http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1 (http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1)
Quote
Prometheus contains such a huge amount of mythic resonance that it effectively obscures a more conventional plot. I'd like to draw your attention to the use of motifs and callbacks in the film that not only enrich it, but offer possible hints as to what was going on in otherwise confusing scenes.
Let's begin with the eponymous titan himself, Prometheus. He was a wise and benevolent entity who created mankind in the first place, forming the first humans from clay. The Gods were more or less okay with that, until Prometheus gave them fire. This was a big no-no, as fire was supposed to be the exclusive property of the Gods. As punishment, Prometheus was chained to a rock and condemned to have his liver ripped out and eaten every day by an eagle. (His liver magically grew back, in case you were wondering.)
Fix that image in your mind, please: the giver of life, with his abdomen torn open. We'll be coming back to it many times in the course of this article.
The ethos of the titan Prometheus is one of willing and necessary sacrifice for life's sake. That's a pattern we see replicated throughout the ancient world. J G Frazer wrote his lengthy anthropological study, The Golden Bough, around the idea of the Dying God - a lifegiver who voluntarily dies for the sake of the people. It was incumbent upon the King to die at the right and proper time, because that was what heaven demanded, and fertility would not ensue if he did not do his royal duty of dying.
Now, consider the opening sequence of Prometheus. We fly over a spectacular vista, which may or may not be primordial Earth. According to Ridley Scott, it doesn't matter. A lone Engineer at the top of a waterfall goes through a strange ritual, drinking from a cup of black goo that causes his body to disintegrate into the building blocks of life. We see the fragments of his body falling into the river, twirling and spiralling into DNA helices.
Ridley Scott has this to say about the scene: 'That could be a planet anywhere. All he's doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself. If you parallel that idea with other sacrificial elements in history – which are clearly illustrated with the Mayans and the Incas – he would live for one year as a prince, and at the end of that year, he would be taken and donated to the gods in hopes of improving what might happen next year, be it with crops or weather, etcetera.'
Can we find a God in human history who creates plant life through his own death, and who is associated with a river? It's not difficult to find several, but the most obvious candidate is Osiris, the epitome of all the Frazerian 'Dying Gods'.
And we wouldn't be amiss in seeing the first of the movie's many Christian allegories in this scene, either. The Engineer removes his cloak before the ceremony, and hesitates before drinking the cupful of genetic solvent; he may well have been thinking 'If it be Thy will, let this cup pass from me.'
So, we know something about the Engineers, a founding principle laid down in the very first scene: acceptance of death, up to and including self-sacrifice, is right and proper in the creation of life. Prometheus, Osiris, John Barleycorn, and of course the Jesus of Christianity are all supposed to embody this same principle. It is held up as one of the most enduring human concepts of what it means to be 'good'.
Seen in this light, the perplexing obscurity of the rest of the film yields to an examination of the interwoven themes of sacrifice, creation, and preservation of life. We also discover, through hints, exactly what the nature of the clash between the Engineers and humanity entailed.
The crew of the Prometheus discover an ancient chamber, presided over by a brooding solemn face, in which urns of the same black substance are kept. A mural on the wall presents an image which, if you did as I asked earlier on, you will recognise instantly: the lifegiver with his abdomen torn open. Go and look at it here to refresh your memory. Note the serenity on the Engineer's face here.
And there's another mural there, one which shows a familiar xenomorph-like figure. This is the Destroyer who mirrors the Creator, I think - the avatar of supremely selfish life, devouring and destroying others purely to preserve itself. As Ash puts it: 'a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.'
Through Shaw and Holloway's investigations, we learn that the Engineers not only created human life, they supervised our development. (How else are we to explain the numerous images of Engineers in primitive art, complete with star diagram showing us the way to find them?) We have to assume, then, that for a good few hundred thousand years, they were pretty happy with us. They could have destroyed us at any time, but instead, they effectively invited us over; the big pointy finger seems to be saying 'Hey, guys, when you're grown up enough to develop space travel, come see us.' Until something changed, something which not only messed up our relationship with them but caused their installation on LV-223 to be almost entirely wiped out.
From the Engineers' perspective, so long as humans retained that notion of self-sacrifice as central, we weren't entirely beyond redemption. But we went and screwed it all up, and the film hints at when, if not why: the Engineers at the base died two thousand years ago. That suggests that the event that turned them against us and led to the huge piles of dead Engineers lying about was one and the same event. We did something very, very bad, and somehow the consequences of that dreadful act accompanied the Engineers back to LV-223 and massacred them.
If you have uneasy suspicions about what 'a bad thing approximately 2,000 years ago' might be, then let me reassure you that you are right. An astonishing excerpt from the Movies.com interview with Ridley Scott:
Movies.com: We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?
Ridley Scott: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an "our children are misbehaving down there" scenario, there are moments where it looks like we've gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, "Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it." Guess what? They crucified him.
Yeah. The reason the Engineers don't like us any more is that they made us a Space Jesus, and we broke him. Reader, that's not me pulling wild ideas out of my arse. That's RIDLEY SCOTT.
So, imagine poor crucified Jesus, a fresh spear wound in his side. Oh, hey, there's the 'lifegiver with his abdomen torn open' motif again. That's three times now: Prometheus, Engineer mural, Jesus Christ. And I don't think I have to mention the 'sacrifice in the interest of giving life' bit again, do I? Everyone on the same page? Good.
So how did our (in the context of the film) terrible murderous act of crucifixion end up wiping out all but one of the Engineers back on LV-223? Presumably through the black slime, which evidently models its behaviour on the user's mental state. Create unselfishly, accepting self-destruction as the cost, and the black stuff engenders fertile life. But expose the potent black slimy stuff to the thoughts and emotions of flawed humanity, and 'the sleep of reason produces monsters'. We never see the threat that the Engineers were fleeing from, we never see them killed other than accidentally (decapitation by door), and we see no remaining trace of whatever killed them. Either it left a long time ago, or it reverted to inert black slime, waiting for a human mind to reactivate it.
The black slime reacts to the nature and intent of the being that wields it, and the humans in the film didn't even know that they WERE wielding it. That's why it remained completely inert in David's presence, and why he needed a human proxy in order to use the stuff to create anything. The black goo could read no emotion or intent from him, because he was an android.
Shaw's comment when the urn chamber is entered - 'we've changed the atmosphere in the room' - is deceptively informative. The psychic atmosphere has changed, because humans - tainted, Space Jesus-killing humans - are present. The slime begins to engender new life, drawing not from a self-sacrificing Engineer but from human hunger for knowledge, for more life, for more everything. Little wonder, then, that it takes serpent-like form. The symbolism of a corrupting serpent, turning men into beasts, is pretty unmistakeable.
Refusal to accept death is anathema to the Engineers. Right from the first scene, we learned their code of willing self-sacrifice in accord with a greater purpose. When the severed Engineer head is temporarily brought back to life, its expression registers horror and disgust. Cinemagoers are confused when the head explodes, because it's not clear why it should have done so. Perhaps the Engineer wanted to die again, to undo the tainted human agenda of new life without sacrifice.
But some humans do act in ways the Engineers might have grudgingly admired. Take Holloway, Shaw's lover, who impregnates her barren womb with his black slime riddled semen before realising he is being transformed into something Other. Unlike the hapless geologist and botanist left behind in the chamber, who only want to stay alive, Holloway willingly embraces death. He all but invites Meredith Vickers to kill him, and it's surely significant that she does so using fire, the other gift Prometheus gave to man besides his life.
The 'Caesarean' scene is central to the film's themes of creation, sacrifice, and giving life. Shaw has discovered she's pregnant with something non-human and sets the autodoc to slice it out of her. She lies there screaming, a gaping wound in her stomach, while her tentacled alien child thrashes and squeals in the clamp above her and OH HEY IT'S THE LIFEGIVER WITH HER ABDOMEN TORN OPEN. How many times has that image come up now? Four, I make it. (We're not done yet.)
And she doesn't kill it. And she calls the procedure a 'caesarean' instead of an 'abortion'.
(I'm not even going to begin to explore the pro-choice versus forced birth implications of that scene. I don't think they're clear, and I'm not entirely comfortable doing so. Let's just say that her unwanted offspring turning out to be her salvation is possibly problematic from a feminist standpoint and leave it there for now.)
Here's where the Christian allegories really come through. The day of this strange birth just happens to be Christmas Day. And this is a 'virgin birth' of sorts, although a dark and twisted one, because Shaw couldn't possibly be pregnant. And Shaw's the crucifix-wearing Christian of the crew. We may well ask, echoing Yeats: what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards LV-223 to be born?
Consider the scene where David tells Shaw that she's pregnant, and tell me that's not a riff on the Annunciation. The calm, graciously angelic android delivering the news, the pious mother who insists she can't possibly be pregnant, the wry declaration that it's no ordinary child... yeah, we've seen this before.
'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.'
A barren woman called Elizabeth, made pregnant by 'God'? Subtle, Ridley.
Anyway. If it weren't already clear enough that the central theme of the film is 'I suffer and die so that others may live' versus 'you suffer and die so that I may live' writ extremely large, Meredith Vickers helpfully spells it out:
'A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable.'
Vickers is not just speaking out of personal frustration here, though that's obviously one level of it. She wants her father out of the way, so she can finally come in to her inheritance. It's insult enough that Weyland describes the android David as 'the closest thing I have to a son', as if only a male heir was of any worth; his obstinate refusal to accept death is a slap in her face.
Weyland, preserved by his wealth and the technology it can buy, has lived far, far longer than his rightful time. A ghoulish, wizened creature who looks neither old nor young, he reminds me of Slough Feg, the decaying tyrant from the Slaine series in British comic 2000AD. In Slaine, an ancient (and by now familiar to you, dear reader, or so I would hope) Celtic law decrees that the King has to be ritually and willingly sacrificed at the end of his appointed time, for the good of the land and the people. Slough Feg refused to die, and became a rotting horror, the embodiment of evil.
The image of the sorcerer who refuses to accept rightful death is fundamental: it even forms a part of some occult philosophy. In Crowley's system, the magician who refuses to accept the bitter cup of Babalon and undergo dissolution of his individual ego in the Great Sea (remember that opening scene?) becomes an ossified, corrupted entity called a 'Black Brother' who can create no new life, and lives on as a sterile, emasculated husk.
With all this in mind, we can better understand the climactic scene in which the withered Weyland confronts the last surviving Engineer. See it from the Engineer's perspective. Two thousand years ago, humanity not only murdered the Engineers' emissary, it infected the Engineers' life-creating fluid with its own tainted selfish nature, creating monsters. And now, after so long, here humanity is, presumptuously accepting a long-overdue invitation, and even reawakening (and corrupting all over again) the life fluid.
And who has humanity chosen to represent them? A self-centred, self-satisfied narcissist who revels in his own artificially extended life, who speaks through the medium of a merely mechanical offspring. Humanity couldn't have chosen a worse ambassador.
It's hardly surprising that the Engineer reacts with contempt and disgust, ripping David's head off and battering Weyland to death with it. The subtext is bitter and ironic: you caused us to die at the hands of our own creation, so I am going to kill you with YOUR own creation, albeit in a crude and bludgeoning way.
The only way to save humanity is through self-sacrifice, and this is exactly what the captain (and his two oddly complacent co-pilots) opt to do. They crash the Prometheus into the Engineer's ship, giving up their lives in order to save others. Their willing self-sacrifice stands alongside Holloway's and the Engineer's from the opening sequence; by now, the film has racked up no less than five self-sacrificing gestures (six if we consider the exploding Engineer head).
Meredith Vickers, of course, has no interest in self-sacrifice. Like her father, she wants to keep herself alive, and so she ejects and lands on the planet's surface. With the surviving cast now down to Vickers and Shaw, we witness Vickers's rather silly death as the Engineer ship rolls over and crushes her, due to a sudden inability on her part to run sideways. Perhaps that's the point; perhaps the film is saying her view is blinkered, and ultimately that kills her. But I doubt it. Sometimes a daft death is just a daft death.
Finally, in the squidgy ending scenes of the film, the wrathful Engineer conveniently meets its death at the tentacles of Shaw's alien child, now somehow grown huge. But it's not just a death; there's obscene life being created here, too. The (in the Engineers' eyes) horrific human impulse to sacrifice others in order to survive has taken on flesh. The Engineer's body bursts open - blah blah lifegiver blah blah abdomen ripped apart hey we're up to five now - and the proto-Alien that emerges is the very image of the creature from the mural.
On the face of it, it seems absurd to suggest that the genesis of the Alien xenomorph ultimately lies in the grotesque human act of crucifying the Space Jockeys' emissary to Israel in four B.C., but that's what Ridley Scott proposes. It seems equally insane to propose that Prometheus is fundamentally about the clash between acceptance of death as a condition of creating/sustaining life versus clinging on to life at the expense of others, but the repeated, insistent use of motifs and themes bears this out.
As a closing point, let me draw your attention to a very different strand of symbolism that runs through Prometheus: the British science fiction show Doctor Who. In the 1970s episode 'The Daemons', an ancient mound is opened up, leading to an encounter with a gigantic being who proves to be an alien responsible for having guided mankind's development, and who now views mankind as a failed experiment that must be destroyed. The Engineers are seen tootling on flutes, in exactly the same way that the second Doctor does. The Third Doctor had an companion whose name was Liz Shaw, the same name as the protagonist of Prometheus. As with anything else in the film, it could all be coincidental; but knowing Ridley Scott, it doesn't seem very likely.
Perfect.
I'm not so certain what leads to the conclusion that the black goo needs human emotion to function. Other than that though, i think this is pretty spot on. I do wish a slight bit more had been made of these overarching themes in the film itself. They didn't need to spell it out for us, but as is it's clearly too vague for a good percentage of the AVP population to pick up. No offense ;)
Very very interesting read, i cant wait for my 2nd viewing now with this in my mind.
It all fits, this is correct.
Hey, I wrote this! :)
Thanks for reading, glad you liked it. It's not meant to be an absolute and final answer, just plucking out a few consistent threads from the morass of themes and symbols.
This analysis definitely has some forethought to it. It all fits too so fantastic job Cavalorn!
One part of it that very well might be true and appears that way is the intent of the reciever effects how the goo works. Someone willing to sacrifice will create something positive and anyone else will create something negative.
Ive stayed away from that concept specifically in my own head mostly because thats largely how Doom works. This would be a much classier presentation and a more significant payoff for the faithful but somethin about the parallel of the two just bugs me.
I honestly find this looking way to deep into things that are not that deep.
"And she doesn't kill it. And she calls the procedure a 'caesarean' instead of an 'abortion'."
Its because its two different procedures...
Wow, dude. That was some pretty deep thinking. Great job. :)
Nice theory. Still I find it hard to swallow, pardon the pun, that the black goo reacts to intentions. Seems a little cheesy and the idea of aliens being created by humans rears it's ugly head once again. However, if so, then I can see why Ridley distanced Prometheus from Alien.
I think that the movie has deep stuff in its core intentions maybe even in the original script.
But the end result is not at the same level of those intentions.
Wow this is amazing. I love the film even more now.
This analysis explains the prometheus alien life cycle really well.
This means that the Proto alien is the first xenomorph!
So were the Engineers planning on dropping heaps of black goo onto earth to destroy all life, seeing as the flaws of humanity had corrupted the goo?
That is very, very good :o
Just a quick question. I might have missed something, but why would the black goo react to the mental state of humans when they weren't even on the same planet 2000 years ago? :-\
A very interesting read however. It definitely made me see some things in a new light.
Fantastic.
Its funny how opinions are. Personally I am not impressed with this review at all. Not to say its bad just kinda reachy for conclusions.
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Its funny how opinions are. Personally I am not impressed with this review at all. Not to say its bad just kinda reachy for conclusions.
Yes, that's the intention. Faced with a movie that contains so much subtext, my preferred response is to bring it to light and see what it can potentially tell us about the film's underlying meaning. To do that, you HAVE to take leaps and make inferences. It's Ridley Scott, after all... origami unicorns anyone? :)
I'm not asking people to agree with my conclusions, but I would hope that pointing some of the non-obvious symbolism out (I completely missed the Christmas aspect on my first run at this, for example) would at least be an interesting contribution.
Quote from: Cavalorn on Jun 09, 2012, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Its funny how opinions are. Personally I am not impressed with this review at all. Not to say its bad just kinda reachy for conclusions.
Yes, that's the intention. Faced with a movie that contains so much subtext, my preferred response is to bring it to light and see what it can potentially tell us about the film's underlying meaning. To do that, you HAVE to take leaps and make inferences. It's Ridley Scott, after all... origami unicorns anyone? :)
I'm not asking people to agree with my conclusions, but I would hope that pointing some of the non-obvious symbolism out (I completely missed the Christmas aspect on my first run at this, for example) would at least be an interesting contribution.
Don't get me wrong, its clearly a great contribution because it stimulates discussions. I just find some of your conclusions a bit odd or like "why would you think that?". Sorry if I am coming across as snippy or anything rude - I am sincerely not being in my post. As aforementioned anything that gets people talking is a good thing.
great analysis. but i can't help but laugh at Space Jesus theory
Thing is.....science fiction movies without.....it's still Space Jesus.
Some god in some dimension impregnates a young girl with his seed. You can't get more 'space alien' than that.
So Ridley and Lindeloff put all this thought and deep epic meanings and symbols/themes into the movie, but couldn't grasp how idiotic it looked that Shaw and Vickers first try to outrun the falling ship, then it takes Shaw only a few rolls to get out of the way, yet Vickers just lays there and lets it crush her?
Quote from: meanstreak on Jun 09, 2012, 01:47:08 PM
So Ridley and Lindeloff put all this thought and deep epic meanings and symbols/themes into the movie, but couldn't grasp how idiotic it looked that Shaw and Vickers first try to outrun the falling ship, then it takes Shaw only a few rolls to get out of the way, yet Vickers just lays there and lets it crush her?
Well some choose to look the other way... ;D
NGR01, there are definitely execution and script issues in the film. I have to echo your initial thoughts a week or so back. Felt the same way. But this journal post presents some interesting subtext to frame the storyline. It is quite a rich storyline with so much history, mythology, and religion underlying the actions of the Engineers and crew of the Prometheus. I admit, this gives me more faith in the filmmakers that they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball on basic execution of pacing, characterization, and plotting.
Jeebus was a space alien. I've been sayin' that fer years.
What if years down the road we begin to view this film, Prometheus, as more allegorically scripted than we now realizes...in that case, many of the more convenient plot devices can surely be overlooked.
Personally I love this film as a stand-alone sci-fi story....I'm not sure how to categorize it in the Alien mythos yet, however.
Only time
will tell.
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Eh, its almost like you're implying Jews were killed because they were the people that killed Christ (to sum it up). There was zero religious aspect in this.
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Eh, its almost like you're implying Jews were killed because they were the people that killed Christ (to sum it up). There was zero religious aspect in this.
Saying Jews have been murdered because they are blamed for killing Jesus is untrue?
Are you saying there was no religious aspects in Prometheus?
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Eh, its almost like you're implying Jews were killed because they were the people that killed Christ (to sum it up). There was zero religious aspect in this.
Saying Jews have been murdered because they are blamed for killing Jesus is untrue?
Are you saying there was no religious aspects in Prometheus?
You are actually implying that Jews, in Nazi Germany, were killed for religious reasons?
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:13:53 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Eh, its almost like you're implying Jews were killed because they were the people that killed Christ (to sum it up). There was zero religious aspect in this.
Saying Jews have been murdered because they are blamed for killing Jesus is untrue?
Are you saying there was no religious aspects in Prometheus?
You are actually implying that Jews, in Nazi Germany, were killed for religious reasons?
Nobody is saying there were not a scapegoat for many other things too.
Are you saying that it was a non-factor?
So far as I know is still IS a major factor in Anti-Semitism.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:16:22 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:13:53 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Eh, its almost like you're implying Jews were killed because they were the people that killed Christ (to sum it up). There was zero religious aspect in this.
Saying Jews have been murdered because they are blamed for killing Jesus is untrue?
Are you saying there was no religious aspects in Prometheus?
You are actually implying that Jews, in Nazi Germany, were killed for religious reasons?
Nobody is saying there were not a scapegoat for many other things too.
Are you saying that it was a non-factor?
So far as I know is still IS a major factor in Anti-Semitism.
Wow...
I don't even know where to begin. Did you just kinda make this up in your mind? Because even in the effed up school systems of today you will not find anywhere that say the Jews were persecuted for relegious (in Nazi Germany) reasons nor that is why the holocoaust happened in any way. Its funny because I was just talking about this a couple weeks ago. I was mentioning that its sickening that in the UK (and now some places in America) they will no longer teach about the Holocaust so as not to offend muslims (source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547369/No-lessons-on-the-Holocaust.html#) because its so insane it seems like it MUST be a lie). I was worried because its only a matter of time before what and why is distorted. Seems it happens a lot sooner than I expected.
No, what happened to the jews has ZERO to do with religious reasons.
Hitler killed the Jewsish for more than one reason. The political reason given was that the Jews were aligned with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia therefore being communist. Communists were hated in Germany for not only their brutality but for what, they feared, was a totalitarian state in which there would be little freedom and the German culture and society would be radically changed, and everyone would suffer a lower standard of living.
The Jewish people also held a LOT of Germany's wealth through banks and other offical means that - in a free society - meant they held a HELL of a lot of power. this is why their freedoms were eroded fast and ability to own anything eroded almost over night. This is why in part Hitler believed admantly that the Jewish people were planing on taking over the world.
Nazi propagandists began to portray the Jew as the epitome of all evil and the reason for all the defeat and societal ills in Germany. He reasoned that their influence was degenerating Germany and its peoples`, and that they were why Germany lost WWI. Tainted the fine arts, bringing in disease through defiling bloodlines, introducing communism, etc etc.
Man I could go but I won't bother because this isn't the forums for that. Honestly, if you bother to argue with me you are only solidifying that you know nothing about history in that particular arena and area of time. Do yourself a favor and go read some books on it rather then blaming total untruths. What you're saying is slanderous on an unbelievable level and cast a deceitful shadow on something that should be remembered in absolute truth.
It was a total non factor.
That was a great read!
I too need an explanation of how events on Earth in 4BC could affect the black solution on LV-223, though.
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:35:16 PM
Wow...
I don't even know where to begin. Did you just kinda make this up in your mind? Because even in the effed up school systems of today you will not find anywhere that say the Jews were persecuted for relegious (in Nazi Germany) reasons nor that is why the holocoaust happened in any way. Its funny because I was just talking about this a couple weeks ago. I was mentioning that its sickening that in the UK (and now some places in America) they will no longer teach about the Holocaust so as not to offend muslims (source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547369/No-lessons-on-the-Holocaust.html#) because its so insane it seems like it MUST be a lie). I was worried because its only a matter of time before what and why is distorted. Seems it happens a lot sooner than I expected.
No, what happened to the jews has ZERO to do with religious reasons.
Hitler killed the Jewsish for more than one reason. The political reason given was that the Jews were aligned with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia therefore being communist. Communists were hated in Germany for not only their brutality but for what, they feared, was a totalitarian state in which there would be little freedom and the German culture and society would be radically changed, and everyone would suffer a lower standard of living.
The Jewish people also held a LOT of Germany's wealth through banks and other offical means that - in a free society - meant they held a HELL of a lot of power. this is why their freedoms were eroded fast and ability to own anything eroded almost over night. This is why in part Hitler believed admantly that the Jewish people were planing on taking over the world.
Nazi propagandists began to portray the Jew as the epitome of all evil and the reason for all the defeat and societal ills in Germany. He reasoned that their influence was degenerating Germany and its peoples`, and that they were why Germany lost WWI. Tainted the fine arts, bringing in disease through defiling bloodlines, introducing communism, etc etc.
Man I could go but I won't bother because this isn't the forums for that. Honestly, if you bother to argue with me you are only solidifying that you know nothing about history in that particular arena and area of time. Do yourself a favor and go read some books on it rather then blaming total untruths. What you're saying is slanderous on an unbelievable level and cast a deceitful shadow on something that should be remembered in absolute truth.
It was a total non factor.
Wow, that was quite informative.
I do recall something having to do with Muslim parents being upset with it.
Gotta love revisionist history! ;D
Nobody every mentioned those to me in school.
In short we all got Nazis evil, said they were superior race, hated Jews, beause Jews killed Jesus, so Nazis went and killed 6 million jews.
Had no idea they were blamed for communism too. I though that was Marx?
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Jun 09, 2012, 03:44:03 PM
That was a great read!
I too need an explanation of how events on Earth in 4BC could affect the black solution on LV-223, though.
Well, even if it was not a Jew killed Jesus thing that really got the Nazis going, the Jockies and their final solution to humans still gives me a Nazi vibe, even if its a vibe based on movie version of the Nazis.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:49:33 PM
Wow, that was quite informative.
Nobody every mentioned those to me in school.
In short we all got Nazis evil, said they were superior race, hated Jews, beause Jews killed Jesus, so Nazis went and killed 6 million jews.
Had no idea they were blamed for communism too. I though that was Marx?
God no. It had nothing to do with because they killed Jesus. in fact Hitler vehemently repudiated his Christian upbringing. He hatred Christianity. As for communism they were blamed for bringing it into Germany - not for the creation of it. Honestly if you have done studies of this period in your history class and thats what they're teaching you you need to go out and educate yourself on the subject.
As I mentioned before Hitler hated Christianity. In 1937 (or 38?) Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious. They repudiated what they saw as the Christian values of equality, compassion and weakness and extolled the atheist notions of the Nietzschean superman and a new society based on the "will to power." It was all about building a genetically superior race to him. Goebbels and the other henchmen were atheists who were brutally hostile to religion. This was a part of Nazi ideology.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:49:33 PM
Well, even if it was not a Jew killed Jesus thing that really got the Nazis going, the Jockies and their final solution to humans still gives me a Nazi vibe, even if its a vibe based on movie version of the Nazis.
A stronger build for the Nazi theme (which fits really) is that the Engineers seem hell bent on genetic superiority and purity. If humanity didn't fit their ideology in that aspect they would see no issue in eradicating us.
Quote from: Cavalorn on Jun 09, 2012, 07:59:36 AM
Hey, I wrote this! :)
Thanks for reading, glad you liked it. It's not meant to be an absolute and final answer, just plucking out a few consistent threads from the morass of themes and symbols.
Thank you! This helped with understanding some things that might make the movie more enjoyable, despite the flaws.
Finally... some answers. :laugh:
Have a good day!
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:58:08 PM
A stronger build for the Nazi theme (which fits really) is that the Engineers seem hell bent on genetic superiority and purity. If humanity didn't fit their ideology in that aspect they would see no issue in eradicating us.
I like your quick breakdown of the theme much better. Also how simple the connection is.
They were giving me that feeling, even if my theory as to "why" was off base.
Leave it to Giant Space Nazis to invent the Xenomorph, you know a "superior" genetic organism and all.
Quote from: Cavalorn on Jun 09, 2012, 07:59:36 AM
Hey, I wrote this! :)
Thanks for reading, glad you liked it. It's not meant to be an absolute and final answer, just plucking out a few consistent threads from the morass of themes and symbols.
This was truly a wonderful analysis. Thanks so much for clearing it all up!!
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:00:00 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
As I've said before, these guys wanting to kill us all for killing Jesus reminds me of a group that tried to kill all the Jews, who are also often blamed for killing Jesus, about 70 years ago.
It all makes me call these Jockeys "Giant Space Nazis".
They are white as whtie can get, they are big and scary, they like weapons of mass destruction, and into Genocide.
Also, the nazis before WWII were very deeply into the occult belief that ET "gods" had engineered humanity, and that they were doing the bidding of the Engineers. - they also killed 6 million of the same people who are blamed for killing Jesus.
That is only scratching the surface. I bet there is a lot more symbolism.
Eh, its almost like you're implying Jews were killed because they were the people that killed Christ (to sum it up). There was zero religious aspect in this.
Lindelof is Jewish. I wouldn't be surprise if they did put some sublimal messages into this movie about the Jews/Jesus. I mean look at his stupid Star Trek movie script. He turn the Vulcan into a f**king Holocaust. Nero's race as a dirty Nazi/Arabs.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:16:22 PM
So far as I know is still IS a major factor in Anti-Semitism.
QuoteJesus' ministry of three-and-a-half years was to the lost house of Israel. But they would not obey, and they crucified him. When they did so, they screamed, "His blood be on us, and on our children," Matthew 27:25. God hates Israel and her destruction is coming from God. You rebellious sinful Jews will NOT get a pass because Jesus was a Jew. The Jews killed Jesus!
jewskilledjesus.com (http://www.jewskilledjesus.com/)
Color me silly but I don't see how you write a story about killing Jesus and ignore that killing Jesus is a cornerstone of anti-Semitism.
PROM3TH3US - I've been wondering what Lindelof's faith is. As a Jew and a Democrat, promoting an anti-Semitic storyline is highly unlikely. He could be trying to address anti-Semitism in a way I haven't grasped yet - Engineers are bad Christians, Shaw is a good Christian? I doubt that's it, but it seems he's done something.
Quote from: Cavalorn on Jun 09, 2012, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
Its funny how opinions are. Personally I am not impressed with this review at all. Not to say its bad just kinda reachy for conclusions.
Yes, that's the intention. Faced with a movie that contains so much subtext, my preferred response is to bring it to light and see what it can potentially tell us about the film's underlying meaning. To do that, you HAVE to take leaps and make inferences. It's Ridley Scott, after all... origami unicorns anyone? :)
I'm not asking people to agree with my conclusions, but I would hope that pointing some of the non-obvious symbolism out (I completely missed the Christmas aspect on my first run at this, for example) would at least be an interesting contribution.
Thank You..for your thoughtful post..
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Jun 09, 2012, 05:16:39 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:16:22 PM
So far as I know is still IS a major factor in Anti-Semitism.
QuoteJesus' ministry of three-and-a-half years was to the lost house of Israel. But they would not obey, and they crucified him. When they did so, they screamed, "His blood be on us, and on our children," Matthew 27:25. God hates Israel and her destruction is coming from God. You rebellious sinful Jews will NOT get a pass because Jesus was a Jew. The Jews killed Jesus!
jewskilledjesus.com (http://www.jewskilledjesus.com/)
Color me silly but I don't see how you write a story about killing Jesus and ignore that killing Jesus is a cornerstone of anti-Semitism.
PROM3TH3US - I've been wondering what Lindelof's faith is. As a Jew and a Democrat, promoting an anti-Semitic storyline is highly unlikely. He could be trying to address anti-Semitism in a way I haven't grasped yet - Engineers are bad Christians, Shaw is a good Christian? I doubt that's it, but it seems he's done something.
It sounds you guys are really stretching the limits of the analysis presented here. Can't it just begin and end with Christian symbolism?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 09, 2012, 05:50:01 PM
It sounds you guys are really stretching the limits of the analysis presented here. Can't it just begin and end with Christian symbolism?
My exact thoughts
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 09, 2012, 05:50:01 PM
It sounds you guys are really stretching the limits of the analysis presented here. Can't it just begin and end with Christian symbolism?
It
doesn't begin and end with Christian symbolism. Most obviously, Prometheus isn't a Christian figure.
Also, while Christians today may not want to talk about it, persecuting Jews is historically a part of Christianity, just like persecuting Wiccans and people of other native faiths. The people behind jewskilledjesus.com are most likely Christians, or at least consider themselves to be Christians.
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 06:07:02 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 09, 2012, 05:50:01 PM
It sounds you guys are really stretching the limits of the analysis presented here. Can't it just begin and end with Christian symbolism?
My exact thoughts
After tossing these ideas around for a day, I think the blogpost is a huge stretch. With so many stories in the Bible and within religious mythos (yes I said it), one can make connections between any existential question to one from a major religion. Even
Billy Budd has a loose Jesus complex and has suffered overanalysis.
Wow, wonderful insight! Definitely makes me appreciate the film more, and also stirs up even more questions. Provoking deeper thought is always a good thing. Thanks a lot for this! :)
Also, I'd like to know if that comment about the Jews supposedly controlling a large portion of Germany's wealth AND being responsible for the spread of Communism in 1920s-30s Germany is historically (and/or logically) correct. It would seem rather... counterproductive. :laugh:
Great read my man!
It's not just a movie with Christian or Sumerian tones. As Ridley said "it's about everything im from the all about everything school"
that was an amazing analysis. just...wow :o
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 09, 2012, 03:49:33 PM
Quote from: ScardyFox on Jun 09, 2012, 03:35:16 PM
Wow...
I don't even know where to begin. Did you just kinda make this up in your mind? Because even in the effed up school systems of today you will not find anywhere that say the Jews were persecuted for relegious (in Nazi Germany) reasons nor that is why the holocoaust happened in any way. Its funny because I was just talking about this a couple weeks ago. I was mentioning that its sickening that in the UK (and now some places in America) they will no longer teach about the Holocaust so as not to offend muslims (source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547369/No-lessons-on-the-Holocaust.html#) because its so insane it seems like it MUST be a lie). I was worried because its only a matter of time before what and why is distorted. Seems it happens a lot sooner than I expected.
No, what happened to the jews has ZERO to do with religious reasons.
Hitler killed the Jewsish for more than one reason. The political reason given was that the Jews were aligned with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia therefore being communist. Communists were hated in Germany for not only their brutality but for what, they feared, was a totalitarian state in which there would be little freedom and the German culture and society would be radically changed, and everyone would suffer a lower standard of living.
The Jewish people also held a LOT of Germany's wealth through banks and other offical means that - in a free society - meant they held a HELL of a lot of power. this is why their freedoms were eroded fast and ability to own anything eroded almost over night. This is why in part Hitler believed admantly that the Jewish people were planing on taking over the world.
Nazi propagandists began to portray the Jew as the epitome of all evil and the reason for all the defeat and societal ills in Germany. He reasoned that their influence was degenerating Germany and its peoples`, and that they were why Germany lost WWI. Tainted the fine arts, bringing in disease through defiling bloodlines, introducing communism, etc etc.
Man I could go but I won't bother because this isn't the forums for that. Honestly, if you bother to argue with me you are only solidifying that you know nothing about history in that particular arena and area of time. Do yourself a favor and go read some books on it rather then blaming total untruths. What you're saying is slanderous on an unbelievable level and cast a deceitful shadow on something that should be remembered in absolute truth.
It was a total non factor.
Wow, that was quite informative.
I do recall something having to do with Muslim parents being upset with it.
Gotta love revisionist history! ;D
Nobody every mentioned those to me in school.
In short we all got Nazis evil, said they were superior race, hated Jews, beause Jews killed Jesus, so Nazis went and killed 6 million jews.
Had no idea they were blamed for communism too. I though that was Marx?
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Jun 09, 2012, 03:44:03 PM
That was a great read!
I too need an explanation of how events on Earth in 4BC could affect the black solution on LV-223, though.
Well, even if it was not a Jew killed Jesus thing that really got the Nazis going, the Jockies and their final solution to humans still gives me a Nazi vibe, even if its a vibe based on movie version of the Nazis.
Wow... it would appear that Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is in full effect. ;D
Quote from: VickersAsh on Jun 09, 2012, 01:17:17 PM
great analysis. but i can't help but laugh at Space Jesus theory
Well, you can laugh, but it's not a theory. It's what Ridley said int his interview right here:
And you can say, "Lets' send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it. Guess what? They crucified him.http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/1575 (http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/1575)
Thank you Cavalorn for this. I already loved the movie, now i love it even MORE! \o/
To me, it's like "the best Lovecraft movie ever made" 8)
Quote from: smileys on Jun 10, 2012, 05:56:37 AM
Wow... it would appear that Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is in full effect. ;D
Godwin does have a great point, but in this case we don't have the best test subject.
The movie is clearly dealing with a very white type of technologically advanced human villains who see themselves as a Superior race and are planning mass Genocide. The movie might not have came right out and called them space nazi's, but you don't need Godwin to tell you that the theme seems very symbolic of Nazis.
I knew it. the movie is so subliminaly racist. glad I'm not alone.
Lindelof acknowledges this analysis:
https://twitter.com/DamonLindelof/status/211858028243333121 (https://twitter.com/DamonLindelof/status/211858028243333121)
Quote from: B1-66ER on Jun 10, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
I knew it. the movie is so subliminaly racist. glad I'm not alone.
Subliminally?
The Engineers are literally white. The Aliens are literally black.
It's H.P. Lovecraft all over again. His own fears of being culturally swallowed up by who he perceived as the inferior unwashed masses; made flesh. His writings where more subtle than Scotts film representations, but those were subtler times I suppose.
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Jun 10, 2012, 10:01:11 PM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Jun 10, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
I knew it. the movie is so subliminaly racist. glad I'm not alone.
Subliminally?
The Engineers are literally white. The Aliens are literally black.
It's H.P. Lovecraft all over again. His own fears of being culturally swallowed up by who he perceived as the inferior unwashed masses; made flesh. His writings where more subtle than Scotts film representations, but those were subtler times I suppose.
Ok sorry, I didn't realize it was that out in the open. It is so obviously racist. ;D
Quote from: B1-66ER on Jun 10, 2012, 10:03:08 PM
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Jun 10, 2012, 10:01:11 PM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Jun 10, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
I knew it. the movie is so subliminaly racist. glad I'm not alone.
Subliminally?
The Engineers are literally white. The Aliens are literally black.
It's H.P. Lovecraft all over again. His own fears of being culturally swallowed up by who he perceived as the inferior unwashed masses; made flesh. His writings where more subtle than Scotts film representations, but those were subtler times I suppose.
Ok sorry, I didn't realize it was that out in the open. It is so obviously racist. ;D
The entire film isn't racist propaganda or anything. It's just an element of the possible relationship between the xenomorphs and the engineers. And is straight up Lovecraft "At the Mountains of Madness."
There are plenty of other juicy social anxieties on display in the films for flag waving, agenda touting extremists to get excited about.
QuoteNo, what happened to the jews has ZERO to do with religious reasons.
Everything that happens to the Jews has to do with religious reasons, don't kid yourself. The "Third Reich" was supposedly the third successor to the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 10, 2012, 09:40:08 PM
Quote from: smileys on Jun 10, 2012, 05:56:37 AM
Wow... it would appear that Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is in full effect. ;D
Godwin does have a great point, but in this case we don't have the best test subject.
The movie is clearly dealing with a very white type of technologically advanced human villains who see themselves as a Superior race and are planning mass Genocide.
The movie might not have came right out and called them space nazi's, but you don't need Godwin to tell you that the theme seems very symbolic of Nazis.
How do you know the Jocks see themselves as superior?
How do you know the Jocks are planning genocide?
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jun 10, 2012, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 10, 2012, 09:40:08 PM
Quote from: smileys on Jun 10, 2012, 05:56:37 AM
Wow... it would appear that Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is in full effect. ;D
Godwin does have a great point, but in this case we don't have the best test subject.
The movie is clearly dealing with a very white type of technologically advanced human villains who see themselves as a Superior race and are planning mass Genocide.
The movie might not have came right out and called them space nazi's, but you don't need Godwin to tell you that the theme seems very symbolic of Nazis.
How do you know the Jocks see themselves as superior?
How do you know the Jocks are planning genocide?
What OTHER reason would they have for bringing that stuff to earth? To give us a long lasting clean source of fuel? Maybe just for a vacation or a hunting trip?
It seemed rather clear, and explicit in the movie they had decided to wipe us out.
When you decide you have the authority to commit Genocide, that would likely mean you see yourself in the position of Authority/Superiority no?
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 10, 2012, 10:20:01 PM
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jun 10, 2012, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 10, 2012, 09:40:08 PM
Quote from: smileys on Jun 10, 2012, 05:56:37 AM
Wow... it would appear that Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) is in full effect. ;D
Godwin does have a great point, but in this case we don't have the best test subject.
The movie is clearly dealing with a very white type of technologically advanced human villains who see themselves as a Superior race and are planning mass Genocide.
The movie might not have came right out and called them space nazi's, but you don't need Godwin to tell you that the theme seems very symbolic of Nazis.
How do you know the Jocks see themselves as superior?
How do you know the Jocks are planning genocide?
What OTHER reason would they have for bringing that stuff to earth? To give us a long lasting clean source of fuel? Maybe just for a vacation or a hunting trip?
It seemed rather clear, and explicit in the movie they had decided to wipe us out.
When you decide you have the authority to commit Genocide, that would likely mean you see yourself in the position of Authority/Superiority no?
They have been visiting humans for some time, as shown by all that space graffiti, why would this time be any different?
There is nothing clear about this time being different. The robot vaguely says something that one character takes a certain way but there is no solid information at all about the plans for this last visit.
Given that they seem to be keeping an eye on us there is more proof that they were just going for their regular visit than anything else.
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jun 10, 2012, 10:26:18 PM
They have been visiting humans for some time, as shown by all that space graffiti, why would this time be any different?
There is nothing clear about this time being different. The robot vaguely says something that one character takes a certain way but there is no solid information at all about the plans for this last visit.
Given that they seem to be keeping an eye on us there is more proof that they were just going for their regular visit than anything else.
Sooo, you're saying the Engineer was just coming to pay human kind a visit, say "hi" kind of thing?
Quote from: Laufey on Jun 09, 2012, 11:32:29 AM
Just a quick question. I might have missed something, but why would the black goo react to the mental state of humans when they weren't even on the same planet 2000 years ago? :-\
This^
Very interesting analysis.
Nice read. Don't know if all of that is what Ridley really intended, but a very intriguing point of view nevertheless.
Quote from: Ninurta on Jun 11, 2012, 01:31:33 AM
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jun 10, 2012, 10:26:18 PM
They have been visiting humans for some time, as shown by all that space graffiti, why would this time be any different?
There is nothing clear about this time being different. The robot vaguely says something that one character takes a certain way but there is no solid information at all about the plans for this last visit.
Given that they seem to be keeping an eye on us there is more proof that they were just going for their regular visit than anything else.
Sooo, you're saying the Engineer was just coming to pay human kind a visit, say "hi" kind of thing?
And leave more graffiti on some other rocks.
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jun 10, 2012, 10:13:55 PM
How do you know the Jocks see themselves as superior?
They create the human race, so we are their little ant farm. Come on, of course they see themselves as superior. They ARE superior! ::)
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jun 10, 2012, 10:13:55 PM
How do you know the Jocks are planning genocide?
Man, did you saw the same movie than i saw?
1- The engineers create human race
2- They came back here several times to teach us
3- We became evil
4- They send another emissary to teach us one last time (Jesus, as Ridley Scott already said)
5- We kill the emissary
6- They finally give up the humanity (we are a fail experiment) and they HAVE TO kill us all
Simple like that.
Quote from: Nichs on Jun 11, 2012, 02:28:24 AM
Quote from: Laufey on Jun 09, 2012, 11:32:29 AM
Just a quick question. I might have missed something, but why would the black goo react to the mental state of humans when they weren't even on the same planet 2000 years ago? :-\
This^
Very interesting analysis.
Yes this is the only thing that is bothering me too. :\
But yeah great read!
I don't know about the fluid needing to react with mental states.
Where did those Snakes come from?
Wasn't it from the worms that crawled into the black fluid?
Worms don't have mental states, but they must have been "infected", mated, and gave birth to proto-facehugger-snakes.
The growth seems plausible seeing how much the squid grew at the end of the movie.
Quote from: ElderPredator on Jun 11, 2012, 05:32:23 AM
Quote from: Nichs on Jun 11, 2012, 02:28:24 AM
Quote from: Laufey on Jun 09, 2012, 11:32:29 AM
Just a quick question. I might have missed something, but why would the black goo react to the mental state of humans when they weren't even on the same planet 2000 years ago? :-\
This^
Very interesting analysis.
Yes this is the only thing that is bothering me too. :\
But yeah great read!
Of course the engineers programed the black goo to do this. 2000 years ago they would send it to Earth to kill the human race, it's like a chemical weapon.
I saw a page about this on Worst Previews not too while ago. While I did like some things left as a mystery but it was still interesting. I guess Scott was made to ask on what happen with the film with so many people confused. I remember the same happen with Kubrick after 2001 was released.
Pretty good, it has some decent theories on the black substance and why the jockeys hate us. But there are still MANY unanswered questions even within the confines of the article. Such as the massive squid trilobite at the end, the mysterious pile of dead jockey bodies, the REASON the black goo does different things to different people. Yes there was much symbolism but I feel like there are very few answers and a lot of hypothesis.
As for the black goo, I think it was Xenomorphine who summed it up pretty good:
The black goo is a plot device. It does whatever the writers want it to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
I also hear that The Engineers were pissed off at us for 2000 because we killed Jesus? To me, that sounds really stupid. I always imagine that The Engineers wanted humans dead because we crated war and crime which is something that they didn't had in mind.
I don't think it could have been broken down any better. Well done, sir.
They should have called this movie "Pretentious"
... Also noticed that the Engineer in the film's intro who sacrifices himself in order to create life is also dressed in nothing but robes, similar to the "Jesus" idea. The vessel was also more "flying saucer" style, which is a common report in history on earth. So0o perhaps the vessels and Engineers on this particular planet were truly the soldiers of the race, unlike the intro's Engineer? Kind of like the death/life theory? WHat y'all think?
Quote from: JaaayDee on Jun 10, 2012, 09:54:49 PM
Lindelof acknowledges this analysis:
https://twitter.com/DamonLindelof/status/211858028243333121 (https://twitter.com/DamonLindelof/status/211858028243333121)
Nice!
Sharp Sticks had liked me to this last night, and I thought it was brilliant. Considered posting the link to it, but I knew it would be found anyway. Hopefully people embrace these ideas, because they're
all there.
I have one question it is clearly that this is not the first creation of xenomorph i mean i saw a statue of xenomorph in the wall of the ship or what ever place that
is it was like a statue on the wall :| did you guys see it on the movie what do you think it means
HILARIOUS. Never realized how many people went to this movie seeking the answers to life. I went with the notion that this was a stand alone explanation of the SJ. And it piqued my interest, gave a splendid colorful version to the Ancient Astronaut thesis, and has me waiting for a sequel. It's called ENTERTAINMENT folks.
Here's another interesting theory.
What is Going On in 'Prometheus'? A Universe of Questions, Answers and Theories
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/what-is-going-on-in-prometheus-a-universe-of-questions-answers-and-theories/ (http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/what-is-going-on-in-prometheus-a-universe-of-questions-answers-and-theories/)
Well I like to believe it was all for the intent of creating the xeno. The mural on the walls depicted the xenos and I assume thats what the jockeys were intending to create. Maybe humans were merely guinea pigs to create the perfect weapon.
Quote from: cmdcnqr on Jun 12, 2012, 05:13:14 AM
HILARIOUS. Never realized how many people went to this movie seeking the answers to life. I went with the notion that this was a stand alone explanation of the SJ. And it piqued my interest, gave a splendid colorful version to the Ancient Astronaut thesis, and has me waiting for a sequel. It's called ENTERTAINMENT folks.
Not answers to life, but answers to the events leading up to Alien, yes. And even then, it succeeds and fails at the same time.
For me, the screenwriters and director didn't have a clue of what their doing. They recalled a bunch of ancient astronauts theories, threw in a couple of monsters and fancy ships, some fx, HR Giger inspired surroundings and designs, and 3d filming and voilá: "Prometheus" was in the cinemas.
The "questions" raised by the movie, to me are an insult to moviegoers and Alien fans. The inconsistencies, the ambiguities, the appauling twists throughout the movie are not some higher form of writting and film directing, they're just a sloppy mix of ideas and poor execution masked by a good budget.
For me, the real challenge was to construct an innovative narrative, yet complex, but with a sense and purpose.
In the end what we really get are advanced optics, digital visions and an incredible Michael Fassbender.
"they were doing"
The execution wasn't inherently bad. The film ultimately in the end, wanted to set up a sequel which is why it asked so many questions that are indeed worth looking into but didn't answer them in one go.
I had posted this this morning but good read.
am i the only one who doesn't think Vickers is an android? The fact that she may have had a cold demeanor i understand, but she still showed emotion when she torched Holloway and definitely had fear when she got squished by the ship.
Quote from: ice9684 on Jun 12, 2012, 08:27:21 PM
am i the only one who doesn't think Vickers is an android? The fact that she may have had a cold demeanor i understand, but she still showed emotion when she torched Holloway and definitely had fear when she got squished by the ship.
I dont either. Why would Weyland create a robot that is going to be pissed at him all the time?
Plus are they built to be fully functional? Cause, you know, Janek.
She wasn't a robot. That's confirmed in the link PROM3TH3US posted earlier. Plus, there's nothing in the film that would suggest she was.
this is AWESOME i wish it would be somehow in the movie...because many people only see the effects and the lame screenplay
Everybody ignored Laufey's great comment pages back, which makes this theory create just as many holes as it tries to fill.
It was a great, great read, mind you, but unless they had a human to interact with 2,000 years ago on 223, the theory about the goo doesn't hold any water, unless it "interacted" with the jockeys differently because they decided to kill humanity rather than create life.
It also all depends on whether the goo at the beginning is the same as the black goo in the temples.
An interesting bit can be found on the projectprometheus web site, under Project: Genesis. You can download Shaw's research dossiers, and one of them shows an Urn they found on earth, petrified, from circa 2,500 B.C. This means that not only was the goo already on Earth, it was supposedly found 2,500 years before the engineers decided to wipe us out.
Perhaps they were testing it? Was this the urn that the sacrificial jockey got his goo from? If so, it's pretty clear that it's the same goo. If that's the case, the psychological aspect that dude pointed out seems the most likely, making the goo an intelligent organism that reacts with its' hosts base nature.
But then that raises yet another question, in that if the goo reacts as such, and the Jockey had to prepare himself for the sacrifice that would create life, what was up with Holloway? He clearly chose in the end to sacrifice himself, for one reason or another, and this would be the equivelant to what the sacrificial jockey had done.
More missing pieces.
Wow, this article borrows SHAMELESSLY from the wordpress review I am linking below which was published 5 DAYS before this Cavalorn one!
It's even got the same title!
http://benjitaylorwins.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/prometheusunbound/ (http://benjitaylorwins.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/prometheusunbound/)
Out of order I would say.
#NotCoolAtAll.
Surely someone should apologize? Stealing the title is just out of order. And the WordPress article was blog of the day at some point, I remember.
To be fair, Percy Bysshe Shelley came up with that title first.
@Mr. Clemens
^ Of course he did! And the WordPress article uses it because of the context- especially as it refers to Milton, William Blake, etc...
I just think it looks like this guy has taken a lot of inspiration from the WordPress blog, even using the witty/ catchy title, and given the dude who wrote it NO credit. Out of order.
:-\
Well, I'm sure he'll be back 'round to visit the thread. Let's hear what he has to say. :)
I posted a comment on his blog- that didnt appear.
Quote from: killingvector on Jun 09, 2012, 02:04:04 PM
NGR01, there are definitely execution and script issues in the film. I have to echo your initial thoughts a week or so back. Felt the same way. But this journal post presents some interesting subtext to frame the storyline. It is quite a rich storyline with so much history, mythology, and religion underlying the actions of the Engineers and crew of the Prometheus. I admit, this gives me more faith in the filmmakers that they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball on basic execution of pacing, characterization, and plotting.
Yep that is my only gripe with the movie.
Great concepts, ideas and mythology but in a indigent script.
Quote from: amazing_prometheus on Jun 13, 2012, 10:05:13 AM
Wow, this article borrows SHAMELESSLY from the wordpress review I am linking below which was published 5 DAYS before this Cavalorn one!
It's even got the same title!
http://benjitaylorwins.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/prometheusunbound/ (http://benjitaylorwins.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/prometheusunbound/)
Out of order I would say.
#NotCoolAtAll.
Surely someone should apologize? Stealing the title is just out of order. And the WordPress article was blog of the day at some point, I remember.
It's very likely that they had the same ideas. Much of what was said in either entry has been repeated in some ways in this forum as well so I doubt either one is copying from the other.
Excellent read. Made a great film even better.
I disagree - in that the name of the article, and the first sentence, are almost IDENTICAL.
This Cav guy has for sure used parts of it.
Hi there.
Just popping in to say no, I've never even seen that Wordpress blog.
'Prometheus Unbound' is, as other people have pointed out, the title of a play by Percy Shelley from 1820. If you have any familiarity with Eng Lit, it's also about the most obvious thing to call an expository article about a film called Prometheus, which is why I, this other guy, and stacks of other people have all done so.
Also, the word 'eponymous' means 'that for which a thing is named', in this case, the movie. If we were discussing the movie Titanic, the Titanic would be the eponymous ship. I can understand you might think the term was copied if you weren't used to seeing it used often, but I'm afraid that terms like that get bandied around a lot. I use a pretty broad vocabulary. Pan back through my LJ and check out my other work, you'll soon see what I mean.
On top of that, the content of my article and his article are completely different. As in, none of the content is the same. I go on about the Golden Bough, Space Jesus, the black goo, themes of sacrifice and acceptance of death versus unnatural extension of life, and what I think the answers are; he talks about Milton, the space cobra thing, David, and how nice it would be to have some answers.
In short, your accusation of plagiarism is based around the title, drawn from a common source (Shelley) in each case, and the fact that we both use a word - 'eponymous' - that you apparently didn't understand.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Quote from: Cavalorn on Jun 14, 2012, 11:20:52 PM
Hi there.
Just popping in to say no, I've never even seen that Wordpress blog.
'Prometheus Unbound' is, as other people have pointed out, the title of a play by Percy Shelley from 1820. If you have any familiarity with Eng Lit, it's also about the most obvious thing to call an expository article about a film called Prometheus, which is why I, this other guy, and stacks of other people have all done so.
Also, the word 'eponymous' means 'that for which a thing is named', in this case, the movie. If we were discussing the movie Titanic, the Titanic would be the eponymous ship. I can understand you might think the term was copied if you weren't used to seeing it used often, but I'm afraid that terms like that get bandied around a lot. I use a pretty broad vocabulary. Pan back through my LJ and check out my other work, you'll soon see what I mean.
On top of that, the content of my article and his article are completely different. As in, none of the content is the same. I go on about the Golden Bough, Space Jesus, the black goo, themes of sacrifice and acceptance of death versus unnatural extension of life, and what I think the answers are; he talks about Milton, the space cobra thing, David, and how nice it would be to have some answers.
In short, your accusation of plagiarism is based around the title, drawn from a common source (Shelley) in each case, and the fact that we both use a word - 'eponymous' - that you apparently didn't understand.
Hope that clears things up for you.
yo how did the Engineers die at LV-223? I didnt get that part. They created that black goo and it turned on the Engineers because humans killed Jesus? How can the black goo turn on the Engineers because of human action since Earth and LV-223 are lightyears away from each other.
At least one of them died no doubt as a result from either a Facehugger or that tentacled thing that attacked Shaw and Jockey in the vessel at the end. The others, I think it was probably the same thing.
I like this analysis quite a lot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0#ws)
Count me as another questioning why the death of Space Jesus would affect black slime on an alien ship a bajillion miles away on a military dumpsite planet.
Quote from: Gilfryd on Jun 17, 2012, 02:01:37 AMCount me as another questioning why the death of Space Jesus would affect black slime on an alien ship a bajillion miles away on a military dumpsite planet.
Isn't it obvious though? The Engineers were preparing to leave for Earth in order to wipe us out, which means that they were working with or at the very least handling the biological material in preparation, loading their ship/s etc. You could even assume that they weaponized it specifically for the Earth mission, and that's when things went awry.
Or am I missing something?
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Jun 17, 2012, 02:08:57 AMIsn't it obvious though? The Engineers were preparing to leave for Earth in order to wipe us out, which means that they were working with or at the very least handling the biological material in preparation, loading their ship/s etc. You could even assume that they weaponized it specifically for the Earth mission, and that's when things went awry.
The article makes it seem like the goo and Space Jesus are linked. The moment of his death somehow made the goo go crazy on an alien moon somewhere.
Either way the whole Jesus thing is dumb and they were smart enough to get rid of it. Thing is though they didn't go back to make the rest of the story work without it.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
I thought Vickers would be the Ripley character in the end. A bureaucratic, no nonsense lady becomes the character we want to survive. Instead she gets crushed by a ship.
I like this analysis, but like others, I think it has some problems. It seems like the black goo is predisposed to make Xenomorph type monsters, so I'm not really sure how that would relate to emotions. I believe the snake monster that killed that pretty much unnamed scientist was an infected millipede/worm thing on the ground, and as someone else pointed out, millipede/worm things don't have emotions.
The Space Jockey's were running away from something in the holograms, and Xeno's don't traditionally get picked up by normal means (or at least, infrared), so I'm guessing they were running away from some Xenos. I believe someone even mentions that they saw a corpse with a blown out chest.
Honestly, it seems like the black goo was just liquid Xeno, which seems safer to carry than a bunch of facehugger eggs.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Considering how she reacted with Weyland, I figured that bit of information was obvious.
Quote from: Gilfryd on Jun 18, 2012, 02:22:05 AM
I thought Vickers would be the Ripley character in the end. A bureaucratic, no nonsense lady becomes the character we want to survive. Instead she gets crushed by a ship.
So if anything it was a genius PLOT twist. :P
Quote from: CONKERSBADFURDAY on Jun 18, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Considering how she reacted with Weyland, I figured that bit of information was obvious.
I never would've guessed, quite honestly. But why introduce it if it goes nowhere? Silly.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 19, 2012, 04:31:50 AM
Quote from: CONKERSBADFURDAY on Jun 18, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Considering how she reacted with Weyland, I figured that bit of information was obvious.
I never would've guessed, quite honestly. But why introduce it if it goes nowhere? Silly.
It was just there to show us her/Vickers reason for being there. She did not give a sh*t about anyone, or the mission. Look at what she say's to Janek' after Enginneer kills everybody "just take us home" . She was just looking after her inheritance. So knowing her connection to Weyland is kind of big, but not really story wise. IMO :)
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 19, 2012, 04:31:50 AM
Quote from: CONKERSBADFURDAY on Jun 18, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Considering how she reacted with Weyland, I figured that bit of information was obvious.
I never would've guessed, quite honestly. But why introduce it if it goes nowhere? Silly.
She was quite a pointless character. Theron is great eye candy though so I'll let her off.
It was a little obvious when she grabbed David in the hall way. I thought maybe wife at first (in a f**ked up way), just because daughter seemed too obvious.
The film was filled with pointless characters who died for nonsensical reasons. I've watched my nephew playing G.I Joes and felt more engagement, and his characters had names like 'Bad Man' and 'Moss Face'.
How is that even f**king possible?
A great read!
The only thing in Prommy that still isn't answered is: what does David pick up from the floor of the ship when he's wandering it alone?
I have a theory it's one of the worms seen coming from the boot of the crew later in the dome. Only the Blu-ray can answer this.
Quote from: bleau on Jun 19, 2012, 05:01:20 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 19, 2012, 04:31:50 AM
Quote from: CONKERSBADFURDAY on Jun 18, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 17, 2012, 11:50:28 PM
You know, for all the analyses thus far of the film, the only scene that really stands out to me as being totally pointless was the revelation that Vickers is Weyland's daughter. That went nowhere.
Considering how she reacted with Weyland, I figured that bit of information was obvious.
I never would've guessed, quite honestly. But why introduce it if it goes nowhere? Silly.
It was just there to show us her/Vickers reason for being there. She did not give a sh*t about anyone, or the mission. Look at what she say's to Janek' after Enginneer kills everybody "just take us home" . She was just looking after her inheritance. So knowing her connection to Weyland is kind of big, but not really story wise. IMO :)
Then why bring her along at all? She could've just as easily stayed at home and monitored the mission remotely.
Quote from: meanstreak on Jun 09, 2012, 01:47:08 PM
So Ridley and Lindeloff put all this thought and deep epic meanings and symbols/themes into the movie, but couldn't grasp how idiotic it looked that Shaw and Vickers first try to outrun the falling ship, then it takes Shaw only a few rolls to get out of the way, yet Vickers just lays there and lets it crush her?
Maybe in the chaos of all that's happening it didn't enter her mind. Or maybe she accepted the inevitable as the life boat was trash and how was she to get home? Maybe she didn't know David was still alive/working.
Quote from: killingvector on Jun 09, 2012, 02:04:04 PM
NGR01, there are definitely execution and script issues in the film. I have to echo your initial thoughts a week or so back. Felt the same way. But this journal post presents some interesting subtext to frame the storyline. It is quite a rich storyline with so much history, mythology, and religion underlying the actions of the Engineers and crew of the Prometheus. I admit, this gives me more faith in the filmmakers that they knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball on basic execution of pacing, characterization, and plotting.
And how would you have executed the pacing? The movie was already two hours long, if it drug on people would complain that it didn't have enough excitement and action. As I recall Alien gets to the point pretty quick itself. What's wrong with the characterization? I bet i can find a real life example of each one of them. Yes even the pretty boy scientist. The plotting? Really? Tell me this, its Scott's and his team's piece of art work. They weren't making it to please YOU ALL. They made it because he had a idea and wanted to create it. If you like it cool if not it doesn't mean its bad. Its just means its not for you. I don't think the Mona Lisa is anything special but there are people out there who think it is. It doesn't make it a bad painting.
So rather than spewing out problems about the film just for the heck of it why don't you elaborate. Because anyone who just had high expectations for a film and were disappointed by it can say,"Oh the was no plot and the pacing was off " or "the characters were all wrong". Stop crying about the film. ::) It in my opinion it was a great stand alone piece with very important themes that if people would step back and look at outside of their narrow minded field of vision when it comes to movies, you would see that this movie is meant to be more than the beginning of and idea started in 1979. Not to mention Scott has already said that this ISN'T A DIRECT PREQUEL and he is planning on possibly two more sequel before it ties directly into Alien.
The problem most of you have is that you thought going into this that all your questions about Alien would be answered in one two hour movie and they weren't. You left with more questions, much like Shaw was at the end of Prometheus. Her initial questions weren't answered and she was given all new ones. Why does every movie have to be all served up to you all neatly wrapped in a box? Can't a movie leave you wondering and you be satisfied with it? Thinking intellectually is one of the single greatest things humans can do and most squander it with their eternal struggle for instant gratification.
Why is everyone so hung up on the fact that the original alien creature was not in here? Or complain about how its possible origins are from a black goo substance that reacts to the emotions or intentions of what ever it comes in contact with. I think that is brilliant. It shows the duality of life/death, creation/destruction. This is after all SCIENCE-FICTION and anything is possible. Maybe the combination of the worms and the humans intentions created the hammerpead. I know that everyone loves the original Alien creature and was expecting some huge payoff of how it came into existence, but you know what as David says,"big things have small beginnings". Maybe its beginning isn't as extraordinary as its final form. A grub is nothing special to look at but, a Rhino Beetle sure is!! At the end of the day if Scott and his team says the Alien creature came into being simply by a series of events that started with the ingestion of black goo that reacts to intentions and it makes it to the movie screen, THEN THAT'S CANON. I'm not saying that the black goo intention argument is correct but it sounds good and if Scott confirms it in the commentary it will make me like this film that much more. This film is meant to be a deep thought provoker. Not a answer all prequel to Alien like you all want and expected. That's why you are all limping away with sore butts. ;D
Furthermore, I think the disappointment that everyone has with this film is a reflection of how the human race is gonna feel when we meet our creators and we find out that there is no real meaningful reason for our existence. Or how the most of you are gonna feel because you can never understand out of mental capacity what GOD truly is and what life is about. I can sleep at night just fine not possibly ever knowing all the answers and that one day I will die. I am comfortable with my own death as its not the end its the beginning of something else. These are some of the things that are brought up in the film. Society and Hollywood has conditioned you all to have such warped expectations in not just movies but life as well. Humans are the scourge of this planet right now and we don't have to be. That's why the Engineers wanted to destroy us and rightfully so. We don't deserve the gift of life as all the most of you do is consume, waste, and continue to over populate while all along bickering and fighting with one another. I welcome the destruction of the human race to cleanse this planet and let pure life reclaim it and return to balance. I would gladly sacrifice myself for that.
Brokentusk420, I hope you don't own any firearms. :laugh:
I liked the film. I'm not sure it's as good as you seem to think it is, but I like it, and I look forward to another one. So do many people! You might be happier talking to those folks instead. ;)