 
|
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 |
108.81.116.219
In Reply to: RE: It directly addresses the root questions: why and how us? posted by free.ranger on August 01, 2014 at 07:02:56
The opening sequence answers the original question but the development of the creatures to devour us goes unanswered. Why not just poison the planet or sic special germs to kill off humans?
Follow Ups:
meant for earth--- and other places?
The green vial that David retrieved from the Temple actually contained a liquid that is not black goo. That is the liquid David used to spike Hollaway's drink, no?
...
Shaw says as much.
...and read the analysis.
But my impression was after creating human life they sent back one of their own (Christ) who we killed.
The "alien" creatures were to be their revenge.
fixation and religious fervor might have a deeper context...
> Scott has said there were sequences in the film that were going to explain why we’d angered the “gods” known as the Engineers. In one instance, it was going to be posited that Jesus was an emissary of the Engineers, sent to see how we were doing. And what did we do? We crucified him.>
This is the first analysis that came up when I Googled the film.
I've read the same theory in others as well.
The fact remains that nothing in the movie supports that. It takes place during Xmas, and the Xmas tree and crucifix are important symbols. But by all accounts in the film, the engineers were huge, hulking aliens. So I don't see anything there to support the idea that Jesus was an engineer.
...these are exerpts from my favorite analysis of the film:> Yeah. The reason the Engineers don't like us any more is that they made us a Space Jesus, and we broke him. Reader, that's not me pulling wild ideas out of my arse. That's RIDLEY SCOTT.
So, imagine poor crucified Jesus, a fresh spear wound in his side. Oh, hey, there's the 'lifegiver with his abdomen torn open' motif again. That's three times now: Prometheus, Engineer mural, Jesus Christ. And I don't think I have to mention the 'sacrifice in the interest of giving life' bit again, do I? Everyone on the same page? Good.>
> The 'Caesarean' scene is central to the film's themes of creation, sacrifice, and giving life. Shaw has discovered she's pregnant with something non-human and sets the autodoc to slice it out of her. She lies there screaming, a gaping wound in her stomach, while her tentacled alien child thrashes and squeals in the clamp above her and OH HEY IT'S THE LIFEGIVER WITH HER ABDOMEN TORN OPEN. How many times has that image come up now? Four, I make it. (We're not done yet.)
And she doesn't kill it. And she calls the procedure a 'caesarean' instead of an 'abortion'.>
> Here's where the Christian allegories really come through. The day of this strange birth just happens to be Christmas Day. And this is a 'virgin birth' of sorts, although a dark and twisted one, because Shaw couldn't possibly be pregnant. And Shaw's the crucifix-wearing Christian of the crew. We may well ask, echoing Yeats: what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards LV-223 to be born?
Consider the scene where David tells Shaw that she's pregnant, and tell me that's not a riff on the Annunciation. The calm, graciously angelic android delivering the news, the pious mother who insists she can't possibly be pregnant, the wry declaration that it's no ordinary child... yeah, we've seen this before.
'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.'
A barren woman called Elizabeth, made pregnant by 'God'? Subtle, Ridley.>
You see what you want to see...
Edits: 08/03/14 08/03/14
I agree with some of that, especially the significance of the abortion scene, which most certainly WAS in the movie. The space Jesus WAS NOT in the movie, and the idea that engineers living millions of light years away would have been upset about the crucifixion of a single man (the Romans crucified about 10,000 people and murdered a million in their conquest of Judea. Moreover, every life form shows cruelty, it's not just humans.
My interpretation of why the engineers turned against humanity is that humans were developing the ability to harness technology in ways that reminded the engineers of their own shorcomings, and were using technology in harmful ways. This is paid off by the large role David played in the film, and the hostility of the surviving engineer. The way that scene unfolded was very significant, when confronted by David and Weyland, the engineer yanked off David's head and used it to strike Weyland as if the intent was to punish humanity for its own technological attempt to create life.
...they would only be concerned about that single Man if they had put Him here.
That interpretation takes into consideration things Ridley Scott has said about the film.
Interpret the film any way you want.
You mean things Ridley Scott supposedly told a journalist, who supposedly wrote an article, which was supposedly read by someone who posts on a blog that you supposedly like. As wonderful as all that is, no mention--not even a small hint--was made in the movie of an "engineer Jesus" that the engineers might have put in Bethlehem. If you want to talk about the movie, you'll have to admit that it just doesn't support that idea.
Edits: 08/03/14
meaningful. A person looking for a thread will find thousands of them. Whether or not they are meaningful is a question for common sense. Would Scott make a gigantic Christian allegory film? I doubt it.
(nt)
...with you it's always a zero sum game.
You have to be right and everyone else is wrong.
Get over yourself.
As I said, interpret it however you want.
nt
Nt
Biotechnology can be used to create life or to destroy life. This was symbolized by the black goo having such a range of outcomes in the film, but it was ultimately a bioweapon that was impossible to control, and the engineers intended to bring it back to Earth to destroy humanity. The point of the movie is that technology and science, in relying purely on empiricism, lack a moral compass and that faith is the only way to guide it...as Einstein said, "science without religion is lame."
I think if you're looking for a biological explanation of exactly what the black goo does, you're going to be disappointed.
There is no proof that the engineers were planning to go to Earth and destroy it, just speculation by Dr. Shaw and others. "It's what I choose to believe," was Shaw's big line in the movie. That's strictly the anti scientific method. Lol
There was only one example of each of those, and they are open to interpretation. In other words, each equation is supported by a single data point, which isn't sufficient info to come to a conclusion. The broader message is that the black goo and whatever life-forms it spawns has very broad, unpredictable effects that seem to vary from person to person and situation to situation. If you recall, small worms were observed on the floor of the room with the mural and canisters. When exposed to the overflowing goo, the worms apparently turned into at least one snake-like creature that quickly killed the scientists Fifield and Milburn, who were a pair of morons.One possible interpretation of the data points is that the black goo effects people based on their condition, mood and mindset and is therefore a very complex substance that, like a living organism, has its properties subject to highly variable "expression" similar to how organisms show different gene expression during different stages in their development and lifecycle.
There is proof that the engineers were headed back to earth with a ship packed to the gills with the black goo canisters. This was not Shaw's idea, it was originally David's idea which he explained to Shaw. Also Janek (the captain) came to this same conclusion and was so convinced of it he decided to give up his life to stop the one remaining engineer. How quote of Shaw as saying "It's what I choose to believe" is totally unrelated to this issue. The quote was actually from something her father said in a dream at the beginning of the movie, and Shaw indeed repeated it later in the movie. But it's not impressive to use the quote to try to argue against the evidence that the engineers were headed to earth to destroy humanity. The evidence includes the flight plan of the ship that David uncovers, the fact that the ship is stocked to the gills with black goo, the hostility of the one surviving engineer against humans and his priority to take off in his ship and complete his mission. Certainly there is no evidence the ship stocked with black goo is headed anywhere else, other than Earth.
Edits: 08/03/14 08/03/14
I still maintain that we do not actually know what the last Engineer's mission is, the info that David sees in the hologram is that the Spacecraft is probably headed to Earth, but in no way indicates the mission. The black goo on board doesn't really prove what the mission is either, as the poster I posted earlier indicates (and as demonstrated in the opening scene of the movie) the black goo does have a good purpose (creating intelligent humans). The fact that the black goo also has very bad consequences in certain situations is more of a coincidence or accident. Even the Engineers found out the hard way. The human DNA was determined to be nearly identical to the DNA of the Engineers.
Edits: 08/03/14
Well, given that the entire film was a slow realization that the black goo was some sort of bioweapon and that the last remaining engineer was headed back to earth with a ship stocked with it, that the captain of Prometheus gave up his life to prevent that engineer's mission, and that Shaw and David zoomed off at the end to figure out why the engineers wanted to destroy humanity, I don't think any sequel will stray from that narrative. It was in essence the subject of the film and no another explanation was given.
As I already posted on this thread all of the crew of Prometheus are unreliable so you can't trust their observation or conclusions. As Dr. Shaw says near the end, we were so wrong. We were wrong about what this place is. Something along those lines. The point is, I have a the pilot Janek probably believed Dr. Shaw too implicitly and acted too quickly as did his crew and most likely ran his ship into the alien spacecraft. In other words, the entire movie is an exercise in red herrings and false leads and unreliable narrators. Everyone in the film has part of the truth in Prometheus but no one has ALL the facts.
Shaw says "we were wrong" to clue Weyland into the fact that the engineers should no longer be thought of as creators (as she had pitched the expedition to him) but as destroyers. Weyland took the trip to learn from the engineers so he could extend his life. Shaw was just trying to tell him that the surviving engineer would not be receptive to that kind of conversation, and she was right. The film shows David and Shaw were right, and they were the sole survivors so I see no reason to doubt them or to take Shaw's quotes so far out of context.
"You have to destroy before you can create." The black goo might have been for the purpose of producing an evolutionary kick start. Just as it was in the beginning of the movie. Recall all of the other Engineers had died 2,000 years ago in the accident with the black goo, so the lone surviving Engineer - who had been asleep the entire 2,000 years - would have no way to know the people he met when rudely awakened were even humans. It's also not quite clear in the movie where Engineers fit into the grand scheme of things - are they simply technical weenies doing the grunt work for their superiors? Are they the super race? It's not exactly clear. At the end of the movie I gathered that Shaw and David were off to see the wizard, as it were, to get to the bottom of who made whom.
d
Nt
Nt
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 ]
