07:24:18 PM Jul 9th 2013
Ok everybody, The latest releases, Did you prefer, Prometheus or Predators, I prefered Predators
01:47:51 PM Aug 18th 2013
Prometheus. Prometheus has it's problems (minor plot-holes and continuity errors, mostly), but it was new and different and managed to evoke a sense of hope and wonder in me. Predators was good, but not to the extent that Predator or Predator 2 was. It also failed to stimulate my intellect, engage my imagination, or evoke an emotional reaction. However it exceeds Prometheus (the theatrical version at least) in terms of plot coherency and especially in terms of continuity. In short Predators was quite good as a movie to watch with friends and just go along with where as Prometheus requires more of the viewer but can potentially give more too. In my opinion Predators is better then Aliens 3 or AVP but not as good as any of the other movies in the joint-francise. Please share the love and explain why you like Predators. :)
04:42:13 AM Apr 1st 2013
Thank god someone finally mentioned the idiot ball. This movie seems to employ every bad script writing and dumb character trope in the book. But it looked like the page would be penned by apologists for awhile at first.
09:05:27 AM Jun 23rd 2012
Am I the only one offended by the blatant disregard for Christianity that Ridley Scott demonstrated with this movie? It was offensive enough with the scientist taking things on faith, we could KINDA forgive that due to her upbringing, but then to have that "I still believe" thing she clings onto in the end...IT MAKES...NO...SENSE! And THEN...to have Scott come out and say...and say JESUS WAS A FREAKIN' ENGINEER... That is just OFFENSIVE. That is morally bankrupt. Does he think there was never ANY freakin' fighting or war until Religion came around? And it isn't like the Engineers are such bastions of moral purity, considering from what we know, they're making bio weapons that spawn from living individuals! I wanna punch this movie.
08:45:56 PM Jun 23rd 2012
Yes, it is pretty absurd that even after finding out humans' creator is definitely mortal, Dr. Shaw still wants to cling on to her faith at the end. She is a scientist is she not? If so, then she needs to act according to the evidence present, and the evidence clearly shows that the creation of human life is definitely not special or sacred, but probably one of many offsprings seeded by the Engineers.
06:06:13 AM Jun 24th 2012
And it doesn't even make sense on a SCIENTIFIC level. For starters, Ridley said that the opening scene "doesn't necessarily take place on Earth", but even then, really? 100% match to human DNA? 3.5 billion years ago, an ENGINEER melted himself on the planet Earth, seeding it with life. Supposedly. Then, 1.5 billion years after that, the first oxygen producing bacteria evolved from its cells. 500 million years after that, the first multicellular life. A billion years after that, the Cambrian explosion. 250 million years after that, the first mammals. 248 million years after that, African planes apes. A million years after that, modern preindustrial humans. Then they showed up again, after 3.5 billion years, and showed a bunch of tribes a constellation, where this gas giant's moon, LV-223, is, where they've been waiting for us to develop interstellar travel. And SOMEHOW...after 3.5 billion years of, I remind you, RANDOM EVOLUTION...we look almost exactly like them, which means that all life in the universe naturally converges on bipedal apes. Makes! No! Sense! You can't get a dog or a CAT from human DNA, can you?! And don't tell me Engineers produced all PLANT life either, or their bodies contained the genetic potential to make things like squids and stuff! And the Engineers barely LOOK human. They aren't just pale-skinned and have odd eyes, they're like fifteen freakin' feet tall with an odd facial structure. 100% match to humanity my big, fat, white butt. Stuff like this makes me want to reach for a Creationist tract, THAT sounds less stupid than the "alien astronauts" crap Ridley Scott's pushing down our throats.
05:01:36 PM Jul 3rd 2012
Actually if all plants and animals couldn't have evolved from the same ancestral cell than creationism is right and evolution is impossible.
02:08:20 PM Jul 5th 2012
Yeah, but there's no PROOF for creationism the same way there's proof for evolution. Evolution is completely, utterly random. It doesn't have a set "path". It functions on a simple idea: animals change, slowly, over time, in accordance to their surroundings in a way that allows them more time to have sex and thus make more animals! That's all it's about. Evolution doesn't have an "end result".
11:28:40 PM Jul 5th 2012
edited by PlatinumBeetle
edited by PlatinumBeetle
But in the movie there IS evidence for Theistic Evolution/Old Earth Creationism... for a certain value of "theistic" or "creationism". Besides even if you go by a strictly atheistic Darwinist perspective evolution itself is not random, mutations are what's random.
09:17:13 PM Jul 11th 2012
But that doesn't work EITHER, because there's NOTHING Judeo-Christian about these pale mother...I mean...do they even LOOK human? They're fifteen foot tall Kratos-esque muscular FREAKS with totally black eyes. Perfect match to human DNA my ass! And why would they believe that these creatures CREATED humans? All they know based on the cave markings is that this group of people interacted with other people throughout history and at different times and in different places! It could have been just a very advanced group of humans, or even simply VISITORS, not necessarily your creators! You gotta have more than sketchy paintings to point to for something as big as the origin of humanity! Another thing. After what happens to the two that go missing...what happens to the infected man...AND what happens to Elizabeth after she gives birth...she doesn't think to tell anyone "Hey, EVERYTHING that has to do with these things has screwed us over, we GOTTA pull the plug, or come back when we have, y'know, lots of weapons and soldiers and guards"? Why would they not bring backup of any kind just in case something went terribly wrong? And this is first contact. These aliens could have changed DRASTICALLY from when humans used to interact with them on an evidently more friendly level. It couldn't have HURT!
11:11:53 AM Jul 18th 2012
edited by PlatinumBeetle
edited by PlatinumBeetle
First of all please calm down, were just having a friendly conversation. There is no reason to use all-caps so much, it's like yelling. Secondly I think the engineers seem disturbingly Judeo-Christian in that they remind of me of the Nephilim ("giants") of the Bible and especially of theories that the Nephilim were Human-Angel hybrids. I totally agree with you that jumping from cave-paintings to creator is a plot hole. When that scene started I thought they were going to find the container for the slime that the first engineer drank - that would have proven that someone was here at the beginning of life (hopefully there is a deleted scene). As for the engineers matching human DNA perfectly I think what they were going for was that they share all the genetic markers for humanity (even two earth humans don't have DNA that matches perfectly, we just always share certain bits in common). I have to disagree with you that the engineers don't look human, they do, even today on earth we have people with vast differences in height, skin coloration, and facial features, especially once you consider so-called "freaks". Who's to say that a group of humans from another planet wouldn't be 15 ft. tall with pale grey skin?
02:55:53 PM Jul 18th 2012
Humans who grew up on another planet would not be a genetic match to Earthen humans. They would have developed so differently from us unless the environment was pretty much exactly the same as ours. That's another huge case of "This is not how biology works". Also, the Nephilim were, in case you forgot, bad guys. VERY bad guys. Horny, immoral people who's descendants were so foul and awful that God finally screamed out "Okay! F—k it! You're all gonna die in a flood!" Which is probably not the sort of people you want to base a supposedly noble engineering race of space aliens.
01:09:39 PM Jul 19th 2012
Humans couldn't live on a planet without an environment pretty much exactly the same as ours, so how would they develop differently if they're all dead? Human life could only start on a world capable of supporting human life, and that means some pretty narrow environmental parameters. Again I don't think what they mean't was that the engineer perfectly matched human DNA because that doesn't even make linguistical sense; perfectly matches which human's DNA? What they mean is that the head perfectly matched "human DNA"; an abstraction referring to the genes all human beings have in common.
01:33:36 PM Jul 22nd 2012
One other thing. The whole "Alien Creationism" thing makes Shaw look...well, stupid. In NO way does Jesus fit into any of it. Judeo-Christian ethics had nothing to do with any of this. They raise the specter of "religion fitting into/going against science" but don't DO anything with it. In fact, you'd think that she'd chuck the cross away at the end of the film. Nothing miraculous happened. Nothing occurred which strengthened or rewarded her faith in any way like in the Biblical story of Job, there was no "hand of God" intervention, NOTHING. It just makes Elizabeth look incredibly dumb and her faith hollow and useless. In short, I found it disgustingly insulting. NOTHING happens in this film which you could point to as even coming close to answering the science/religion debate, or to point to and say that "this is why she still believes". You can't do that!
04:46:32 AM Jul 29th 2012
Actually she said why she keeps the cross; "If they made us, than who made them?". I think the events of the movie did strengthen her faith but I would have to see the movie again to articulate why I think so. As for getting no reward for her faith at the end remember that this movie was made with the possibility of a sequel in mind, her story is not done yet - she may well get a reward in the end, perhaps even the answers she wants so much. I am a christian and I am not offended by this movie, I am inspired by it. To me this movie seems like the work of a man struggling with life's big questions - someone who's heart God is working on. Perhaps you would enjoy the movie more if you thought of it less as an attempt to solve the science/religion debate and more as a picture of one man struggling with it.
06:32:22 PM Jul 29th 2012
Struggling. But no answers are given. Just more questions. It doesn't even come close to giving answers. And it really hurts to have the whole stupid "Jesus as Space Engineer" thing because that makes it all even more ridiculously pretentious. This movie thinks that its so much smarter than it actually is. It's wasted potential, something I, as a fanboy at heart, hate above all. A bad movie can be bad for a lot of ways. A TERRIBLE movie is one that had a lot going for it and squandered it. Take the "we made you cuz we could" scene. THAT was subtle and brilliant. But it never goes anywhere. The film's just content to be an alien creature feature film that raises more questions than it answers. And judging by what the interviews about "Paradise" have revealed...Shaw's faith doesn't seem like its gonna get rewarded anytime soon.
03:21:48 PM Aug 23rd 2012
edited by PlatinumBeetle
edited by PlatinumBeetle
Okay, fair enough. I can certainly understand being upset with a piece of fiction for not living up to it's potential ... but what would be more frustrating in the long run, a story asking deep questions and not giving any definitive answers or asking deep questions and giving fully-canon but blatantly stupid answers? As for the whole "Jesus was an engineer" bit, that's not in the movie... at all. It is really just the writer's interpretation of his own work (i.e. "Word of God"). It's not actually canon and I personally don't think it's a reasonable conclusion from the movie's internal evidence. Feel free to disregard it, I certainly do! :) Now that I think about it, if Ridley Scott DID try to answer the deep questions he asks than he wouldn't be able to intelligently and would've just made the "Jesus was an engineer" thing canon. So this might also be a case of "choose your battles". Either let the mystery remain and the questions go unanswered or else get the writer's stupid and offensive answer forever etched in the Alien canon. Not a tough call in my opinion, Ridley's just not up to the task.
04:58:57 AM Apr 1st 2013
edited by thunderlippps
edited by thunderlippps
I wasn't offended by the blasphemy of the movie so much because it had so many problems that that was only one among many. What actually bothered me more regarding its alleged religious content were the pseudo intellectual diviners interpreting lindelofs farts saying that it was actually pandering to Christianity. Which just goes to show that higher education and "intellectualism" these days is as much about political agendas as knowing what your talking about.
11:47:44 AM Jun 18th 2012
Excuse me, but what happened to my review? Was it too offensive for other's taste?
12:04:03 PM Jun 18th 2012
Is it this review? It's showing up fine for me.
03:30:46 AM Jun 18th 2012
So um, why is the Engineer at the start being Prometheus counted as fridge logic? Surely that's really goddamn obvious?
09:51:12 AM Jun 19th 2012
Because "Prometheus" can be used as metaphor for just about everything in the film. The guy in opening is prometheus, but so is Weyland who "civilized" humanity (or rather advanced technology significantly) and is trying to steal "Fire" (immortality) from the "Gods" (the engineers) and is punished for it. The metaphor also applies to the engineer race as a whole: They steal fire from God by creating life (ala Frankenstein) and are punished for it (going extinct from the slime/xenomorphs). Plus there is something in the movie named Prometheus and the myth itself is never discussed so you can't blame people without much knowledge of ancient mythology for not knowing that the engineer from the opening is/could be "Prometheus" and just assuming it's named after the ship.
08:58:16 PM Jun 23rd 2012
Weyland definitely does not symbolize Prometheus. Prometheus was already someone who is above human, a Titan to be exact, yet wanted to to give humans equal footing with the Olympian gods. Weyland on the other hand, while no doubt contributed greatly to the technological advancements of humanity, is an egomaniac, willing to sacrifice a substantial amount of resources, not to mention other peoples' lives, just so he can prolong his life. But on the Engineer at the beginning in the film, yes, I think he represents Prometheus, because he is already a member of an superbly advanced species, and sacrificed himself so that life on Earth is able to flourish.
04:43:39 PM Jul 3rd 2012
Good point, but I'm not saying Weyland "is" or "symbolizes" Prometheus. I'm just saying that he seeks to "steal fire from the gods" and that he "civilized" humanity, and he definitely DID want to make humanity equal to the gods of old, I've read he even says that we already ARE (as of 2025) in his "Ted talks", although I've yet to see that myself.
09:18:37 AM Jun 16th 2012
Just for the sake of mentioning it, the art book of the film gives names to some of the creatures and tech. The Engineer ship is referred to as the Juggernaut, the proto-facehugger / squid baby thing as the Trilobite and the proto Alien as the Deacon. Theme naming anyone?
09:54:53 AM Jun 19th 2012
What theme are you talking about? Those names seem completely unrelated to me. Please explain, I don't get it. (unless it's a Shout Out to something I don't know enough about, is it an X-Men reference?)
03:13:43 AM Jun 22nd 2012
Okay, fair point. Maybe I should have said Meaningful Name. I just mean that they seem quite deliberate, especially calling the proto-alien the Deacon. I was wondering if anyone else knew if those names had any particular resonance or alternate meaning in context to the film.
01:24:43 PM Jul 19th 2012
I have a related question; why is the uh, "Prothalien" called The Deacon? The art book says it is because the head looks like a "deacon's hat", but does any church have deacon uniforms with hats? What denomination are we talking about? I'm only familiar with Roman Catholic and Baptist church practices and beliefs, I've never heard of catholic deacons and baptists don't believe in liturgy so if someone could explain I'd be grateful (if I had to guess I'd say they're talking about mainline protestant groups).
10:39:20 AM Jun 12th 2012
Was Jesus an Engineer? Early humans were clearly being watched over by their makers, whom they worshiped as gods. This is in keeping with the Prometheus myth, the Titan who both created and civilized mankind. So the Engineers were living among us. But roughly 2,000 years ago, at least one faction of the Engineers decided to destroy humanity. What if they decided to do this because their "children" had rebelled and killed one of their divine parents? Now obviously, Jesus is never described as a pale, black-eyed giant. But then again, the Gospels make it clear that, unlike the definitely not human Prometheus, Jesus was both a god and a man; perhaps by this point the Engineers were surgically or genetically modifying their appearance so that they could blend in with humanity.
05:04:20 PM Jun 12th 2012
Nice try but it doesn't really fit in with either the movie or gospels. In the movie the entire tone is against it; the engineers don't look like they're seeking worship or trying to portray themselves as "gods" (although some humans definitely see them as such), nor is the movie's opening even remotely reminiscent of Genesis, and than there is the semi-religious protagonist who clearly thinks that if God exists he is way above the engineers. As far as the gospels go Jesus talks about his Father, not "Fathers", and claims to be God and to have existed over a thousand years prior to his own birth ("Before Abraham was I AM.") Also the engineers don't seem to have any way of bringing back the dead (ironic given the level of their bio-tech, but than they don't seem to mind dying as much as us.) or of performing miracles like multiplying fish, walking on water, or healing the sick instantly from miles away (all without the aid of visible technology). Plus Jesus implies or outright states several times that him dying was the will of his Father, so if the engineers are supposed to be responsible for Jesus, than why would they be upset? If you want Jesus of Nazareth to be some kind of alien than you need aliens that are way more Sufficiently Advanced (and possibly Lying Liars Who Lie). Or you could try and go the Dan Brown method and say it was all made up in 300 CE, but than you have nothing for the engineers to explain away. On the bright side you are one of the few people who seems to have noticed that he death of Jesus and the deaths of the engineers happened around the same time. And at least you're trying to explain the engineers behavior and tie together the film's various themes, but I still think their isn't supposed to be a definite answer in this movie and that it, like the story it portrays, is supposed to be more about the search for meaning than it's discovery.
02:25:01 AM Jun 9th 2012
Am I the only one who noticed the existentialist themes? or that the title "Prometheus" can be metaphorically applied to many things in the movie? or the entire spiritual subtext? Right now none of these things are really discussed on these pages. (and I checked everywhere but the WMG page) "...but that is what I choose to believe."
01:30:42 PM Jun 9th 2012
I was more talking about recurring themes and motifs throughout the the film than anything about Elizabeth Shaw specifically, if that's what you're talking about. But you have my curiosity; when you said "I saw it more as a sign of her being a poor scientist." the "her" you're talking about is clearly Shaw, but what exactly do you mean by "it"?
01:41:24 PM Jun 9th 2012
Are you referring to that point where the guy clearly asks her if there's any proof of these aliens creating humans?
07:58:36 PM Jun 9th 2012
No. I'm talking about the entire movie. 1.Existentialist themes The two scenes where characters say that they don't really know "...but that is what I choose to believe." The talk between Holloway and David, right before David infects Holloway, when this exchange occurs: "Why do you think they created us?" "Why did your people create me?"
- laughs* "Because we can."
08:12:34 PM Jun 9th 2012
The above post looked way better on my computer's writing program, in terms of format, so please don't hold that against my actual point. This is one of my first posts and I think I need to go play in sandbox...
08:16:39 PM Jun 9th 2012
Upon reflection I think the reason these things aren't being talked about yet is because everyone is Distracted By The Sexy... in the form of Scenery and Continuity Porn. I love tropes.
11:53:28 PM Jun 9th 2012
But that makes no sense! She got absolute proof that Humans were created by the Engineers, proving every single religion is in fact false! And yet she still believes?! This isn't inspiring, it's just plain stupid! This movie comes off like it's trying to give this interesting message on faith, when it seriously doesn't work within the context of how the movie is portrayed.
02:28:26 PM Jun 10th 2012
edited by 184.108.40.206
edited by 220.127.116.11
But as she points out, they know the engineers created life on earth but that does not explain the origin of life itself. If the engineers made us than who made them? If the engineers prove that all religions are wrong (it wouldn't by the way it, it would only even effect abrahamic religions and even there it would only disprove young earth creationism, which while significant is probably not enough (in and of itself) to logically undermine christianity as a whole. But for the sake of argument, let's say it does.) than it disproves evolutionary theory even more, and without God we are left with an infinite regress (we created androids, the engineers created us, someone created them, ad infinitum). Thus we are left in an existential void where we must decide what we believe in the absence of reason. Actually since the engineers could definitely be considered human and us their descendants, the plot of this film would solve most of the scriptural problems with theistic evolution (animals dying before the fall of man, the bible saying the universe was created in 6 days and in a different order than in evolutionary theory, etc.) and even the traditional creationist mysteries of why the animals are punished for our sinfulness and why their were giants; God created everything in 6 days but than humanity decides to spread life throughout the universe. Because humans are not God they can't create something from nothing, so instead they make life from themselves. Since humanity had already been scarred by sin the animals spawned from our blood inherit our curse and the new (smaller) branch of humanity eventually emerges and forgets it's past. So the engineers drop by to explain that we actually come from the heavens and point us in the direction of their bio-lab, unfortunately by the time we get there our "ancestors" have decided that fathering us was a mistake. :( It certainly was't Riddley Scott's intention but by having the engineers be human and create us from their own flesh (unlike most precursors, who create from inanimate matter) this plot can technically be harmonized with both a literalist interpretation of the bible to a large extent AND the mainstream scientific interpretation of the fossil record. Weird… but cool.
02:41:11 PM Jun 11th 2012
edited by 18.104.22.168
edited by 22.214.171.124
In the above post, the second part is pretty much my brain wandering off and over-thinking the implications of the plot. I tend to think about works of fiction as if they were infinitely complex and internally consistent settings, only thinking of them as a story when the creators destroy my willing suspension of disbelief. So while my thoughts on the engineers implications for abrahamic theology are partially valid (and are probably the conclusion some religious people in-universe would come to if the Weyland company made the knowledge public, which they won't), they are too far removed from the contents of the actual story to belong in this discussion. Sorry about that. Also does anyone else find themselves being more pedantic when they writes? or is it just some weird tic I have?
10:18:08 PM Jun 12th 2012
To the guy who said the "bad scientist" thing, I'm not saying that's wrong, but her faith is probably not the main reason she is a "bad" scientist. Your comment reminded me of this quote: "A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back."
08:58:52 AM Jun 14th 2012
Why would anyone think she is a bad scientist? She was right after all. Aliens DID start life on earth and they DID leave mankind a message, the only things she didn't see coming were the engineers being essentially human and that they now want to END life on earth. (If she were a Troper she would've seen Abusive Precursers coming, also why isn't there a "Human Precursers" Trope? It sure happens a lot...)
10:10:18 PM Jun 14th 2012
Im saying she's a bad scientist because she relies on faith and belief instead of studied, scientific fact. There's nothing good or pure about an alien race creating humans, it's no different then a lab experiment: you don't treat a chemical reaction like it's a miracle of god.
04:20:02 AM Jun 15th 2012
Except that the opening scene where an engineer starts life by his death looks nothing like an experiment and looks ALOT like some kind of religious ritual. (you even have an overly-decorative container for the slime!) Whatever the engineers are doing it's definitely not an experiment, that would make THEM bad scientists. (Engineer 1:"Hey, I have an idea, let's start life on a bunch of planets by killing ourselves and than wait millions of years to see what happens." Engineer 2: "Instead of just running simulations on computers? Why?" Engineer 1: "Shut up, that why!") What kind of experiment would this be exactly, I mean what sort of theory would you be testing? No, no, whatever's going on is ideologically, not scientifically, motivated. As for Shaw, she found that planet by following the evidence. We only see her actually working for maybe one scene, in-between years of research. There's no way to know how good or bad a scientist she is without seeing her do some, you know… science. Yes, she has a vested emotional interest in wether her theory turns out to be right or wrong, but every scientist does. Don't let anybody kid you, scientists are just people, even when they're doing science.