Prometheus SPOILER thread

[Lord Camomile]

I have to say actually, while I think that was clearly the inention of the writers, I did think we were given very little proof that that was actually the case. The humans just said "oh, there are the same pictures everywhere, these must be our makers" - why could they not just have been visitors?

Bad storytelling, but that doesn't mean it's an interpretational free-for-all, as the writers clearly had a specific interpretation in mind.

 

[Reno]

I have to say actually, while I think that was clearly the inention of the writers, I did think we were given very little proof that that was actually the case. The humans just said "oh, there are the same pictures everywhere, these must be our makers" - why could they not just have been visitors?

Bad storytelling, but that doesn't mean it's an interpretational free-for-all, as the writers clearly had a specific interpretation in mind.

I didn't think that part was bad story telling. At least the prologue doesn't treat the audience like idiots (onlike other parts of the film) by giving them the entire cliched evolution sequence where it goes from single cell organisms to dinosaurs and on, as in The Tree Of Life. Prometheus just trusts the audience that they will be able to infer that from showing the beginnings of such a sequence, with the strands of DNA forming. And while it can still be interpreted as ambiguous in the beginning what is being created, there is nothing in the film which contradicts the belief of the characters that they are meeting their makers. if you don't believe that's what is going on, then the film makes absolutely no sense.

On top of that it has been confirmed by the film makers in interviews that this was the aspect which interested them the most about it the story.

 

[Lord Camomile]

And while this can still be itnerpreted as ambiguous in the beginning, there is nothing in the film which contradicts the belief of the charcters that they are meeting their makers.

No, but what I'm questioning is why they believe that. Unless it's a comment on the blind faith of believers and people being willing to make connections just to suit what they want to believe.

I'm not saying they weren't 'Engineers', or that the characters didn't believe that, I just don't remember any decent reason being given for why they reached that conclusion. It's just about being able to understand (and possibly realte to) the characters and their motivations.

I came out of the film having not understood a lot of it, but couldn't decide if that was me being stupid or bad storytelling. I'm getting the feeling it's a bit of column A, bit of column B

 

[Reno]

No, but what I'm questioning is why they believe that. Unless it's a comment on the blind faith of believers and people being willing to make connections just to suit what they want to believe.

Because of the murals and hieroglyphs the archeologist heroine (who is a believer) finds in all sorts of different ancient cultures around the world. Sure, it takes an insane leap of faith the finance a space expedition on behalf of that evidence, but that's the flimsy sense of logic Prometheus operates under. The film uses the hokey Chariots of the Gods theory as its jumping off point and takes it at face value.

 

[magneze]

I can point you to interviews with the screenwriter and he seems to be quite unambiguous about it:

Damon Lindelof:

So the idea behind Prometheus was: If we as human beings in the future got a clue or an indication of our origins ... and then we had coordinates, we actually had directions to go and basically meet our makers, what kind of people would go there?
This movie was going to say, What if creation wasn’t the result of some kind of all-knowing deity? What if it’s the result of something we can actually go and visit? Are we the result of an experiment, and what’s the purpose of that experiment? Are we deemed a success or a failure?


http://www.npr.org/2012/06/07/154163335/damon-lindelof-risks-the-wrath-of-loyal-fans-again
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/06/interview-prometheus-screenwriter-damon-lindelof

So, not in the film. Again. Thank you.

 

[Chz]

I'm reposting this from another forum, just because it sounds like an interesting idea.

First thing you have to remember, is they never subtitled anything David read on the inscriptions or said to the engineer, etc. The Engineer never told us it was a bioweapon, that was the Captain's assumption. The Engineer never told us it was out to destroy Earth. In fact, we didn't see Earth as the "target" until David picked it out of the star map. The Engineer did not act at all hostile or even threatened until after David spoke to it. He could have told the engineer, "I'm an artificial killing machine and all of these organics are infected." He didn't wake up with a weapon. He didn't come after Shaw with a weapon. None of the dead Engineers had weapons. Which means that there was probably no weapon on his ship.

The opening scene, to me, was quite clear. The Engineers seeded Earth with their DNA. But why the big long sequence of the double-helix deconstructing and reconstructing? Because the black goo is an evolution agent. It's not a coincidence that Shaw and her boyfriend had the conversation about God vs. millions of years of evolution. The millions of years of evolution still happened. The Engineers planted the seeds for humanity to grow... from the primordial phase onwards. And they returned repeatedly to tend their garden.

But the goo is a little too good of an evolution agent. It morphed on LV-223, probably turning an Engineer or three into a rage monster like the one crewman and that's what they were all running from. Loooooooooong-ass time later, the humans stumble in and break the containment and climate control, letting the goo ooze out and letting worm things into the room. Those worm things were quite clearly shown crawling in the goo. The evolution agent concentrate turned them into the proto-facehuggers. Being "born" into Shaw with the help of the evolution agent created the proto-xenomorph.

I posit that the Engineers were not ever actually intending to destroy Earth and the goo was not, in fact, a bioweapon. The goo was an evolution agent and they had gobs and gobs of it because they wanted to seed lots and lots of planets. Maybe, like the Asgard in Stargate, they were highly evolved but lacking genetic diversity. Maybe they just liked to play God.

David manipulated the whole thing, even Shaw in the end (because he needed someone to transport him). He got the idea of bioweapons from Shaw's dreams of how her father died (ebola).

 

[Reno]

So, not in the film. Again. Thank you.

Yes, its in the film. You're just not getting it.

 

[Orang Utan]

So, not in the film. Again. Thank you.

I think you're being rather obstinately obtuse about this, magneze!

 

[magneze]

Yes, its in the film. You're just not getting it.

No it isn't and you can't point to a bit that says it is. Really leave it and stop being so damn patronizing.

 

[Reno]

Yes, I have pointed to it several times.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Because of the murals and hieroglyphs the archeologist heroine (who is a believer) finds in all sorts of different ancient cultures around the world.

But again, why do they automatically think "engineers" rather than "visitors"? That's the bit I don't get/missed

 

[magneze]

You've pointed me to an interview with the screenwriter. That's not in the film is it. The film could be interpreted in different ways. Clearly. All I'm saying is that there is room for interpretation on what was shown on screen. You seem to be adamant that there is not.

 

[Orang Utan]

I'm reposting this from another forum, just because it sounds like an interesting idea.

"The Engineer did not act at all hostile or even threatened until after David spoke to it. He could have told the engineer, "I'm an artificial killing machine and all of these organics are infected." He didn't wake up with a weapon. He didn't come after Shaw with a weapon. None of the dead Engineers had weapons. Which means that there was probably no weapon on his ship."

Apart from the big fuck off weapon the Engineer was sat on when he was woken up

 

[Orang Utan]

You've pointed me to an interview with the screenwriter. That's not in the film is it. The film could be interpreted in different ways. Clearly. All I'm saying is that there is room for interpretation on what was shown on screen. You seem to be adamant that there is not.

Not quite. There is room for misunderstanding cos of shite storytelling

 

[trabuquera]

OK, another thing - partly discussed: clearly medicine has advanced hugely by the end of our current century (enough to invent a slightly sexist 'universal' surgical pod not configured for both genders, anyway). They might even have invented such kickass anaesthetics that a person could stay conscious, logical and able to stand up again after an involuntary alien caesarean.

But what I don't get is, given all that medical sophistication, why they'd still have to zip you up with an impressive zipper of shiny metal staples, which, MOREOVER, don't seem to rip your lower abs apart while you then go running, rolling, romping, leaping and abseiling about the remains of your spacecraft. I could believe Noomi Rapace capable of anything (especially if on good enough drugs) but unless human muscle tissue could be regenerated or transplanted within minutes in the future, there's still no way she could do all this Action Woman stuff without her liver falling out round her ankles.

 

[magneze]

Not quite. There is room for misunderstanding cos of shite storytelling

Whatever the reason, there is room. Thank you. That was all I was arguing.

It's interesting that the screenwriter says how it should be interpreted - because it doesn't come across in the film.

 

[Orang Utan]

Here is another review pointing out plot holes. It's very funny but littered with inaccuracies. Again, in the absence of clear storytelling, people are getting things wrong.
http://digitaldigging.net/prometheus-an-archaeological-perspective/

 

[Reno]

Whatever the reason, there is room. Thank you. That was all I was arguing.

It's interesting that the screenwriter says how it should be interpreted - because it doesn't come across in the film.

This is like the people who insist that the tall skinny guys at the end of A.I. are aliens. There may not be intertitles which explain to the audience that they are highly evolved robots, but the entire film was about robots, so it figures that the film stays with that subject matter, rather than shooting off on an entirely different tangent. An audience sometimes is trusted to grasp plot points which aren't explicitly spelled out from the overall context and themes of a film and that's what it's like with Prometheus. So even if in the beginning you didn't understand why the big white dude falls into the water and dissolves into particles that release DNA, by the end it should be clear what that was supposed to mean.

I went to see Prometheus with two friends and while there was understandable confusion over some aspects (like this isn't the planet from Alien), neither had a problem understanding the main premise of the film, so I'd say it does come across to most.

 

[Orang Utan]

Magneze - what do you think the title refers to if the film isn't about demigods crafting humans and giving them technology to fuck everything up?

 

[mrs quoad]

I can point you to interviews with the screenwriter and he seems to be quite unambiguous about it:

Artichoke'd think you're grade-A bonkers for thinking that a screenwriter / author knows what his book / text / script is "about."

Then again, she's a literature phd, so acknowledging that they DID know what they're on about would be doing herself out of a job, ay.

E2a: oh, hello, what page was I on?!

 

[Reno]

 

[Orang Utan]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barthes

 

[Reno]

I can't always follow mrs quoad's mental leaps and grammar. I think I'll stick to his cat posts.

 

[mrs quoad]

I quoted something from several pages back, then realised I was several pages back. Hence the e2a!

 

[mrs quoad]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barthes

Oh, man, fuck Roland Fucking Barthes.

I failed him the year I failed my first failed degree. Wanker. Death of the author, my arse.

 

[Orang Utan]

Have you told this to Artichoke?

 

[mrs quoad]

Have you told this to Artichoke?

Routinely, often on the way back from the gym

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Yes, it is the only way the beginning is supposed to be interpreted. As others have also pointed out, the film isn't supposed to be a free for all ambiguity fest.

But I'm bored with you and with repeating myself. Please feel free to look at the film as a series of random events which don't amount to any sort of plot, meaning or themes.

Well done for being so honest at how badly made it was!

 

[Reno]

Well done for being so honest at how badly made it was!

It was poorly written, but it was very well made. I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference though. Your basic knowledge of film-making is nada. You can't even tell when a "funny" youtube video is a blatant fake.

 

[Orang Utan]

More explained from the makers:
http://m.io9.com/5917448/all-of-your-lingering-prometheus-questions-answered
That Logan chap talks a lot of shit about anti-android bigotry