QUESTION: The opening scene with the Elder Engineer, if it is put on the film whenever an extended edition becomes avalable (thus making it canon), wouldn't that make Weyland's dreams of eternal youth a foolish errand? I mean, if the Engineers become old, then even they ultimately don't have the means to fully stop aging, much less to revert being old.

>>33911

Perhaps. There's always the possibility that that Engineer was one who chose to experience his mortality or maybe they came up with some solution later to combat the whole aging process. I mean, we're pretty close even now, so I'd imagine they'd be even closer.

>>33896
>It was a movie.

I'm not sure I can concur.

>>33917

Do you not know what a movie is, son?

Here, this link will help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film

You're welcome!

It wasn't as good as I was hoping because of a couple of plot holes, but I still enjoyed it.

>>33649
I was thinking more of clones.

>>33925
Yes, but... are you absolutely sure you went and saw a film? And that's all?

How sure?

10 ⌥

I wonder how it would go on the sequel since like, 2 characters left.

>>33676
Agh, I think I prefer the first AvP probably more. "Space Gods" just doesn't cut it for me.

>>33400
I know, right? Of all the things... big blue bald guys?! I know it would have to do with how humans look and Easter Island and stuff, but did they really have to use the Space Jockey image for this? I mean, so much potential... as a matter of fact, if they didn't even clarify what it was would be better

>>34009
> I think I prefer the first AvP probably more

You have to be kidding. And this is from a person who hated Prometheus.

Prometheus was a polished turd. AvP simply is a turd, and a particulary smelly one at that.

>>34015
I haven't watched in a while, but I thought it was ok-ish (Mind you, I am NOT talking about AvP 2, NOT EVER. That one ranks for me way lower than The Mist). And this from a guy who went to the theater expecting a lot better from the Predators.

>>34016
> That one ranks for me way lower than The Mist

I really hope you are not implying The Mist was bad.

And AvP was just plain out terrible.

>>34018
>I really hope you are not implying The Mist was bad.
I'm not implying, I'm saying. Buthey, it's my opinion. I haven't watched in a while, but the poor CGI and the Rickroll ending were some of my main problems with it, it looked so promising. If it stuck to the original story a bit more it wouldn't be so bad, I suppose.

>>34021
Not the same anon, but Stephen King has praised the fuck out of The Mist, saying that all the changes were good and that he wishes he had thought of ending the story like that.

>>34027
I know man, but he always says that. Just like Stan Lee about the movies or current Marvel comics.

>>34021

>just my opinion.

Thank goodness. For a minute I was terrified the board was descending into "my opinion is fact" territory.

Personally I liked the short story more than the film, because it implies a larger world of disaster rather than a "gift-wrapped" ending. Although we did get to see this awesome fucker in the movie, so it has that going for it.

>>34078
>For a minute I was terrified the board was descending into "my opinion is fact" territory.
Heck no dude, I know a guy who apparently loved AvP 2 of all movies, so I guess I gotta take perspective/taste in consideration.

Wait, there are pople who liked either AvP flicks? Why?

Can't be because they are fans, since those POS movies are a disgrace.

>>34018

The Mist WAS bad; really ham-fisted in getting its 'message' across and the characters were all god-damn retarded. The ending was the only thing good about it.

>>34150
> and the characters were all god-damn retarded

So, just like pretty much every horror movie ever made? It's an unfortunate problem with the genere, if the characters acted smart in most horror movies then there would be no movie at all.

>>34150
But... but the ending WAS characters being retarded
It was retarded

I don't know why I was so disappointed. I already knew Lindelof was on board.

>>33497

>guy who played Holloway was pretty hot

yes omggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

>>34323
the guy from Dark Blue lulz

>>34317

The sad part is, the writing is the only area Prometheus falls short in.

The cinematics were mind-boggling. The actors gave it their best shot. Hell, the loose cosmic plot eve works fine, until Lindelhoff dialogue comes pouring out of the speakers and you want to punch yourself in the ear to make it stop.

Really, if they'd just changed the dialogue Prometheus could have been 10/10.

When Biology meets math.

Looks like this thread needs a purging from the best Predator.

>>34924
Yeah you got to give it too the spices that when they find all this tom-fuckery goes "This will make a great rite of passage!"

Also Super best friends watches are right, the black goo is totally Phazon!

>>34944
Yeah, like all this complicated shit about Aliens and Predators are just like "OOOOOH BOOOOOOOOOY!! THIS IS GONNA BE FUN TO KILL!!"

>>34953

I never liked the AvP "franchise" official explanation that the Predators made the Xenos. Really, can ANYone picture a Predator sitting around on his ass with test tubes, trying to splice DNA and make cell cultures? Really?

Shame they used the "Mountains of Madness" plot arc in both AvP and Prometheus, though. Now Guillermo's movie will never, ever get finished. . .

>>35004
>I never liked the AvP "franchise" official explanation that the Predators made the Xenos. Really, can ANYone picture a Predator sitting around on his ass with test tubes, trying to splice DNA and make cell cultures? Really?

Well not one of the MALES, no. They're dumbasses.

FemPreds are a different matter entirely.

I finally got around to watching the first Alien movie. Maybe it was a great movie at the time it was made, but I was kind of disappointed.

>>35039
I feel that way about the original Predator. At the time, it was groundbreaking, but seeing it now when so many other movies have done the exact same thing? Sadly a bit meh.

>>35040
> but seeing it now when so many other movies have done the exact same thing? Sadly a bit meh.


I am sorry, but that's an incredibly stupid way of thinking.

>>35042
Lemme rephrase that. It's inventive for it's time, but nothing is shocking or unpredictable now about it that other movies since then have ripped it off to death.

So, did nobody really get why David 8 was traitorous and spiteful?

It was because Weyland programmed him to be traitorous and spiteful, to fuck with Vickers for the entire voyage.

>>35221
I think the spiteful part was natural and had nothing with the programming, but being traitorous was at least part Weyland's fault. He probably removed the three laws from David's programming in order to get shit done.

>Downloaded directors cut Blu-Ray.
>Watched it.
>Didn't like it.
Good thing I didn't pay to watch this.

Question: How does the movie explain dinosaur fossils?

>>35247
Also:
>Planet revolves around star
>Closest star system is Alpha Centauri
>Takes 4 years to get there at the speed of light
They get there in 2.

>>35248
Not a big connoisseur of the series, but I thought they had FTL travel in the Alien franchise.

>>35249
it's kind of implicit in any Sci Fi where there's space travel. We couldn't get anywhere in any reasonable time without it.

>>35253
Hence science fiction, not SCIENCE! fiction. The only SCIENCE! fiction movie I recall to be considered SCIENCE! is Contact.

>>35258
I heard Moon was pretty scientifically accurate, but I can't really say if the degenerative cloning mechanic has any scientific grounding whatsoever.

There is FTL travel in the Alien universe. The travel back to earth from LV-426 is stated in the first movie to be 10 months, and in Aliens it is 17 days. LV-426 is in Zeta Reticuli, 37 light years from our sun.

Just finished the movie. Thought it was pretty good outside of a few plot holes, though they could just as easily be called unresolved plot threads if there is a Prometheus 2. Any one else struck by how many biblical references and allusions are in the movie?
>Engineers are self-sacrificing in order to give life AKA JEBBUS
>Shaw mirrors the Virgin Mary in that she is currently incapable of childbirth but through the miraculous gifts of a greater power conceives.
>Upon being awoken, Weyland immediately has his feet washed like that one rich ho who washed Jesus's feet with perfume
>All those undertones of original sin and the motif of sacrifice
All in all, while it has a lot of suggestiveness to it I don't really know if it has substance. Take Shaw's own 'virgin birth'; Mary gives birth to the savior while Shaw gives birth to... a monstrosity. Did this direct mirroring go haywire or what? Furthermore why make the allusion with Weyland being Christlike when there's nothing really Christlike or self-sacrificing about Weyland? At times the film feels like its referencing just to reference, kinda like a high schooler who wants to look deep so he can get an easy A. I'll watch it again to catch some more allusions, because I'm certain I missed a lot, but they're all over the place.

>>36357
I think part of what makes it compelling is that there are two ways it can really be read. It's funny, because Prometheus basically ended up how the Aliens comics predicted it would. The Engineers are weapons developers. But because they're bio-engineers, you do get a lot of this weird symbolism stuff.

>>36357
> though they could just as easily be called unresolved plot threads if there is a Prometheus 2
In a movie that has finding answers as its main theme? Kinda lame to leave all the answers as a sequel hook, if you ask me.

>Engineers are self-sacrificing in order to give life AKA JEBBUS
Remember, the original idea (which is still sorta in the movie) was that Jesus WAS a Engineer.

Also, Weyland isn't Christ-like per se, but he does see himself as such, as a technological messiah for humankind, so the imagery does work for his megalomania.

And about the movie, at first I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, but the more I ponder about it, the less I like how it fits with the rest of the franchise. I simply can't watch the first Alien, and upon getting to the big Space Jockey reveal, not think "nope, there is no Handsome Squidward inside that thing"

Will you get mad at me if I post this?
Prometheus Actually Explained …

>>39614
A lot of those alleged complains I have never heard before. Not sure where they got those, but just becuase somebody asks a dumb question over the internet, it doesn't mean it is a generalized problem.

I do agree that a lot of the plotholes people complain about are non-existant and could be resolved by actually paying attention and connecting dots.

BTW, I think they are wrong about the eggs on the Derelict ship in LV 426, it's strongly implied those were put on some sort of cargo hold designed to store the eggs. Plus, the fact that the Space Jo... I mean, the Engineer piloting the shit was fossilized implies the damn thing crashed on the planet quite a bit prior whatever happened in the Engineer base 2000 years earlier.

>>39614
That was a fairly interesting video. I saw the movie in theaters, but never watched the DVD deleted scenes/director's cut. Can anyone say whether or not their assumptions in this video were proven true?

>>39762
All good movies can be interpreted in different ways. For example, I could debate the merits of what >>39616 said, but ultimately those points don't really matter, as there is no evidence correlating them anywhere, and it would just be dudes arguing on the internet.

Even with DVD commentaries, Directors rarely talk about what they ultimately meant with the movie. A truly good movie leaves a certain ambiguity, because what a good movie does in addition to entertain is that it also makes you think, on some level. While I have my own idea about what the movie is about, generally there's a few highly valid interpretations for any movie that has that ambiguity. You can write that it's about this that or the other, but ultimately you're presenting a thesis and then supporting it with scenes from the movie, and discussing how those scenes support your thesis.

That said, all of the questions "answered" in that video are really things I'd consider to be kind of trivial to any comprehensive thesis about the film. They're little things that don't necessarily matter to the overall thematic and narrative arc, and while some of them are ambiguous, the mere fact of their ambiguity does not really change the thematic structure, or metaphor, whatever it is. For example: The question of whether Vickers is a robot is largely irrelevant to the theme, mostly because we never have any real hint one way or the other, and even if she was, what does that really change about the movie? And if she really was, wouldn't Weyland be more proud of her? She'd be a better facsimile than David. Ultimately though, the scene in which Janick asks her if she is a robot, and she responds by inviting him to her quarters, suggests that she is a red-blooded woman, and has no problem proving it to anyone who might dare challenge that notion.

Most of what they're saying is probably correct, although some of their answers do provide slightly more insight into the engineers than I feel the film gave us, and could change perception a little. In particular, imho the suggestion that the black goo is not, in fact, merely a destructive force but a catalyst for change, good or bad, that actually changes how I initially interpreted the movie a little bit

>>39767
That part is simply those guys fan-guessing, as much as you and me could. The black goo being a weapon is the theory presented in the movie, and while it is not set in stone (the captain was extrapolating from his experience, and we are talking about a total alien society), is the one we have unti a sequel is made, if ever. The Engineers in that base were not exactly good guys or even neutral, so I am partial to the idea.

As for why the goo was used to create life if it is a weapon, well consider how we can use rockets to put a man on the moon or to nuke a city. Technology having both civil and military uses is pretty normal, but once again, this is just fanguessing.

And about the matter of ambiguety and not giving all the answers, well the movie's theme is "finding answers", so there is a reason why some people were annoyed. Perhaps Scott's intention was to reply those philosophical questions with "sometimes there are no answers" or even "sometimes it's better not to know" (which would be very Lovecraftian!), but since the movie ends once again with a search for answers, that kinda dilutes the point. Myself, I see Shaw at the end as a reflection of the audience, angry at the creators and claiming for more answers!