling campaign against the (paradise?) LOST writers crew.

Anyways, have you seen this brilliant discussion and dissection of the film yet? I'm sure you're get a real kick out of it.

http://www.chud.com/100388/stealing-fire-in-praise-of-prometheus/
post #314 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

After going through the trouble of establishing qualities of the black goo (death & life) early in the film, I doubt the filmmakers would whip out a surprise version of the goo that has different properties. Ridley Scott referred to it as "galloping DNA" in interviews.

They did though. They also contrasted the pure, perfect engineers in the prologue, with the biologically altered engineers from the installation. The one we see on LV223 has a biologically integrated "suit" that looks very xeno like. The makup artists went to a lot of pain to blend in the suit into the flesh around the arms and neck. The real "Suits" by contrast are what wrapped around them when in the chair, and what was hung in the port to the alien ship.

If this is a brother race, or why the engineers have changed since the prologue isn't explained. But like their change, I figured the goo changed; from self sacrifice that gives benevolent live, to selfishness that brings life through violent death.
post #315 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Sure. And not having hair is a hair color. Not having a marriage is being married. Not being part of the FreeMasons is being part of the FreeMasons...
Once you allow yourself to play with words to the point of contradiction, what hope is there in making a point to anyone?
BTW, I find people are generally quite nice to each other.
Prometheus content: One of the themes in Prometheus, via Elizabeth Shaw's faith, seemed to concern the mix of, or the compatibility...or not...of science with religion (they don't mix well IMO). The uneasy mix that Shaw's faith makes with her science. Ridley Scott is no friend of organized religion to be sure, but I'm not sure the film ends up as necessarily mocking Shaw's faith. It is at least used somewhat to motivate her to keep going, plot-wise, to the next Alien world. It will be interesting to see how things pan out if a sequel occurs.

Scotts not a big fan of organized religion, and the abuses humans commit in the name of those religions. I've never really seen him outright hostile to God, or personal religion or faith. He in fact has talked a bit about how faith and inspiration has sometimes been the driving force that moves science forward when an impasse is reached. He's also seems to love western thought, parable and allegory.

He did say they thought about the whole Jesus thing, but scrapped it as being way too obtuse. So take his word for it. While some of it was left in the final cut (~2000yrs), I think we can assume it wasn't the only catalyst for the engineers change of opinion on us.

A lot of the viral material used for the backstory campaign's shows drawings of engineers and humans side by side in ancient cultures. Not much was explained, but perhaps there's something about a human uprising there (Rome) which led to our subsequent dark ages. Jesus was just part of the larger story of humans casting out the titans.
post #316 of 472
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the compliment. I like pulling my hair out in trying to understand mental maze movies even if I stay confused half the time (i.e. Mulholland Drive & Memento), and it's articles like the EXCELLENT one you posted above that really opens up my understanding of a lot of the subtle clues these films are littered with.

In fact, one of the authors that your article writer links Prometheus to (correctly or not) is Flannery O'Conner as I've read some of her stuff in high school. Although at the time I wasn't yet able to fully grasp the direction her stories were taken because of the non-didactic style of writing, I think that's an approach I hope Ridley Scott and his co-writer Damon Laurence use in concluding this Alien prequel series.

I posted earlier that I thought it would be boring if the story is simply all about Scott emphasizing how much he hates faith or religion, and you point out above that he says he has scrapped one idea that would certainly have been interpreted that way. I think it takes away from the activity of imagination in the viewer/reader (which can then takes him out of the universe of the story completely) when a heavy-handed social or political viewpoint of the author is all that it is about, whether it is pro or con. No need to try and make an obvious point one way or the other; just tell us a good story with interesting concepts to think about.

O'Conner let her stories do the talking without she herself overtly lecturing the reader "this is what I think is bad, and this is what I think is good". The first of the two short story links I provided at the end of the first post in this thread also illustrates this. In "The Nine Billion Names of God", there is no lecture by Clarke to the reader in the tale despite the fact that the plot is derived from several religious concepts. The story just "is", and the rest is up to the heart, soul and mind of the audience.

Heh, your link has given me a good reason to go back and read some of Flannery O'Conner's stuff, which is not sci-fi BTW, to try and better understand it this time.
Edited by joeblow - 7/22/12 at 2:29pm
post #317 of 472
Please forgive my rant. I watched this with my son last Saturday and I thought it was just a mess with a blender of ideas mostly unresolved and making no sense. Afterwards, I went to this thread and followed some of the links and laughed at all the hodgepodge theories being thrown around. The writers of this stuff aren't smarter than most of us. They don't have answers no matter how many theories they can reference or suggest in one movie. I remember Lost and how many stories went nowhere or tailed off after big hints/clues were put out in that direction. I'm reading about the Jesus issue and the "virgin birth"? Maybe my definition of "virgin" is different than these speculators but I thought virgin birth didn't involve sex. I don't know if its fun to count the references or theories, but what I would prefer would be answers to plot holes or characters who do weird things. Consistency would be nice. Rant over.
post #318 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by daryl zero View Post

The writers of this stuff aren't smarter than most of us. They don't have answers no matter how many theories they can reference or suggest in one movie.

The movie doesnt aim to give you answers, it leaves the questions open for interpetation.
post #319 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The movie doesnt aim to give you answers, it leaves the questions open for interpetation.
And/or to answer later in the series.
I kinda get tired of repeating this, but Prometheus was originally conceived as a trilogy.
post #320 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

And/or to answer later in the series.
I kinda get tired of repeating this, but Prometheus was originally conceived as a trilogy.

RS dropped the ball as far as making this a stand alone enjoyable movie. I enjoyed the heck out of this with my prior knowledge from various RS interviews about the Space Jesus, black goo etc stuff. The group I saw this with were ALL extremely frustrated and confused about what was going on, why scientists behaved the way they did etc, etc. These were all Alien franchise knowledgable folks and still could not put the hints together to make substance out of what they saw on screen. Heck, nobody even drank before the movie so all faculties were there. tongue.gif:eek:

It's fine to be a trilogy but there has to be enough there for the general public to connect the dots to enjoy the movie. Alien 1/ 2 are two of the highest rated movies in their genre and with RS back on board, and the stellar AV and cast, this had the chance to be $200mil+ BO material. The public voted, and is another stake in the heart for big budget R movies.

I will buy the bluray on the day it comes out, but am questioning if I will even have a viewing party? I feel I would have to preface the movie with what is really going on (or what I think it means) for my guests to enjoy.
post #321 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

If this is a brother race, or why the engineers have changed since the prologue isn't explained. But like their change, I figured the goo changed; from self sacrifice that gives benevolent live, to selfishness that brings life through violent death.
If you start from a made-up premise that there were two races of engineers, based solely on seeing one in underwear and another in a bio-suit, then you'll feel that the "brother race" isn't explained. Of course, the explanation is that there aren't two races of engineers depicted in the movie. If you don't start from a false premise, then there is no "brother race" left unexplained. Likewise, if you're willing to notice that a cup full of black goo has a different effect than tiny drop of black goo (like a single sleeping pill has a different effect than a bottle full of sleeping pills), then there is no reason to give the goo a personality (benevolent), let alone imagine it underwent a personality change (to selfishness).
post #322 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

this had the chance to be $200mil+ BO material
It crossed $300mil worldwide.
post #323 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

I will buy the bluray on the day it comes out, but am questioning if I will even have a viewing party? I feel I would have to preface the movie with what is really going on (or what I think it means) for my guests to enjoy.

You should preferably see the film more than once and even then you may still have questions. But it is open to interpretation courtesy of RS. Although some of the hints are anything but subtle.
post #324 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Heck, nobody even drank before the movie so all faculties were there.
There's your problem.biggrin.gif
Seriously though, you're right...as a standalone, it doesn't work too well.

Preferably, RS would have, initially, been given the "greenlight" to do his trilogy.
Unfortunately, few studios would have agreed to such a thing.
Yeah, I know....however, LOTR was a known piece of work....wink.gif

Quote:
I will buy the bluray on the day it comes out, but am questioning if I will even have a viewing party? I feel I would have to preface the movie with what is really going on (or what I think it means) for my guests to enjoy.
That's fine, a lot of guys from this forum (including Yours Truly) missed a lot of stuff.
This thread has helped fill in the blanks for many of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

You should preferably see the film more than once and even then you may still have questions. But it is open to interpretation courtesy of RS. Although some of the hints are anything but subtle.
+1
post #325 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It crossed $300mil worldwide.

200 mil domestic
post #326 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

200 mil domestic

I just looked at the top grossing R rated films over at boxofficemojo and I was surprised to see so many stinkers in the list. Of course it's subjective wink.gif I hope the Prometheus sequels will get made...
post #327 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

It crossed $300mil worldwide.

200 mil domestic
$125mil domestic. Hopefully enough total grosses (domestic + foreign) for them to consider a sequel, especially when home video revenue is factored in eventually.
post #328 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

when home video revenue is factored in eventually.
Guesses?
post #329 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I just looked at the top grossing R rated films over at boxofficemojo and I was surprised to see so many stinkers in the list. Of course it's subjective wink.gif I hope the Prometheus sequels will get made...

+100

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Guesses?

Looking at the Numbers site, as a comp, Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows did $80 mil between DVD and Bluray. They did over $200 mil domestic BO but I would hope Prometheus, and Alien, fan base could hit, at least, that.
post #330 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I just looked at the top grossing R rated films over at boxofficemojo and I was surprised to see so many stinkers in the list. Of course it's subjective wink.gif I hope the Prometheus sequels will get made...


so do i.

mr. scott has a lot of explaining to do.
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