New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS

Started by Qwertify, May 20, 2012, 06:44:42 AM

Author
New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS (Read 157,093 times)

ChrisPachi

ChrisPachi

#615
Sound in space works in Alien. It is a defining moment in the film; your technology and your protocols are adrift; space doesn't care, and nobody can hear you. Wind in space might be dumb, but that one cue had a massive impact.

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#616
It's science FICTION. Fiction, fiction, fiction. Jesus fu€king Christ man!

But you are entitled to disliking the film before you see it and cite its flaws to the world :) TALLY HO! hehehehehe :)  :laugh: :laugh: ;D

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#617
Quote from: ChrisPachi on May 25, 2012, 12:24:49 PM
Sound in space works in Alien. It is a defining moment in the film; your technology and your protocols are adrift; space doesn't care, and nobody can hear you. Wind in space might be dumb, but that one cue had a massive impact.

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.

Quote from: Vepariga on May 25, 2012, 12:03:53 PM
I think picking apart a film that no one has seen yet is kind of redundant.

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.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 25, 2012, 12:41:19 PM
It's science FICTION. Fiction, fiction, fiction. Jesus fu€king Christ man!

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;

Quote from: OpenMaw on May 25, 2012, 08:13:14 AM
Don't get me wrong. The cast is great, the scenery and effects look great, the acting looks mostly good, and the horror looks terrific. The only hang up I have is the dodgy science.

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.

RoaryUK

RoaryUK

#618
...to be really really honest, I couldn't care less where we're from, who made us or why they even bothered.... so long as they get that Space Jockey right...now THAT'S what really matters!!  ;D ;D ;D

Deuterium

Deuterium

#619
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 25, 2012, 12:43:00 PM

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.

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.   :P ;) ;D

All that having been said...I will still have my ass in a theatre seat on opening day.  8)

Valaquen

Valaquen

#620
Your frustration isn't annoying, your ability to ignore the scientific concessions the original movies made is. Prometheus should be judged on the same level as sound in space in Alien, or in the rapid growth and gestation of the creature inside Kane, or the gravity on the planetoid, or the FTL travel the Nostromo manages despite us seeing it drag through space, or Ripley hanging on for dear life in Aliens, yadda yadda. If anyone goes to see a movie and actively walks away thinking that it was a genuine and true representation of science, geology, evolution, etc., then they're a f**king twat to being with. The two camps here -unfaltering praise on one hand, inane grumbling at everything on the other- is ingratiating. Of course if anyone's offended then that's their problem.

Deuterium

Deuterium

#621
Quote from: Valaquen on May 25, 2012, 03:40:24 PM
Of course if anyone's offended then that's their problem.

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.


RagingDragon

RagingDragon

#622
Thanks for dropping in, Deuterium.  It was OpenMaw vs. the world. :laugh:

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. :laugh:

fuindustries

fuindustries

#623
This back and forth regarding the "science" in "science-fiction" reminded me of a semi-recent blogpost by sci-fi author John Scalzi that proposed the term "Flying Snowman" in reference to discussions similar to this one. Here's the gist of it:

"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

ladyferry

ladyferry

#624
In the end we're all made of stardust...

Deuterium

Deuterium

#625
Hi RagingDragon,

Certainly, some fair points.

Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 04:21:14 PM

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. ;)

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.
 
Quote
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.


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.

ryanjayhawk

ryanjayhawk

#626
Quote from: Deuterium on May 25, 2012, 06:18:04 PM
Hi RagingDragon,

Certainly, some fair points.

Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 04:21:14 PM

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. ;)

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.
 
Quote
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.


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.

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"...

timiteh

timiteh

#627
Quote from: ryanjayhawk on May 25, 2012, 06:49:24 PM

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"...

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.

RagingDragon

RagingDragon

#628
Quote from: Deuterium on May 25, 2012, 06:18:04 PM
Hi RagingDragon,

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.

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. :D  I thought you guys had figured out the entire damned plot and I was going to be left flapping.

Okay, here goes: Warning - extreme nerd over-analysis and rants to follow:

Spoiler
Astronomically speaking, life is a numbers game, given the size of the universe as we know it so far.  Mathematicians and physicists have both given examples of why the idea of there being no other intelligent life in the universe is statistically very low, given what we know about our biological origins on Earth.  The right conditions arise, for the right amount of time, and you introduce the potential for the mechanisms of evolution to occur.

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. :D
[close]

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. :D
Quote
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.

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.

QuoteIn 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 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? :laugh:

Deuterium

Deuterium

#629
Quote from: ryanjayhawk on May 25, 2012, 06:49:24 PM
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"...

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.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News