 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.255.78.50
In Reply to: RE: The Green vial and black goo posted by geoffkait on August 19, 2013 at 06:08:11
It contradicts your previous assertions, too.
Bottom line: there's no point in reading whatever you want into the details of how the black goo was packaged in the cannisters. What matters is the actual narrative and script; what is shown and said in the film to support one theory or another.
Given all that was said and shown in the film, all you can really say about the canisters and the substance(s) inside is that it's designed to wipe out populations. It follows that if the engineers are headed to Earth with a ship full of the canisters they wanted to wipe out mankind. Several of the characters in the film came to this conclusion; it is supported in the script and you have said nothing specific to the film that suggests the engineers had a different motive.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Follow Ups:
Have you never heard of an unreliable narrator? All of the characters in e movie were unreliable and came to the wrong conclusions., Prometheues, the movie, if nothing else, is a study in misdirection, red herrings and unreliable narration. And I have a sinking feeling you might have fallen for it hook, line and sinker, if you don't mind me saying so too much.
"it's what I choose to believe." Dr. Elizabeth Shaw
No, a film like The Prestige, in which everything is set up to have a logical explanation, has unreliable narrators.
A film like Prometheus is science fiction. There is no reason to give misdirection in the narrative.
You have yet to point to ANYTHING in the film that supports your ideas. Claiming that the entire film is set up to fool the viewer does not support your ideas.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
The crew of Prometheus was when you come down to it, bunch of social miscreants, pot heads, alcoholics and incompetents. Who, by the way had no idea what sort of mission they had even signed up for. They were expendable digmeat, just like the Engineers. So, go ahead, believe everything they say.
Geoff, the film explored faith vs empiricism on a variety of levels. Each of the crew represented one side or the other in that exploration. The scientists, Holloway, Fifield and the biologist, represented empiricism and lacked faith. Shaw, the captain and his co-pilots represented faith.
If you're going to ignore characters and dialog in the film and make up your own narrative, why even bother watching the movie?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
It's not about faith so much as it's about beliefs, religious and otherwise. In Prometheus, Elizabeth believes David, and Janek, the pilot of Prometheus, believes Elizabeth, unquestioning belief, you could say. And the crew believes Janek. But David has his own agenda and is not beholding to anyone, although he certainly can act subservient when it suits him. Like the movie, Chinatown, especially the Nicholson character Geddes, things are not what they appear in Prometheus. The old coot tells Geddes at the restaurant in Chinatown, "You may think you know what's going on but you don't." Chinatown was another movie that used eyes a lot as symbolic devices, as in you can't trust what you see. Geddes, of course, is a confident, but unreliable narrator. As did Blade Runner. A fleck in Faye Dunaway's eye, the eye of the fish, Faye Dunaway gets shot in the eye by the old coot, etc. In Prometheus, Holloway's eye has a tiny wriggling thing in it as he begins to mutate. The Deacon version of the Xenmorph at the very end of Prometheus has no eyes! You see what you want to see. Along those lines.
Jake Gittes (not Geddes) is a private detective who unravels a mystery. That film has no relevance to Prometheus. You are now going into stream-of-consciousness mode and grasping at straws.
The "tiny wriggling thing" in Holloway's eye is supposed to remind you of the wriggling things in the ground below the canisters, and the bigger wriggling thing that attacked the biologist (not in the eye). It's not supposed to remind you of Faye Dunaway.
Try to have more discipline in your thinking and watch the film again.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
I contend that Prometheus IS a whodunnit, like Chinatown. You know, as in who or what ekilled the Engineers? Why did the Sacrificial dude in the opening scene drink the black liquid? Why did David spike Holloway's drink and kill him? Why did the last Engineer go crazy and Kill some of the humans and rip David's head off and use it to kill Weyland with it? What was the real purpose of the Prometheus mission? If you don't consider Prometheus a mystery I suggest YOU should be the one to watch the movie again. Prometheus, if nothing else, is the epitome of a mystery. Why, it's almost like you must have watched a completely different movie.
Prometheus is also, like Chinatown, a classic case of misdirection, unreliable narration, and a movie that doesn't pamper the audience by explaining every goddamn little thing.
If you wish to find an example of science fiction film noir one need look no further than Blade Runner, uh, by Ridley Scott.
You've already said you think it has some relation to Chinatown. I already told you it doesn't. I don't want to have that conversation again.
> > Why did the last Engineer go crazy and Kill some of the humans and rip David's head off and use it to kill Weyland with it? < <
Because of the nature of technology and creation. It is "human nature" to become repulsed by one's own creation. The engineers clearly were repulsed by theirs, and when that creation itself began its own creations, technologically manifest as David, the engineer was driven to violence. I have already discussed this in previous threads on the forum.
> > What was the real purpose of the Prometheus mission? < <
Weyland already made it perfectly clear: he wanted to learn from the engineers how to prolong his life. This is not a mystery.
> > If you don't consider Prometheus a mystery I suggest YOU should be the one to watch the movie again. < <
I have watched it at least 10 times on blu-ray and once in the theater. How many times would you like me to watch it? How many times have you watched it?
> > Prometheus, if nothing else, is the epitome of a mystery. Why, it's almost like you must have watched a completely different movie. < <
Prometheus is a Greek myth about a titan. The film by Scott is a sci fi, not a mystery. You will find it designated as sci fi, not as a mystery. Sci fi provides a genre for storytellers to comment on the human condition. It's confusing and requires rather deep thought, so it may seem like a mystery to you indeed.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
You wrote,
"Weyland already made it perfectly clear: he wanted to learn from the engineers how to prolong his life. This is not a mystery."
How did Weyland know his spacecraft Prometheus would come in contact with Engineers on its voyage? How did Weyland know that the Enginees held the key to his longevity? Since it was the first voyage of Prometheus, Weyland would not have been able to make the trip previously. So, it's a big mystery.
> > How did Weyland know his spacecraft Prometheus would come in contact with Engineers on its voyage? < <
Because Shaw and Holloway convinced him that their theory was correct.
> > How did Weyland know that the Enginees held the key to his longevity? < <
Because Shaw and Holloway convinced him that their theory was correct.
> > Since it was the first voyage of Prometheus, Weyland would not have been able to make the trip previously. So, it's a big mystery. < <
It's not a mystery. Weyland appears before the entire crew as a holographic image very early in the film and explains all this. Did you miss it?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
It should be pointed out that Dr. Shaw's theories about the Engineers were wrong, which means Weyland's explanation to the crew at the beginning was also wrong.
As Dr, Elizabeth Shaw says to Weyland towards the end of the movie,
"But you don't understand. You don't know. This place isn't what we thought it was. They aren't what we thought they were. I was wrong. We were so wrong. Charlie, Dr. Holloway's dead. We must leave."
I still maintain, she was wrong about the intensions of the Last Engineer. I think Ridley uses the character of Dr. Shaw to show how beliefs can flip flop back and forth based on the latest evidence. But I don't think Dr. Shaw ever gets the entire truth, she only gets little bits of it.
You wrote,
"Because of the nature of technology and creation. It is "human nature" to become repulsed by one's own creation."
That makes no sense. Why would the Engineers be repulsed at their own creation? Do you think it's human nature for parents to be repulsed by their children? Besides, as I already pointed out, humans were not created by Engineers, they were created by the beings depicted during the opening scene - the sacrificial dude and the beings in the Mothership.
You wrote,
"The engineers clearly were repulsed by theirs, and when that creation itself began its own creations, technologically manifest as David, the engineer was driven to violence. I have already discussed this in previous threads on the forum."
David said something to the effect that everyone wants to kill his parents. So, it's more like the children revolt against their creators, not the other way around. And David was certainly planning to rebel against his creator, Weyland. If humans were revolting to their creators, their creators had plenty of opportunity to destroy them over the thousands and thousands of years of evolution.
I suspect the last Engineer, upon being awaked suddenly from a long sleep, reacted out of confusion more than anything else. I'm not sure he knew these were even humans in front of him. I think the evidence is that humans were a project, an ongoing project, and the Engineers were simply carrying out orders (given by the beings that were in the Mothership in the opening scene). But the orders were not to destroy Earth. Besides, we have seen Engineers were not the brightest bulbs in the galaxy, although they were well suited for dangerous assignments and long tedious assignments such as space travel.
> > That makes no sense. Why would the Engineers be repulsed at their own creation? < <
Because humankind had behaved rather badly. Also because as I said, it is in the nature of the human creator to become displeased with the creation.
> > Do you think it's human nature for parents to be repulsed by their children? < <
Weyland seemed repulsed by his daughter.
> > Besides, as I already pointed out, humans were not created by Engineers, they were created by the beings depicted during the opening scene - the sacrificial dude and the beings in the Mothership. < <
Ah yes, the "sacrificial dude" that looked exactly like an engineer.
> > David said something to the effect that everyone wants to kill his parents. So, it's more like the children revolt against their creators, not the other way around. And David was certainly planning to rebel against his creator, Weyland. If humans were revolting to their creators, their creators had plenty of opportunity to destroy them over the thousands and thousands of years of evolution. < <
Mankind had forgotten that engineers were the creators and they were not in the presence of engineers, so your argument that humans revolted against the engineers is illogical. And there is nothing in the film to suggest David was planning anything against Weyland. He loyally followed Weyland's instructions.
> > I suspect the last Engineer, upon being awaked suddenly from a long sleep, reacted out of confusion more than anything else. < <
No, he was careful to look at the humans and listen to what David was saying before lashing out in a very focused way.
> > I'm not sure he knew these were even humans in front of him. < <
Everyone else who saw the movie is sure.
> > I think the evidence is that humans were a project, an ongoing project, and the Engineers were simply carrying out orders (given by the beings that were in the Mothership in the opening scene). But the orders were not to destroy Earth. Besides, we have seen Engineers were not the brightest bulbs in the galaxy, although they were well suited for dangerous assignments and long tedious assignments such as space travel. < <
There is nothing in the film to support these ideas.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
The sacrificial dude looked somewhat like an Engineer except he didn't have all the exoskeleton stuff that may or may not have evolved over the next million years up to the time of Prometheus. For all we really know there were no Engineers at all until much later.
Here is another deleted scene. Try as I might I can't see any Engineers.
> > The sacrificial dude looked somewhat like an Engineer except he didn't have all the exoskeleton stuff that may or may not have evolved over the next million years up to the time of Prometheus. < <
HUH? The "exoskeleton" stuff was the engineers' suits and oxygen masks.
> > For all we really know there were no Engineers at all until much later. < <
That's certainly not what the movie showed. What the heck are you talking about and who is the "we" you refer to?
> > Here is another deleted scene. Try as I might I can't see any Engineers. < <
All the deleted scenes were on the blu-ray. I watched them all months ago and it's obvious why they were taken out. They're not very good and they add nothing to the film. And they don't support ANY of your ideas.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
The Engineers were advanced robots, not unlike the replicants of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. They were bio mechanical inventions of the super race that was hinted at in the opening scene by the Mothership. The reason the last Engneer reacted so violently was he was, like David, infuriated by anyone giving him orders. David waa also infuriated by being ordered around, but like Lawrence of Arabia and the burning match analogy early in Prometheus he was able to deal with it, "the trick is not minding that it hurts." What hurt was being ordered around by the (inferior) crew and even by Weyland. In Blade Runner it was the replicant Roy Blatty who killed his creator Tyrell (who, like Weyland, was the head of a big high tech corporation) after he explained to Roy the facts of life - that his life expectancy could not be altered - by gouging his eyes out. The eye thing again! Lol. In Prometheus it was similar, the last Engineer tore of the head of David, Weyland's creation, and used it to kill Weyland after David told the Engineer Weyland wanted more life.
> > The Engineers were advanced robots, not unlike the replicants of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. They were bio mechanical inventions of the super race that was hinted at in the opening scene by the Mothership. < <
Nothing in the film suggests or implies this.
> > The reason the last Engneer reacted so violently was he was, like David, infuriated by anyone giving him orders. < <
David didn't give him an order. He was politely introducing Weyland and expressing his wish that the engineer might impart their knowledge to extend his lifespan.
> > David waa also infuriated by being ordered around, but like Lawrence of Arabia and the burning match analogy early in Prometheus he was able to deal with it, "the trick is not minding that it hurts." < <
> > What hurt was being ordered around by the (inferior) crew and even by Weyland. < <
No, that is not what hurt. What hurt was his existence as a lesser being, and specifically a being not capable of having human feelings, biochemistry or to quote from the film "soul".
> > In Blade Runner it was the replicant Roy Blatty who killed his creator Tyrell (who, like Weyland, was the head of a big high tech corporation) after he explained to Roy the facts of life - that his life expectancy could not be altered - by gouging his eyes out. The eye thing again! Lol. In Prometheus it was similar, the last Engineer tore of the head of David, Weyland's creation, and used it to kill Weyland after David told the Engineer Weyland wanted more life. < <
There were far greater differences between the films and their characters than those you mention, and it would help you immensely to discuss Prometheus on its own terms instead of reading things into it based on unrelated movies.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
"Nothing in the film suggests or implies this."
That's the beauty of Prometheus, almost nothing is explained, it is simply presented. This is the whole point and whybtherecarevso many divergent opinions on what happened.
"No, that is not what hurt. What hurt was his existence as a lesser being, and specifically a being not capable of having human feelings, biochemistry or to quote from the film "soul"."
But, of course Davud did have human feelings, that was kind of the while point. He felt hurt by his father's rejection of him as well as the crew's dismissive attitude and treatment. Hw had no qualms about spiking Holloway's drink and possibly killing him because Holloway was perhaps the most dismissive.
"There were far greater differences between the films and their characters than those you mention, and it would help you immensely to discuss Prometheus on its own terms instead of reading things into it based on unrelated movies."
I'm afraid Ridley Scott's theme of robots is intentionally similar in Blade Runner and Prometheus, thus it makes sense to draw the parallels. One idea being the difficulty in distinguishing a replicant or robot from a real human. Take the Harrison Ford character, for example, or the Sean Young character. In fact, you coukd say the replicants and robots in both movies exhibited more emotions than the humans. Kuburck explored this theme in 2001 with HAL 9000 computer and in A.I. with the child robot with programmed emotions - David, who also returns to meet his "maker" (mother) - thanks to the advanced robots.
No, there is plenty of explanation to focus on. You don't just get to invent your own story if it's not supported by the film. How could David have human feelings; he's not human. Thus by definition, his feelings, whatever they may be, are not human. He doesn't have human anatomy. He was never a child. His psychological development is not human. You're project YOUR feelings onto him.
You're also projecting your understanding of Blade Runner where it doesn't belong. The engineers are not androids. Only one android was shown in the film: David. I'm not interested in discussing Blade Runner or 2001. David does not "return" anywhere. He is taken to an engineer ship at the end by Shaw, and will help her navigate to the engineers' planet.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
You wrote,
"How could David have human feelings? He's not human."
That's kind of a major theme in Prometheus - who's human, who's not human, how can you tell the difference? The Engineers had human DNA but didn't look human, you know, what with the dark, dead eyes and white blue skin. Was the character played by Charlize Theron, Weyland's daughter, a robot like David? It's difficult to be sure, but if she wasn't she certainly behaved like one.
As I intimated earlier, this is a BIG theme in Blade Runner - were the replicants as human than humans? How do you tell if an individual is a human or a replicant? With embedded memories put there by Tyrell even the replicants sometimes were not aware they weren't human. Cases in point - Rachel and Deckard. In A.I., by the end of the movie, humans had ceased to exist, and robots had learned to create increasingly advanced robots until they were super human. In fact, I don't think I'd be going out on limb too much by saying that Prometheus has more in common with Blade Runner than with Alien. The ideas that robots and computers can be made to think, learn and have human emotions are concepts that run through many science fiction movies.
> > "How could David have human feelings? He's not human." That's kind of a major theme in Prometheus - who's human, who's not human, how can you tell the difference? < <
No, that wasn't the theme. The theme was an exploration of the role of faith versus empiricism.
> > The Engineers had human DNA but didn't look human, you know, what with the dark, dead eyes and white blue skin. < <
No, humans had engineers' DNA. The engineers apparently came first. There is very little difference between, for example, human and other primate DNA, so it isn't that hard to suspend disbelief for this stuff. Also many human languages had origins in the engineers' language, in the film.
> > Was the character played by Charlize Theron, Weyland's daughter, a robot like David? It's difficult to be sure, but if she wasn't she certainly behaved like one. < <
It's not at all difficult to be sure if you paid attention to the movie. When the pilot asked her if she was a robot, that was a joke designed to get her to warm up and it worked.
> > As I intimated earlier, this is a BIG theme in Blade Runner - were the replicants as human than humans? How do you tell if an individual is a human or a replicant? With embedded memories put there by Tyrell even the replicants sometimes were not aware they weren't human. < <
That's nice but we're discussing Prometheus, not Blade Runner or Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep.
> > Cases in point - Rachel and Deckard. In A.I., by the end of the movie, humans had ceased to exist, and robots had learned to create increasingly advanced robots until they were super human. < <
Again, not relevant.
> > In fact, I don't think I'd be going out on limb too much by saying that Prometheus has more in common with Blade Runner than with Alien. < <
It has more in common with Alien in that Prometheus was an exploration of elements of human faith in the same way that Alien was an exploration of elements of human consciousness. You clearly had zero interest or understanding of the significant role of faith as juxtaposed from empiricism in the film. So you latched onto other things that largely aren't even in the film.
> > The ideas that robots and computers can be made to think, learn and have human emotions are concepts that run through many science fiction movies. < <
Yes, those are vehicles to explore very broad questions like, what makes us human? Prometheus looks at more specific questions about the role of faith, technology and creation.
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
> > In fact, I don't think I'd be going out on limb too much by saying that Prometheus has more in common with Blade Runner than with Alien. < <
"It has more in common with Alien in that Prometheus was an exploration of elements of human faith in the same way that Alien was an exploration of elements of human consciousness. You clearly had zero interest or understanding of the significant role of faith as juxtaposed from empiricism in the film. So you latched onto other things that largely aren't even in the film."
Alien was an exploration of elements of human consciousness? Really? I thought it was just a monster movie. Aren't you reading a little too much into it? Now if you wish to argue that Blade Runner was an exploration of what defines the human mind I'm on board.
> > The ideas that robots and computers can be made to think, learn and have human emotions are concepts that run through many science fiction movies. < <
"Yes, those are vehicles to explore very broad questions like, what makes us human? Prometheus looks at more specific questions about the role of faith, technology and creation."
I suspect the whole concept of humans having been created by aliens as opposed to the concept of Darwinian evolution or Adam and Eve is enough to turn the question of what constitutes being human on its head. I also think that in the context of Prometheus faith is used in the pejorative sense frequently. You know, as in blind faith. Weyland has faith in Dr. Shaw's belief that the cave paintings are an invitation and has faith that he can find immortality; otherwise he wouldn't have spent one trillion dollars on the mission. Janek, the Prometheus skipper, has faith in Dr. Shaw when she implores him to ram the ship into the Engineer's spaceship. And the rest of the crew has faith in Janek and Dr. Shaw. Do you see the irony? As an old boss of mine at NASA once told me, never get behind anyone 100%.
"It's what I choose to believe." - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
