John P. M. wrote:I'm just wondering if Scott isn't becoming a pseudo-religious nutcase in his old age.

This is kind of what I was alluding to. Actually, I think he is.

By all means - nowadays Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter, and it's kinda OK by me in that kind of movie, but the Alien franchise (well, the first couple of movies) were more... serious than that, IMO. I want my sci-fi to be imaginative but at the same time believable and conceivable.

John P. M. wrote:I'm just wondering if Scott isn't becoming a pseudo-religious nutcase in his old age.

My similar concerns was the reason why I started the other thread on this subject:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/film- ... 31932.html

HughMcB wrote:

John P. M. wrote:I'm just wondering if Scott isn't becoming a pseudo-religious nutcase in his old age.

This is kind of what I was alluding to. Actually, I think he is.

It is the Genesis story -

Moving over the waters in the opening scene.
Creating life on Earth
Tempting humanity with the prospect of knowledge (the cave art)
Tasting the "forbidden fruit", that changes the taster, bringing death.
The "fallen angel" leading the humans to recklessness
Punishing curiosity and potentially brining destruction on humanity
The folly of chasing false gods (The Engineers)

John P. M. wrote:By all means - nowadays Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter, and it's kinda OK by me in that kind of movie, but the Alien franchise (well, the first couple of movies) were more... serious than that, IMO. I want my sci-fi to be imaginative but at the same time believable and conceivable.

To me it's all about how a film presents itself. To me Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter presents itself as "leave your brain at the door, this shit is about to get mental". However the Alien franchise is more like "look bitches, this shit could happen in the future".

Did you rewatch alien?... KIDS IN SPACE SUITS I TELLS YA!

Yes, I hear that all the time - that the original Alien had goofs and stupidity in it, and of course Aliens as well, what with Bill Paxton's character and whatnot. I just don't see how that justifies making the same and worse mistakes and goofs in a new movie.

GrahamH wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

John P. M. wrote:I'm just wondering if Scott isn't becoming a pseudo-religious nutcase in his old age.

This is kind of what I was alluding to. Actually, I think he is.

It is the Genesis story -

Moving over the waters in the opening scene.
Creating life on Earth
Tempting humanity with the prospect of knowledge (the cave art)
Tasting the "forbidden fruit", that changes the taster, bringing death.
The "fallen angel" leading the humans to recklessness
Punishing curiosity and potentially brining destruction on humanity
The folly of chasing false gods (The Engineers)

And let's not forget....

[after Holloway has given his presentation about the pictorgrams to the crew]
Fifield: So you're saying we're here because of a map you two kids found in a cave, is that right?
Elizabeth Shaw: No.
Charlie Holloway: Yeah. Um...
Elizabeth Shaw: No. Not a map. An invitation.
Fifield: From whom?
Elizabeth Shaw: We call them Engineers.
Fifield: Engineers? Do you mind um...telling us what they engineered?
Elizabeth Shaw: They engineered us.
Fifield: Bullshit!
Millburn: Okay, so uh...do you have anything to back that up? I mean, look, if you're willing to discount three centuries of Darwinism, that's...wooh! But how do you know? Mm?
Elizabeth Shaw: I don't. But it's what I choose to believe.

And she fucking turns out to be right!

1) Alien creators communicate by cave painting?
2) Crude cave painting has a perfect match with the millions of different stars and planets?
3) They actually used the cave painting bullshit in Aliens vs Predators(2004) but instead of a planet it was a location on earth.
4) Creator alien looks like squidward.

I could seriously go on and write a book of huge fuckups throughout this pathetic excuse for an Alien movie. I swear it's like a mind virus in the way it can convince pretty normal people to think they watched a good, Alien movie. Did they not see Alien or Aliens, do they not understand the potential behind the story and the mysteries left by two previous movies!


I swear people get off big time on this faith biased Lost bullshit of filling the gaps left by the movie. Instead of having to pay attention, they can fill any of the huge plot holes with the first pathetic idea their mind comes up with and sit back and say hey that's just what I believe, like that one chick said in the movie duuude.

I hate the whole romanticizing of faith that we all too often see in movies. This was one of the first reasons I so much like the first Sherlock Holmes. It was a big fuck you to faith based bollocks. But this movie along with others is just so utterly pathetic in this respect.

I dunno, I think they wanted to do a Alien movie, but they were too scared of it bombing after the AvP fuck ups. So they ended up with this overcomplicated sugary mess while they studiously ignored the Alien, while desperately wanting to capitalise on it.

HughMcB wrote: However the Alien franchise is more like "look bitches, this shit could happen in the future".

I think the technical term is 'Hard Sci Fi' - Prometheus was sort of 'Hard at both ends but a bit stodgy in the middle Sci Fi'

The upside to the movie, for me, was the android character, David.
Superbly acted and what was more interesting was how the humans acted rude, derisive and even abusive towards him.

Yeah he was a good character. Like so many other films he is in, he excels.

Whilst the engineer is improbable, what will be probable is that we will be that engineer to future species.

byofrcs wrote:Whilst the engineer is improbable, what will be probable is that we will be that engineer to future species.

That may well be, but if we turn out to be so, I'm pretty sure it won't be accomplished by a sacrificial suicide meant to haphazardly spread our DNA in a waterfall. Come to think of it, where does the moniker 'Engineer' come into such a process?

Alien was not really sci fi, more a horror movie with a space background
Aliens was a Rambo/sci fi crossover

Both were excellent through

mrjonno wrote:Alien was not really sci fi, more a horror movie with a space background

What defines a sci-fi movie, if not a movie with science/tech themes?

The science themes in Alien being xeno-biology, artificial life forms, interstellar travel...

John P. M. wrote:

byofrcs wrote:Whilst the engineer is improbable, what will be probable is that we will be that engineer to future species.

That may well be, but if we turn out to be so, I'm pretty sure it won't be accomplished by a sacrificial suicide meant to haphazardly spread our DNA in a waterfall. Come to think of it, where does the moniker 'Engineer' come into such a process?

I suspect "Engineer" is piggy backing on other horror themes. Clive Barker has an engineer in his books as one of the Cenobites and that is a good horror theme to hijack.

By the time we have that technology then we should be able to copy memories and so there would be no suicide as it would be but a copy of the engineer. Well that is how I will engineer it.

byofrcs wrote:By the time we have that technology then we should be able to copy memories and so there would be no suicide as it would be but a copy of the engineer. Well that is how I will engineer it.

If an exact conscious copy of you killed itself you wouldn't call that suicide?

GrahamH wrote:

byofrcs wrote:By the time we have that technology then we should be able to copy memories and so there would be no suicide as it would be but a copy of the engineer. Well that is how I will engineer it.

If an exact conscious copy of you killed itself you wouldn't call that suicide?

No. That would dilute the meaning of suicide to those entities that were singleton and did not have copies. We would have to invent a new word for this when we get to that level of technology.