I just saw Prometheus

[Canopus]

Of course we evolved by ourselves. And sorry to me prometheus was a disgrace to the whole Alien franchise.

[ahappydude]

Do you mean by adapting in different ways made us evolve or you thinking in a different way? Well to all who is dissapointed in the movie i hope some director will make a true prequel

[Uncle Mort]

I don't really want prequels or reboots ~ I want something original.

[Kerbface]

I like 2001 more but it was so long ago i saw that so need to rewatch =) Kerbface, what are your belife? Do you think "someone" created us or by time we evovled by ourselves?

We evolved by ourselves, of course. I would consider it a possibility that the situation was more like 2001, where we evolved just like everything else on Earth except that some sort of alien civilisation sparked our intelligence in some way, that is at least logically possible, but only as a WAAAAY out there possibility, I have no reason to believe that we evolved our intelligence through any extranormal means and the fact that other species such as dolphins and ravens show quite a high level of intelligence compared to most animal life shows it's not even that strange for it to occur. We just happened to take it one step further than other species have. Although who knows, maybe another species did develop intelligent culture and then died out (tens to hundreds of millions of years ago). Well that's another scifi theory, but still possible.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Kerbface

[Galacticruler]

The movie was a big disapointment, still good, but lots of logical errors.

[architeuthis]

I actually really enjoyed Prometheus. I thought the art design and cinematography were really excellent. Problems of basic logical coherence, and disrespect of science are not unique to this one move alone of Hollywood's creations. But on that note: yay, science discussions!

Not only that, but apparently they spawned life on Earth, so why did it take billions of years for humans to appear, and how did the DNA turn into a billion different species and then somehow get back to humans, was that some sort of secret DNA coded conscious decision or something

Word. The engineers were about as likely to get starfish or stromatalites or treeferns as they were to get sentient bipeds.

We didn't evolve from apes, or monkeys.

[anthromajorpedantry] People sometimes claim the 'evolution says' we evolved from chimpanzees, but that is definitely incorrect. No modern species is ancestral to any other modern species. Chimps and humans shared a common ancestor sometime in the distant past, just as ultimately we did with all life on earth (that we know of). Though technically speaking humans are apes, as we're in the family hominidae. So in that sense there was a precursor 'ape' species from which branched all of the modern ape species on the great phyogenetic tree. Our brethren in hominidea are the genuses of gorillias, chimpanzees/bonobos, and the extinct members of genus homo, and australopithecus. Orangutans are also apes but they are the most distantly related members of the family.You're right that we didn't evolve from monkeys; they are a separate branch on the tree of primates. [/anthromajorpedantry]

well, not quite true.

It's been postulated that a non-radiative environment would prevent evolution (so a complete lack of radioactive materials, solar wind, stellar background radiation, light even) as it would remove the trigger for mutations.

Of course that's not quite attainable in practice.

I myself have some doubts as to the validity of that theory, as it does not account for chaos/random events.

and oh guys: just disagreeing with someone or pointing out flaws in their argumentation is NOT elitist or an attack on you.

There are lots of mechanisms for mutation apart from radioactivity. Basically problems crop up when genetic material is either repaired or copied . Radiation is a case the case of the first, but you have to understand that DNA is fragile stuff. If was left alone even the water in our cells would take it apart pretty quickly, but the reality of it is even worse: there are scores of proteins constantly metabolizing things and other fairly energetic chemical reactions all happening in uncomfortable proximity to the DNA. For this reason there are multiple robust layers of DNA repair mechanisms, but they are not perfect one hundred percent of the time. Hence mutations always will occur. On the side of copying, the process is similarly not always perfect, so in the long run various kinds of errors in copying, mutations in other words, get added to the code. If you are unconvinced of the principle try making photocopies of photocopies for a few iterations and then compare the result to the original. Our DNA replication process mitigates this problem via some ingenious ways of keeping track of which strand is the 'master copy', but again no process is 100% perfect 100% of the time.

Actually, believe it or not, evolution can still happen even without any mutation, although practically speaking there would be a plateau of additive variation of phenotypic traits in the long run (leaving aside epigenetic evolution). Basically when biologists are talking about cases in which evolution does not occur they refer to something called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. It has the following conditions, all of which must be satisfied:

1. There is no selection
   
2. There is no mutation
   
3. There is no migration
   
4. There are no chance events, or populations are infinitely large (e.g. no genetic drift)
   
5. Mating occurs randomly
   

Since, in reality, none of these tend to hold true evolution is always occurring.

[Awaras]

There are lots of mechanisms for mutation apart from radioactivity. Basically problems crop up when genetic material is either repaired or copied . Radiation is a case the case of the first, but you have to understand that DNA is fragile stuff. If was left alone even the water in our cells would take it apart pretty quickly, but the reality of it is even worse: there are scores of proteins constantly metabolizing things and other fairly energetic chemical reactions all happening in uncomfortable proximity to the DNA. For this reason there are multiple robust layers of DNA repair mechanisms, but they are not perfect one hundred percent of the time. Hence mutations always will occur. On the side of copying, the process is similarly not always perfect, so in the long run various kinds of errors in copying, mutations in other words, get added to the code. If you are unconvinced of the principle try making photocopies of photocopies for a few iterations and then compare the result to the original. Our DNA replication process mitigates this problem via some ingenious ways of keeping track of which strand is the 'master copy', but again no process is 100% perfect 100% of the time.

Actually, believe it or not, evolution can still happen even without any mutation, although practically speaking there would be a plateau of additive variation of phenotypic traits in the long run (leaving aside epigenetic evolution). Basically when biologists are talking about cases in which evolution does not occur they refer to something called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. It has the following conditions, all of which must be satisfied:

1. There is no selection
   
2. There is no mutation
   
3. There is no migration
   Exactly. Life on Earth evolved numerous ways to minimize mutation despite of radioactivity present in the enviroment ('minimize' to the level that is useful for evolutionary purposes while still low enough to ensure survivability) through numerous DNA error-checking and repair mechanisms. I imagine that on a world with zero radioactivity, those mechanisms would simply be less efficient or not evolve at all, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if life would evolve some sort of mechanism to intentionally distort DNA information to increase the level of mutation to roughly the same level we have on Earth if it proved to be an evolutionary advantage.

[jwenting]

The movie was a big disapointment, still good, but lots of logical errors.

sounds like anything to do with "ancient aliens" and panspermia...

Erich von Daenicken would be proud.

[ahappydude]

Alot of info i didnt knew before, cheers for continueing to post

[Phawks]

I really don't know why Prometheus catches so much flak. I saw it opening night and understood it without any problem. Of course, I went into it with the following in mind:

1) It's in-universe with Alien without being in the same story arc. The fact that it's "in-universe" with something means that it has an inherent complexity; it's not a self-contained, isolated story. It relies on facts/ideas/et cetera outside of itself. Alien, through all of its movies, comics, games, et cetera, has created a complex universe. It's not the slasher-in-space that it began as. If you want an analog, look at the Star Wars trilogies and the Expanded Universe. Star Wars started as a single movie before spawning two sequels, hundreds of spin-off works, and a prequel trilogy that tells a different (but related) story with the original trilogy.

When your story (movie or otherwise) breaks from reality, those breaks require explanations. Otherwise, you have plot holes that I for one don't approve of filling with "just because, now shut up and watch the movie." The Alien universe is broad, particularly given Weyland-Yutani and everything that comes out of it. There is, again, an inherent complexity with any story that isn't entirely self-contained.

2) It's not a standalone movie. Knowing it's in-universe with Alien means that at the very least it's going to raise questions that are answered by Alien and its sequels, at most it's either opening a new series of movies or additional expansion content to the Alien universe. One can't expect to have so many questions asked and all of them answered in the same two-hour sitting when 1) Ridley Scott (known for slower pacing) is directing, and 2) the movie in question is an expansion to in-universe content.

3) Ridley Scott is too much of an artist to spoon-feed the audience with one of his key works. Blade Runner has less-than-obvious secrets and a necessity for the audience to think for themselves. Prometheus has a lot more of that. In fact, there are clues that Blade Runner and Prometheus (and by extension, the entire Alien universe) are in the same universe, and that sequels to both are going to further explain each other. Your brain can make connections, too, so don't let the movie do all the work. Most of all, don't expect to be spoon-fed everything. If you're going to see a Hangover movie, yes, disengage all higher cognitive function. If you're going to see one of the comic book or novel adaptations that flood cinemas these days, you probably won't have to think much. But if you're seeing a film directed by a guy whose other two sci-fi films aren't exactly small-time, you might need to think a little bit.

Overall, I recommend rewatching the movie multiple times and discussing the mythology around it. Also, check TVTropes for some theories.

[AmpsterMan]

Disclaimer: I understand that the following might be my own fault but i would argue that you can't blame me.

One thing that bothered me immensely about the film is that the whole film sets me up to believe it was going to be an Alien prequel; the atmosphere, the set up, the trailer, the director, the fact that it is set up in the same universe, etc. But then it doesn't do anything with it. Now I understand that this film wanted to be it's own movie. It didn't want to be a scary film, or a thriller or anything like that. I get that. But why then go that route? Why have a scary monster? Why have a robot with seedy motives? Why have some black goo that turns things into bad other things? If you wanted to make a movie that was more like Space Odyssey 2001 then why not make the movie be more like Space Odyssey 2001? The whole movie set me up to believe it was going to be a thriller and instead becomes a weird mish-mash of methaphysical/religious stuff.

The second thing that bothered me is the mish-mash of metaphysical/religious stuff. If you are going to make a Metaphysical movie that's fine. Space Odyssey and KPax where really good movies about questioning ourselves, our existence and yada-yada but this one just... isn't. Once I found out that the movie takes place during Christmas I was like "Oh no, space Jesus. Was a metathinking it? Yes. Should that ruin my experience? No. With the recent movie Oblivion I knew there was going to be a clone plot (oh... uh.. spoilers) when I saw that he was number 47 or whatever. This movie was all about finding our creators, evolution, creation, Blah Blah Blah, but none of these questions were even addressed. The ending was running from some comical evil guy who just chases you down because he is the comical evil guy and he has to chase you down.

I'm not really skilled with words so I might be sounding like an idiot. I just feel like the movie took me in thirty different directions. I just wish the movie would have been like a monster film (Ala Alien ) or some brainy movie (Ala Space Odyssey)

EDIT: Though it might sound like I am butthurt or something, I really am not. I am just slightly disappointed.

Edited June 18, 2013 by AmpsterMan

[Kerbface]

I really don't know why Prometheus catches so much flak. I saw it opening night and understood it without any problem. Of course, I went into it with the following in mind:

1) It's in-universe with Alien without being in the same story arc. The fact that it's "in-universe" with something means that it has an inherent complexity; it's not a self-contained, isolated story. It relies on facts/ideas/et cetera outside of itself. Alien, through all of its movies, comics, games, et cetera, has created a complex universe. It's not the slasher-in-space that it began as. If you want an analog, look at the Star Wars trilogies and the Expanded Universe. Star Wars started as a single movie before spawning two sequels, hundreds of spin-off works, and a prequel trilogy that tells a different (but related) story with the original trilogy.

When your story (movie or otherwise) breaks from reality, those breaks require explanations. Otherwise, you have plot holes that I for one don't approve of filling with "just because, now shut up and watch the movie." The Alien universe is broad, particularly given Weyland-Yutani and everything that comes out of it. There is, again, an inherent complexity with any story that isn't entirely self-contained.

2) It's not a standalone movie. Knowing it's in-universe with Alien means that at the very least it's going to raise questions that are answered by Alien and its sequels, at most it's either opening a new series of movies or additional expansion content to the Alien universe. One can't expect to have so many questions asked and all of them answered in the same two-hour sitting when 1) Ridley Scott (known for slower pacing) is directing, and 2) the movie in question is an expansion to in-universe content.

3) Ridley Scott is too much of an artist to spoon-feed the audience with one of his key works. Blade Runner has less-than-obvious secrets and a necessity for the audience to think for themselves. Prometheus has a lot more of that. In fact, there are clues that Blade Runner and Prometheus (and by extension, the entire Alien universe) are in the same universe, and that sequels to both are going to further explain each other. Your brain can make connections, too, so don't let the movie do all the work. Most of all, don't expect to be spoon-fed everything. If you're going to see a Hangover movie, yes, disengage all higher cognitive function. If you're going to see one of the comic book or novel adaptations that flood cinemas these days, you probably won't have to think much. But if you're seeing a film directed by a guy whose other two sci-fi films aren't exactly small-time, you might need to think a little bit.

Overall, I recommend rewatching the movie multiple times and discussing the mythology around it. Also, check TVTropes for some theories.

Nobody's complaining that we're not being spoon fed information. We're complaining that the whole plot is nonsense and the characters are all unlikeable morons. I'm sure some of the plot holes will be mended eventually, but I doubt all of them will, and I can't see how some of them will be answered satisfactorially. And I can definitely say nobody is complaining about plot holes that are answered in the other films in the alien franchise, because those aren't plot holes.