Prometheus SPOILERS FROM POST 1538

steddyeddy · 02-06-2012 12:41PM

opinion guy wrote: »

This is pure speculation on my part. As we know there have been many great extinctions on planet Earth over millions of years - dinosaurs etc etc. They didn't allude to that in the movie, but I'm wondering maybe is there an implication the Engineers were responsible for this cycle of extinction and new evolution - for whatever experimental reasons they had. Perhaps they were coming to destroy humanity simply because it was time for another cycle of their grand experiment ??? It wasn't about humanity at all we just happened to be there ?

Agreed

Another thing that has occurred to me since seeing the movie. Through all the Alien movies - the evolution of the Alien has been a feature - very rapid evolution at that - it takes DNA from its victims and mutates itself. Such a creature should it exist, would have a very very short period of existence due to its high mutation rate.
Anyhow I'm not sure how this is relevant but it occurred to me - haha

Well it could have epigenetic controls to stabilise its mutation rate post maturity.

Edit: It would have to have strong epigenetic controls in place.

opinion guy · 02-06-2012 12:43PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it could have epigenetic controls to stabilise its mutation rate post maturity.

Edit: It would have to have strong epigenetic controls in place.

Given by the scene where

the says the Engineer DNA is exactly the same as human DNA

I think we may both be crediting them with too much knowledge

steddyeddy · 02-06-2012 12:49PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Given by the scene where
the says the Engineer DNA is exactly the same as human DNA
I think we may both be crediting them with too much knowledge

True, very true!

HerbSimpson · 02-06-2012 01:01PM

I have to say I really enjoyed this film but would agree it was far from perfect.

The main annoyance for me was also the DNA\conflict with evolution aspect, at least the film acknowledged this if not answered it when one of the characters raised the question.

I also thought it tied in very well with Alien and I would consider it a 100% prequesl

The space jockey was explained, the Alien ship was the same, it hinted the aliens may have been biological weapons, giant facehugger etc.

Trine · 02-06-2012 01:03PM

NotInventedHere wrote: »

This is a plot synopsis I found from 2011

That would possibly have been a better film

Wow, wish that was the film I had seen! I'm not too clued up on how films are made, would this have been an older draft? Or just a fan-made attempt at creating the story from a few tid-bits that were leaked?

Another thing I had forgotten about,

when the crew first enter the Engineer's ship, David find's goo over the controls that trigger the first hologram. Was that related to the kind of secretion that the classic Xenomorph's exhibit?

MetalDog · 02-06-2012 01:30PM

Ok saw this last night, and I was just wondering, how

if the spaceship that crashed is the one in Alien, and the pilot/space jockey/engineer followed Shaw into the lifeboat and was subsequently killed by the "alien" while in the lifeboat, why then is there a space jockey dead in the pilot's seat in Alien ? Did another one come out of stasis, get impregnanted by an alien and then try to fly it? did the alien haul the other one back to the ship

?

Just saying.

pinksoir · 02-06-2012 01:35PM

It's not the same ship.

HerbSimpson · 02-06-2012 01:37PM

MetalDog wrote: »

Ok saw this last night, and I was just wondering, how
if the spaceship that crashed is the one in Alien, and the pilot/space jockey/engineer followed Shaw into the lifeboat and was subsequently killed by the "alien" while in the lifeboat, why then is there a space jockey dead in the pilot's seat in Alien ? Did another one come out of stasis, get impregnanted by an alien and then try to fly it? did the alien haul the other one back to the ship
?

Just saying.

They said there were many ships on the planet, it's possible Alien was a different ship on the same planet, or maybe the space jockey suit was just empty but closed.

MetalDog · 02-06-2012 01:38PM

pinksoir wrote: »

It's not the same ship.

Ok so you reckon that

The other Engineers came out of stasis and tried to get the hell off the planet as soon as the sh1t hit the fan, and suffered similar fates? Or that another engineer ship landed on the planet, only to be set upon by the newly evolved xeno's

? I think you could be right on both counts.

pinksoir · 02-06-2012 01:44PM

I would only be guessing! But remember

the planet in Prometheus is not LV426 so it's possible that the ship in the original Alien came from a different planet, or from some other installation on the same planet. I don't think there were any other Jockeys left in stasis, he was the last one. However, there could have been other installations elsewhere on the planet where there were Jockeys in stasis. We don't know and it's left totally open. But yeah, the planet in Prometheus is LV223 or something.

MetalDog · 02-06-2012 01:53PM

pinksoir wrote: »

I would only be guessing! But remember
the planet in Prometheus is not LV426 so it's possible that the ship in the original Alien came from a different planet, or from some other installation on the same planet. I don't think there were any other Jockeys left in stasis, he was the last one. However, there could have been other installations elsewhere on the planet where there were Jockeys in stasis. We don't know and it's left totally open. But yeah, the planet in Prometheus is LV223 or something.

It's equally possible that

LV223 is LV 426. The Company would most likely lie about the Prometheus mission, saying that it was lost without trace, it's a billion light years away after all. I also wouldn't put it past them to rename or reclassify the planet, seeing as this film predates Alien by decades if not more

Technocentral · 02-06-2012 01:56PM

Personally I approached it as a very stylish sci fi/horror flick about aliens in the general sense and really liked it, don't know why your all getting caught up in the why this? why that? of it, thats only going to lead to disappointment, Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time but I don't care if Dekard is a replicant, I just love the over all story, design and performances, its just entertainment at the end of the day not a film about the war in the ex Yugoslavia or Iraq.

pinksoir · 02-06-2012 01:58PM

Possible but not equally so. Companies don't classify planets, it wasn't Weyland Corp who discovered it in the first place. The planet is definitely in the same system, though.

MetalDog · 02-06-2012 02:02PM

pinksoir wrote: »

Possible but not equally so. Companies don't classify planets, it wasn't Weyland Corp who discovered it in the first place. The planet is definitely in the same system, though.

Ok, now I think that

I need to get out more

johnny_ultimate · 02-06-2012 02:12PM

Technocentral wrote: »

Personally I approached it as a very stylish sci fi/horror flick about aliens in the general sense and really liked it, don't know why your all getting caught up in the why this? why that? of it, thats only going to lead to disappointment, Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time but I don't care if Dekard is a replicant, I just love the over all story, design and performances, its just entertainment at the end of the day not a film about the war in the ex Yugoslavia or Iraq.

To be fair, it's a film that lends itself to some level of detailed analysis usually absent in Hollywood films. However, personally I feel the thematic content is far more engaging and worthy of debate than any of the lore or narrative stuff. It's a sci-fi film, and the fiction part of the descriptor is key. You could get lost in nitpicky debates, which to me completely takes away from the point of science-fiction in the first place. Not to say there aren't a number of niggling inconsistencies worth flagging (there is), but the film for me provided food for thought far removed from the aspects many seem to be focusing on. Any questions the film didn't answer weren't really worth answering, or the filmmakers illustrating a willingness to leave some aspects of the film up to the viewer's imagination or interpretation.

I still think it's a flawed and awkward film in a significant number of ways, and I'd stop short of calling it 'great'. But it's interesting and ambitious enough to warrant debate and applause, and I'd disagree with accusations that it's dumbed-down or a complete flop.

Technocentral · 02-06-2012 02:16PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair, it's a film that lends itself to some level of detailed analysis usually absent in Hollywood films. However, personally I feel the thematic content is far more engaging and worthy of debate than any of the lore or narrative stuff. It's a sci-fi film, and the fiction part of the descriptor is key. You could get lost in nitpicky debates, which to me completely takes away from the point of science-fiction in the first place. Not to say there aren't a number of niggling inconsistencies worth flagging (there is), but the film for me provided food for thought far removed from the aspects many seem to be focusing on. Any questions the film didn't answer weren't really worth answering, or the filmmakers illustrating a willingness to leave some aspects of the film up to the viewer's imagination or interpretation.

I still think it's a flawed and awkward film in a significant number of ways, and I'd stop short of calling it 'great'. But it's interesting and ambitious enough to warrant debate and applause, and I'd disagree with accusations that it's dumbed-down or a complete flop.

Don't mind the odd few comments but there's people on here with nearly full pages of spoilers with questions in them! My point is if you need that much questions answered you'll never be happy with anything!

johnny_ultimate · 02-06-2012 02:19PM

We'll probably put a spoiler tag in the thread title on Monday to avoid the reams of greyed-out bits. Just need to give it a weekend to die down and provide the 'on-the-fencers' with some general opinions.

Handsome Bob · 02-06-2012 02:47PM

Technocentral wrote: »

Personally I approached it as a very stylish sci fi/horror flick about aliens in the general sense and really liked it, don't know why your all getting caught up in the why this? why that? of it, thats only going to lead to disappointment, Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time but I don't care if Dekard is a replicant, I just love the over all story, design and performances, its just entertainment at the end of the day not a film about the war in the ex Yugoslavia or Iraq.

That's a bit of a cop out though as many fans felt what was going to be so great about this film was just how deep it was going to be.

tok9 · 02-06-2012 02:47PM

I wasn't sure what to make of it when I came out of the cinema last night which is usually a good sign. After a nights sleep I still find myself thinking about it so I definitely enjoyed it.

One thing that isn't up for debate is that the movie is gorgeous. It really is a fantastic spectacle. Between the landscape and the set, all the visuals were perfect.

Pretty much everything has been said but I don't think anyone has mentioned about the opening of the movie. Any opinions on

why the 'engineer' drank the black stuff?

Bullseye1 · 02-06-2012 02:57PM

I have to say I am amazed at the negativity towards this movie. What were people expecting? If you leave the influence James Cameron had on the Alien franchise and go in with an open mind I cannot see how one could not be entertained by this movie. Sure some the parts were miscast, dialogue left a lot to be desired and the music was confused in places but the overall look and feel to the movie was worth the price of admission IMO.

Frank Bullitt · 02-06-2012 03:10PM

Saw it last night, really enjoyed it, not like Alien or Aliens, I think it stands in its own right, I think ill go again.

9/10

Scanlas The 2nd · 02-06-2012 03:23PM

7/10 for me. If it made more sense it could have been an 8 or 9. Still enjoyed it and despite what many say I thought there were some good moments of tension created.

BlitzKrieg · 02-06-2012 03:24PM

MetalDog wrote: »

Ok so you reckon that
The other Engineers came out of stasis and tried to get the hell off the planet as soon as the sh1t hit the fan, and suffered similar fates? Or that another engineer ship landed on the planet, only to be set upon by the newly evolved xeno's
? I think you could be right on both counts.

Hasnt Ridley Scott said that this film to tie directly with alien would need 2 more films between it and alien. So How the ship ends up on LV-426 is not explained in this one.

yeah Mark kermode mentions it in his review here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jyxZBuWSXM

As for the film, I really enjoyed it, but I'm a huge fanboy of the franchise and of this sort of sci fi. I did have issues with it in parts, but what I took away most from it is that it felt like a film that originally had a 3 hour running time and it got cut down to 2.

Look forward to a director's cut blu ray

bullvine · 02-06-2012 03:35PM

So many unanswered questions, I'm just wondering if they'll be answered in the Sequel if it goes ahead, cause otherwise its a mess of a film with so many loose ends. Its worth seeing though but the 3d left me unimpressed.

I have one Question not sure if its been answered.

What was the deal with the Holograms of the Running SJ, was that some tech the Human Crew had or was it from the Alien ship like a replayed image for warning or something?

tok9 · 02-06-2012 03:39PM

tok9 wrote: »

Pretty much everything has been said but I don't think anyone has mentioned about the opening of the movie. Any opinions on
why the 'engineer' drank the black stuff?

It seems the opinion is that this is how we were created

which is something along the lines I was thinking.

Have I missed something, what are all these unanswered questions?

johnny_ultimate · 02-06-2012 03:40PM

tok9 wrote: »

Pretty much everything has been said but I don't think anyone has mentioned about the opening of the movie. Any opinions on
why the 'engineer' drank the black stuff?

To create whatever primordial cocktail is required to kick start life on Earth.

bullvine wrote: »

What was the deal with the Holograms of the Running SJ, was that some tech the Human Crew had or was it from the Alien ship like a replayed image for warning or something?

Some sort of Space Jockey surveillance system. Perhaps after realising the dangerousness of the WMD they had created.

However: what is far more important than either of those answers, is the more prevalent reason: because they look good.

BlitzKrieg · 02-06-2012 03:41PM

bullvine wrote: »

So many unanswered questions, I'm just wondering if they'll be answered in the Sequel if it goes ahead, cause otherwise its a mess of a film with so many loose ends. Its worth seeing though but the 3d left me unimpressed.

I have one Question not sure if its been answered.
What was the deal with the Holograms of the Running SJ, was that some tech the Human Crew had or was it from the Alien ship like a replayed image for warning or something?

I assumed It was a sort of a visual log the aliens had. David activates it both times by interacting with alien consoles

bullvine · 02-06-2012 03:59PM

OK, they could do a sequel and tidy up everything and then we might look back and think its a really good movie but theres still a lot of corny scenes in it. Like:

Vickers death was so lame, she should have made it to capsule and been killed by the Jockey but the worst part was when they woke the jockey up. Your waiting for some huge revelation, some blurb to tie eveything together but he basically he just kills everyone, its so corny, astonishingly corny. Not even a hint of what they are, or what they were up too

Somnus · 02-06-2012 04:28PM

bullvine wrote: »

the worst part was when they woke the jockey up. Your waiting for some huge revelation, some blurb to tie eveything together but he basically he just kills everyone, its so corny, astonishingly corny. Not even a hint of what they are, or what they were up too

You see it's funny, I thought that was much better than if

they had th jockey speaking to Weyland and co. To me, that would be pure cheesy. I much preferred what happened. These guys are a superior race who created humans (assuming that's what happened). Can't see them giving a **** about the small few humans that have discovered and woken him after whatever event killed them all.

pinksoir · 02-06-2012 04:32PM

bullvine wrote: »

OK, they could do a sequel and tidy up everything and then we might look back and think its a really good movie but theres still a lot of corny scenes in it. Like:
Vickers death was so lame, she should have made it to capsule and been killed by the Jockey but the worst part was when they woke the jockey up. Your waiting for some huge revelation, some blurb to tie eveything together but he basically he just kills everyone, its so corny, astonishingly corny. Not even a hint of what they are, or what they were up too

I really liked that, the more I think of it.

I was expecting the Jockey to be a decent skin, but he turns out to be a total douche. It would be more cliche if he had been a sort of caring, loving god type creature. There's so much more left to the imagination about the Jockeys' real nature with him acting how he did. Scott hints at this with his teaser for the next film being about Shaw making it to their home world and it "not being paradise". We have Asimov's Laws of Robotics. The Jockeys have no such safeguard. It seems that everything they create can turn nasty; the xenomorphs, and indeed us. So what does that say about them? Well, they could very well be a warlike race. We have no idea.

Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*

Comments

Prometheus SPOILERS FROM POST 1538