New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS

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

Author
New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS (Read 157,133 times)

EXTERMINATUS

EXTERMINATUS

#630
Its science fiction not fact.I mean we can all just take it apart  from the beginning when they are asleep  for years.Also not even remotely possible.Evolution is proven.But,there are still huge gaps to fill in and nothing explains how we started evolving so quick in a short period of time.

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#631
I think what loses me in this discussion is that OpenMaw, Deuterim, and the rest frame this topic as if the film needs a solid scientific basis for it to be good. If that's not your intent then change the perception.

timiteh

timiteh

#632
Quote from: Deuterium on May 25, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
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.

This is a point where we strongly disagree. I would have way less troubles with a re-writing and reexplanation of historical, geological and biological record than with the alike of FTL and artificial gravity. We can almost correctly acknowledge (because we have been able to observe (either directly or from relatively recent records) how human technologies have evolved those last centuries and almost stall in many areas for decades now) that it will not be possible to achieve either FTL or artificial gravity before a very, very long time. Not only because we don't exactly understand what gravity is but also we have not even the single idea how to achieve FTL. And even assuming we found out it remains to be seen if we can produce enough energy in a safe manner to build ship which can achieve it.
However, we can not be completely sure that what we think about evolution and history on period of dozens or hundred of millions of years is true.
We do not even know if our dating technology is very reliable on such wide periods.
Moreover There are many things which could have helped us learn more about the history of our world which have certainly either been destroyed or are yet to be discovered.
You have absolutely no proof that everything Von Daniken says is bullshit.
We have historic records from old civilizations telling us that they interacted with beings that could be the very beings this man talked about.
Is this that crazy to at least give them some credit ?
Immanuel Velikovsky also was attacked by scientists yet some of his theories were true.

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#633
Well, I guess all I can say is...

"Eh, **** it."

It's an unwinnable war and some of us are just gonna look like crazy haired Nerdsteins. Oh wells. :)

180924609

180924609

#634
Quote from: timiteh on May 25, 2012, 08:04:13 PM
We have historic records from old civilizations telling us that they interacted with beings that could be the very beings this man talked about.

Historical Documents...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26tWWopd_3g#

ryanjayhawk

ryanjayhawk

#635
Quote from: Deuterium on May 25, 2012, 07:24:29 PM
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.

Why?  They aren't trying to make actual claims about the historical, geological, and biological record... they are possibly offering alternative scenarios that make for fun movie...  FTL should be just as hard to deal with as the origin of humans being jockeys.  The idea that we could create enough energy to move the mass of a ship and crew at speeds beyond what light travels at simply cannot happen under the laws of physics as we know them. (Edit: and sustain the speed)

I would love your take on Event Horizon's Black Hole travel system...

Qwertify

Qwertify

#636
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 25, 2012, 08:22:34 PM
Well, I guess all I can say is...

"Eh, **** it."

It's an unwinnable war and some of us are just gonna look like crazy haired Nerdsteins. Oh wells. :)

No, you are wrong. I still feel I can convince you. You are not going to look like a bunch of nerds. You should just accept that a science fiction movie cannot analyze every single facet of physics, and still be expected to appeal to the masses in joint with putting a few other issues under the microscope.

You can't have everything.  8)

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#637
Quote from: Qwertify on May 25, 2012, 08:47:00 PM
No, you are wrong. I still feel I can convince you. You are not going to look like a bunch of nerds. You should just accept that a science fiction movie cannot analyze every single facet of physics, and still be expected to appeal to the masses in joint with putting a few other issues under the microscope.

You can't have everything.  8)

Would you guys stop saying that!? Gahhh!!! That's not what anybody on this side of the fence is saying. Guhhh...!

*explodes*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-DmtUrYeoE#

RagingDragon

RagingDragon

#638
*scrapes up OpenMaw*

:laugh:

I can kind of see what both sides are getting at here.  The 'jockeys(aliens)-made-us' issue does seem to be one of many in the sci-fi bucket, but in this case, it's central to the entire plot.

I get why people are skeptical and wish there would be more hard science to flesh out the idea and make it more believable.

On the other hand I'm not personally bothered by it.  Maybe I will be when I see the film and see the way it's handled?

mastermoon

mastermoon

#639
How many TV Spots have they made by now 6 or 7?.

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#640
Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 08:59:21 PM
*scrapes up OpenMaw*

:laugh:

I can kind of see what both sides are getting at here.  The 'jockeys(aliens)-made-us' issue does seem to be one of many in the sci-fi bucket, but in this case, it's central to the entire plot.

I get why people are skeptical and wish there would be more hard science to flesh out the idea and make it more believable.

On the other hand I'm not personally bothered by it.  Maybe I will be when I see the film and see the way it's handled?

And you know what dude? To all the folks out there who can watch the movie, and it doesn't bother you at all? That's great. I'm truly happy for you. Not a shred of sarcasm. Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing wisdom. Nobody here wants this movie to fail. Nobody. If anything, the very fact we bring this stuff up is because we want this movie to be glorious, and to go down as a Science Fiction classic. Something that people will talk about twenty, thirty years down the line.

And when you're asking big questions like the origin of mankind, and your cast of characters is mostly men and women of science, you should pay some lip service to the known, to really contrast this revelation for what it is. The most profound discovery in human history.

Life finds a way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM#ws

Here's a great example, again from Jurassic Park. Where Malcolm explains Chaos Theory. Some people seem to be under the impression that the science part has to be dry as sin, and has to be delivered like a dry, dull, boring teacher who hates their life reading from a text book, written in the longest, long hand imaginable.

When in reality. Scientific ideas can be wrapped in a number of emotions. You will also note that the story is continuing to progress as this idea is being explained to the character, and the audience. The movie doesn't sit still. It continue to move. It's wrapped in well crafted dialogue, and three distinct emotions; Intrigue, a bit of flirtation, and humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mpifTiPV4#ws


Some of us just like a little bread on our butter, that's all.  :)


From what I've seen in all the media, and from Ridley Scott's own mouth. There won't be anything of this sort in the movie, really. They won't have "time" to do it. Call it a gut feeling, intuition. Whatever. I just know, there will be no "life finds a ways" or the dinner scene or discussing chaos theory in this movie. (All examples, mind you, but all great scenes) they will be nowhere in Prometheus. (One more time; that's my feeling, based on what I've seen and heard.)

Quote from: mastermoon on May 25, 2012, 08:59:51 PM
How many TV Spots have they made by now 6 or 7?.

Somewhere around nine I think.  :)

Deuterium

Deuterium

#641
Quote from: RagingDragon on May 25, 2012, 07:21:00 PM

Now did any of that make any damn sense?


Yes, a very clear explanation of your thoughts on these matters.

Quote

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.


As unappealing as the answer may be seem to be, from a purely scientific explanation, Evolution via Natural Selection has absolutely no preferred "outcome", or "goal".  Re-wind the tape of Life, and re-record it, and it is conceivable that some form of intelligent Life might have emerged hundreds of millions of years ago...or millions of years from now,...or perhaps never.  Assuming intelligent life did arise, whatever form it takes, it is a vanishingly small probability that anything resembling primates/homonids/humans would ever reappear.  This is a simple consequence of contingency, and the incredibly huge number of possible pathways that evolution can take.  Of course, some people believe (like myself) that while scientific theories accurately describe our physical Universe, there is also a deeper Agency at work, which cannot be apprehended by science.  However, this is a scientific discussion, and religous beliefs and/or explanations are not relevant.   

I would caution the use of the term "random", as a catch-all term to explain Evolutionary processes.  Certainly, one component of Evolution is, in a biological sense, "random", and that is mutations (see clarification below)*.  However, the mechanism of Natural Selection is decidedly not random...it is deterministic.  Natural Selection acts mechanistically upon the variation that organisms possess, (due to random mutations), and actively selects (deterministically) those variants that are fortuitously better adapted to changing local environments...thereby conferring, on average, differential reproductive success for the better adapted variant.  These variants will then pass along these favored traits to their offspring, by inheritance. 

*The term "random", when used by evolutionary biologists in the context of mutation, is not quite the same as the pure mathematical meaning of "random".  In the evolutionary sense, "random" mutation means only variation that is not inherently directed towards adaptation...not that all mutational changes are equally likely.  A subtle, but critical point, and one that is widely misunderstood by not only the general public, but even amongst scientists unfamiliar with evolutionary biology.

Quote
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.

These are all good questions, and deserve continued research and scrutiny.  Again, focusing my comments on purely scientific explanations, there is not anything inherently "special" about Homo sapiens.  An Anthropic principle can be put forth to explain our perception as being somehow "uniquely special".  The only reason we can sit back and contemplate our special position as intelligent, cognitive, self-aware creatures, is simply because, to our knowledge, we are the only fully "conscious" creatures able to sit back and contemplate such things.  A bit circular, I realize, but Anthropic principles tend to be.  If we weren't here, we wouldn't be able to have this discussion, so to speak.  Of course, the "uniqueness" of our consciousness...and even the very definition of "consciousness" is a matter of some debate.  For example, a fundamental cognitive test is the capability for self-recognition, which is determined via the MRS (Mirror Response Test) protocol.  To date, humans, great apes (especially chimpanzees/bonobos), and elephants have the confirmed ability to pass the MRS.  Additionally, there is very strong evidence that dolphins (perhaps most cetaceans) as well as at least some birds (corvids, i.e. Magpies) can also pass the MRS.  The existence of self-recognition, in turn implies a degree of self-awareness, intentionality, and cognition.

Xenomoron

Xenomoron

#642




Forget the movie, I can watch this all day and be happy.

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#643
OpenMaw, Deuterium...point taken...can we get back on topic?

Deuterium

Deuterium

#644
Quote from: Xenomoron on May 25, 2012, 10:02:53 PM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxnjhsWdsY1qeksb7o1_500.gif


Forget the movie, I can watch this all day and be happy.

I could, too.  Notice the complex interplay between Gravity and Fluid Dynamics involved in those bouncing...

My heart palpitates just thinking of the complex Lagrangians necessary to fully describe the equations of motion for those...

...wait, what was the topic again?  Oh yeah, Happy Fun Bags!

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