New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS

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

Author
New TV Spot HUGE SPOILERS (Read 157,087 times)

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#645
Happy Fun Bags...LOLZ..I'm laughing a bit loud at that.

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#646
Quote from: Deuterium on May 25, 2012, 10:21:55 PM
Quote from: Xenomoron on May 25, 2012, 10:02:53 PM
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxnjhsWdsY1qeksb7o1_500.gif

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!

I don't know, man. When I see a girl do a little dance like that I have the distinct urge to give them a really big hug.

Call me crazy, they look like a sentient plushy to me when they do that stuff.

'Dat Noomi.


I think we're supposed to be talking about TV Spots. Honestly, just having a gif of Noomi smiling and doing a little dance for 30 seconds would work. "The search for our beginning' - Dance - "Could Lead to our end" - Dance - "PROMETHEUS"

*shrugs*  :)



Deuterium

Deuterium

#647
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 25, 2012, 10:23:15 PM
Happy Fun Bags...LOLZ..I'm laughing a bit loud at that.

Ya' see...I'm not always an 'ol stick in the mud.   ;) ;D

zoidy

zoidy

#648
Quote from: Deuterium on May 25, 2012, 09:18:18 PM
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.

Have to say, thats a great post Deuterium.

whiterabbit

whiterabbit

#649
Biped Hominids is simply the best our brain can do as far as calculating power goes. A third leg or arm would overwhelm our gray matter.

It's a goddamn game of chance. Every time you roll the dice over millions of years you'll get something different. However I believe soon we will not be the only form of intelligence on this planet. Homosapiens have effectively squashed any chance of another intelligent species arising on earth for sometime now. Perhaps in the same way as dinosaurs did. Also technology simply does not last. With each extinction event an intelligent earthian being could have been exterminated. That being said we are at the point of not only making an artificial person but enhancing other species and embracing evolution by merely allowing another sentient creature to arise on it's own. ala like the jockey's :P

Although even now there are advanced chimpanzees in South America. Who all on their own have embraced sex and murder for pleasure. They also use and make tools and develop plans; i.e. the bit about murder. If given enough time these two will develop close to human conscience.


Deuterium

Deuterium

#651
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 25, 2012, 11:53:10 PM
weird shit

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=756952

Holy Crap...I never knew such a thing existed!  How, exactly, is this any different then straight up gambling?  I mean, one can raise similar questions at traditional exchanges such as the Commodities markets...but this is pretty obvious betting, plain and simple.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, necessarily, just not my cup of tea. 

At least with equity stocks, your share represents a very real unit of ownership.

Again, I am aware that online gambling is pretty much legal...I just never knew about InTrade, and never would have guessed (in a million years) that people could bet on things such as movie grosses.  But then again, the more I think about it, why should that surprise me?

Anyways, very interesting, and thanks for posting that, TBS.

RagingDragon

RagingDragon

#652
A great post, Deuterium.  Thanks for elaborating and responding to my wicked-long post, you too Maw.  Yesh, topic, back on it and all that.

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#653
A rarely scene 12 minute reel for BladeRunner.....Ridley talks about some really interesting things as they relate to Prometheus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZVW8Zn5fSM#





Gash

Gash

#654
Quote from: ChrisPachi on May 20, 2012, 11:39:58 PM
This is just so different to what we have seen. I can't see even the slightest semblance of the DNA of the xeno or even a possible proto-xeno in that thing. Sure we can only see a small part of it, but tentacles never featured once in the lifeforms of the other movies; the closest thing to tentacles are either tails, which aren't tentacles at all, or the tubes on the adult alien's back, and even they were considered superfluous (Giger didn't like them at all if I remember correctly).

It seems pretty clear that these lifeforms are not intended to be related to the xenos in any way at all. This is a new monster with entirely new aspects, so we probably shouldn't be comparing them to xenos to begin with.

I haven't looked at the spoiler images and don't intend to till after the 1st of June, but I'd just like to point out that Giger used a lot of tentacles in some of his   A  L  I  E  N   concept art, it's not all biomechanoid by any means. Although they were ultimately developed by others, his numerous hugger designs and chestburster image were very fleshy, and lots of his other art features tentacles. If Giger style is sort of intrinsically "ALIEN' then it's no great leap to see how a tentacled creature might work. Personally I'd rather there were a whole new gamut of monstrosities and I won't be dismissing it until I've seen it in action.

Deuterium

Deuterium

#655
Quote from: Gash on May 26, 2012, 02:11:59 PM
I haven't looked at the spoiler images and don't intend to till after the 1st of June, but I'd just like to point out that Giger used a lot of tentacles in some of his   A  L  I  E  N   concept art, it's not all biomechanoid by any means. Although they were ultimately developed by others, his numerous hugger designs and chestburster image were very fleshy, and lots of his other art features tentacles.

Wait...Gash, is that accurate?  I mean, you are probably more familiar with his work than I am, but where are "tentacles" featured on any of his A L I E N concept art?  I realized he has produced some painting/art featuring beings with tentacles, but these, to my knowledge, were not related to A L I E N.  For example that image (posted a few times in this forum) of the medusa-like monster concept art, which was intentended for Poltergeist 2 (I believe), but never ultimately used.  Also, I remember a few "biomechanoid" paintings which, at first glance, look like they may involve tentacles, but on closer inspection turn out to be the "hoses" and "tubes" that are so prominent in many of works.

Not saying you are wrong, but if you get a minute, could you post some links to the Giger A L I E N related tentacle stuff, because I find that unusual/interesting (from what I know of Giger).

Valaquen

Valaquen

#656
There are tentacles, whips, and penile limbs throughout Giger's body of work. From the ALIEN concept art, none I can really think of, though Giger painted 30+ pieces for it and most are in the Giger's Alien book and not really around the web. The tail was only added to the original Alien because Ridley Scott requested it, so Giger drew it (same for the mouthed tongue - Giger's Necronom inspiration for the Alien boasted two rows of teeth overlapping the other, almost like a shark. Ridley wanted it on the end of a tongue, which Giger went ahead and drew). Another Medusa-esque creature with tails and whips and penis-tentacle hair etc:

Spoiler
[close]
Note the large tentacle appendage running down the middle of the creature, in addition to hoses, pipes, and worm-like appendages.

You;d have to scour Giger's published books for more. There are a lot! Giger always held a macabre fascination with worms, he says in the Necronomicon, and he drew on the imagery of them since his beginnings as an artist. I think the tentacled monster in Prometheus is more drawn from Cthulu and O'Bannon's fascination with the Lovecraft mythos.

Deuterium

Deuterium

#657
Quote from: Valaquen on May 26, 2012, 03:14:11 PM
There are tentacles, whips, and penile limbs throughout Giger's body of work. From the ALIEN concept art, none I can really think of, though Giger painted 30+ pieces for it and most are in the Giger's Alien book and not really around the web. The tail was only added to the original Alien because Ridley Scott requested it, so Giger drew it (same for the mouthed tongue - Giger's Necronom inspiration for the Alien boasted two rows of teeth overlapping the other, almost like a shark. Ridley wanted it on the end of a tongue, which Giger went ahead and drew). Another Medusa-esque creature with tails and whips and penis-tentacle hair etc:

Spoiler
[close]
Note the large tentacle appendage running down the middle of the creature, in addition to hoses, pipes, and worm-like appendages.

You;d have to scour Giger's published books for more. There are a lot! Giger always held a macabre fascination with worms, he says in the Necronomicon, and he drew on the imagery of them since his beginnings as an artist. I think the tentacled monster in Prometheus is more drawn from Cthulu and O'Bannon's fascination with the Lovecraft mythos.

Thanks for the info., Valaquen.  I knew some of his various work featured tentacles (amongst other things  ;D)...but I couldn't remember anything specific to ALIEN.  I guess it doesn't really matter, however.  Giger liked tentacles, period.

Gash, no need to repy...please disregard my question.

Cheers, mates.

Glaive

Glaive

#658
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 25, 2012, 10:23:15 PM
Happy Fun Bags...LOLZ..I'm laughing a bit loud at that.

I prefer the term ...'sweater-puppies', myself...

Qwertify

Qwertify

#659
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 26, 2012, 01:51:09 PM
A rarely scene 12 minute reel for BladeRunner.....Ridley talks about some really interesting things as they relate to Prometheus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZVW8Zn5fSM#

I watched this just now. It is interesting and does hold some insight into what Ridley thinks about androids. That is to say - in Bladerunner, Replicants are like altered humans and not robots.  A little different than what we have in Prometheus, and yet with David, still kind of the same.

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