Verizon has posted a further two TV Spots for Prometheus. The first is called Invitation and the second is called Explain. There’s some minor additional dialogue but in the first clip, you get to see the new creature we posted a few days ago in 1080p quality. It appears the creature’s tentacles are wrapped around the Engineer with Shaw trying to escape from it. You can find screenshots in this post.
Thanks to seeasea for the links.
Great video.
I watched this just now. It is interesting and does hold some insight into what Ridley thinks about androids. That is to say - in Bladerunner, Replicants are like altered humans and not robots. A little different than what we have in Prometheus, and yet with David, still kind of the same.
I prefer the term ...'sweater-puppies', myself...
Thanks for the info., Valaquen. I knew some of his various work featured tentacles (amongst other things
Gash, no need to repy...please disregard my question.
Cheers, mates.
Spoiler
You;d have to scour Giger's published books for more. There are a lot! Giger always held a macabre fascination with worms, he says in the Necronomicon, and he drew on the imagery of them since his beginnings as an artist. I think the tentacled monster in Prometheus is more drawn from Cthulu and O'Bannon's fascination with the Lovecraft mythos.
Wait...Gash, is that accurate? I mean, you are probably more familiar with his work than I am, but where are "tentacles" featured on any of his A L I E N concept art? I realized he has produced some painting/art featuring beings with tentacles, but these, to my knowledge, were not related to A L I E N. For example that image (posted a few times in this forum) of the medusa-like monster concept art, which was intentended for Poltergeist 2 (I believe), but never ultimately used. Also, I remember a few "biomechanoid" paintings which, at first glance, look like they may involve tentacles, but on closer inspection turn out to be the "hoses" and "tubes" that are so prominent in many of works.
Not saying you are wrong, but if you get a minute, could you post some links to the Giger A L I E N related tentacle stuff, because I find that unusual/interesting (from what I know of Giger).
I haven't looked at the spoiler images and don't intend to till after the 1st of June, but I'd just like to point out that Giger used a lot of tentacles in some of his A L I E N concept art, it's not all biomechanoid by any means. Although they were ultimately developed by others, his numerous hugger designs and chestburster image were very fleshy, and lots of his other art features tentacles. If Giger style is sort of intrinsically "ALIEN' then it's no great leap to see how a tentacled creature might work. Personally I'd rather there were a whole new gamut of monstrosities and I won't be dismissing it until I've seen it in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZVW8Zn5fSM#
Holy Crap...I never knew such a thing existed! How, exactly, is this any different then straight up gambling? I mean, one can raise similar questions at traditional exchanges such as the Commodities markets...but this is pretty obvious betting, plain and simple. Not that there is anything wrong with that, necessarily, just not my cup of tea.
At least with equity stocks, your share represents a very real unit of ownership.
Again, I am aware that online gambling is pretty much legal...I just never knew about InTrade, and never would have guessed (in a million years) that people could bet on things such as movie grosses. But then again, the more I think about it, why should that surprise me?
Anyways, very interesting, and thanks for posting that, TBS.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=756952
It's a goddamn game of chance. Every time you roll the dice over millions of years you'll get something different. However I believe soon we will not be the only form of intelligence on this planet. Homosapiens have effectively squashed any chance of another intelligent species arising on earth for sometime now. Perhaps in the same way as dinosaurs did. Also technology simply does not last. With each extinction event an intelligent earthian being could have been exterminated. That being said we are at the point of not only making an artificial person but enhancing other species and embracing evolution by merely allowing another sentient creature to arise on it's own. ala like the jockey's
Although even now there are advanced chimpanzees in South America. Who all on their own have embraced sex and murder for pleasure. They also use and make tools and develop plans; i.e. the bit about murder. If given enough time these two will develop close to human conscience.
Have to say, thats a great post Deuterium.
Ya' see...I'm not always an 'ol stick in the mud.
I don't know, man. When I see a girl do a little dance like that I have the distinct urge to give them a really big hug.
Call me crazy, they look like a sentient plushy to me when they do that stuff.
'Dat Noomi.
I think we're supposed to be talking about TV Spots. Honestly, just having a gif of Noomi smiling and doing a little dance for 30 seconds would work. "The search for our beginning' - Dance - "Could Lead to our end" - Dance - "PROMETHEUS"
*shrugs*
I could, too. Notice the complex interplay between Gravity and Fluid Dynamics involved in those bouncing...
My heart palpitates just thinking of the complex Lagrangians necessary to fully describe the equations of motion for those...
...wait, what was the topic again? Oh yeah, Happy Fun Bags!
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lxnjhsWdsY1qeksb7o1_500.gif&hash=6be7489ee992944556c6b081ef41a236eea24aae
Forget the movie, I can watch this all day and be happy.
Yes, a very clear explanation of your thoughts on these matters.
As unappealing as the answer may be seem to be, from a purely scientific explanation, Evolution via Natural Selection has absolutely no preferred "outcome", or "goal". Re-wind the tape of Life, and re-record it, and it is conceivable that some form of intelligent Life might have emerged hundreds of millions of years ago...or millions of years from now,...or perhaps never. Assuming intelligent life did arise, whatever form it takes, it is a vanishingly small probability that anything resembling primates/homonids/humans would ever reappear. This is a simple consequence of contingency, and the incredibly huge number of possible pathways that evolution can take. Of course, some people believe (like myself) that while scientific theories accurately describe our physical Universe, there is also a deeper Agency at work, which cannot be apprehended by science. However, this is a scientific discussion, and religous beliefs and/or explanations are not relevant.
I would caution the use of the term "random", as a catch-all term to explain Evolutionary processes. Certainly, one component of Evolution is, in a biological sense, "random", and that is mutations (see clarification below)*. However, the mechanism of Natural Selection is decidedly not random...it is deterministic. Natural Selection acts mechanistically upon the variation that organisms possess, (due to random mutations), and actively selects (deterministically) those variants that are fortuitously better adapted to changing local environments...thereby conferring, on average, differential reproductive success for the better adapted variant. These variants will then pass along these favored traits to their offspring, by inheritance.
*The term "random", when used by evolutionary biologists in the context of mutation, is not quite the same as the pure mathematical meaning of "random". In the evolutionary sense, "random" mutation means only variation that is not inherently directed towards adaptation...not that all mutational changes are equally likely. A subtle, but critical point, and one that is widely misunderstood by not only the general public, but even amongst scientists unfamiliar with evolutionary biology.
These are all good questions, and deserve continued research and scrutiny. Again, focusing my comments on purely scientific explanations, there is not anything inherently "special" about Homo sapiens. An Anthropic principle can be put forth to explain our perception as being somehow "uniquely special". The only reason we can sit back and contemplate our special position as intelligent, cognitive, self-aware creatures, is simply because, to our knowledge, we are the only fully "conscious" creatures able to sit back and contemplate such things. A bit circular, I realize, but Anthropic principles tend to be. If we weren't here, we wouldn't be able to have this discussion, so to speak. Of course, the "uniqueness" of our consciousness...and even the very definition of "consciousness" is a matter of some debate. For example, a fundamental cognitive test is the capability for self-recognition, which is determined via the MRS (Mirror Response Test) protocol. To date, humans, great apes (especially chimpanzees/bonobos), and elephants have the confirmed ability to pass the MRS. Additionally, there is very strong evidence that dolphins (perhaps most cetaceans) as well as at least some birds (corvids, i.e. Magpies) can also pass the MRS. The existence of self-recognition, in turn implies a degree of self-awareness, intentionality, and cognition.
And you know what dude? To all the folks out there who can watch the movie, and it doesn't bother you at all? That's great. I'm truly happy for you. Not a shred of sarcasm. Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing wisdom. Nobody here wants this movie to fail. Nobody. If anything, the very fact we bring this stuff up is because we want this movie to be glorious, and to go down as a Science Fiction classic. Something that people will talk about twenty, thirty years down the line.
And when you're asking big questions like the origin of mankind, and your cast of characters is mostly men and women of science, you should pay some lip service to the known, to really contrast this revelation for what it is. The most profound discovery in human history.
Life finds a way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM#ws
Here's a great example, again from Jurassic Park. Where Malcolm explains Chaos Theory. Some people seem to be under the impression that the science part has to be dry as sin, and has to be delivered like a dry, dull, boring teacher who hates their life reading from a text book, written in the longest, long hand imaginable.
When in reality. Scientific ideas can be wrapped in a number of emotions. You will also note that the story is continuing to progress as this idea is being explained to the character, and the audience. The movie doesn't sit still. It continue to move. It's wrapped in well crafted dialogue, and three distinct emotions; Intrigue, a bit of flirtation, and humor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mpifTiPV4#ws
Some of us just like a little bread on our butter, that's all.
From what I've seen in all the media, and from Ridley Scott's own mouth. There won't be anything of this sort in the movie, really. They won't have "time" to do it. Call it a gut feeling, intuition. Whatever. I just know, there will be no "life finds a ways" or the dinner scene or discussing chaos theory in this movie. (All examples, mind you, but all great scenes) they will be nowhere in Prometheus. (One more time; that's my feeling, based on what I've seen and heard.)
Somewhere around nine I think.
I can kind of see what both sides are getting at here. The 'jockeys(aliens)-made-us' issue does seem to be one of many in the sci-fi bucket, but in this case, it's central to the entire plot.
I get why people are skeptical and wish there would be more hard science to flesh out the idea and make it more believable.
On the other hand I'm not personally bothered by it. Maybe I will be when I see the film and see the way it's handled?
Would you guys stop saying that!? Gahhh!!! That's not what anybody on this side of the fence is saying. Guhhh...!
*explodes*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DmtUrYeoE#
No, you are wrong. I still feel I can convince you. You are not going to look like a bunch of nerds. You should just accept that a science fiction movie cannot analyze every single facet of physics, and still be expected to appeal to the masses in joint with putting a few other issues under the microscope.
You can't have everything.
Why? They aren't trying to make actual claims about the historical, geological, and biological record... they are possibly offering alternative scenarios that make for fun movie... FTL should be just as hard to deal with as the origin of humans being jockeys. The idea that we could create enough energy to move the mass of a ship and crew at speeds beyond what light travels at simply cannot happen under the laws of physics as we know them. (Edit: and sustain the speed)
I would love your take on Event Horizon's Black Hole travel system...
Historical Documents...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26tWWopd_3g#
"Eh, **** it."
It's an unwinnable war and some of us are just gonna look like crazy haired Nerdsteins. Oh wells.
This is a point where we strongly disagree. I would have way less troubles with a re-writing and reexplanation of historical, geological and biological record than with the alike of FTL and artificial gravity. We can almost correctly acknowledge (because we have been able to observe (either directly or from relatively recent records) how human technologies have evolved those last centuries and almost stall in many areas for decades now) that it will not be possible to achieve either FTL or artificial gravity before a very, very long time. Not only because we don't exactly understand what gravity is but also we have not even the single idea how to achieve FTL. And even assuming we found out it remains to be seen if we can produce enough energy in a safe manner to build ship which can achieve it.
However, we can not be completely sure that what we think about evolution and history on period of dozens or hundred of millions of years is true.
We do not even know if our dating technology is very reliable on such wide periods.
Moreover There are many things which could have helped us learn more about the history of our world which have certainly either been destroyed or are yet to be discovered.
You have absolutely no proof that everything Von Daniken says is bullshit.
We have historic records from old civilizations telling us that they interacted with beings that could be the very beings this man talked about.
Is this that crazy to at least give them some credit ?
Immanuel Velikovsky also was attacked by scientists yet some of his theories were true.
Funnily enough...I don't have a real problem, per se, with FTL in Prometheus...again, as this is an almost "expected" conceit and trope in Sci-Fi. Yes, I think it would be arguably a more interesting story if relativistic (but non-FTL) travel was employed, allowing the story to explore the interesting effects (psychologically and sociologically) of extreme time dilation. Nevertheless, I begrudgingly accept the FTL, the unexplained artificial gravity, and a host of other standard sci-fi tropes.
What I have a fundamental "issue" with is the re-writing of the historical, geological, and biological record...and shoe-horning in a Von Daniken-esque premise into a story that, IMHO, absolutely didn't need it in the first place.
You do have high expectations, indeed. But reasonable ones.
I'm beginning to catch up on this discussion real fast, thanks for accommodating my lateness.
Okay, here goes: Warning - extreme nerd over-analysis and rants to follow:
Spoiler
Given this, we can say "sure, the Jockeys found a planet in the habitable zone, at the right geological stage and next to a main sequence star, and seeded their goo," and that's dandy. The big problem arises in the end-result, right? And how closely related to the Jockeys it would be?
I have several thoughts on this. To begin, the first scientific question that needs to be asked is "why Homonids?" The answer to that, according to modern science, is through the mechanisms of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection combined with environmental stimulus. To put it bluntly, "it was random." Even this basic pillar of biological knowledge presents some interesting questions, such as:
Why homonids, and not a reptilian form of conscious, tool-using, tribal life? Or aquatic? Or avian? What occurred that brought about the proper environmental stimuli, and physiology, to allow for the development of the forebrain and our eventual leap to true self-awareness and cognitive, abstract thought?
Can we gleam a theory from this that only the homonid lifeform is capable of achieving this psychological state, thanks to the development of things like thumbs, tongues, and even tools that other species wouldn't require, environmentally speaking? Land-walking, tribal groups of bipeds have thus far been the only link in our evolutionary chain, but does this betray some sort of undiscovered set of rules, or is it, again, simple luck?
Could birds and fish and frogs and insects ever have entered an environment that provoked these traits, and then been lucky enough to reproduce the proper mutations with enough time to not be wiped out by an extinction event?
As far as I know, modern evolutionary biology doesn't exactly offer us any other answer than "random, thanks." All of my other questions have been answered the same: random.
Honestly, and you will probably balk at this, I'm not in the 'random' camp. I think that's a theory that will be disproven in the future, and consciousness will be better recognized as a much more significant leap than a simple mutation, hence why it presents us with it's own internal set of problems (completely oustide of the influence of environmental stimuli) a new phase space, a directional sort of 'point,' and the complete reversal and elimination of the natural evoluationary process by our very presence on the planet.
I debate with many more intelligent than I on this subject, constantly, so feel free to comment please. I'm not easily offended.
Anyway, there's the above. Perhaps the jockeys know this, since their knowledge obviously far exceeds our own? They knew that no matter what direction the mechanisms of evolution went in, or what happened to the environment, that given enough time, homosapiens (mini-jockeys) would eventually occur because of a response to the correct stimuli and mutation.
That's why they're all sleeping in their space-coffins, because they understand that this shit could take a long, long, long time, but in the end, the homonid evolutionary line is the only line of organisms that allows for the 'consciousness' mutation to occur and thrive.
Even farther fetched, but still plausible to me, is that they could be so advanced as to anticipate what these evolutionary mechanisms will do, and what will happen to the environment as well. This would be a near-supernatural level of prediction that is frankly imossible barring direct observation or intervention, but hey, it's all woo hoo anway.
Let me be more specific: most of my unanswerable questions that have arisen through the course of my education have been related to homosapiens and consciousness. Biologically, evolutionary theory is very sound and the biggest mysteries remain at the beginning, during extinction events, and now with us freak-ass human things. To summarize: humans create all sorts of evolutionary loopholes and unanswered questions, we throw a big ass wrench into the cogs of what would otherwise be a natural, biological system that follows observable rules over a given amount of time. Basically, we've completely changed the rules.
I like this idea, and it's much easier to pull off than the mind-numbing topics we've been discussing above.
Now did any of that make any damn sense?
I agree.
There are a ton of scientific inconsistencies in both Alien and Prometheus and if one want to focus on them, one will not be able to truly appreciate the movie.
I am myself more disturbed by inconsistencies related to human technology (FTL, androids,... that soon in the future) than by anything alien related.
It has been discussed before that for as advanced as we think we are, that if we encountered another intelligent species that was far, far more advanced than we are for all intents and purposes their technology would be as foreign as magic.
FTL travel is impossible currently, so what would you say if someday another species reaches earth using FTL travel? Would you tell them it's impossible?
You have to suspend your belief in known science, and roll with the fact that this movie plays on "what if's"...
Certainly, some fair points.
I absolutely concede we do not, as yet, know exactly how the "engineers" intervene in Earth's history. That is why all of my "criticism" has been directed specifically at the possibility they seeded primordial, abiotic Earth with self-replicating molecular Life. I don't necessarily have a scientific "issue" with panspermia. However, what does violate all sorts of physical laws, is the possibility that such simple, primitive biological life would somehow evolve over the billions of years, and practically infinite phase space of contingent possibilities, into an intelligent organism that is practically identical to the original "engineers".
There are at least strong hints that this is in fact the basis of this story. There has been a few interviews with people involved in the production of Prometheus in which the engineers are implicated in "creating" Life on Earth. There is the story of the "sacrificial engineer" (although, I admit that scene could occur on another, alien planet). There is also the image of the naked "DNA molecule" floating in the primordial soup, from one of the featurettes (perhaps the "origin" featurette). This, by the way, even get's it wrong, because there is compelling evidence to believe that RNA preceded DNA as the first autonomous, self-replicating molecule, and the precursor to all current Life... especially because RNA has been shown to possess biocatalytic properties, which is absolutely crucial for biotic processes (protein synthesis). Besides, a DNA molecule cannot be resolved in visible light, as is depicted in the clip, but I am not deducting points for this "artistic liscense".
I do agree that, in principle, the engineers tweaking of early hominid development (as possibly implied in 2001: A Space Odyssey) would be a "better" alternative. However, this still doesn't explain the incredible morphological correspondence between humans (or even early hominids) and the engineers.
In fact, the ONLY plausible scenario I can come up with, to explain the equation; humans = engineers, would be if a truly alien, high tech civilization "abducted" some paleolithic humans, took them away, and performed some genetic modifications on them to create the race of big blue guy engineers. Later, these advanced "humanoid" engineers then re-visited Earth and our early civilizations.
I have to respectfully disagree with you, there, RD. Evolutionary Theory is as "proven" as any other fundamental theory in modern Science. As such, it represents the facts and "truth" of how Nature operates, to the best of our current understanding. Is it subject to future modifications and refinements?...absolutely. However, that does not undermine the core principles of the Theory, any more than apples stopped falling from trees when Einstein modified Newton's Law of Gravity with General Relativity. That is, in fact, how science works. As with any scientific theory, there are questions that require further exploration and study, and that is a hallmark of all healthy science.
"When my daughter was much younger, my wife was reading to her from a picture book about a snowman who came to life and befriended a young boy, and on each page they would do a particular activity: build a snow fort, slide down a hill, enjoy a bowl of soup and so on. The last three pages had the snowman walking, then running, and then flying. At which point my wife got an unhappy look on her face and said 'A flying snowman? That's just ridiculous!'
"To which I said: 'So you can accept a snowman eating hot soup, but not flying?' Because, you know, if you can accept the former (not to mention the entire initial premise of a snowman coming to life), I'm not sure how the snowman flying became qualitatively more ridiculous."
Despite the fact that I completely agree with OpenMaw and Deuterium on this one, I can't help but feel that some of us are guilty of a "Flying Snowman" here. Of course, if at some point during Prometheus a giant blue humanoid and a tentacled space shoggoth are seen sharing a couple Coors Lights together, I reserve the right to retract that previous statement.
CP
I think I see where you guys are coming from, but the reactions it's caused seem exaggerated for a film, especially one we haven't even seen yet. Granted, you guys may know more of the story than I do at this point, I haven't read the spoiliest of spoilers, but let me try and walk around this discrepancy.
I agree that a bit of a Jurassic Park-esque scene, where theories are picked apart and actual science discussed, would do a lot to raise the overall quality of the film and appeal to the minority hard sf crowd. But as it stands now, 1 - we don't have enough information to say whether this does or doesn't happen. It could, and we just haven't seen the film yet, and 2 - the entire movie doesn't really present itself as having opportunities to show the team attempting to reconcile this extraodrinary amount of new knowledge very much before they all start getting killed.
From what I've gathered so far, they've said the Engineers have 'engineered us.' I don't assume to know what that means, whether it's on a microscopic level in the form of amino acids to kick off a long evolutionary cycle, or if they intervened at the level of apes to "create us" by producing a cognitive boost that led to our ultimate self-awareness and extreme diversion from animals of all types, or I guess the other option is that they simply created us whole, good ole' God style. They still have to start from something. No one so far has claimed that the Jockeys just thought us into existence, have they?
I don't really see how it ignores evolutionary theory by adding a new piece that simply sidesteps it. It still seems to stand just fine to me, and no one in the film has been seen saying "evolution is wrong," they simply add a few new things with the jockeys and try and discover what this piece is and how it's going to affect us and what science we've already established. I mean that's the whole point of going to the planet, to discover whether Shaw and Holloway's 'theories' hold any water. I'm sure the group is rife with skeptics, but once they start getting Hammerpeded, most academic scrutiny probably flies out of their proverbial mouths.
Plus, it always makes me depressed when people laud evolutionary theory like it's this grand proven plan and we've actually figured out exactly where we came from. It's far, far from that, and raises just as many questions as it claims to answer. Science is not like this, and it's a big problem that most people push it like it is. The evidence lies heavily on the side of accepted theories, but there is so much that is unanswered and continues to change to this day as we move continually forward, scientifically. Even Archaeological records are being rethought and re-established frequently, with findings that shift dates from hundreds to thousands of years from where they were previously thought to sit.
To summarize, I think they haven't given a crap about mentioning biological evolution because the events in the movie effectively sidestep it. They don't confront it and say "this is wrong," but add a new piece that people try and deal with while getting killed.
That's just how I see it. I may be wrong, probably am.
Valaquen,
With all due respect, I thought the emoticons would have made it clear I was being hyperbolic, i.e. making an exaggeration...of course I am not really going to be "offended" by this movie.
As for the examples you listed from Alien, I would characterize these as "tropes" and conveniences, which are almost expected in such a film (e.g. unexplained artificial gravity). What I didn't expect was a complete disregard for scientific principles that span multiple and diverse disciplines. I have been trying to find (so far unsuccessfully) an interview with Ridley Scott, during the pre-production of Prometheus, in which he stated (rather proudly) that he had consulted with NASA and other specialists to make sure they got as much of the science as "right" as possible. To paraphrase...he wanted it to be "realistic", and grounded. Maybe my memory of this interview is incorrect...I admit the possibility.
Same feelings here, OpenMaw...and I know there are a few others on here with similar concerns. Yes, we are in the minority, and people like to tease us, when we express our legitimate frustration over the complete shredding of science: physics, geology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, archaeology, cultural history, etc. (to name a few). They don't realize that our criticism has absolutely nothing to do with "hating" on the film...or hoping it is a failure.
On the contrary, it shows just how high our original expectations were, and perhaps our naive hope and trust that, of all people, Ridley would have sweated the details and gotten most of these things right. Or at the very least, wouldn't throw out the "baby with the bathwater", and decide to make a pseudo-science fiction film, rather than a science fiction film.
On a more personal note, Ridley has somehow discovered a way to simultaneously offend both my Faith and my Science. I mean, one or the other I can understand. But both at the same time! This is a bloody miracle.
All that having been said...I will still have my ass in a theatre seat on opening day.
Was never arguing that point. Was merely saying, it could work very effectively without the sound too. It's an artistic choice more than something worth getting into a scientific fight over.
I'm sorry, but I find that response, rather remarkably dismissive of everything just presented.
Imagine if one day someone came up to you and said that all reality is actually inverted right now, and this is not the way it's supposed to be. Everything you ever knew, heard, touched, felt, studied, or understood is wrong.
Now imagine this is Prometheus. You take out the moment where those huge, Earth shattering world view changes are actually expressed and given any time in the movie. That's what I fear.
I get it. I really do. Nobody wants to be bored. But this isn't a little detail. It's a huge contrast of the theme Ridley is all giddy about, and so far as I can see from all the interviews, all the behind the scenes stuff, trailers, etc. This isn't given one moment anywhere in the film.
And I stand by that. Mark my words. They won't pay any lip service to any of that business in the flick.
Will I enjoy the movie? Sure. You bet. I'm very excited for it.
STRAWMAN. The two words are equally important else you might as well just say it's out right fantasy.
Oh, and here, since you seemed to not read my previous posts, look what I said before;
I am excited for the movie, and no, it does not ruin my ability to enjoy it. It's merely disheartening that Hollywood is at the level of creative bankruptcy that it is, that it cant be bothered to even include basic science crap in it's Science Fiction films.
But you are entitled to disliking the film before you see it and cite its flaws to the world
Let me repeat back. I know it's not science class. I'm asking simply for basic scientific things to at least get some lip service. That's it. Especially if the movie is going to pretend it's smart.
Ya know, like that classic movie everyone loves about making dinosaurs? How it addressed the science behind it all in great, entertaining, detail, and played it out as a central theme of the movie? All the while asking big ass questions about playing God, nature, etc?
What I want, but I probably won't get. But, something like this:
Waitaminute, you two are full of shit! We have records going back thousands of years that show exactly where we came from. This "discovery" of yours sounds like a load of Von Daniken bollocks. This brings evolution, and just about every other fundamental scientific theory on biological and our own history into question. How do you reconcile that with what you're saying? Where's your proof beyond some vague cave paintings?
"Using the new blah blah Weyland tech, blah blah, we discovered a series of things that indicate our evolutionary path may have been coordinated and calculated over the course of millions of years. We're talking macro science and engineering on a scale previously unimaginable. They left a signature in our genetic code. Something that up until a few years ago was undetectable. They planned everything, very carefully.
"Oh God, it's science classs... Augh. Terrible." Please...
You cannot be high brow and intellectual and "f*ck it, it's a movie" at the same time. That's skitzo. Either you're going to research the background of what you're delving into, and be faithful to that, or you're just pulling shit out of your ass and there is no point in "asking questions." Because there never were any legitimate answers. The movie sets out with a farce agenda in that regard.
Ridley has evoked a lot of stuff, and frankly, he's gone to both ends of the bell curve. Brilliance, and silliness.
I'm not really sure of your point in saying "that's why he did it." I can think of a dozen examples of space based situations where no sound in space has produced one hell of a dramatic moment. That one is more down to choice, and i've never felt there was a right choice in that regard. Either way works from a dramatic stand point. It's merely how you do it, and frankly it's rather irrelevant to Prometheus since they spend most of their time inside a planetary atmosphere anyway.
Also, that one doesn't bother me because everybody pretty much knows that there's no sound in space these days. It's one of those tropes that is simply understood and accepted. Evolutionary theory, Darwinism, the fossil record. Those kind of things are not necessarily nearly as well understood by the general audience, and it would be nice if this movie was used as an opportunity to at least throw the facts as they are currently understood in there, to contrast with what the movie is trying to say, so far, i'm not seeing that even the slightest.
Yes. This is absolutely correct.
I have also heard George Lucas mention the importance of "audio montage" where you combine all the sounds of an area into one. So just because space does not transmit the sound from one spaceship to the next - the combination of both is intuitive to the audience. For instance, when one ship is shooting lasers, those lasers vibrate the hull of both the ship shooting them and the ship getting hit. One ship can only hear one of those sounds however. When the ship you hit with you lasers blows up - you cannot hear it. Likewise, if you are the ship that gets hit - you don't hear the lasers being hired up on you. However - to get the whole story - you can combine the shots.
It is as intuitive as cutting from one cockpit to the next as if you were in both ships. Lucas said that it would be pretty silly to say being in two places at once is impossible in terms of the cinema. We cut through vast distances of space and time frequently. If people want to cry foul over the space sound issue - then all one can say is that should be hardly audible in comparison to all the other rules cinema is always breaking.
And judging by his recent rambles I say thank f**k for that.