[Movie] Prometheus - Page 48

On June 19 2012 02:25 biology]major wrote:


They are pretty close in terms of stupidity, but prometheus tops it easily (tops the stupidity). But as for some of the complaints on the movie..there was alot of unexplained stuff in Alien too and no one complained. They literally show the engineers, the ship, and then completely ignore them for the rest of the movie. Thanks for explaining nothing after showing what seems to be a major detail in why or how the face huggers got there. Prometheus offers more information than alien about the universe, and people are like too many questions !! no answers!! Even though it seems like there will be a sequel. The bad writing makes prometheus a mediocre movie (entertaining nonetheless) but not laughably bad. I could go into detail at how alot of stuff in the original alien was "stupid" or "unrealistic" but im not trying to find such things when I watch a movie, and if you are it will be very hard to enjoy anything.

On June 19 2012 01:23 CaptainCrush wrote:
Now that you mention the opening scene:
+ Show Spoiler +

On June 19 2012 11:29 instantdry wrote:
Any unanswered questions about this movie is intentional.

On June 19 2012 11:30 AirbladeOrange wrote:
Why was there a painting or carving of the queen alien if the aliens didn't exist yet?

On June 19 2012 10:13 zoLo wrote:


I don't consider that a plot hole at all. A plot hole that relates to that is why the Engineers wanted to eliminate the human race (unless you want to count the crucified Space Jesus)? Why would they not have a star map in a military base? Earth might not be their only target, but many others. The Engineers maybe highly intelligent, but the chance of them not knowing the galaxy by heart is there. Most of these guys might have just been soldiers and not the scientific ones.

On June 19 2012 12:39 NNTP wrote:


he meant why did they leave a starmap LEADING to a military facility. you dont just leave a map that shows your secrets. he wasnt talking about the starmap showing earth within their ship.

Also, IMO, i think that they wanted to get rid of something that they considered unholy or genetic defect. That one engineer that suicided himself to create humankind could have been considered a heretic and outlaw for desecrating his body to create a mutation of the engineer species.

Also, it might be a fear of their creation one day wiping them out as David in the movie says: "Don't all children want to kill their parents" to Charlie before poisoning him with a drop of the black liquid. There are many examples in this movie that points to that direction.

-The engineers that want to wipe out the humans
-Elizabeth that wants to kill her "child" the squid monster
-The squid monster trying to kill Elizabeth at birth
-Some kind of beef (feud) between Charlie and David (they debate over creation)
-The old man who disregards the heir of his empire, he places more faith in David then his own daughter (they even have different family names, and his hint at being sterile). He might think of her as a failed attempt to prolong his life through his DNA (splicing his genetics into an embryo), adopted, etc. still a lot of unanswered questions to why she is his daughter but he says David is the closest thing to being his son...
-Vickers who wants her fathers downfall to take over the corporation.

All in all it seems like the movie talks about the struggle for survival. survival of the fittest. You create life, but you fear that it will overpower you eventually so you might decide to kill it. And on the other side, the descendant thinking it is the evolved and stronger one so it must surpass and destroy it predecessor.

Starcraft universe example: Xel Naga that creates Zerg and Protoss and wanting to destroy these races but finally ends up being destroyed by the Zerg (partially, hints that they might be somewhere and return in the future) to destroy everything.

Movies.com: That is our planet, right?

RS: No, it doesn’t have to be. That could be anywhere. That could be a planet anywhere. All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself.

If you parallel that idea with other sacrificial elements in history – which are clearly illustrated with the Mayans and the Incas – he would live for one year as a prince, and at the end of that year, he would be taken and donated to the gods in hopes of improving what might happen next year, be it with crops or weather, etcetera.

I always think about how often we attribute what has happened to either our invention or memory. A lot of ideas evolve from past histories, but when you look so far back, you wonder, Really? Is there really a connection there?”

Then when I jump back, and you put yourself in a situation of a cave painting, you see that someone 32,000 years ago is showing me a little man sitting in the darkness, using a candle light that is fat from a creature he killed and ate. And in the darkness are two or three other family members whose body heat is warming the cave. But he has discovered that from a piece of this black, burnt stick, he has discovered that he can draw pictures on the wall.

In essence, you have the first level of emotion and a demonstration of entertainment, right? Because he’s drawing brilliantly on the God damn wall. Now, you put yourself into that context, it’s 100-times bigger than Edison. And people don’t go back to the basics and ask, “Holy shit, what gave him that knowledge, that jolt to not scribble on the wall but draw on it brilliantly?”

If you go back and look, a completely underrated film is Quest for Fire. That was one of the most genius, simplistic but incredibly sophisticated notion of what it was. The evolution of that was just fantastic. And that got me sitting back on my ass thinking, “Damn! What a fundamentally massive idea.”

On June 19 2012 12:54 Talack wrote:
Alot of these explinations of scenes and deleted material/interviews with directors/cast members etc etc...

Really makes prometheus seem like an incomplete movie.

On June 19 2012 14:01 NNTP wrote:


that effect is desired by the producer to spawn interest in a possible sequel plus it leaves to interpretation but yes it does make you feel unsatisfied after watching the movie lol

and as for zolo what did you mean by space jesus? i saw this a couple of times about this movie. Does it have anything to do with Elizabeth Shaw's beliefs about creation? how humanity was created, from sacrifice. Please elaborate

Movies.com: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

RS: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Lets’ send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it. Guess what? They crucified him.

On June 19 2012 14:46 zoLo wrote:


http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232



The 2,000 years statement by Shaw was no coincidence. I feel that it's too convenient that the moment we crucified Space Jesus, hell broke loose on LV-223. I won't be surprised if there were maybe two factions: one being the creator and one being the destroyer. It is just another theory that is being thrown around.

On June 20 2012 00:53 holdthephone wrote:
Just saw it, and I don't know how to feel about the religious material used in the movie. Why is she so devout when her passion seems to be all about finding answers outside of the bible? I didn't think of her as the faithful type.