User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Prometheus - Very Bad 'Creationist' Science.  (Read 16403 times)

Ulfer
Apr 01, 2012, 12:17:06 AM
Reply #30 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:17:06 AM
What matters is the concept, its validity and the doors it opens for the film and for speculation or reflexion outside the film (as the other great works of SF, if Prometheus turns out to be that good or at least good).
In order to be serious, the concept has to be based upon plausibility, but unless it's hard SF, it doesn't need to be built upon the truth.

Quote
Unless you set said story in some kind of alternate reality, then it's fine... and your film double sucks.

If Scott had said : "This is very hard SF.", it would be OK. He didn't say that.
But if it were very hard SF, he couldn't do a film based on such a premise from the very start, I think.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the first Alien is not hard SF neither ;)...

Quote
Well, currently, none of those things you just mentioned actually exist.

Speculation, based upon things that we have by the way (robots, IA, etc., in a "primordial" stage of course compared to their invented futuristic equivalents). We cannot even say that we will be able to reach the stages that are presented in what has become the trademark usual SF universe (great starships, etc.). In comparison, altering the past in an uchronic way is even less risky.

What would I add ? Is it so wrong to do a film set in the future that has also an uchronic foundation, and that has amongst its ambitions the one of showing "what it would be if" ? Which is what most "SF" works do ?

« Last Edit: Apr 01, 2012, 12:33:58 AM by Ulfer »

Invisible Darkness
Apr 01, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Reply #31 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Wait, is this film based on fact? I believe the key word is fiction. If someone has issues with a film that is based on fiction because of their own beliefs, then why watch anything fiction based? It's entertainment, not reality. The bible is a book of words written by man just as the script for this film has been. What makes the bible more relevant than this film? It's all in what a person believes and since neither the film or the bible has any hard evidence, why don't we all enjoy the show.....unless it sucks! 


Valaquen
Apr 01, 2012, 12:32:01 AM
Reply #32 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:32:01 AM
Some of these threads are so hysterically asinine.


ChrisPachi
Apr 01, 2012, 12:38:22 AM
Reply #33 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:38:22 AM
Some of these threads are so hysterically asinine.

Come on, the OP makes a perfectly valid point. A well-labored and done-to-absolute death point, but he/she and the people engaged in the conversation shouldn't be derided for it. A bit of rage can be therapeutic. ;)


Zeta Reticuli
Apr 01, 2012, 12:42:03 AM
Reply #34 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:42:03 AM
Some of these threads are so hysterically asinine.

for me personally it's the biggest concern i have about this movie.

ALIEN was simple, cold, profane. it felt real.

Prometheus is potentially going to feel like a fantasy movie, just because of some ridiculous stuff that was implemented to make this movie feel more epic, but could ultimately dumb it down. this doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and i hope it won't. but they better wouldn't have brought this stuff in in the first place.


Predaker
Apr 01, 2012, 12:52:32 AM
Reply #35 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:52:32 AM
I'm still here. Still waiting. To see the movie.

Maybe there will be dinosaur engineers.


Deuterium
Apr 01, 2012, 12:53:10 AM
Reply #36 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:53:10 AM
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?

I might add, besides the huge amount of morphological similarities...that the fact we share approx. 95-98% of our genetic code with the our nearest "cousins" chimpanzee/bonobos, followed closely by gorillas and orangutans, points unequivocably to a shared, common ancestor.


Ulfer
Apr 01, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
Reply #37 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:53:47 AM
I understand your concerns, Zeta Reticuli.
I hope that the movie won't disappoint you, or not too much.

For my part I'm glad that Scott has decided to do something bigger and to tackle bigger themes (if only by showing the way). And I find it appropriate in so far as I think the mystery of the SJ from Alien let the door opened to that direction. Furthermore, Scott has repeated that he wanted to do something different, even though the film will share many things with Alien, notably at the end, if I read him well.
In the meantime I think that it will not, if well made, ruin the movie to your eyes, because it's Scott that makes this film. It won't turn into a Roland Emmerich's blockburster. I mean : Stargate is cool. The pyramids that are used by spaceships, that's good, even though it is as far-fetched and not-to-be-taken-seriously as the first AVP plot. But it's just a basis without exploration (because of the nature of the film) : Ra is our god, and that's nearly all. Conversely, Prometheus seems to be a movie that will give a meaning to its premise - and not the "creationistic" aspect only, of course. There will be provocative aspects. Sure, all of them will not be built upon 100% solid foundations, but it's nearly always the case in SF.
Frankly, if I have fear for the movie, it is not for this premise of a role of aliens in human evolution (in what way, we will see). I just hope that it will indeed be provocative. And I think it will, because Scott would not have said what he said in interviews if it were just a gory Avatar.

I think that when you allude to the "fantasy" aspect, you are exactly on the point that I evoked in my first post, and that produces topics like this one about many films or series (I remember that kind of topics about Caprica and Stargate Universe, for example).

« Last Edit: Apr 01, 2012, 01:12:09 AM by Ulfer »

Predaker
Apr 01, 2012, 12:55:01 AM
Reply #38 on: Apr 01, 2012, 12:55:01 AM
So just how are the Engineers going to explain how human beings have a coccyx tail bone, clearly inherited from our ape ancestors?

I might add, besides the huge amount of morphological similarities...that the fact we share approx. 95-98% of our genetic code with the our nearest "cousins" chimpanzee/bonobos, followed closely by gorillas and orangutans, points unequivocably to a shared, common ancestor.
Hello, long lost brother! ... erm, Uncle?  ;D


eyeballkid
Apr 01, 2012, 02:56:57 AM
Reply #39 on: Apr 01, 2012, 02:56:57 AM
This is not a creation film, it's about what happens to people that don't understand creation.


Circadian
Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Reply #40 on: Apr 01, 2012, 03:09:07 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.

Eyeballl kid said it the best.


Deuterium
Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AM
Reply #41 on: Apr 01, 2012, 03:38:22 AM
Because people hate the idea of a creation film, anyone who believes in something outside of the idea of natural selection is clearly stupid, Christian, and an idiot- based on what has been said.


I am not certain you have read through this thread carefully.  I don't think anyone has said anything of the sort.  What has been discussed, are concerns that the film is going to use some type of "ancient astronaut" scenario to explain human development/evolution...and possibly the creation of all terrestrial Life.


Cvalda
Apr 01, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
Reply #42 on: Apr 01, 2012, 03:41:35 AM
The problem of the Engineers creating all terrestrial life could be explained by saying that the DNA of all terrestrial life, being all essentially from the same original source, is all programmed with some sort of guiding genetic code that directs the descendants of the original strain of life to eventually reach the apex of the code's blueprints--us.

Or something.

Shut up, it's sci-fi. Wait til June so we can gripe about this in detail (if griping is even warranted). :P


Deuterium
Apr 01, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
Reply #43 on: Apr 01, 2012, 04:00:45 AM
The problem of the Engineers creating all terrestrial life could be explained by saying that the DNA of all terrestrial life, being all essentially from the same original source, is all programmed with some sort of guiding genetic code that directs the descendants of the original strain of life to eventually reach the apex of the code's blueprints--us.

Or something.

Shut up, it's sci-fi. Wait til June so we can gripe about this in detail (if griping is even warranted). :P

Aye, there is the rub..."Science-Fiction"

I can't speak for anybody else, but I prefer to have a healthy dose of Science in my Fiction...I cordially dislike having a bunch of Fiction crammed into my Science.

Was that a gripe?   ;)

« Last Edit: Apr 01, 2012, 04:07:34 AM by Deuterium »

Cvalda
Apr 01, 2012, 04:11:31 AM
Reply #44 on: Apr 01, 2012, 04:11:31 AM
Aye, there is the rub..."Science-Fiction"

I can't speak for anybody else, but I prefer to have a healthy dose of Science in my Fiction...I cordially dislike having a bunch of Fiction crammed into my Science.

Was that a gripe?   ;)
If it's relatively plausible in the film, there's nothing to gripe about, especially if it turns out spectacularly. Science fiction is like chocolate and peanut butter. They go well together, people. :P


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed