Forum menu
why did the space jockey want to kill the humans as soon as he woke up then?
personaly i doubt that he was turning into a spacejockey, more likey something new imo.
The space jockey seemed to think of humans as nothing - as said in my previous post - much like we treat cattle, a means to an end. He seemed more interested in David, the only non human, than Wayland or any of the others.
haveing had a few days to think about the film. The only real flaws i can come up with are these:
1. One of the open scenes shows the ship 3.29x10(to the power 14) miles away from earth iirc (please correct me if im wrong), or in simple terms 3.29 x a hundred trillion miles away aka approx 50 light years. Then they take about being in status for 2.5years - so unless Einstein is completely wrong, they were tavelling 20 times the speed of light with no mention of this......
2. Why wasnt there a containment protocol at the space jockeys 'lab' - even our most basic biological research labs have containment of one form or other, and for one that gets so easiliy contaminated (they only had to walk in the room to set things in motion) it would be mental to think that they wouldnt have such a thing for such a dangerous substance. In addition to that why on earth would the space jockeys in the hologram want toget into that room! and away from what ever it is they they were running from - surly they would run to the space ship, the only means of escape.
Anyway both of these points are irrelevent as with out these flaws there wouldnt be a film....
One possibility is that they were using us as an experiment for bio weapons, although that doesn't make complete sense either, given the distance they would have to travel to find the results.
It makes perfect sense - you dont have to wait for evolution to do its thing, just turn up every 10k years and see how its doing - this only works with the distances envolved and speed at which you'd have to travel. time slows down the faster you go etc etc so by the time you get home you only have to wait for example, 1k years or so (easy with one of the sleep pods, in which a space jockey survives a 2.5k year sleep in the film with little or no effect). Then fly back (in 2.5years) and 10k years will have past.
I agree that it most likely was experimentation, I just don't think it was for bio weapons. There are easier ways to test those.
The Space Jockeys are essentially creating lifeforms, planting them on a planet to see how they do, an then checking on the results. Hence the reference to them being "engineers": They are engineering new biological forms.
[i]why did the space jockey want to kill the humans as soon as he woke up then?
[/i]
Perhaps he's met humans before and knows what were like.
I watched it today, very impressive effects but poor script I thought.
David infecting the scientist made no sense unless it was to bring himself with every other alien robot that tried to destroy humankind by bringing alien spawn back to earth.
David was also way too smug to be a robot.
The geologist coming back, growing two foot and then being virtual immortal was just stupid.
The end section was very silly too. Either end by landing on shaw or don't have an alien popping out of the space jockey, pointless.
Gods effects though and the 3d was food. Entertaining.
Sorry for the stupid iPhone dictionary spelling. Just thank god I'm not using my blackberry.
And what about the captain and Miranda?
Was that nooky or something else? Pointless (apart from getting me excited)
Guys it's only a film 😉 I was entertained while overdosing on popcorn and malteasers..
Job done !!!
It's a given that the more hype about a film, the more interview specials, the worse it is.
That is all.
Thinking further on this, I think it was overcomplicated by too many characters. What was the point of Charlize Theron's character (aside from the obvious teenage nerdy self gratification material) ? And 2-3 of the minor characters could have been trimmed with no loss to the plot development. We didn't even see them get killed.
All the Weyland stuff was totally unnecessary too. Would have been more effective as a broadcast image anyways.
And needed more spaceships, but thats a given.
I watched it yesterday its good. 3d was very immersive and the special effects were excellent.
But it had a few flaws. Why did they need a crew of 17? Alien managed just fine with 7?
Also there was no real focus on an alien (or aliens) there was lots of stuff that was trying to kill them, wierd goo with tentacles, mutated crew mates, wierd proto-facehugger and the engineers a more narrow focus on the "baddies" would have been better.
I did enjoy it, but it could have been better and its not the classic that Alien or Aliens are.
Why did they need a crew of 17? Alien managed just fine with 7?
The Nostromo in alien was a haulage craft, which didnt require much more than 7crew to get the cargo from A to B.
The crew of the Prometheus were on a specific sience mission, which required crew of the ship (7no) to get it from A to B, the sienece crew (say an other 7), a robot, and Charlie Theron. Oh and that leave's one spare (maybe in a red uniform for cannon fodder)....
Also there was no real focus on an alien
other than the space jockey's..... i agree that the other 'aliens' were more of a side line, but this wasnt a traditional 'Alien' film which i think most people were expecting.
but it could have been better and its not the classic that Alien or Aliens are.
Nope, hopefuly its something beyond them - Alien, horror - Aliens, Action / Horror.
To me a good si-fi book doesnt need either of these things, it looks at the bigger picture, one that may not have been imagined before which takes in the scale of the universe and the time lines envolved - something that films rarely (sinse the 70's) seem to do - rather focusing on the shock and awe aspect of aliens taking over the earth or worse translating human stories on to Alien worlds (aka Avatar).
If we are going to get snooty about Science Fiction (a battle I am well tooled up for) then I like Robert Heinlen's definition from 1947 (and wikipedia)
"Let's gather up the bits and pieces and define the Simon-pure science fiction story: 1. The conditions must be, in some respect, different from here-and-now, although the difference may lie only in an invention made in the course of the story. 2. The new conditions must be an essential part of the story. 3. The problem itself—the "plot"—must be a human problem. 4. The human problem must be one which is created by, or indispensably affected by, the new conditions. 5. And lastly, no established fact shall be violated, and, furthermore, when the story requires that a theory contrary to present accepted theory be used, the new theory should be rendered reasonably plausible and it must include and explain established facts as satisfactorily as the one the author saw fit to junk. It may be far-fetched, it may seem fantastic, but it must not be at variance with observed facts, i.e., if you are going to assume that the human race descended from Martians, then you've got to explain our apparent close relationship to terrestrial anthropoid apes as well."
Seems to fit well here.
And I would add Findlay, 2012 "and must have great big MF spaceships".
So an inconsistent narrative makes Prometheus flawed as Science Fiction, and as a film.
a little bit of Scotts viral marketing i missed prior to seeing the film.
If we are going to get snooty about Science Fiction
hense why i said
[b]To me[/b] a good si-fi book
There were so many good sifi films made in the 60's and 70's, when space travel was an exciting thing to the general public, it just seems now that all sifi in the movies is filled with man killing monsters. This is why Prometheus works for me, its a large budget film, so requires the monsters to please the masses, Scott has kept enough of the narative for me to try to think around it a bit (the reason i like sifi).
The Nostromo in alien was a haulage craft, which didnt require much more than 7crew to get the cargo from A to B.
The crew of the Prometheus were on a specific sience mission, which required crew of the ship (7no) to get it from A to B, the sienece crew (say an other 7), a robot, and Charlie Theron. Oh and that leave's one spare (maybe in a red uniform for cannon fodder)....
Fair do's I can understand the reasoning. But instead of having a relatively few well drawn characters we have characters as plot devices instead.
What was the point of Shaw's boyfriend other than as a device to impregnate her with the alien? He was given a heroic flaming death as it was convenient to kill him off at the point as the writers probably hadn't figured out what he would mutate into and his job as a plot device was done at that point.
Like I said I did enjoy it but it has flaws, I'm sure the directors cut will sort them out though!
EDIT I do agree it got the broad sci-fi strokes right. I just wish it had been a bit more tightly scripted
There wont be a director cut unfortunatly - he's going to put a few deleted scenes on the second disc of the DVD, but no directors cut 😥
Scott thinks that its as perfect as he could get it and the scenes he cut out wouldnt benefit the film, other than explain the casting of Guy Pearce with a deleted scene of David talking to a 'dreaming' young Mr Wayland in his sleep casket just prior to the 'try harder' scene with Charlie Theron.
And the shagging session with the captain. I'm pretty confident there was one of them and they cut it out. Political correctness I imagine. Powerful white female boss explointing a subordinate black employee who doesn't want to do it. Doesn't make for a good ethical standpoint.
I think the point of Shaw's boyfriend was the same as the point of Charlize Theron, but for the ladies.
Powerful white female boss explointing a subordinate black employee who doesn't want to do it. Doesn't make for a good ethical standpoint.
I can see what you're getting at, but I'm [i]pretty sure[/i] that he did want to do it...
Just back from watching. Good film, well worth a view. The ending leaves it wide open for the sequel.
I'm going tomorrow
[img] 
[/img]
6 Full pages in and nobody has mentioned that Scottish scientist woman? That was some of the worst acting I've seen in any film, never mind a mega budget blockbuster. Crikey.
Also, when the space ship was rolling over them at the end, why didn't they just run sideways? It was like when there's a sheep in the middle of the road and it just runs in a straight line intend of into the verge...
Enjoyed it a lot, but it could/should have been loads better.
disjointed and pointless story. good effects. the dragon tattoo woman can run well fast and cover huge distances, and roll amazingly well sideways.
Shite.
How he could pimp Alien out like that i don't know...oh hang on, MONEY!
SHITE.
Haven't read the full thread, so not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but wasn't Guy Pearce a dead ringer for Harry Enfield in the "Old Gits" sketch..?
Shite.How he could pimp Alien out like that i don't know...oh hang on, MONEY!
SHITE.
You've just copied/pasted that from empire hav'nt you?
[i]the dragon tattoo woman can run well fast and cover huge distances, and roll amazingly well sideways. [/i]
After she's had a huge alien foetus removed from her and has been clipped back together with staples. Then she sees off a nine foot tall super being and has the guts to get back on board a ship that she knows has more alien spawn on it to head off into space to give the rest of the super being race, a ruddy good piece of her mind.
IRON hard. That's my kind of woman. Where do I get one?
Scandinavia, samuri.
Summer holiday in Norway this year, so shall investigate.
As said above, was too similar to Alien film(s), and didn't bring anything new that hasn't really been done before in Sci-Fi films in the last few years. The special effects/CGI were good but I also thought it got too disjointed in the middle & near the end.
just saw it.
some dodgy dialogue towards the end, but a good take on the bigger issues concerning our origins...
i liked david's weyland corp. finger imprint...
the only real question I can get from it is how did the space jockey character end up back in the alien space ship in the flying position and why didn't the nostromo(?) pick up any evidence of previous human presence?
the only real question I can get from it is how did the space jockey character end up back in the alien space ship in the flying position and why didn't the nostromo(?) pick up any evidence of previous human presence?
the ship they find in [i]alien[/i] is a different ship on a different moon/planetoid....
i've had to nerd up on this very question, and i learned that
the planet in Alien was LV-426. the Planet in Prometheus is LV-223.
the bartender at the cinema tonight told me.
how did the space jockey character end up back in the alien space ship in the flying position
different ships, innit. there were eggies on the alien ship, and more advanced face huggers, therefore obviously a more advanced version of the bioweapons they were making. the lab was well old after all.
the only real question I can get from it is how did the space jockey character end up back in the alien space ship in the flying position and why didn't the nostromo(?) pick up any evidence of previous human presence?
Why is it soooo many people seem to struggle with this - especially after the space map scene where there are hundreds of planets...
i can see why people get confused by this - the three other guys i went with asked the same question at the end. Its billed as a prequil to Alien, so you expect it it run into the 'Alien' sequence of events.
But Scott has tried to make it as obvious as possible... for a start its a moon, not a planet (like in Alien). The atmosphere, terrain & geography are completely different - for example the silicone storm which doesnt make an apereance in alien or aliens (because its on a different planet).
There would be too many contiunity errors to count if it were the same plannet - for get the evidence of human remains, why go into the spaceship in alien when theres a row of GIANT alien structures in a nice sraight line right next to it...
I think Ridley Scott and his team could have marketed it a hell of a lot better - the link on page 5 to the scott interview explains why he didnt, prefering to rely on viral marketing of FB and twitter to try to establish a early underground following, with a 'seek and you fill find' snippits of fottage, like the Wayland TED talk. However this did not work - if some of the actors / director had done the usual press interviews the entire 'different planet' thing could have been sorted in the 1st minute of the interview.
When we approach the moon, it labels it as LV223. Anyone who has seen alien knows LV426 was the planet in that film.
No possible confusion unless you cannot hear or read.
Alien / Aliens planet LV-426
[img] 
[/img]
vs
Prometheus LV-233
[img] 
[/img]
well okay that does make sense i'll sit back down now
Oh of course. you'd have to be as thick as crap to not remember the differences between one windswept planet you last saw thirty odd years ago and a windswept moon you're looking at now.
I for one will be watching Alien and/or Aliens this weekend. *That's* how you make a film Ridley! You could learn a thing or two from this guy, errrm, Ridley/Cameron.
prefer not to compare Prometheus to alien or aliens.and thats how ridley wanted it right?
loadsa flaws in alien-s etc too.and also in this too.
still got everyone thinking on here dint it.thats pretty good i say.
thats how ridley wanted it right?
perhaps because he knew it wouldn't be as good?
What happened to the ginger haired geologist? I think he got some acid on his face, then all of a sudden was a zombie. Didn't really seem to fit with anything else.
Yeah, they seemed to forget from time to time what computer game they were trying to punt. That would explain all the different deaths. Could have cut all those characters, should have.
On a related note, we were in a good mood anyway as there was a preview for the re-issue of Jaws with the famous line "we're gonna need a bigger boat".
Wise words, Ridley.
Weyland being there made no sense really and added nothing to the story. Neither did Charleze Theron being his daughter all of a sudden add anything to the story. But I did enjoy the bit where he got hit on the head with a severed head; like some kind of sci fi/horror Laurel and Hardy.
on reflection of a week or so, and reading a lot of comments on the web,
i'd like to say that its an ok film but not perfect and should have been something better from someone like Ridley.
but hey,
at least it didnt have
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF(((((**&&IIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
JAR
JAR
What happened to the ginger haired geologist? I think he got some acid on his face, then all of a sudden was a zombie. Didn't really seem to fit with anything else.
He was infected with the black goo as well as getting burnt from the acid. My take on it was, he morphed into what Charlie was ultimately going to turn into. He was infected with the goo then left to change, whereas Charlie was flamethrowered to death before he fully changed. The geologist was a glimpse at what the engineers had planned for humans once they had unleashed the goo on earth???