What was the meaning of the movie PROMETHEUS?

SPOILERZ
On my way to watch this movie a second time. Great movie! Don't know why so many are hating on it.
I think Ridley Scott led us to make some conclusions. In other ways, he left some things unexplained for us to fill in the blanks. Please help me answer the questions I've posed?

1) Ridley made us look like the new kids on the block. We consider our history to be ancient history. But, for the Engineers, we are newborns who have just arrived on the scene. I would assume they can live forever with their tech advances, and so maybe the Engineer The Giant Face Hugger kills is in fact the Engineer responsible for creation of the Human Race?

2) The Engineer at the beginning of the Movie. He sacrificed himself. For what reason? Was he sentenced to death? Was he sacrificing himself for the larger cause of changing and creating life?

3) The Captain mentions that they have stumbled onto the Aliens Super Secret weapons of mass destruction laboratory. How did he come to this conclusion??? Doesn't make logical sense to just jump to a conclusion like this. He is assuming they structure their society in a smilar fashion as ours. And if so, what led him to this conclusion? It is not clear. If this is the case, why was there no security? Why was it so open? Where were the berthing quarters?
And most importantly, WHY POINT US TO THIS PLANET? This is obviously not their planet of origin.
You'd think they'd keep this kind of facility a top secret.

4) The giant squid is obviously the early form of FaceHugger. But why make it so large? How did it get so FKN large without eating anything? To grow from 2lbs to 3000lbs, you can't just do this off of air!!!

5) If our DNA is an exact match of the Engineers, then how did they create us? That's not really creation in my book. That is pro-creation. If they took the apes of earth and injected their DNA; wouldn't our DNA be different and not an exact match? Plus, wouldn't we be taller and have better muscle tone, and be white as a ghost like them?

6) I think Ridley was trying to make a point about creation with this film. We are the creation of the Engineers. The Alien is a creation of the Engineers. David is our Creation.
Is Ridley trying to make the point that life is life, all is equal, and just because one comes before the other doesn't make either more reverent or important? Life is life, and because life is alive it is equal?
So is Ridley trying to say this?
So who then created the Engineers? Were they the first creation of God? And would this deduction mean that we are equal with God? According to this hypothesis that this is what Ridley is trying to say with his film.

7) Where do you think the origin for the idea of the film comes from? It obviously pays homage to Greek mythology with the name. But, to me, it seems ripped straight out of the book of Genesis.
"Sons of God came unto the Daughters of Men". They were thus destroyed/banished/sent to hell. Their offspring was a monstrous thing, a giant destroyer, called the Nephilim.
With our new 21st century way of understanding the universe in which we live, is this the new way we see angels? As Aliens from another planet instead of Angels in the old sense of the idea?
I think this is what Ridley tried to do. He took the old testament information and put the story into 21st century context making it viable and believable again.

This is the best Sci-Fi movie in a long time. It is not just a horror flick like we thought it would be. This is more Sci-Fi than horror.

Tell me what you think please? I put a lot of idea's out for discussion

Sick of hearing about this film! Couldn't you have added your thoughts to one of the 20 threads already on the subject?

MODS! Please close! As you've closed 2 of my threads for the crime of being rehashed! Even though mine appeared years after their counterparts!

It is preparing you to believe that Lucifer is benevolent and that when he comes you should worship him because he created you. I suggest you do not buy into it.

reply to post by Fing3rm4n


Yes, I would agree that Ridley Scott's point is that, "life is life". I can't imagine him having deeper thoughts than that, based upon the whole of his work. His films look good, technically, but he seems no more profound than James Cameron, imo

The primary meaning of the film was to make money. The secondary meaning in order to achieve the first, was to entertain, and to both these ends, various common memes were incorporated into the storyline.

I am sorry but to me it was a big waste of time to watch. and I am a syfi nut. You are going to have to do like I did about the money I wasted on it and that is get over it and move on.

Originally posted by Numbers33four
It is preparing you to believe that Lucifer is benevolent and that when he comes you should worship him because he created you. I suggest you do not buy into it.

You didn't watch the movie did you? The aliens in it that created us are anything but benevolent!

reply to post by Fing3rm4n


This sums up my thoughts on the movie fairly well....

What you create will kill you.


Thats it, all of it.

reply to post by Fing3rm4n

Don't know why so many are hating on it.

Poorly written script with very badly written characters which failed to live up to expectations either as a stand-alone story or as a so-called Alien prequel.

Was he sacrificing himself for the larger cause of changing and creating life?

It's unknown whether he was or not. The title of the film is Prometheus, he may have been acting as a rebel the way Prometheus did rebelling from the will of the gods. Or the Engineers may have wanted to create life, it's unknown, another issue with the story, it raises hundreds more questions than it answers and leaves the audience in the dark on almost everything.

Doesn't make logical sense to just jump to a conclusion like this.

Poor writing plain and simple. Somehow the Captain, who a moment ago just wanted to play his accordion and fornicate with Vickers, now is an expert on everything that has happened so far and somehow he's put all the pieces together.

WHY POINT US TO THIS PLANET?

It's safe to say the Engineer in the cryo-pod has been in there for a while, it may be that LV-223 was more hospitable in the past. Perhaps it was once one of their colonies and they poisoned it somehow or perhaps this planetary system is where they learned to both create and destroy life using the Black Liquid and that long ago when they made those cave paintings and carvings the system would have been safe. It's unknown.

The giant squid is obviously the early form of FaceHugger.

I wouldn't be so sure, there is a mural of an Alien, or something VERY VERY similar in the vase chamber. Also the Space Jockey in the original ALIEN film was fossilized, a process that takes thousands of years minimum, and that being clearly had a chest-burster come out of it implying that xenomorphs pre-date the arrival of the Prometheus by thousands of years.

you can't just do this off of air!!!

The original xeno in ALIEN grew from being a chest-burster to man-sized in a very short time even before it ate or cocooned any of the crew.

Plus, wouldn't we be taller and have better muscle tone, and be white as a ghost like them?

Yeah I'm really not sure what the point of that part of the film was. Obviously we are not physically identical with the Engineers, but this may have to do with evolution. After all humans are adapted to our environment, we were once much shorter due to nutritional deficiency among other things, the scarcity of food meant we grew to a shorter height. Now in a lot of countries we have better food, we grow to be taller, average height is higher than it used to be in most places. So the Engineer's homeworld might have forced their evolution down a different path, but then they could STILL be the same species, in the way that Tibetans have genes to help them survive high altitude that most people don't but they are obviously still human.

According to this hypothesis that this is what Ridley is trying to say with his film.

I feel that the film has an overall theme of creation AND destruction. The urge to destroy that which we create, and also the urge of the creation to be independent, as David puts it we all "want our parents dead" (something to that affect). Mythology is replete with creation stories that end with the gods repenting of having made man, either mankind grows too evil (as with Noah's story), too noisy (as with Gilgamesh's version), or whatever it is we've done to piss them off they end up destroying us to create anew. David references this also saying something to the affect of, "sometimes in order to create you must first destroy". The old tries to devour the new and the new tries to replace the old, Kronus devouring his children, etc etc...

There may be a Nephilim angle to it and there have been suggestions in the past that the Engineers fought a civil war.

I think the movie failed to live up to expectations. The themes and ideas beneath it are interesting, but it fails to tell a good story with engaging characters mainly because of the way it is written. People violate their own pre-established characters, for scientists most of them seem to have no curiosity. None of the characters, other than David and Shaw, feel like real people the way the crew of the Nostromo did in the original alien, in the end the most human among them is ironically the robot.

Seems to me the Engineer saw David or what David said as offensive enough to kill him...

But the rest of the Film is what Scott believes and most if not all of the Elite, Mormons and Masons alike believe. A Creator that was created themselves an actually physical being...therefore not God in the same sense I think but a demi-god Creator or like us if we created life and we are not Gods but creators...

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Good post!
The mural of the Xenomorph is interesting. Suggests it represents that they worship this being, or they worship what this being means. The Xenomorph seems to me to represent pure unadulterated death and evil.
Why would they worship this? Coz they are demons! LOL! I don't know.

Why oh why would she go to their home world? That doesn't sound like a good idea at all.
Let me figure this one out by putting myself inside her head.
"You know what. Screw going home! I want to go to their homeworld and talk some sense into them! Why did your friends try to kill us after creating us? Why be so mean? Just look at me, I'm not so bad. "Smiles".
And then they just crush her into little pieces. They rip david's head off again, and begin to pass his skull around for a wierd and very technologically advance form of sexual torture.

In a very geeky way, I dissected this movie. The video posted above made me laugh my ass off! Hit the nail on the head.

Still. I give Ridley mad props for making this movie. It had a different flavor than 3, 4, and especially any of the AVP projects.
Even though there are holes to fill all over the place with this film, that is what makes films like this such fun.
Hopefully a sequel will answer some of the questions before creating a hundred new ones.

Originally posted by 53joemama
I am sorry but to me it was a big waste of time to watch. and I am a syfi nut. You are going to have to do like I did about the money I wasted on it and that is get over it and move on.

Just because its a waist of time to you doesn't mean it should be to everyone else,he clearly stated that he is PAYING to see it again. If you go to watch movies just for hidden meanings then i suppose most movies are pretty much crap to you. Not all movies have to have a hidden meaning. i do think its much more interesting when they do though.

Originally posted by Fing3rm4n
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

I give Ridley mad props for making this movie. It had a different flavor than 3, 4, and especially any of the AVP projects.

I'm not sure but i think i read in the other threads that this movie and the ALIEN movies didnt really have anything to do with AVP. i could be wrong though. I saw AVP and never really understood the meaning of bringing the xenomorph and the predator together in one movie.

I don't think they were open ended questions...I think they were plot holes. The writer was the creator of lost who also left the audience with a ton of questions with zero plausible answers. It's not deep or meaningful its lazy and cheap writing. Anyone can write something that sounds cool if they don't have to answer the questions raised.

Originally posted by drock905
I don't think they were open ended questions...I think they were plot holes. The writer was the creator of lost who also left the audience with a ton of questions with zero plausible answers. It's not deep or meaningful its lazy and cheap writing. Anyone can write something that sounds cool if they don't have to answer the questions raised.

edit on 15-6-2012 by drock905 because: (no reason given)

I don't think they should be obligated to give any truth about real life questions either, a lot of the time movies are made to make money and are for pure entertainment only. Of course that just my opinion.

Originally posted by Lichter daraus

Originally posted by drock905
I don't think they were open ended questions...I think they were plot holes. The writer was the creator of lost who also left the audience with a ton of questions with zero plausible answers. It's not deep or meaningful its lazy and cheap writing. Anyone can write something that sounds cool if they don't have to answer the questions raised.

edit on 15-6-2012 by drock905 because: (no reason given)

I don't think they should be obligated to give any truth about real life questions either, a lot of the time movies are made to make money and are for pure entertainment only. Of course that just my opinion.

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

Sure, when you ask questions like where did we come from, where are we going, is there a creator etc, I don't expect answers to those questions. I tend to think the human mind isn't evolved enough to truly comprehend the answers. When you make a movie that Has 12-15 major plot points that have no explanation and characters with zero motivation it's bad writing. Just my opinion.

reply to post by Fing3rm4n

Suggests it represents that they worship this being, or they worship what this being means.

Worship, revere or perhaps even respect out of fear, the movie isn't clear on the meaning but it definitely looks like a xenomorph.

Why oh why would she go to their home world? That doesn't sound like a good idea at all.

This may sound stupid but why does Mr. Smith go to Washington? To give the little people a voice of course! According to her she wants the aliens to answer for their crimes against humanity, about what made us fall out of their favor, but if they're as grumpy as the first Engineer they encounter she won't stand much chance. The movie is partially about "finding God" whatever that is, and Ridley Scott has talked in interviews about wanting to meet god not in the first film but in the second one. So Shaw's character has gone off to meet "god" Blade Runner style I guess.

The main reason the film FEELS different from 3, 4 and the AVP stuff is that Scott only made the first film but more than that the movie is about an entirely different topic. Alien is about a crew of blue collar workers rerouted to investigate what they think is an SOS who end up being picked off one by one by a hostile alien that the company wants brought back with them. The only deep themes in the film are the psychosexual ones, it doesn't attempt to be more than it is and focuses on the characters and the story. Prometheus feels distracted by all the big ideas it wants to explore and in the process fails to create interesting characters with a good story about them.

Hopefully a sequel will answer some of the questions before creating a hundred new ones.

I was extremely disappointed by this film and yet by no means is it a bad film. The trailer and marketing campaign seems to suggest that it's like Alien, the trailer even uses the same audio-cue (that scary sound effect) that the original ALIEN trailer used. Yet when the suspense and terror are eventually introduced they feel out of place, forced, and lessened by characters who feel useless, inconsistent or just didn't connect with me as an audience member.

Originally posted by drock905

Originally posted by Lichter daraus

Originally posted by drock905
I don't think they were open ended questions...I think they were plot holes. The writer was the creator of lost who also left the audience with a ton of questions with zero plausible answers. It's not deep or meaningful its lazy and cheap writing. Anyone can write something that sounds cool if they don't have to answer the questions raised.

edit on 15-6-2012 by drock905 because: (no reason given)

I don't think they should be obligated to give any truth about real life questions either, a lot of the time movies are made to make money and are for pure entertainment only. Of course that just my opinion.

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

Sure, when you ask questions like where did we come from, where are we going, is there a creator etc, I don't expect answers to those questions. I tend to think the human mind isn't evolved enough to truly comprehend the answers. When you make a movie that Has 12-15 major plot points that have no explanation and characters with zero motivation it's bad writing. Just my opinion.

Yes i gotta agree. I wasnt trying to be rude with my post, sorry if it seemed that way.

I just watched it and enjoyed it. I think to many people expected to be more than a Movie. I actually liked that it left you wondering and not spoon feeding you the answers like a Dora episode . Hopefully part 2 will clear up a lot things but I do hope they don't make it like the lost episodes. Where every episode just keeps adding more questions till you say F this Cr@p.

BTW we got there late to the theater and started watching from the point where the Alien jumped in the water and died? Can anyone elaborate on what happened to him, was he on Earth, who or what was he running from , did he commit suicide or was he killed ?

Thanks