Official Alien(s) Franchise Tread. Alien: Romulus 8/16/24

[memphisboi55]

Will check out one day this week.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by rayray3thousand

1) The beginning scene - where does that take place and why does he commit suicide? was that the start of life on earth?
2) What stopped them from going to Earth with the weapons?
3) Why start life if you are going to end it with weapons?

I need to watch Aliens again... thanks for the help

Read this: http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1

 

[smedroc]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I don't know if it was mentioned but Prometheus landed on LV-223.  The Nostromo (Alien) landed on LV-426.  LV-223 is similar to Earth but LV-426 is complete inhospitable.  Both ships carried the DNA of xenomorphs (as evidenced in Promotheus) however, that particular strain was not the same one that was discovered by Ripley's crew.
Also an interdasting read:

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

 

[mr k]

Originally Posted by Smedroc

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I don't know if it was mentioned but Prometheus landed on LV-223.  The Nostromo (Alien) landed on LV-426.  LV-223 is similar to Earth but LV-426 is complete inhospitable.  Both ships carried the DNA of xenomorphs (as evidenced in Promotheus) however, that particular strain was not the same one that was discovered by Ripley's crew.
Also an interdasting read:

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

 

[omgitswes]

On another note Charlize Theron looked great...as usual

 

[ryansoxfan]

Going tonight, is the 3D worth it?

 

[mr k]

Originally Posted by ATLsFinest

Originally Posted by G14

Originally Posted by Nako XL


This.

The only real explanation is

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Weyland told him to contaminate dude with the liquid to see what happens.

That or he was just trolling.

david knew what was going to happen..he was reading the walls for god sakes...he understood everything they didnt


homeboy was being a tool to david the whole time

said "we built you just because we can...how would you feel if your god told you that?"

& weyland said he had "no soul"

david was just sick of it ...he learned alot in those 2 years

homeboy told david " i would do anything...anything...to find out why they put us here"

david became a "god" once he planted life inside homeboy

just to one up on his creators

as  like weyland was trying to do with the space jockeys

thats why he made that "dead parents" reference

he knew the jockey was going to give em the wammys

the end was dope tho

this is true though, David was being a condescending douche the entire movie. The best line was when Charlie asked David why he was wearing a space suit when he didn't breath and David answered "because you people prefer to work with those that look like you and not wearing a suit would defeat that purpose." That line had be like 

 because its so profound and true. In one line this robot strikes at the heart of many of the laws we have as humans.

Dr Shaw, David and Idris made the movie for me, Davids Punchlines had me...And what was the deal with the product placement of Ace??

Jay and Scott cool?

 

[mronegative]

Smedroc wrote:

---

King of Chicago wrote:

---

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I don't know if it was mentioned but Prometheus landed on LV-223.  The Nostromo (Alien) landed on LV-426.  LV-223 is similar to Earth but LV-426 is complete inhospitable.  Both ships carried the DNA of xenomorphs (as evidenced in Promotheus) however, that particular strain was not the same one that was discovered by Ripley's crew.
Also an interdasting read:

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

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Originally Posted by Smedroc

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I don't know if it was mentioned but Prometheus landed on LV-223.  The Nostromo (Alien) landed on LV-426.  LV-223 is similar to Earth but LV-426 is complete inhospitable.  Both ships carried the DNA of xenomorphs (as evidenced in Promotheus) however, that particular strain was not the same one that was discovered by Ripley's crew.
Also an interdasting read:

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

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by MrONegative

Smedroc wrote:

---

King of Chicago wrote:

---

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I don't know if it was mentioned but Prometheus landed on LV-223.  The Nostromo (Alien) landed on LV-426.  LV-223 is similar to Earth but LV-426 is complete inhospitable.  Both ships carried the DNA of xenomorphs (as evidenced in Promotheus) however, that particular strain was not the same one that was discovered by Ripley's crew.
Also an interdasting read:

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

 

[mronegative]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

The original plot was just gonna be a straight up prequel:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

This is how the engineers made Earth, this is what they intended, they left a map to their planet, weyland corp folks go to their planet.  when they get to the planet they act all selfish and human and the engineers are like "whoa, humanity is *$@%%# up and not a good look for the universe" and decide to erase them.  *!*! hits the fan, people die, an engineer catches a pre-xenomorph to the face. boom alien the first movie.

The problem is Ridley didnt want it to be that straight forward (and i guess boring) he wanted to switch things up.  I believe he also wanted this movie to be longer and actually show the home planet, but the studio wanted it to be PG-13 and to milk the story line and Lindelof felt it should be more a tale of discovering the engineers actually exist and presenting the questions "well ok, these things are here and they've got this weaponized primordial soup... now what did they, and what are they gonna, do with it?" and then answer those questions in the future.

The problem is we're gonna have to wait 2-3 years just for THOSE answers now.

Mannnnnnnnnn....I ain't tryna hear that.

That is a straightforward great idea for a film. That they chopped to *$+$, stuck in a freezer then microwaved with a bunch of extra nonsense. I'm not sure that that great Noomi c-section scene makes it into that film, but it just seems like such a better narrative.

A part of me wants to be like...OK...maybe just treat Prometheus as a Part 1 like the last Harry Potter, so maybe the complete film will be something...but they *@%+!* up fundamental storytelling, dialogue, logic, character arcs, tension, so many things. If answers were all this movie didn't have, I'd be fine with that. It's the bad storytelling and writing. When Charlize said "Father!"....that *$+$ made me feel so uncomfortable. Like was that supposed to be a surprise, cuz you're acting like it was? Did a 5-year-old write this? Youtube channel dudes could do better than that. Did Charlize have one good line in the whole movie?

srs

I'm sure in 6 years we'll have the complete 5-hr Engineer's Cut or whatever with reshoots, re-edits and the whole thing streamlined into 1 clean movie, but til that happens.

By then, Lindelof probably gonna be in rehab hiding from the death threats, cuz he's the new George Lucas.

 

[chezzer10]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

I don't know if it was mentioned but Prometheus landed on LV-223.  The Nostromo (Alien) landed on LV-426.  LV-223 is similar to Earth but LV-426 is complete inhospitable.  Both ships carried the DNA of xenomorphs (as evidenced in Promotheus) however, that particular strain was not the same one that was discovered by Ripley's crew.
Also an interdasting read:

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

 

[big j 33]

I don't care for that Lost BS where the fans put in more work analyzing and creating interpretations than we're given by the filmmakers. It's fun and entertaining in a "mind blown" sort of way, but there's a difference between having subtext, allusions, deeper and complex themes that need to be examined by the audience.. and bad storytelling. Not developing characters enough where the audience understands their motivation, not making shifts in motivation or beliefs clear enough, not confusing intrigue and mystery with an intentional lack of details because you're a lazy writer... I really liked the movie, don't get me wrong.. but it's this stuff that prevents it from being truly great. I'm disappointed because it should have been better and not the kind of movie where the viewer has to do so much work to make up for a lack of it by the film.

Originally Posted by ryansoxfan

Going tonight, is the 3D worth it?

Yes, absolutely worth it. IMAX 3D is preferred if it's available.

 

[mronegative]

Jun 11 2012 12:01 PM EDT 6,543
[h1]'Prometheus' Secrets Spilled By Co-Writer Damon Lindelof[/h1][h2]Lindelof answers Josh Horowitz's burning questions in an exclusive e-mail back-and-forth.[/h2]
By Josh Horowitz (@joshuahorowitz)

I'm switching up my column a bit this week by delving deep into "Prometheus" with the co-writer of the film, Damon Lindelof ("Lost," the 2013 "Star Trek" sequel). What follows is a SPOILER-HEAVY conversation about "Prometheus" we conducted via e-mail over the film's opening weekend. If you haven't seen "Prometheus" or don't consider yourself a geek, the following is going to confuse the hell out of you.
From: Josh Horowitz
To: Damon Lindelof

Sent June 8, 2012, 12:18 p.m.Hey Damon!
Thanks for indulging in this little public e-mail exercise — especially during your big opening weekend for "Prometheus."

I know you're no stranger to your projects dominating the pop culture conversation, but it's still got to be a kick to see "Prometheus" being talked about so much. How relieved are you never to have to answer the question "is it an 'Alien' prequel or what?" again?

So having finally seen the film I can get to my #1 burning question: Is it an "Alien" prequel or what? That's a joke. Sort of. Here's my actual serious question. We all know this script began as very much a clear prequel to "Alien," so what was stripped out to turn it into what it is today? Were there face huggers throughout the original script you got? Basically how would you say you Lindelof-ized it?

From: Damon Lindelof
To: Josh Horowitz
Sent June 8, 2012, 6:00 p.m.

Hi Josh!

How are you? How's the weather in New York? It's sunny here! (This is small talk.) Anyhoo ...

It has indeed been a kick to see a lot of conversation now that "Prometheus" has landed (that's the tagline of the movie and Fox pays me every time I use it even though that particular line of dialogue is never spoken by anyone in the film itself) and I am always curious to hear what people are saying — even when they hate me and accuse me of destroying their childhood. To which I say, "Your parents brought you to see 'Alien' when you were a CHILD?!? And you're upset with ME?!?"

To answer your burning question that is sort of a joke but not really, allow me to finally put the "Is it a prequel?" issue to rest by saying once and for all, finally and definitively, that the answer is "Maybe."

The script I got was written by Jon Spaihts. He is a wonderful person and a great writer and his script reflected both. However, he had been tasked with executing the very specific task of making the story very "Alieny" (not a word) and it was rife with eggs, facehuggers, chestbursters and the Xenomorphs they grew into. If memory serves, the eggs show up around the end of the first act and the familiar progression of fertilization and gestation begins, at which point, all hell breaks loose.

Although I would be careful to ever use the term "Lindelof-ized" (such a phrase could just as easily be defined as "the process by which an ending is made completely unclear and/or f---ed up all together") my job was to strip out the familiar "Alien" stuff and rebalance the plot mechanics so that stuff felt more like the RESULT of the story as opposed to the catalyst. I also became obsessed with David as the central character of the piece and did everything I could to think of the movie through the robot's point of view. Mostly because robots are awesome, but also because robots are awesome.

Hopefully this answers all your questions and you will leave me alone now.

Your Pal,Damon

P.S. What's Michael Fassbender like in real life? I heard you asked him about his penis!

From: Josh Horowitz
To: Damon Lindelof
Sent June 8, 2012, 6:20 p.m.

Dearest Damon,

I'm afraid you've opened Pandora's box. I do in fact have some more questions. By the way, I didn't stay through the end credits of "Prometheus." Does Pandora's box get opened? And is the tesseract in there?

You mentioned Michael Fassbender (and his penis). Yes, he loves talking about his member. When you guys get together for the DVD commentary I highly recommend staring at his crotch and giggling, "I know what's down there!" He LOVES that.

OK, back to relative seriousness. I'm completely obsessed with Fassbender's David. I've got two questions about his character. Was his preoccupation with Peter O'Toole circa "Lawrence of Arabia" in the script or something Fassbender suggested? And getting down to the nitty gritty ... when David communicates with one of the Engineers late in the film, what the hell does he say to get them so angry? Did you actually script what that dialogue would have been in our language?

Impatiently yours,Josh

From: Damon Linedelof
To: Josh Horowitz
Sent June 9, 2012, 9:56 p.m.

Joshers,

Jim Cameron will sue anyone who uses the word "Pandora," so we stayed far away from the box to which you refer. And since you asked, there was originally a post-credits scene where Fassbender eats shawarma, but when he swallows, it comes out of the hole in his neck.

But seriously.

Yeah, the "Lawrence of Arabia" stuff was in the script. Ridley and I are both [director David] Lean fanatics and it seemed appropriate thematically. Also, I got to steal great dialogue because no one can hear quote marks when actors speak plagiarized lines. Hint: "Big things have small beginnings" is one of them. As to your other query:

Yes. David's dialogue with the Engineer has an English translation, but Ridley felt very strongly about not subtitling it. I spoke at length about this on my DVD commentary. And speaking of length ...

[Insert mandatory Fassbender schlong reference here]

Are we done? Please let me sleep.

Hugs,Lindelof

From: Josh Horowitz
To: Damon Lindelof
Sent June 10, 2012, 9:08 a.m.

D,

I'd let you sleep but feel it's only just that I keep you up a bit more as "Prometheus" is surely doing the same to the masses (oh those poor pregnant women that see the film unawares...).

You'll be happy to know I went to see the movie a second time last night.

A. I wanted to see how well it held up a second time (I'm still here, aren't I? Still loving it).

B. I wanted to do my best to ensure that your box office beat the third installment in a franchise about talking animals.

We talked a bit about David but let's concentrate on Vickers for a second if we could. Like David, her motivations remain mysterious for much of the film. And certainly her resemblance (look, icy mannerisms) to David is interesting to say the least. Janek asks the question directly so I shall as well. Is she a robot?!? Also, I couldn't help but notice we never actually see her die. Am I just hopelessly desperate to see Charlize perform more half-naked push-ups in a sequel or did you leave the door purposefully open?

Gotta run and hit the gym. If my abs don't look like the Engineers' by July 4th I'm not leaving the house.

J

From: Damon Lindelof
To: Josh Horowitz
Sent June 10, 2012, 7:26 p.m.

J,

Thanks for going a second time, but it is clear those cute zoo animals have soundly defeated us. Maybe the next time I try to convince Noomi Rapace to wear a rainbow-colored afro wig, she'll listen to me.

Vickers. Yes, she does look like David. Yes, this was intentional.What better way to piss off your daughter than to build the male equivalent of her? But enough about daddy issues (seriously, Lindelof, we get it!), allow me to answer your question. Is she a robot?

She is not.

But did Vickers somehow survive being smushed by the gigantic rolling horseshoe that was the derelict ship? Could her scantily-clad push-up training have saved her in that final moment of cru****ude? And more importantly, WHY DIDN'T SHE JUST RUN ZIG-ZAGGY OR SIDEWAYS TO AVOID IT?!?

I don't have the answers to these questions, Josh. I'm just the writer.

Your Pal,

D

P.S. Engineer Abs is a great band. They open for Gotye.

From: Josh Horowitz
To: Damon Lindelof
Sent June 10, 2012, 8:23 p.m.

Damon, you have been extremely patient with me this weekend so I'm going to let you finally go on your way. But before you redirect my e-mail address to your spam folder I'm going to throw a few final questions at you in the hopes that I've worn you down to the point of revealing all. Rapid-fire style.

--Why did David poison Charlie? Was he hoping he'd impregnate Elizabeth or was that just a nice bonus?

--Did you and Ridley and Jon discuss who created the Engineers?

--Have you guys worked out the answer to Elizabeth Shaw's burning question, i.e. why did our creators turn on us?

--What the hell does that final shot in "Inception" mean?

--It's Khan, right? It has to be Khan.

Congrats again. You are a gentleman.

Josh

From: Damon Lindelof
To: Josh Horowitz
Sent June 11, 2012, 2:53 a.m.

Joshua,

My answers are below, in bold. So that you can tell the difference.

Damon, you have been extremely patient with me this weekend so I'm going to let you finally go on your way. But before you redirect my e-mail address to your spam folder I'm going to throw a few final questions at you in the hopes that I've worn you down to the point of revealing all. Rapid-fire style.

Is this like a rap battle? AWESOME.

Why did David poison Charlie? Was he hoping he'd impregnate Elizabeth or was that just a nice bonus?

In the scene preceding said "poisoning" (but WAS it?), David was chatting with someone in cryo-sleep via headset that we can safely assume is Weyland. If I were a betting man, I'd say something happened in that conversation that very specifically directed David to spike Holloway's champagne. And yes, it was a safe bet that Holloway would have sex with Shaw soon after. Which is why in space, you should always wear a condom!

Did you and Ridley and Jon discuss who created the Engineers?

Yes. But the more fascinating question is this: Do the Engineers KNOW who created them?

Have you guys worked out the answer to Elizabeth Shaw's burning question, i.e. why did our creators turn on us?

Golly, I'm all for ambiguity, but if we didn't know the answer to THAT one, the audience would have every right to string us up. Yes.There is an answer. One that is hinted at within the goalposts of "Prometheus." I'll bet if I asked you to take a guess you wouldn't be far off.

What the hell does that final shot in "Inception" mean?

It means that Leonardo DiCaprio can make a top spin for a really, really long time. Is there ANYTHING that guy can't do?

It's Khan, right? It has to be Khan.

Would you believe me if I told you that Cumberbatch was playing Cumberbatch just so we could have a credit in the movie that read, "And Benedict Cumberbatch as himself?" You wouldn't? Well then SCREW YOU! I'M GOING TO YELL NOW AS A WAY OF NOT ANSWERING THIS QUESTION!

Congrats again. You are a gentleman.

I am no such thing.

Josh

Damon


...You know, I might actually hate this guy.

 

[big j 33]

Did anyone stay after the credits?

http://www.firstshowing.n...iral-site-weyland-video/

 

[duba169]

The writer has no responsibility according to this jerk

 

[GL Rayner]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

Did anyone stay after the credits?

http://www.firstshowing.n...iral-site-weyland-video/

I was not sure if there was anything so I walked out midway through the credits. Thanks for the link.

Also, after reading those theories on Prometheus made me like the movie that much more. Fassbender stole the show

.

 

[dmbrhs]

I'm going to preface this with the fact I enjoyed the movie. Thought the action was good, and some of the debate about it is kind of fun. However...

...based on that e-mail back and forth interview, it's disturbing that a Hollywood writer can be so out of touch with the universe he's writing for.

The reason he can't provide a straightforward answer for anything is because he literally didn't know what he was writing. In one answer, he refers to the ship that crashes as the derelict space ship. It's clearly not, considering there's no pilot in it, and it crashed back on the planet it took off from (specifically LV-223, and not LV-426). You don't need to be a fan boy to notice such a glaring oversight (Ridley Scott himself made it clear as well in interviews). Yet this hack writer is so self-absorbed in his own non-sensical thought process he can't even process basic, cut and dried facts about a movie THAT HE WROTE.

This honestly reminds me of the problems the W Brothers ran into with The Matrix. They got so bogged down in their own philosophy and ideas, that they couldn't come up with explanations or a sensible ending. They started off strong because the premise was well-though out, effectively weaving existentialism and symbolism into it. Then they launched a bunch of nonsense at the audience int he sequels and it turned into an action orgy, just hoping the audience would ignore the fact they couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag.

 

[3dgarfly23]

Ok movie but I did love the ending

 

[jordanscrub]

Just got back from seeing this movie and all I can say is that it was simply amazing. The plot was great, and I was able to interpret most of it sense I am a fan of the Alien series.
The characters, filming, and everything was great. Honestly would put this in my top 10 movies. 

...And Charlize 

 

[ss3walkman]

I'm going to see this tomorrow.

 

[Moderngz]

Just saw it and movie was ill!! Some unanswered questions but dope movie overall

 

[redd spyder]

maybe I would understand this movie more if I saw any alien movies but from the looks of it, Yall are just as stuck as I am

im just gonna go watch it again but this time in imax 3d.
worth it imo

 

[nako xl]

my guess: the engineers created mankind then got shook at how fast they progressed/the potential they have for destruction and decided to take them out because they felt threatened that sooner or later humans would get them.

"Every child wants their parents dead.

 

[zk1mpls]

Watched it in 3D earlier. Okay movie, I guess. Charlize Theron at the end and basically the ending overall.