PROMETHEUS UNMARKED SPOILER THREAD!

Status
Not open for further replies.
lednerg said:
When she got into the medibot for her surgery, wasn't she just in the process of being hunted down by two crew members? Where did they go off to?
Click to expand...


haha, didnt think of that flaw.

I am actually going to buy this Blu-ray.

I need to see it again, and again, and again to get the full appreciation of plotholes and goofs.

It really is an amazing film.
 
maharg said:
All this is true of 2001 as well, and that's considered a classic. Want the answers? Read the books. Otherwise, figure it out on your damn own. I'm not saying this was a classic (it wasn't), but I don't think "it makes you come to your own conclusions" is even remotely why it fails to be.
Click to expand...

No its not why it fails to be a classic but its one of many things.
 
Ether_Snake said:
Scott said the head statue is an homage to themselves, their awesomeness. That room is a tomb, with an altar (this is where one would make an offering), and murals, with ceremonially-placed vials of black goo. Scott said the engineers are fallen-angels. It's not surprising that fallen-angels would make a self-praising temple. And the altar, like Scott said the engineers' self-sacrifice sort of remind us of incans sacrificing one of theirs to improve their condition, is a self-sacrificial altar. It's basically a room where an engineer would sacrifice himself on the altar, to provide the building material to create the Xenomorphs.

The mural in front/above the altar, shows, if you look at it from bottom to top: the altar in front of it, where the sacrifice takes place, then on the mural are face-hugged humanoids in the corners, above them a xenomorph with arms spread out as if being lifted in a godly-fashion, and above him a queen-like Xenomorph.

So it shows, from the bottom (altar) to the top of the mural; the process of creation of the Xenomorph race.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry i ever asked
 
Ether_Snake said:
Yes they come in the room in a hurry and their leader quickly points to the beds, and while they go down he goes in the chair to send his communication.

You are saying they put in the commands to leave, then cancelled, everyone got out of bed and went back in the infected part except one of them and they all died, except one of them never got out and stayed in bed?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not? He's in cryo and he has no idea his crew are dead. They never left. Whatever killed the crew never got to him.

That's just as allowable of theory as any, right?
 
we.are.the.armada said:
Sure, why not? He's in cryo and he has no idea his crew are dead. They never left. Whatever killed the crew never got to him.

That's just as allowable of theory as any, right?
Click to expand...

They come in running the room, why, if it wasn't after knowing about the infection/outbreak?

And if they couldn't leave after putting in the commands or whatever, why was it so easy for him to leave at the end of the movie?
 
Zombie James said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0

I love RLM.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I would hate a Plinkitt review because his Star Trek stuff is so detailed and nit picky whereas Red Letter Media reviews are quite laid back and sympathetic. Yet this edit gives me the feeling it was a "spot the plot hole" fest in the Plinkitt vein.


Personally, the movie had a great first third with lonely David in space but yes, it's as lazy as any budget horror. I've known Denny's cooks who have a greater concern for cross contamination that the so called scientists. I don't they they could be licensed at dentists given their total lack of research procedure and sterility. And they are supposed to be fucking archaeologists! But once I stopped laughing at how they were simply destructive instead of inquisitive I enjoyed the themes, the technology showcase and the action.

Why was Charlize the daughter? Because thye had a built in creator and creations theme.

Noomi/Weyland and the Egineers
Fassbender and Weyland
Charlize and Weyland


But seriously, did Charlize say "I didn't travel half a billion miles for . . . "? 500,000 miles wouldn't get you to Jupiter.
 
For the whole movie David shows resentment at humanity's treatment of him.

Then at the very end when Shaw wants to go to the Engineer home world.

David: "Why would you want to do that?"

Shaw: "To ask my creators why they are displeased with us."

David: "I don't get it..."

Wat?
 
mac said:
Hmmm. I would hate a Plinkitt review because his Star Trek stuff is so detailed and nit picky whereas Red Letter Media reviews are quite laid back and sympathetic. Yet this edit gives me the feeling it was a "spot the plot hole" fest in the Plinkitt vein.
Click to expand...

The clip that was posted isn't actually part of the Half in the Bag review for Prometheus, it's just a promo thing. They actually liked the movie ... sort of. It was definitely a mixed reaction but they had a fair amount of good to say. It was in the same style as the other Half in the Bag reviews too; they had criticisms but I didn't find them to be nitpicky.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-prometheus/
 
RagnarokX said:
For the whole movie David shows resentment at humanity's treatment of him.
Then at the very end when Shaw wants to go to the Engineer home world.
David: "Why would you want to do that?"
Shaw: "To ask my creators why they are displeased with us."
David: "I don't get it..."
Wat?
Click to expand...
"Maybe that's because you're a robot."
I understand that you'd be a tiny bit pissed at him by now, Shaw, but that retort makes no sense.
Then again, David made no sense either in the first place, so I guess that's okay. Probably.
 
Jacob said:
The clip that was posted isn't actually part of the Half in the Bag review for Prometheus, it's just a promo thing. They actually liked the movie ... sort of. It was definitely a mixed reaction but they had a fair amount of good to say. It was in the same style as the other Half in the Bag reviews too; they had criticisms but I didn't find them to be nitpicky.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-prometheus/
Click to expand...


Ok, thanks. I do like how RLM reviews are more honest than most other internet sources, they don't try to come off as "intelligent" or "educated" like many reviewers can. It's got a nice blue collar philosophy vibe.
 
I just realized that both Mass Effect 3 and Prometheus came out this year, and both make my fucking head and heart hurt while thinking about them.

Pretty shitty year for me getting excited for stuff.
 
Has this been posted yet?

Prometheus contains such a huge amount of mythic resonance that it effectively obscures a more conventional plot. I'd like to draw your attention to the use of motifs and callbacks in the film that not only enrich it, but offer possible hints as to what was going on in otherwise confusing scenes.

Let's begin with the eponymous titan himself, Prometheus. He was a wise and benevolent entity who created mankind in the first place, forming the first humans from clay. The Gods were more or less okay with that, until Prometheus gave them fire. This was a big no-no, as fire was supposed to be the exclusive property of the Gods. As punishment, Prometheus was chained to a rock and condemned to have his liver ripped out and eaten every day by an eagle. (His liver magically grew back, in case you were wondering.)

Fix that image in your mind, please: the giver of life, with his abdomen torn open. We'll be coming back to it many times in the course of this article.

The ethos of the titan Prometheus is one of willing and necessary sacrifice for life's sake. That's a pattern we see replicated throughout the ancient world. J G Frazer wrote his lengthy anthropological study, The Golden Bough, around the idea of the Dying God - a lifegiver who voluntarily dies for the sake of the people. It was incumbent upon the King to die at the right and proper time, because that was what heaven demanded, and fertility would not ensue if he did not do his royal duty of dying.

Now, consider the opening sequence of Prometheus. We fly over a spectacular vista, which may or may not be primordial Earth. According to Ridley Scott, it doesn't matter. A lone Engineer at the top of a waterfall goes through a strange ritual, drinking from a cup of black goo that causes his body to disintegrate into the building blocks of life. We see the fragments of his body falling into the river, twirling and spiralling into DNA helices.

Ridley Scott has this to say about the scene: '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.'

Can we find a God in human history who creates plant life through his own death, and who is associated with a river? It's not difficult to find several, but the most obvious candidate is Osiris, the epitome of all the Frazerian 'Dying Gods'.

And we wouldn't be amiss in seeing the first of the movie's many Christian allegories in this scene, either. The Engineer removes his cloak before the ceremony, and hesitates before drinking the cupful of genetic solvent; he may well have been thinking 'If it be Thy will, let this cup pass from me.'

So, we know something about the Engineers, a founding principle laid down in the very first scene: acceptance of death, up to and including self-sacrifice, is right and proper in the creation of life. Prometheus, Osiris, John Barleycorn, and of course the Jesus of Christianity are all supposed to embody this same principle. It is held up as one of the most enduring human concepts of what it means to be 'good'.

Seen in this light, the perplexing obscurity of the rest of the film yields to an examination of the interwoven themes of sacrifice, creation, and preservation of life. We also discover, through hints, exactly what the nature of the clash between the Engineers and humanity entailed.

The crew of the Prometheus discover an ancient chamber, presided over by a brooding solemn face, in which urns of the same black substance are kept. A mural on the wall presents an image which, if you did as I asked earlier on, you will recognise instantly: the lifegiver with his abdomen torn open. Go and look at it here to refresh your memory. Note the serenity on the Engineer's face here.

And there's another mural there, one which shows a familiar xenomorph-like figure. This is the Destroyer who mirrors the Creator, I think - the avatar of supremely selfish life, devouring and destroying others purely to preserve itself. As Ash puts it: 'a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.'

Through Shaw and Holloway's investigations, we learn that the Engineers not only created human life, they supervised our development. (How else are we to explain the numerous images of Engineers in primitive art, complete with star diagram showing us the way to find them?) We have to assume, then, that for a good few hundred thousand years, they were pretty happy with us. They could have destroyed us at any time, but instead, they effectively invited us over; the big pointy finger seems to be saying 'Hey, guys, when you're grown up enough to develop space travel, come see us.' Until something changed, something which not only messed up our relationship with them but caused their installation on LV-223 to be almost entirely wiped out.

From the Engineers' perspective, so long as humans retained that notion of self-sacrifice as central, we weren't entirely beyond redemption. But we went and screwed it all up, and the film hints at when, if not why: the Engineers at the base died two thousand years ago. That suggests that the event that turned them against us and led to the huge piles of dead Engineers lying about was one and the same event. We did something very, very bad, and somehow the consequences of that dreadful act accompanied the Engineers back to LV-223 and massacred them.

If you have uneasy suspicions about what 'a bad thing approximately 2,000 years ago' might be, then let me reassure you that you are right. An astonishing excerpt from the Movies.com interview with Ridley Scott:

Movies.com: 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?

Ridley Scott: 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, "Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it." Guess what? They crucified him.

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.

So how did our (in the context of the film) terrible murderous act of crucifixion end up wiping out all but one of the Engineers back on LV-223? Presumably through the black slime, which evidently models its behaviour on the user's mental state. Create unselfishly, accepting self-destruction as the cost, and the black stuff engenders fertile life. But expose the potent black slimy stuff to the thoughts and emotions of flawed humanity, and 'the sleep of reason produces monsters'. We never see the threat that the Engineers were fleeing from, we never see them killed other than accidentally (decapitation by door), and we see no remaining trace of whatever killed them. Either it left a long time ago, or it reverted to inert black slime, waiting for a human mind to reactivate it.

The black slime reacts to the nature and intent of the being that wields it, and the humans in the film didn't even know that they WERE wielding it. That's why it remained completely inert in David's presence, and why he needed a human proxy in order to use the stuff to create anything. The black goo could read no emotion or intent from him, because he was an android.

Shaw's comment when the urn chamber is entered - 'we've changed the atmosphere in the room' - is deceptively informative. The psychic atmosphere has changed, because humans - tainted, Space Jesus-killing humans - are present. The slime begins to engender new life, drawing not from a self-sacrificing Engineer but from human hunger for knowledge, for more life, for more everything. Little wonder, then, that it takes serpent-like form. The symbolism of a corrupting serpent, turning men into beasts, is pretty unmistakeable.

Refusal to accept death is anathema to the Engineers. Right from the first scene, we learned their code of willing self-sacrifice in accord with a greater purpose. When the severed Engineer head is temporarily brought back to life, its expression registers horror and disgust. Cinemagoers are confused when the head explodes, because it's not clear why it should have done so. Perhaps the Engineer wanted to die again, to undo the tainted human agenda of new life without sacrifice.

But some humans do act in ways the Engineers might have grudgingly admired. Take Holloway, Shaw's lover, who impregnates her barren womb with his black slime riddled semen before realising he is being transformed into something Other. Unlike the hapless geologist and botanist left behind in the chamber, who only want to stay alive, Holloway willingly embraces death. He all but invites Meredith Vickers to kill him, and it's surely significant that she does so using fire, the other gift Prometheus gave to man besides his life.

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'.

(I'm not even going to begin to explore the pro-choice versus forced birth implications of that scene. I don't think they're clear, and I'm not entirely comfortable doing so. Let's just say that her unwanted offspring turning out to be her salvation is possibly problematic from a feminist standpoint and leave it there for now.)

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.

Anyway. If it weren't already clear enough that the central theme of the film is 'I suffer and die so that others may live' versus 'you suffer and die so that I may live' writ extremely large, Meredith Vickers helpfully spells it out:

'A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable.'

Vickers is not just speaking out of personal frustration here, though that's obviously one level of it. She wants her father out of the way, so she can finally come in to her inheritance. It's insult enough that Weyland describes the android David as 'the closest thing I have to a son', as if only a male heir was of any worth; his obstinate refusal to accept death is a slap in her face.

Weyland, preserved by his wealth and the technology it can buy, has lived far, far longer than his rightful time. A ghoulish, wizened creature who looks neither old nor young, he reminds me of Slough Feg, the decaying tyrant from the Slaine series in British comic 2000AD. In Slaine, an ancient (and by now familiar to you, dear reader, or so I would hope) Celtic law decrees that the King has to be ritually and willingly sacrificed at the end of his appointed time, for the good of the land and the people. Slough Feg refused to die, and became a rotting horror, the embodiment of evil.

The image of the sorcerer who refuses to accept rightful death is fundamental: it even forms a part of some occult philosophy. In Crowley's system, the magician who refuses to accept the bitter cup of Babalon and undergo dissolution of his individual ego in the Great Sea (remember that opening scene?) becomes an ossified, corrupted entity called a 'Black Brother' who can create no new life, and lives on as a sterile, emasculated husk.

With all this in mind, we can better understand the climactic scene in which the withered Weyland confronts the last surviving Engineer. See it from the Engineer's perspective. Two thousand years ago, humanity not only murdered the Engineers' emissary, it infected the Engineers' life-creating fluid with its own tainted selfish nature, creating monsters. And now, after so long, here humanity is, presumptuously accepting a long-overdue invitation, and even reawakening (and corrupting all over again) the life fluid.

And who has humanity chosen to represent them? A self-centred, self-satisfied narcissist who revels in his own artificially extended life, who speaks through the medium of a merely mechanical offspring. Humanity couldn't have chosen a worse ambassador.

It's hardly surprising that the Engineer reacts with contempt and disgust, ripping David's head off and battering Weyland to death with it. The subtext is bitter and ironic: you caused us to die at the hands of our own creation, so I am going to kill you with YOUR own creation, albeit in a crude and bludgeoning way.

The only way to save humanity is through self-sacrifice, and this is exactly what the captain (and his two oddly complacent co-pilots) opt to do. They crash the Prometheus into the Engineer's ship, giving up their lives in order to save others. Their willing self-sacrifice stands alongside Holloway's and the Engineer's from the opening sequence; by now, the film has racked up no less than five self-sacrificing gestures (six if we consider the exploding Engineer head).

Meredith Vickers, of course, has no interest in self-sacrifice. Like her father, she wants to keep herself alive, and so she ejects and lands on the planet's surface. With the surviving cast now down to Vickers and Shaw, we witness Vickers's rather silly death as the Engineer ship rolls over and crushes her, due to a sudden inability on her part to run sideways. Perhaps that's the point; perhaps the film is saying her view is blinkered, and ultimately that kills her. But I doubt it. Sometimes a daft death is just a daft death.

Finally, in the squidgy ending scenes of the film, the wrathful Engineer conveniently meets its death at the tentacles of Shaw's alien child, now somehow grown huge. But it's not just a death; there's obscene life being created here, too. The (in the Engineers' eyes) horrific human impulse to sacrifice others in order to survive has taken on flesh. The Engineer's body bursts open - blah blah lifegiver blah blah abdomen ripped apart hey we're up to five now - and the proto-Alien that emerges is the very image of the creature from the mural.

On the face of it, it seems absurd to suggest that the genesis of the Alien xenomorph ultimately lies in the grotesque human act of crucifying the Space Jockeys' emissary to Israel in four B.C., but that's what Ridley Scott proposes. It seems equally insane to propose that Prometheus is fundamentally about the clash between acceptance of death as a condition of creating/sustaining life versus clinging on to life at the expense of others, but the repeated, insistent use of motifs and themes bears this out.

As a closing point, let me draw your attention to a very different strand of symbolism that runs through Prometheus: the British science fiction show Doctor Who. In the 1970s episode 'The Daemons', an ancient mound is opened up, leading to an encounter with a gigantic being who proves to be an alien responsible for having guided mankind's development, and who now views mankind as a failed experiment that must be destroyed. The Engineers are seen tootling on flutes, in exactly the same way that the second Doctor does. The Third Doctor had an companion whose name was Liz Shaw, the same name as the protagonist of Prometheus. As with anything else in the film, it could all be coincidental; but knowing Ridley Scott, it doesn't seem very likely.
Click to expand...

That makes A LOT of sense.
 
Zombie James said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0

I love RLM.
Click to expand...

lol40mfa.png
 
Fantomex said:
Yeah but people would rather complain instead of thinking.
Click to expand...


Its not about it not making sense. Its about the film failing to deliver a coherent solid narrative on its own merits. The guy who first came up with that theory put it together by taking into consideration interviews of Ridley Scott. He couldnt even come up with his own speculative assumptions based on the film itself. Think about how many people went to watch the movie and how many actually are on the forums discovering the truth behind the jesus theory (which still doesnt explain everything). Thousands of people paid their hard earned cash to watch a movie that didnt do its job as a well scripted, well edited film.
 
dilatedmuscle said:
Its not about it not making sense. Its about the film failing to deliver a coherent solid narrative on its own merits. The guy who first came up with that theory put it together by taking into consideration interviews of Ridley Scott. He couldnt even come up with his own speculative assumptions based on the film itself. Think about how many people went to watch the movie and how many actually are on the forums discovering the truth behind the jesus theory (which still doesnt explain everything). Thousands of people paid their hard earned cash to watch a movie that didnt do its job as a well scripted, well edited film.
Click to expand...

Eh. The 2000 years line combined with the cave paintings of humans worshipping Engineers is a pretty solid telegraph of a connection between Jesus and the Engineers. Ridley Scott interviews give it a lot more certainty than what's presented in the film, but it's not some massive leap.
 
CrisKre said:
Has this been posted yet?

That makes A LOT of sense.
Click to expand...

Jesus theory is dumber than future biologists. The allusions to Christ and Christianity have been sprayed over the movie without any coherence or relation. So Space Jesus exists, but the virgin mother didn't give birth to him. Angel Gabriel isn't just a messenger, he's an instigator. If you're going to copy the story of heyzeus then why aren't you going to make sure it's as close to approximation as possible?

It's all well and good having these look-backs to an old story, but the shoe-horning of that tale into this one is ridiculous and embarrassing. At the moment it's a metaphor of a metaphor, diluted and pointless.

I wonder what was wrong with just sticking to the Greek mythos.
 
Just saw the movie and hour ago.

Charlize Theron is Samus Aran (complete with final escape sequence), magic goo, space zombie, and (lol) tentacle rape.

Also, I went in with the mind set that I shouldn't expect an Alien prequel...well that just backfired because it made the Xeno at the end seem tacked on.

Overall an okay film for me, but not what I expected from Scott. This film really had his full attention?
 
maharg said:
Eh. The 2000 years line combined with the cave paintings of humans worshipping Engineers is a pretty solid telegraph of a connection between Jesus and the Engineers. Ridley Scott interviews give it a lot more certainty than what's presented in the film, but it's not some massive leap.
Click to expand...

Nobody worshiped Jesus until after he died. Wasnt he supposedly created by the Engineers and not actually an Engineer? Who knows because the film doesnt explain anything about it or shed enough light for us to figure it out completely. Oh yeah, i almost forgot Ridley Scott made comments about that IN AN INTERVIEW. The engineers never hid themselves in the past since all these civilizations knew them as giant gods so why hide through Jesus? Oh, maybe because they wanted to test the humans and see if they werent beyond salvation... But where was any hint of this in the film? Yes we could put the pieces together but it still leaves a lof of "WTF?" feelings unless we take into consideration things Ridley Scott said (that were not in the film). I understand drawing parallels from the movie and christianity but nobody can watch the movie alone and have a certain resolution about what it all was. And this is not even mentioning all the questions asked in the Red Letter Media video. Although it was comical, its questions a lot of viewers are asking themselves and we may never get the answer to half of them... Unless the sequel is like MGS4 where Kojima spent HOURS in cutscenes that simply clear up the clusterfuck of the previous games...
 
dilatedmuscle said:
Nobody worshiped Jesus until after he died...
Click to expand...

...

...

...

What?

During his life, his followers claim he walked on water, made hundreds of loafs of bread and hundreds of fish out of one, turned water into wine, and cured the blind.

People sure as hell worshipped him in his life.

I'm not sure where you get this idea that movies should hand everything to you on a golden platter of exposition, but it's not unusual for good movies to have more subtext than text. Again, not saying this is a great movie or anything, but ffs. This is pretty basic and obvious subtext that the movie makes pretty easy to find, with or without ridley scott interviews.
 
maharg said:
Eh. The 2000 years line combined with the cave paintings of humans worshipping Engineers is a pretty solid telegraph of a connection between Jesus and the Engineers. Ridley Scott interviews give it a lot more certainty than what's presented in the film, but it's not some massive leap.
Click to expand...

You also need to understand, that the things not shown in the film aren't key. Jesus isn't key in Prometheus as more than Krishna is. In the context of this universe and engineers, most miracles and even apocalypses can be now explained with their intervention and human/engineer hybrids doing magic on earth. You shouldn't get too stuck figuring them out though because we have nothing concrete about them.

It's fascinating still, because all the myths and legendary people are shown in a new light :)
 
zoukka said:
You also need to understand, that the things not shown in the film aren't key. Jesus isn't key in Prometheus as more than Krishna is. In the context of this universe and engineers, most miracles and even apocalypses can be now explained with their intervention and human/engineer hybrids doing magic on earth. You shouldn't get too stuck figuring them out though because we have nothing concrete about them.

It's fascinating still, because all the myths and legendary people are shown in a new light :)
Click to expand...

Poor Muhammed.

Honestly, if they push this judeo-christian link into Prometheus and its sequel, consider me pissed off.
 
It's just Erich von Däniken bullshit shoehorned into a halfassed script. Just an awful contempt for humanity and history pressed into service for conspiracy nuts and children.
 
Dascu said:
Poor Muhammed.

Honestly, if they push this judeo-christian link into Prometheus and its sequel, consider me pissed off.
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Are you offended because you're a believer? Because you sympathize with believers? Why should this be off-limits? It seems to be a reaction that's really common whenever any SF story comes close to touching on this kind of idea, and it's always A-OK so long as it's not Jesus.
 
Dresden said:
It's just Erich von Däniken bullshit shoehorned into a halfassed script. Just an awful contempt for humanity and history pressed into service for conspiracy nuts and children.
Click to expand...

I'm not a conspiracy nut nor a child. I'm also not too worried about things in the movie, that weren't directly told by the movie.
 
zoukka said:
It's ballsy. It makes people uncofmortable. I say bring it on.
Click to expand...

It's a silly move. Seems like once it was released in the States and people were all like 'uh?' it seemed like a good idea for them to slip in a Christian angle to make it understandable. I don't get their motives with these afterthoughts at all.
 
maharg said:
I don't get this. Are you offended because you're a believer? Because you sympathize with believers? Why should this be off-limits? It seems to be a reaction that's really common whenever any SF story comes close to touching on this kind of idea, and it's always A-OK so long as it's not Jesus.
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist and I don't particularly care for picking out one religion above another.
 
daviyoung said:
It's a silly move. Seems like once it was released in the States and people were all like 'uh?' it seemed like a good idea for them to slip in a Christian angle to make it understandable. I don't get their motives with these afterthoughts at all.
Click to expand...

Haha you think it's an afterthought :D
 
Dascu said:
I'm an atheist and I don't particularly care for picking out one religion above another.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about picking out one religion over another? What we're shown in the film is that many times humans have worshipped engineer visitors. That would imply several religions have their roots in Engineer intervention. It would be giving Christianity special treatment to pretend that it wouldn't, somehow, have similar roots.

Never mind that, obfuscated by a shitty script as it is, you have to be absolutely blind to not see that the film is at its very roots about the question of humanity's origin and the nature of the divine in a world where it is clearly alien in nature.
 
daviyoung said:
It's absolutely coming off that way.
Click to expand...

Ok sure, it's not like the movie is full of christian symbolism and nods towards what happened 2000 years ago. Ridley just made that shit up for a random interview. Damn he should find confidence while he's still young.

maharg said:
Who said anything about picking out one religion over another? What we're shown in the film is that many times humans have worshipped engineer visitors. That would imply several religions have their roots in Engineer intervention.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
maharg said:
Who said anything about picking out one religion over another? What we're shown in the film is that many times humans have worshipped engineer visitors. That would imply several religions have their roots in Engineer intervention.
Click to expand...

Well the 2000 year link cuts off Islam or any other post-Christian religions. And the crucifixion mural definitely seems to postulate Christianity as the most important one.

It's not a huge deal, but I do prefer it when scifi is neutral towards religion.
 
Dascu said:
Well the 2000 year link cuts off Islam or any other post-Christian religions. And the crucifixion mural definitely seems to postulate Christianity as the most important one.

It's not a huge deal, but I do prefer it when scifi is neutral towards religion.
Click to expand...

How can you be "neutral" towards religion if you take it in the equation in the first place? And Islam doesn't have a problem with Jesus existing, just a different view about him being the son of god.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deadpool & Wolverine Open Spoilers Thread
|OT| Spoilers  3 4 5 6 7
326
22K
near replied
Ridley Scott interview - sharks in the colosseum, Maximus returning from the afterlife to kill Jesus Christ, asleep at the wheel for Prometheus
45
3K
dem replied
  • Poll
AI Doomer thread
2
59
3K
Sophist replied
New School Music Thread
20
826
Audiophile replied
  • Poll
Vintage Favorite Star Wars Character Thread (spoilers possible)
41
2K
Lunarorbit replied
Top Bottom