This is why Prometheus is a great Sci-Fi film

[Olde]

Because he says so and he's correct.  It would be disappointing for there to be some sort of creator who just made us because he could.

There was also the David ad where he says he understands human emotions even though he doesn't feel them himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvXKN5Fz_OE

I disagree with pretty much everything you say there. Put I've seen enough posts to know that nothing I say will ever sway you so I'm not going to bother.

[SM]

I'm open to having my mind changed if someone has something intelligent to add.

[bb-15]

to Olde; with all due respect, this imo is the key to your POV.

...it doesn't make for good entertainment...

If it is going to be entertainment, then it must entertain.

This is personal taste which points to an emotional reaction.
"Prometheus" didn't entertain you. You didn't feel right about it.
That's your privilege of course.

But a detailed argument (with facts / references) cannot be built very well on what emotionally feels right.
If emotion is the starting point, then arguments will follow which support that feeling even if the points being made are contradictory.
And that is what's happened here imo.

There really isn't much I can do in this discussion except point this out.
- When some basic facts have been established in our discussion, they get contradicted all in the service of "Prometheus" not being entertaining and so it must be bad. (No offense. Roger Ebert had this style of doing movie reviews. Lots of people do it.)

* With these discussions it usually ends up with me agreeing to disagree and then moving on.
- But since you put in the effort, I'll post some responses even though imo it won't get very far.

1. Movies which just address philosophical questions are "unacceptable". Not true imo.

True, but it goes to my fundamental point that if the medium is unable to actually meaningfully address these questions, merely asking or evoking them is unacceptable...

I said that the Book of Job answered some of humanity's oldest and most fundamental existential questions in a much more interesting and elegant way.

Imo that is a pretty harsh argument to be making against the film medium.
- "Blade Runner" (or "Solaris") can't fully address the question of what it means to be human; so by your reasoning that topic should not be brought up in "Blade Runner" (or "Solaris") and by extension, those films should not have been made.
- I do not see myself exaggerating here.
To me the world would be a poorer place if these kinds of questions were not asked in science fiction movies.

2. Films which reference complex philosophical questions really can't give original answers. The topics have been covered for hundreds to thousands of years in books about philosophy. 

...It cannot act like a smart film if at the very least it doesn't even offer an original interpretation of an answer.

This is another imo unrealistic expectation of the role of science fiction films (or even movies in general) compared with the great philosophical works.
- I don't see any movie coming up with a better interpretation of why bad things happen to good people than the Book of Job.
Some drama films have referenced the ideas in the Book of Job; like "A Serious Man" by the Coen brothers or "Crimes and Misdemeanors" by Woody Allen.

Again, "2001" cannot surpass Nietzsche's writings about the 'Overman' and evolution.
* The best that movies can do (especially science fiction films) is reference the great works of literature and philosophy.

3. There is a difference between repeating a historical trope and referencing a philosophy concept.
And repeating a historical trope is not original.

This is true. The 1997 film Starship Troopers is a much smarter film than people give it credit for, as it offers a bleak and sad interpretation of what life might be like under a totalitarian, fascist regime that praises violence as its solution to problems.

Agreed. "Starship Troopers" is a good satire by Verhoeven about fascism.

It's not a great film, but it does what it sets out to do (answers a question).

* That is an apples to oranges comparison.
- The oppression of fascism is a known fact in the history of our world.
"Starship Troopers" is not trying to explore one of the great philosophical questions like "2001", "Blade Runner" or "Solaris".

* And secondly, "Starship Troopers" is not original. The story of the film came from a novel.
And the glories of fascism existed in film before the book such as in the Nazi documentaries like "Triumph of the Will".

4. Both Job and Shaw get an answer.

One of the key differences between Job and Prometheus is that Job actually gets an answer. Shaw doesn't.

Not correct.
- The motives (or lack of motives) of the Engineers are understood pretty well by David who can understand the Engineer language well enough to work their technology and communicate with an Engineer.
(The idea that David would understand the Engineers originally came from the beginning of script development by Jon Spaihts.)
- And David has given answers about the Engineers (which echoes the Book of Job) to Holloway and to Shaw.
- It is just that Holloway and Shaw don't want to accept those answers.

5. Both Job and Shaw believe they "deserve to know why".

2) With five words, Shaw completely misses the entire point of Job, when she says, "I deserve to know why." Saying she deserves to know why is the same as playing God.

I don't think that misses the points of the Book of Job.
There are many points in that book and Shaw's desire; "I deserve to know why." is consistent with one of them.

From the Book of Job (chapter 6 v 11, chapter 10 v 2 and chapter 30 v 20) where Job's statements clearly show that he believes that he deserves to know why he has been mistreated by God.

6
11 Therefore I will not keep silent;
    I will speak out in the anguish of my spirit,
    I will complain in the bitterness of my soul...

10
2 I say to God: Do not declare me guilty,
    but tell me what charges you have against me.

30
20 "I cry out to you, God, but you do not answer;

This is the underlying message of Job, that mortals do not deserve to know divine answers.

First; That is not the only message of the Book of Job otherwise the book would be one sentence long.
The Book of Job is a dialogue by people who do think that they deserve to know why bad things happen to good people.
- Shaw's belief that she deserves to know is no different from the people in the debate in the Book of Job. 

Second; the conclusion by God to Job is that humans cannot know the ultimate answers of creation and destruction.
- That is consistent with what David has told Holloway and Shaw.

Third; Importantly, only Job gets this message in the book. The reader does not know how the others in the book's debate would have reacted to God's words. Maybe some would have rejected it.

This is the key difference.

There is very little "difference" (considering that one is a religious book and the other is a SF film).
The information given by David to Holloway and Shaw is consistent with the final message in the Book of Job.

6. The conclusion of the Book of Job is that it "is not for us to know" about the answers to the question of destruction. That is consistent with "Prometheus".

Human existence may be just an experiment by God, but His reasoning is not for us to know.

Which is consistent with what David tells Holloway and Shaw.

7. In science fiction it is theoretically possible that AI can detect human emotions and this idea in "Prometheus" is fairly original.

First of all, do I even need to address the question of how or why David knows what disappointment is? He's a computer, he follows programming.

I could explain through psychology and AI how a computer could understand the responses of a person as well as a human therapist. (In science fiction the super advanced androids, at the end of the film "AI" by Spielberg, could understand certain emotions. The AI in "Her" was intuitive for awhile.) It's a possibility.

- Secondly, you have made the point that "Prometheus" should present things which are original.
The idea of an android being able to accurately detect human emotions is pretty original.
It doesn't fall into the common trope of AI being flawed in understanding humans or having evil intentions in studying humanity.
"Prometheus" brings something fairly new to the SF film genre.

8. The understanding of Holloway was pretty obvious and David's retort was appropriate.

His retort to Shaw indicates that he himself is disappointed or dissatisfied with the answer instead of taking it in as data. His response is making an ethical judgement on her information, that "because we could" is not a valuable enough reason.

The retort is to Holloway.
In this science fiction world David has the ability to know what would disappoint Holloway.
- And from my experience, considering Holloway's drunk behavior and his pleading for answers, it doesn't take a brilliant therapist to figure out that what David said was correct.
- Also, there are many people in our world who would be disappointed with the idea that a supreme being just created life on earth on a whim or because of an experiment. 
- David's conclusion is not difficult to make.

Secondly, even if David did have emotions (which he doesn't, because he's a machine), it also assumes that humans would also react in disappointment, even though millenia of human history have proven that people make up their own raisons d'être.

This is not a difficult situation to understand and a very smart android would not need emotions to figure it out.
Again, it's Holloway. He's drunk. He's disappointed because he didn't get a mystical answer.
It's obvious imo.

9. Argument contradiction; the Book of Job has no "point" in the end in terms of an answer.
"Prometheus" is consistent with the Book of Job in that there is no "point" for God's destruction.

This is another thing people point to. It's more in line with some religions than others, but there is no real point of it in Prometheus.

There is no "point" at the end of the Book of Job as you've admitted.
Your argument is not consistent.
You ask for something which you know is not there.

Remember, at a certain point in the movie, they have to have yet another race against the clock to stop some big bad aliens from coming to Earth to destroy it (it was already old in Alien: Resurrection). The problem is we never get a reasoning for not only humanity's creation, but also its destruction.

That's not a problem at all.
The Book of Job also does not answer those questions as you've written.
You know there is no answer and yet you expect an answer?
- What are you looking for? "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" where a space alien that is pretending to be God asks for a starship?
- Again, you are contradicting your own argument.
There is no reasoning for destruction in the Book of Job. And if there is no reasoning for destruction, by extension, it undercuts any reasons for creation. The final answer from the book; It's all a mystery.

10. Space aliens are possible within the realistic natural laws of science.
A supernatural God / gods are outside of the boundaries of the realism of science.
God/gods are accepted by faith and not by the evidence and experimentation of science.

I will also say now that it does so in a much more believable way than in the scenario offered in Prometheus, regardless of one's beliefs in God.

God comes out of the heavens to have a chat in the Book of Job and to you that is more believable than hostile space aliens?
The concept of super advanced space aliens has been considered by scientists for decades. (See the Fermi Paradox)
SETI has been a project to look for such advanced aliens for a long time.
That is part of the realism of science.
And hostile advanced aliens have been discussed by Stephen Hawking and other scientists. 

** To Sum It Up; This argument which goes round and round and which contradicts itself comes back to one thing.
- You were not entertained by "Prometheus". You didn't like it. It didn't feel right to you.
That's your personal taste and we all have the privilege to believe what we wish.
And there's nothing more needed to add to that.
No one can argue with a person's feelings.

- Considering that, I think it's best that I agree to disagree and move on.

Imo at least.

[Xenomrph]

Just wanted to say that your posts are cool, bb-15. Thanks for sharing.

[bb-15]

Alien Covenant will make Prometheus better. Im a big fan of Prometheus, shortcomings aside, its one of the best looking films ever made imo. Love it or hate it, you can't deny its one of the most thought provoking and talked about movies in recent years for sure

I pretty much agree with where Ragnonk is going here.
I'll focus on how that since "Prometheus" has been talked about so much, that it has brought reviewers of serious/art movies to take a look at the Alien franchise.

Since I saw "Alien" when it was first released, I know that I'm an older guy.
I've always considered "Alien" and "Aliens" to be very good serious science fiction movies. And I think that the Alien and AVP film franchises are interesting as a whole.
- But the question remains, how to get new people to examine a couple of movies which were released 30 to 35+ years ago?

First, Ridley Scott's new involvement with the Alien franchise is going to bring people in. He's the director of the big hits "The Martian" / "Gladiator" after all.
Next, he created a very controversial movie with "Prometheus" that many people want to talk about.
All of this is bringing a new audience to the entire Alien franchise imo.

* For instance, there is a long running YouTube channel called Renegade Cut. It's written and presented by a former literature professor and it focuses mostly on serious/artistic movies.
This YouTube channel did a review of "Prometheus" which explored the topics presented in the film that dealt with views about God.

- There is also a new YouTube channel which wants to tackle entertainment/drama/art house movies. It's called The Long Take which is written and presented by an aspiring screen writer.
This channel has posted video reviews for "Alien" and "Aliens" as serious science-fiction movies. (They are interesting and delve into the intentions of the filmmakers and then go more to speculation beyond that.)
- These might been done without "Prometheus" / "Covenant".
But imo Ridley Scott's new Alien franchise movies would at least bring more viewers to these Alien franchise videos resulting in an incentive for people to post these kinds reviews.

To Sum It Up; Even if a person can't stand "Prometheus", more people being interested in Alien movies is a good thing for Alien franchise fans.

Imo at least.

PS. Xenomorph, I also appreciate your comments. ;-)

[Olde]

I'm open to having my mind changed if someone has something intelligent to add.

I already did, and it was thoroughly ignored. I already said that a robot cannot feel. It therefore may be able to logically rationalize that a person is feeling a certain way, but it will not be able to deduce the reasons why that feeling is there or be able to accurately predict or judge when someone feels what they do. The mock trailer doesn't make any sense. In one breath, David admits that he feels ("What makes you sad?"), and in another he says that he merely understands them and doesn't feel. They literally could not be consistent in a two-minute fake trailer.

David's entire existence is nonsensical to me and should be nonsensical to anyone who understands robotics and coding, which I will admit I do not. Yet I do know that it is impossible to intentionally create a machine that operates illogically, that is, out of the purview of its code. Code binds a machine together. The machine only does what it is programmed to do. We are expected to believe that WY manufactured life in the form of David. I know this is a long-standing issue in the field of artificial intelligence hearkening back to an important fiction book, but the fact of the matter remains that an artificial "brain" will never take on the same emotional and subconscious characteristics as human ones.

In response to bb-15, I don't have time or the willpower to try to dissuade someone who thinks that Prometheus is great. It may very well be a great sci-fi film in your opinion but in the majority of people's opinions, it is average at best. I also personally think that Blade Runner is a pile of garbage, so take that as my permission for you to ignore everything I say. I hate movies that depict artificial intelligence taking on the characteristics of human intelligence (except comedies) because it's a ludicrous and nonsensical fantasy.

It will never happen, and it is one of the most important aspects of the film. At least everything in most of the other Alien films (excluding Resurrection) made sense in regard to androids. Neither Ash nor Bishop operated in particularly human-like characters. But Scott did everything in his power to make David act as little like a machine as possible, except in linguistic mannerisms. Sorry, I can't get into it. Robotic curiosity are two words that cannot go together for me, and as a result it ruins the movie for me.

[SM]

Bummer.

I'm not "thoroughly ignoring".  I can't argue with an opinion, particularly one I don't share, so I won't bother trying.

Though this part I find a little odd...

In one breath, David admits that he feels ("What makes you sad?"), and in another he says that he merely understands them and doesn't feel. They literally could not be consistent in a two-minute fake trailer.

The David ad is explaining how robots have been programmed to mimic feelings, even ones they can't actually feel.  Like David wearing a space suit, it's so they can blend in better.  What makes him sad is what would make most people sad.  I'm not seeing an inconsistency.

[bb-15]

Thinking you missed something is not what I mean. I also enjoy watching movies that don't sink in first viewing, multiple times...

"Interesting, I would like to know more about this development. Maybe it has something to do with events earlier in the movie. I would have to rewatch it." VS "why the fck is this character acting so bloody weird, it's like something got cut from the movie and I am missing something."

The first is explained by rewatching it, the second is explained by either commentary / comics / fanboys and white knights. (not the right way of doing things...)

IMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEHHHhhhh

Your comment also helps me to understand your POV better (where you missed some of my intentions imo) and that allows me to clarify my responses.

* I do not need the Blu-ray extras to understand my view of "Prometheus".
- I understood my interpretation of "Prometheus" very well before the Blu-ray was released.

* Why did I bring up filmmaker extras in this thread?
* Because I was replying to the label of fan fiction ("fan wanking") here.
So, I am not a "white knight" as you put it (someone who depends on commentaries/comics).
- Also, I am not a fanboy.
I have a list of criticisms of "Prometheus" and I'd be glad to post that any time someone here requests it.   

* Imo what is going on is this.
- Different people can see some things in a movie which another viewer might have trouble seeing.
That can apply to me. I don't always pick up clues in a movie. 

* For instance, this happened to me once with "Blade Runner".
I saw it in a theater at release. When the Director's Cut was released (1992), I got it on VHS.
In the 1990s, while I knew BR very well, at the time I did not see the clues that Deckard was a replicant.
- In the late 90s on AOL, I had a debate with some folks about BR and I insisted that Deckard was not a replicant and that there were no clues in the movie about that. 
- Then a person calmly told me this; to check out a new book called "Future Noir".
* Using your argument I could have tossed labels at this guy;
- He's a "fanboy".
- He's a "white knight".
But I didn't.
I'm glad he pointed me to the book.
And starting in 1999 I'm also glad that several people on IMDb gave me factual information over the years which they found in movies.

I don't see people who share factual information in movies as "fanboys" or "white knights". People like that I see as informed when I wasn't as informed.
- And my response to them was; thank you.

Imo at least,

[Necronomicon II]

Asking an android what makes it sad would simply trigger a pre-programmed, procedural reply drawing from a library of sad human phenomena; it wouldn't be authentically feeling those things autonomously. That's it. P.S. The Nexus 6 replicants in Blade Runner aren't androids; they're genetically engineered and for all intents and purposes are identical to humans sans their emotional responses and life spans (with combat models genetically selected for strength, etc); they're clones, essentially.

[SM]

They are often referred to as machines though.  I understood them as beings that had parts engineered (grown or constructed) like Chew's eyes, and then assembled.  ie. Built from organic components rather than plastic like an Alien universe synthetic.

I don't really know the technicalities though.

[bb-15]

to Olde, I appreciate your response because it helps me to understand some fundamental differences we have about science fiction and AI.

I also personally think that Blade Runner is a pile of garbage, ... I hate movies that depict artificial intelligence taking on the characteristics of human intelligence (except comedies) because it's a ludicrous and nonsensical fantasy.

It will never happen, and it is one of the most important aspects of the film... But Scott did everything in his power to make David act as little like a machine as possible, except in linguistic mannerisms. Sorry, I can't get into it. Robotic curiosity are two words that cannot go together for me, and as a result it ruins the movie for me.

It's fine. That's what you believe. I get it.
But that also leads to an impasse between us about what AI can possibly do.
You believe that programmed intelligence can never take on all the characteristics of human intelligence.
There's nothing much more to say.
- I think in science fiction it is appropriate to have androids do many things including being able to be aware of human feelings.

I already said that a robot cannot feel. It therefore may be able to logically rationalize that a person is feeling a certain way, but it will not be able to deduce the reasons why that feeling is there or be able to accurately predict or judge when someone feels what they do.

In our world, a human therapist (with rare exceptions/former psychotic patients who became therapists) cannot know what schizophrenia feels like. Or what bi-polar disorder or multiple personality disorder feels like either.
But the therapist is trained to know symptoms, treatments and to made educated guesses about what it seems the patient feels.
Not because the therapist's feelings are = to the patent's feelings. Or that the therapist is in the mind of the patient.
A lot of treatment is guesswork based on years of training. 

David's entire existence is nonsensical to me and should be nonsensical to anyone who understands robotics and coding, which I will admit I do not. Yet I do know that it is impossible to intentionally create a machine that operates illogically, that is, out of the purview of its code. Code binds a machine together. The machine only does what it is programmed to do.

Imo how can I know what is impossible with the learning abilities of AI in a science fiction context?
I ask, what is the limit of AI? How can I know that AI cannot reach what a human can do including having a conversation about expectations such as with Holloway and David?

- And in science fiction AI has been portrayed as pretty much unlimited.
One example is "2001". Kubrick described the process/evolution of the aliens represented by the monoliths in the movie (from the Playboy interview).

They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities --

http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q12.html

What Kubrick describes here is that biological / human thinking could be coded and then downloaded into an android / a machine.
How can we know that human brain cells could never be coded into a computer matrix which is then able to learn like a human?

* Anyway, the idea of machines being able to do human learning / mimic human thinking, is a major theme in science fiction from Solaris to Star Trek to The Matrix. (And I see a lot of human like AI in the Alien franchise where androids easily pass as human to the crew in "Alien", to Ripley in "Aliens" and to the crew again in "Resurrection")
I accept that SF concept and you don't.
I do not criticize you for this.
It's just another reason for me to agree to disagree and move on.

Imo at least.

[Russ840]

bb-15,  why do you always end your post with 'Imo of course' ?

I think that goes without saying. Sorry I'm not trying to sound like a dick. Just wondered why you feel you need to do that every time.

[FenGiddel]

Mebbe it's a signature line?

[bb-15]

bb-15,  why do you always end your post with 'Imo of course' ?

Mebbe it's a signature line?

On other movie websites it is used as part of my signature. I hadn't yet done that here.
But with your posts, that got me to put in a signature line.

The background of it? As I mentioned in this thread, I've been commenting on the web since the 90s. And in those early days some people pointed out that what I was writing about was just my opinion. That quickly led to my bottom comment/signature 'It's just imho, BB ;-)'
But eventually someone complained that I was not humble. LOL!
So there went the 'h' and it became just imo.

[Predaker]

The shooting star is a nice touch.