Forum Topic
dallas!dallas!
MemberOvomorphJun-21-2012 2:49 AMPrometheus–The Horror!
by C.C. Finlay
Prometheus is the most frightening horror movie of the past 20 years. And the horror is that this is what American science will look like after a century of teaching Creationism in our schools.
[Spoilers ahead.]
Why do I think it’s a movie about Creationism? Because as the character of Weyland subtly and repeatedly tells us, he’s spent trillions of dollars on science and scientists for one reason only: so that he can “meet my Maker.” And why does he pick Elizabeth Shaw to lead his mission? Because “he wants a true believer in charge.”
But hey, that sounds pretty flimsy when I put it like that, so let’s just look at the science.
Anthropology. I know! It’s scary enough just imagining that anyone in this movie could be called an anthropologist. But technically Charlie and Elizabeth have travelled around the world studying the origins of ancient civilizations, and in our time, at least, that would more or less qualify them as anthropologists. So what have they learned? “Hey, you aliens who made us — whyyyy do you hate us? What’s wrong with us huuuuuumans. We’re sooooooorry. We didn’t mean to make you maaaaaad!” That’s a lot more like anthro-apology. “Sorry, man. Sorry.” No wonder, these aliens want wipe us out of existence.
Biologist. The team biologist talks about “three centuries of Darwinism” as if it means anything. Just the idea that “Darwinism” could be used as a scientific term by someone claiming to be a scientist should give you the heebie-jeebies. But to top that, in the one instance in which his expertise is needed, he tries to pet an alien life form that looks and behaves a lot like a cobra and then acts all offended when it tries to kill him. So what qualifies him to be a biologist? He looks at an animal and calls it a “beauty.” Aw. Isn’t that sweet? In a fear-for-our-future kind of way.
Geologist. Approximately 80 years from now, the final exam to be a certified astro-geologist so elite you get recruited to participate on a major space voyage, consists of one question and one question only: Do you fucking love rocks? If you answered “Yes, I love rocks, I fucking love rocks” then congratulations, you are now a geologist! Which sucks for you because your total scientific expertise consists of throwing some mapping “puppies” in the air and howling at them like a wolf. And then you wander around in circles and get lost on your way out because even though you’re the guy in charge of making maps, you don’t know how to find the map on your computer and couldn’t read it if you did.
Medicine. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! But no, seriously, let’s pretend that someone on this ship had medical training. Sterilization = burn it, burn it to death! Contagion-free = these living cells growing on this dead thing’s skull must be safe because they don’t look like an aggressive alien life form. First aid = sorry, woman, you’re out of luck, our medical pod has been preprogrammed only for men because the software is too primitive to treat both men and women. DON’T YOU KNOW THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES GOD OH GOD OH GOD?!
Astronomy. Hey, look, it’s a new planet. We could circle it in space, send down a probe, create a map of potential landing sites from up here. Or we could dive blind into the atmosphere, aim for the biggest mountain, and then turn right. No, seriously. “Turn ship ninety degrees right.” Yeah, let’s do that.
Genetics. So a billion years ago, one of these Promethean aliens came to earth and turned itself into DNA soup to seed the whole planet with life. Fast forward hundreds of millions of years through single-cell organisms to flatworms to fish to dinosaurs to mammals to primates to humans. And the end result is? This alien DNA is a 100% match for human DNA! The computer even overlaps the samples so we can see them line up perfectly! Woo!! And all those intermediate stages of evolution? Hahaha. Dude, we’re just dicking with you.
But if you look beyond the specific sciences and the scientists at the scientific method, it’s just as horrific.
On being methodical?
We just travelled billions of miles and many light years across space. It’s going to get dark in 6 hours, and we don’t know anything about the surface of the planet. Let’s wait overnight and approach this methodically in the morning? Hell no. It’s Christmas Day! I gotta go open up the Christmas presents baby Jesus brought me… RIGHT NOW!
On persistence?
Thomas Edison experimented with 200+ materials before he discovered the filament that would make a lightbulb work. But hey, my name is Charlie Holloway, and I travelled farther than any human ever has before, and since I didn’t find our Makers in the first structure we checked on the first planet we visited in the first six hours since we landed, it’s time to CALL THE WHOLE THING A FAILURE AND START DRINKING BECAUSE THIS IS JUST TOO HARD WHY DOES GOD HATE ME WHY IS MY WHOLE LIFE JUST A HOLLOW WAY WHY?!?
On safety protocol?
“Ooooh, cool, I’ve got an extra-terrestrial infection in my eye. It’s like having a really aggressive leech attached to my iris. But why should I tell anyone that or take any steps to isolate or treat it. Maybe if I just pretend it’s not here, it’ll go away. Oh, yeah, that’s a cool idea.”
On robotics?
Nah, we won’t put any behavioral limits on our robots. Why would we do that? They’re just robots. They would never hurt us. No, I’ve never read Isaac Asimov or seen the Terminator movies; reading makes my brain hurt. Plus there’s no God in these old science fiction books or movies, so I know the ideas aren’t worth thinking about.
You think that’s too harsh?
The catchphrase for Prometheus might as well be “Shaw, don’t tell.”
Elizabeth Shaw spouts the themes of the movie, embodies the themes of the movies, and makes the stupidest decisions of the movies. “Hey, this alien has been in stasis for 2000 years and the first thing he does when he wakes up is kill everyone he can get hold of and takes off in his spaceship full of biological weapons to wipe out Earth AND the last 3 people alive on our ship kamikaze his ship to stop them! You know what I should do? I should figure out how to go to the alien dude’s home planet. Yeah, that can’t turn out bad for anybody. Plus then maybe they’ll tell me WHY THEY’RE SO MEAN TO US OH GOD WHY ARE THEY SO MEAN?”
Elizabeth Shaw is the one who, when the giant wheel-shaped alien spaceship rolls toward her like a tire knocked off a stock car in a NASCAR accident, tries to outrun it straight ahead instead of turning to one side or the other.
Yeah, Shaw!
We know that she’s the smartest and most virtuous scientist and the one who’s going to survive because she wears a cross and she says things like “I choose to believe” and she has faith and shit. And also, after the robot steals her cross and makes sure she has the evil alien baby in her STERILE STERILE WOMB BECAUSE GOD HATES HER she cuts out the alien baby and then we find out the alien baby didn’t die, so it wasn’t really an abortion, which is why she keeps referring to it as a C-section, and she feels sorry for the hungry alien baby so she takes it someone to eat. And then she makes the bad robot give her cross back to her.
Science can’t do everything — it can’t tell us why life is meaningful, That’s faith’s business. But it turns out faith is REALLY REALLY BAD at doing science like anthropology, geology, biology, medicine and all the rest. Science and religion don’t have to be in conflict. It’s not an either-or decision. Each has their own realm.
But if you choose Creationism, this is the either-or future you’re embracing.
Bad science. Bad decision-making. And possibly the death of the human species.
You think this isn’t horror?
Then you aren’t paying attention.
•••
C.C. Finlay is the author of the Hugo- and Nebula-finalist novellas “The Political Officer” and “The Political Prisoner,” and of the Traitor To The Crown series of historical fantasy novels. His most recent story is “The Cross-Time Accountants Fail To Kill Hitler Because Chuck Berry Does The Twist” in the May issue of Lightspeed magazine. He’s married to YA novelist Rae Carson.
47 Replies
allinamberclad
MemberOvomorphJun-21-2012 6:46 PM@Drakeequation
That's interesting - mainly because I did no such thing as, "assumes that intelligent design posits only material causes for creation": nor did I write that ?
What I actually wrote, was, [i]"ID would still be predetermined upon the intelligent consciousness it discusses, being, "divine" - and that is, literally, "supernatural".[/i] - which is fundamentally the exact the opposite of what you claim here, my position was.
I find that very puzzling.
I'd like to suggest that - if you have, in fact, done so previously - you read what I wrote, and the context, again.
[Subsequently, you may enjoy to consider further applications for your use of terms such as, "wrong", and, "simply and utterly wrong" - and suchlike and so on?]
Drakeequation
MemberOvomorphJun-21-2012 8:28 PM@allinamberclad my bad I had you confused with mapaxn as I read dallas' rebuttals to you and assumed mapaxn's original post was actually yours. After reading your post, I still posit that you are wrong as the film, on multiple occasions, interjects the notion that a divine creator gave rise to the Engineers as evidenced by Shaw's faith. The plot thread of a belief in the divine and the importance of faith over answers permeates the narrative throughout. The fact that we do not know if the Engineers are the equivalent of biblical angels and if a greater supernatural entity lies at the heart of the mystery still suggests that your attack on the reviewers use of the term "creationist" is premature at best.
dallas!dallas!
MemberOvomorphJun-21-2012 8:37 PMlol confusing me with allinamberclad? Now, I [i]will[/i] take those condolences.
Drakeequation
MemberOvomorphJun-21-2012 8:43 PM@dallas no no confusing his posts with mapaxn's. I would never confuse his posts with yours as your writing style is really clear and to the point while his is overly muddled with strange word usage. His incorrect usage of the word predetermined alone is a dead giveaway it is not you. The word predetermined points temporally to some outcome in the future and not to a set of criterion which must be established for the resulting explanation to be true.
Inquisitor Tremayne
MemberOvomorphJun-21-2012 9:33 PMWTF - it's (not its) a crap film regardless. I just happen to agree with Finlay's post - courtesy of dallasdallas! Keep educating the brainwashed! Self-brainwashed idiots!
Slipp_Digby
MemberOvomorphJun-22-2012 2:40 AM@allinamberclad
“I think it is interpreting that which is, "supernatural", as also, necessarily, "divine", that is the fallacy?”
I’m sorry that these definitions don’t support your assertions, but with statements like this you risk looking incredibly foolish. You said that the whole argument falls down because the engineers are not ‘supernatural’. I’ve shown clearly that they are and I don’t see any specific rebuttal just an assertion you are right. Do you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the engineers are in fact supernatural, and your point was wrong, or will you continue to bluster?
“As I pointed out, the Engineers exist as matter - they are obviously not, transcendent, in the actual, rather than subjectively interpretative sense?”
Ever heard the phrase when in a hole stop digging? Let look in detail at why you are so so wrong, again:-
“Transcendence, transcendent, and transcendental are words that refer to an object (or a property of an object) as being comparatively beyond that of other objects. Such objects (or properties) transcend other objects (or properties) in some way.”
Transcendence is a property of something, and it matters not whether that something is flesh, blood, rock, space, or an invisible all seeing deity. Do you consider that the Engineers and their technology are worse, equal or better than the comparable technology of earth?
I think the answer should be obvious even to you.
“Therefore, they cannot be,"divine"...”
Did you read the definition of ‘divine’? If so, you clear didn’t understand one of the things which can make something divine:-
“OR because their attributes or qualities are superior relative to things of the Earth”
Bit of a theme emerging here isn't there?
The engineers can therefore be considered all of the following: ‘supernatural’, ‘transcendent’ and ‘divine’. The reasons for this couldn’t be clearer. There are plenty of other hints in the film, the worship on the cave paintings etc, to reinforce the point.
“Anyhow, the larger point stands: we are discussing Creationism, because it seems a little obvious that the film cannot be Creationist - and whoever wrote this, despite it's accuracy elsewhere, while he suggests that it is, Creationist, must be badly mistaken - or deliberately disingenuous.”
I'd trust his reasoned and detailed argument against the unsupported assertion you offer. We have a ‘supernatural’, ‘divine’ and ‘transcendent’ humanoid seeding life on a planet (which may be may not be earth) and yet you suggest that it CANNOT be the case that this is a creationist film? Really?
The High Priest
MemberOvomorphJun-22-2012 8:19 AMBrilliant - accurate - Loved this!
It made me feel better.......
Although my Prometheus Aftershock has subsided of late....
brightonrock
MemberOvomorphJun-27-2012 9:37 AMApologies, this could be a little long....but....I think we've all gone a little off topic, as we're now entering a game of 'dis-crediting the source' - both between ourselves and C.C. Finlay.
Creationism is the belief that life was seeded by a supernatural being, and Intelligent Design is the belief that supernatural being designed with purpose and intent. Now, the engineers fit in the first category but not [i]necessarily[/i] the second? [i]Maybe[/i] they knew what everything was going to look like, and [i]maybe[/i] they've done this so many times over that they knew what would happen?
If they did: Intelligent Design
If they didn't: it's [i]still[/i] Creationism
And either way it still points toward the supernatural so we don't need to bog ourselves down with semantics. I think C.C. Finlay's point was that the film has a balance that shifts wildly toward a religious point of view. We could argue for hours over what 'a religious point of view' entails but let's just define it as...
'[i]A unshakable belief in a supernatural God who created us with supreme, unintelligible and (this bit is [i]very[/i] important) [b]impossible[/b] power[/i]'
Finaly's contention is that the film takes this point of view by accentuating the religious positives.
- Shaw is a believer and she's the ONLY one that lives
- She has a C-section rather than an abortion. She is saved by her offspring, solidifying a 'Pro-Life' stance and the religious tenet of 'salvation through sacrifice'.
- Weyland want's a true believer on board because they somehow have something intangible and special that will allow the mission to succeed?!
- At one point Holloway (the sceptic and atheist) says that creating life is '[i]nothing special[/i]' and Shaw reminds him '(if they created us, then...) who created them?'. God [b]STILL[/b] exists in this universe*.
(*although you have to wonder why Shaw would still believe? If the engineers created us then the Bible - the cornerstone of her belief - is utter bunkum....but STILL she believes?! Like I said before: unshakeable)
But the most important reason as to why he feels this is a religious film...
- [b]ALL THE SCIENTISTS ARE PORTRAYED AS DUMMIES!!! PURE, BUMBLING, UNINTELLIGENT DUMMIES![/b]
Science is rubbish. Strength through faith. God wins out.
Now maybe this wasn't intentional? And maybe...it's not even [b]there[/b]!
But even Ridley said they abandoned the 'Space Jesus' idea because they felt it was too 'on the nose' (they only hinted at it with the '2000 years ago...' storyline). But you've got to remember how Hollywood will quash [i]anything[/i] that goes against the religious demographic. The fantastic 'His Dark Materials' books were due to be brought to the big screen but ONLY on the previso they removed ALL the religious references and anti-creationist arguments
So...basically...the whole book. The MEAT of the book.
As a result: the first film was [b]very[/b] disappointing (to say the least), and the religious lobby protested so heavily that second two films will never be made. Not with American money anyway. Ridley might have backed down considerably when coming to make this film, as there might have been insurmountable pressure. And if you believe that, then the evidence is right up there on the screen.
God wins out. Again.
Cypher
Co-AdminMemberOvomorphSep-15-2012 3:44 AM@mapaxan
[quote]I'm still trying to figure out where in the world people got the idea that this movie was supposed to scare the bejeebus out of them.[/quote]
Did you not see one of the "trailers-for-the-trailer" where Ridley Scott HIMSELF said, ON CAMERA:-
[quote]I want to scare the shit out of you[/quote]?
[url=http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/prometheus/]iTunes[/url]
Look through the featurettes there.
RIDLEY HIMSELF said that.
[url=http://www.robocopmovie.net/][img]http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac89/snorkelbottom/NewRoboBanner.jpg[/img][/url]
"Is it dead this time?" "I dunno, poke it with this stick and see."
thvon
MemberOvomorphSep-22-2012 7:04 AMThank you. I sign on this forum to let the author know that he, evidently, is a moron, or he thinks the people watching this movie are morons. I have enjoyed the Alien genre until now. This movie was the giant acid bleeding monster that killed the entire Alien series for me. God I hate screen play writers now-a-days. You take this storyline, which has a huge following, and you think that it is ok to write a prequel that will pretty much piss-off everyone who loved the original movies. The only scary thing about this movie is the Author. Ridley, I know that you directed other Alien movies... how could you take part in this travesty.
James_
MemberOvomorphOct-11-2012 1:59 AMAnother terrible review that doesn't warrant any time to be dissected.
What is your favourite film dallas? In fact, list your top 10.
Stay Frosty
MemberOvomorphOct-11-2012 5:12 AMthought the review was spot on! did enjoy the film 2nd time round though.
Reluctant Reviewer
MemberOvomorphOct-13-2012 10:51 AMGreat review, though it could have used some proofreading. It captures nicely Scott's/Lindelof's sloppiness and lack of respect for the very serious topics that they themselves decided to tackle in the movie. Juvenile dialogues and B-movie lines don't really make justice to the lofty philosophical issues that the movie raises.
As for the comments on creationism... Creationism is religiuos doctrine directly applied to history and science, which makes it at odds with much of known history and science. Intelligent Design is OTOH a speculative view of history and science that is entirely legitimate, though it belongs more to the field of speculative philosophy than to any rock hard science.
Some religious folks may well use it as some sort of "creationism lite", but that doesn't take away or add anything from the concept itself. Personally, I don't see a problem with discussing Intelligent Design in schools as part of a longstanding tradition of freethinkng and speculative philosophy in Western education.
However, it should be treated the same way as for instance the various multiverse theories are in physics or the way speculative ideas on the ultimate reality of nature are treated in philosophy (are we just brains in vats, are we a computer simulation, etc). Speculation cannot and should not be given equal treatment with substantiated theories and concepts such as evolution.
David_Eight
MemberOvomorphOct-20-2012 1:40 AMI agree with most of CC's post but certainly not all of it.
It pains me to see religious nuts, anti-relgion nuts and political trolls pop up and lable this movie as having something to do with politics or religion. Its a summer blockbuster (barely) that has as much to do with religion or politics as Madagascar 3. Give it a rest.
Anthropoloy: Agreed
The biology bit: Yes unfathomably stupid act by Milburn to pet a an alien lifeform when he has no clue of of how it would react. His reaction at finding the small eel like creature in the outtake would have better set the stage to explain what would still be a dumb scene that culminated with his well earned death.
Geologist: Agreed at least he wont return for the sequel
Medicine: You're off with the sterilization. Vickers isnt a doc anyway. She made a company descision and given the circumstances a sound one. She didnt sterilize Holloway; SHE KILLED HIM. Good riddance. Another well deserved death.
The bit with the potentially contagious mutating cells on the head was completely stupid. The testing is being conducted in open air with only two people in the room wearing flimsy facemasks; WHICH THEY REMOVE! The whole idea of "tricking" the nervous system of a two thousand year old head into thinking it was still alive goes beyond stupid. Did they wish to stimulate those potentially dangerous mutated cells to grow?? (no cultures taken or anything to determine their nature)
Did they want to talk to the severed head or have it make funny faces? who knows. I find it hard to believe the same RS made "Alien" after watching this.
The medpod: Nuff said. 21st century med-tech wont allow for multi gender programming on thier high tech shit?? Makes me feel there should be a guy on every movie cast called the "common sense-guy" or "bullshit spotter" to weed out the dumbshit.
Astronomy: Agreed. These guys had to be the luckiest idiots in the galaxy to arrive at the planet without so much as obiting to search for possible sites, they dive right into the atmosphere hook a right around a blind turn and POOF! wierd dome structures and roads leading to them. Crazy. And before the fanboys hop out of the closet saying they were following a signal or someshit at what point did they pick this up or was this something that the audience was supposed to assumed to have happened. Very Lindelof-like.
Genetics: Agreed. Hundreds of millions of years after seeding after millions of genetic variations from the original donor you arrive right back where you started with a "lesser" version of your own species. I thought the writers could written something more plausible.
Methodical: Agreed
Safety protocal: Agreed
Robotics: Let's be real. The only protocols that David obeyed were those of Weyland Corp just like Ash who came after him. You're already made aware that the Company (surprise, surprise!) has something up its sleeve so, David infecting Holloway and attempting to put an impregnated Shaw into stasis is nothing new (both plot lines were borrowed from Aliens). So much oringinality.
CBT1979
MemberOvomorphNov-07-2012 10:19 AMI actually liked the movie but I must say, like OP mentioned, they did too many logical flaws that makes the movie rather 6/10 for the general audience.
The way Fifield and Milburn act is rather like dumb highschool kids, definetly not scientists.
Holloway's behavior like a mad boy after he founds out that the engineers are already dead is also stupid.
The only really good actor in this movie was Fassbender who really played well
the role of David.
Also the dialogs of Captain Janek since he mentions that LV-223 would be an outpost for bio weapons for sure sounds corny. He could have mentioned it as a possibility but he sounded quite sure.
So for me Prometheus remains a movie with much potential but turned into a rather mediocre sci-fi movie with not enough horror factor.
Major Noob
MemberOvomorphNov-07-2012 11:52 AMOh boy. I had a laugh at this review months ago and I'm laughing now. Who is this mook? He's so shrill it borders on hysterical. The kind of guy you find yourself edging away from at the party. What ever happened to having fun at the movies? It has to satisfy CC Finlays obsessively groomed self image as an intellectual to qualify as being worthy? Ahg. What a dip. Prometheus rocks.
Indy John
MemberOvomorphNov-20-2012 3:09 PM@dallas!dallas
I took my valuable time just like yours and read through your thread. Everything you say about the film is true.
Now what?
If I had not seen the movie and read your notes I would have find it interesrting..maybe even funny based on your notes..
I guess if the movie gets anyone to think a bit then it might have accomplished it's mission. It is at least entertaining...even if all of the flaws are pointed out.
The same points you mention have been written about many threads...but for me I was glad you mentioned a few additional itemes I have not uncovered yet.
I suspect the next time you and I watch the movie we will see additional inconsistancies and will require additional postings.
I for one will look forward to your notes.
Be choicelessly aware as you move through life
Add A Reply
