![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Do we need 3-5 different references for sentences and sentence fragments? No wonder it took five minutes for the main article to load. — WylieCoyote ( talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Buy a new laptop, I have no problem on my tablet and it's not powerful at all, seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're seeing long load-times on pages, you might check if you have some add-ons in your Wikipedia account. Editing tools that you've forgotten you had (?) might be the culprit. -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Total Budget: $180,000,000
http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/prometheus-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.185.15.147 ( talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Opening planet is not necessarily Earth, see this interview:
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232?wssac=164&wssaffid=news
CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
My reading of the interview is that the Engineers seeded many planets so "it doesn't have to be" Earth. The wiki article says that Scott confirmed the planet was Earth in an interview, then cites this interview, in which he doesn't actually say that.
And re the Jesus Christ theme, yes it did occur to me watching it that the Engineers dying (overcome by an escape of their own bioweapons) 2,000 years ago just as they were about to destroy their own experiment of life on Earth might not be a coincidence. However, they created life on other planets - why were they going to destroy all of them? It's not explained in the film. My take on it was that when the display which David watches switches off, the "Earth" light-ball stays up a bit longer and he notices that the Engineer in question is still alive in his hypersleep pod - it is just coincidence that the Engineer tasked to purge Earth is the one still alive. But maybe they can cover for one another and he would purge all the other planets as well, who knows. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 08:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Also the article mentions that RS toyed with the title "Paradise" and the Engineers were partly inspired by Milton's Dark Angels - that seems to me to be a point worthy of inclusion. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 08:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In this interview, Lindelof implies that the idea of the crucifixion causing the Engineers' wrath has not entirely been written out, and may be used as the opening scene in the sequel.
I know it’s obnoxious to say that you should see the movie a couple of times to really appreciate it but that is how the movie was designed – things that seem throwaway, for example when they do the carbon dating of the dead Engineer and realise that he’s been dead for two thousand years and you think ‘if two thousand years ago The Engineers decided to wipe us out what happened back then?’ Is there any correlation between what was happening on the Earth two thousand years ago and this decision? Could a sequel start in that time period and begin to contextualize what we did to piss these beings off?
He doesn't explicitly mention Jesus here, but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the "Jesus is an Engineer" storyline that Ridley described in the Movies.com interview. Could this be included in the article, perhaps in the writing or sequel sections? — Flax5 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the plot summary says it is Earth and the footnote refers to the interview, in which he declines to confirm it is Earth. The Dark Angels are Satan's gang in John Milton's Paradise Lost. Whether the Engineers are actively evil or just swelled up with Pride is of course not something we have yet been told. I'm guessing from "these" Dark Angels that you're not familiar, apologies if that's not the case. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Martin Hill, one of the film's special effects supervisors, explains the opening sequence in this podcast. While Scott and Linelof insist on remaining vague, Hill just cuts through the mystery and says exactly what's going on.
"Well, the Engineer, which is the creature of the opening sequence – he's effectively an idealised human, in a lot of ways. He's sort of got this alabaster skin and perfect physique, and he's come to what we discover is Earth to effectively seed Earth with life, and he does this by effectively committing ritual suicide by drinking some black organic goo which destroys him from within, and from that, we go right down into a molecular level, and see, you know, his DNA being torn apart by this transforming substance, and he falls into this beautiful waterfall, and we see the DNA that's been torn apart re-form into what becomes Earth DNA, if you like, and effectively creating life on Earth."
I suppose the question is whether an SFX guy can be considered a reliable source for plot information. — Flax5 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, would you add localized link(Korean) for Prometheus? http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%94%84%EB%A1%9C%EB%A9%94%ED%85%8C%EC%9A%B0%EC%8A%A4_(%EC%98%81%ED%99%94)
Freebits ( talk) 06:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There's no indication whatsoever in the movie that the introductory scene takes place during the Cambrian period. While it takes place on Earth, it is not indicated and someone that has seen nothing before the movie came out would understand it was Earth later in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.44 ( talk) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it really clear that it was Earth? I didn't understand it even later in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.229.245 ( talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is clear that it is. Why show another planet? What is never given is the date for sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see any indication that the planet is the earth. For all I know, it could be the planet on wich the film takes place. "Why show another planet ?" is in no way a good proof. Can anyone point to what reveals that it is actually the earth ? The Alien at the beginning of the movie drink something that destroy his DNA to recombine in a new one. And we know from the movie that both Aliens and humans DNA are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.2.188.186 ( talk) 08:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
To say that the alien sacrifice initiate evolution also doesn't mean a thing, since evolution began much before the Cambrian period and it's clearly stated in the movie that the alien DNA is close to that of a human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.44 ( talk) 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, now the 'distant past' has been linked with the Archean period. No! If that sacrifice took place at the beginning of life on earth, engineer and human DNA wouldn't be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ridley Scott has mentioned on Video that the film is set in the Zeta Reticuli star sytem....
See the source I put in my edit as it contains the video interview in which he explicitly said that(although he mistook it for the planet and got a little confused, he ment to say "Star System").
So why are my edits being deleted... He said it and you can watch the video where he said it as I properly sourced it! Discuss.
Colliric ( talk) 08:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Just responding to your "oh he said it was a planet" thing, it was an interview and he obviously got a little confused(as it would really be pretty odd for astrologists to call a Star System and a Planet exactly the same name, could you find an example for me?). For your information the Star Map(which shows the origin and destination of the engineers, when it's revealed they're coming to earth) that we see later in the film also shows the origin point of the engineers as the Zeta Reticuli star system. However I will yeild for now and leave this in the talk section till more information comes avalible, Obviously I could rereference the thing better and point instead to the video rather than a Blog(something you could have also done too instead of just plain deleting the whole damn thing despite the fact it's right), as that would be a more valid reference(and obviously a primary source). And also even though Alien was in fact set in the same system(actually shown on film in the scene where Lambert is calculating their distance to earth, as well as in the calcuation of distance to earth, but not verbally mentioned specifically), obviously in the 30 years since making the original, Ridley was reaquianting himself with the setting, and updating his knowledge of the system and it's many controversies(it's the system that all the "UFO Nuts" believe aliens in flying sauces come from! a fact that Ridley and company were obviously aware of, even when setting Alien there).
Colliric ( talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please change the introduction of the plot to include a setting: "As a hovering spacecraft departs [a barren planet, etc]..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loff ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMPLOT, events do not have to be described in the order in which they happen if it easier to explain. There is no need to be literal, jumping from event, to event, back to the previous event, unless it causes a paradox of events of course. There is no need for the to be in 13 separate 2-line parts. One-off hand comment by Janek does not make them vases nor that link added accurate. As a compromise I have just named them cylinders as the most basic of descriptors. There is also no need to waste precious space talking about lifeboats and escape pods as separate entities, the fundamental understanding is carried forward, if someone has not seen the film and reads the plot, they understand that Vickers leaves the ship, there is a pod, Shaw goes to that pod and events carry on from there. Being told that there was a lifeboat and an escape pod serves no fundamental understanding of the plot, it's minutiae. Referring to Weyland as father, this is an unexplained and minor plot point that doesn't need to be mentioned any more than the flashback into Shaw's childhood that sets up her religious bent. The david taking a cylinder part, he cannot steal it, there is noone to steal it from. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume Tenebrae's remark was an oblique swipe at me, as I was the editor whose plot edits were altered. However, WP:FILMPLOT is not the only necessity for writing a plot summary: the prose must also meet normal prose standards (see Verbosity). The reverted version has the following problems.
And I hesitate to add this, but...
I've changed your version slightly, but to avoid 3RR I won't touch it hereafter. But consider the points I make above and inwardly digest them. They are good ones.
Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
1) Verbosity is not an issue, conveying key points of understanding under the word limit is. People copy edit, people trim as necessary. In the case of this: "In the distant past, an alien spacecraft arrives on Earth. A humanoid alien drinks a dark liquid. Its body disintegrates and fall into a waterfall, seeding Earth with its DNA.", it loses any connection between the liquid and the body disintegrating even though it is made clear that the two are connected in the film. The loss of that word destroys the implication of what that liquid does. It's an alien, disintegration could be for any number of reasons including natural, but a connection is there and losing "causing" loses coherence. Which it's done since you've changed it to this.
2) The plot as it stands is a mixing pot of several authors, different words are used, though I fail to see why humanity's forerunners (which I'm not a fan of) and ancient aliens causes any kind of disconnect, one is stating they're humans ancestors, the other moves on and just refers to them as a general descriptor.
3) He funding the creation of the ship, the mission, the lot. He's a trillionaire, it's covered in the film and the external materials. Whether Janek said structure or planet I don't know, I don't have access to a copy of the film to check. Considering there were many structures I don't believe he would be referring to the one.
4) This is no more misleading than merging the individual adventures of the lifeboat and the escape pod. If the next sentence was "it kills everyone but Shaw", then we'd have a problem.
5) Yes, that he wanted a son and not a daughter. She overpowers David because he is not an immovable object and offers no violent resistance. She dresses similar because she is a professional, cold and calculating, this is explained in the design. Multiple previews explained that she gets out unassisted because she is a hard ass, she does push ups because she is a hard ass (do androids need to do push ups?) She's driven. Sadly she is victim of the fact her character was only intended to be small until Theron was cast, and the character suffers for it. Unless it actually leads to something in the plot, which it didn't, it doesn't belong.
6) "It's 'Vickers' lifeboat', not 'Vicker's lifeboat'". The spelling mistake part is true, the other part is not, Vickers' and Vickers's are both acceptable. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 02:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Still, look on the bright side. We're not discussing whether Agent Coulson is really dead in the Avengers movie. And we're not pointing out that Vickers burning Holloway to death just because he asks her to would get her immediately arrested in real life... :-) Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
An effort to provide relevant internal linkage has been consistently blocked by Darkwarriorblake [1], [2], [3].
A proposed sentence read:
A alternative read:
This interpretation is derived from a comparison of the following related images:
Despite the obvious similarities, Darkwarriorblake holds that there is no connection between Alien (creature in Alien franchise) and Prometheus (film) worth making in the plot summary. The central issue is that we have, as with almost all articles that provide plots, an un-sourced account of what took place in the final scene. Since there is no source that states categorically what the creature is, or isn't, we appear to have situation where the POV of the primary article contributor is determining content inclusion. However, a cursory look across forums etc. (in lieu of any real sources) establishes that the majority of viewers see this alien as a xenotype (proto-xenomorph or whatever). Therefore, I would suggest, and specifically in the context of providing an un-sourced plot, we should use common sense when it comes to the imagery comparison. We should also acknowledge, when writing an un-sourced plot summary, popular opinion when it comes to determining consensus. Semitransgenic talk. 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Prometheus (film) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
After review of this disussion and having consulted MOS:Film#Plot and WP:PSTS, it seems that this debate comes down to the question of whether the linkage is a descriptive claim, "the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". As a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, my opinion is that the creatures resemble each other. You should be careful, though, how you treat the linkage if you choose to include it. I would not include a link of the term "alien creature" to the wiki page on the movie Alien (as in " alien creature"). That would imply they were meant to be the same creatures in both movies, which would at best be an interpretation since, according to the article, the movie Prometheus is not is not directly connected to that franchise. Nevertheless, it seems reasonble to include a phrase such as "a creature resembling a xenomorph" or "a xenomorph-like creature" with linkage of xenomorph to the article on the movie Alien. Such a description should not be controversial because any reasonable person who had seen both movies would recognize the similarity, especially since in both movies the creature bursts out of human chests. It would arguably be remiss to leave such a description out of the article on the grounds that Scott may have meant the creature to be a reference to the other movie, in which case the reader would miss an important aspect of the film. Coastside ( talk) 12:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)|}
I disagree with both User:Coastside and User:Semitransgenic because including an internal link to Alien (creature in Alien franchise) is a form of original research through WP:SYN and must not be included as it violates a page with greater consensus, a page of policy. Curb Chain ( talk) 21:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie, and so I can say with objectivity that the current descriptions are deficient. There are four descriptions of aliens in the plot summary:
Only one of these descriptions creates a clear visual image, and that's the first one. "Humanoid" is descriptive enough, because I know what a human looks like, and the "-oid" tells me it's not entirely human, but "human-ish". Good enough - I get the picture. The second description, "giant alien" tells me nothing. Is it humanoid, too? Who knows? After all, these are completely different time periods,so how do I know what the alien looks like? The third description is just the second with no head. I still don't know what it looks like. Now we get to the fourth description. Let's see, "jet-black skin and an elongated skull...". The best visual I get with that description is a black Neanderthal:
Now, on the other hand, if one of the descriptions says " xenomorph-like alien": well,now I get a visual image: thumb|left|75px|Xenomorph
And the "-like" tells me it's not entirely a xenomorph, but "xenomorph-ish". Good enough. It isn't de facto WP:SYN or WP:OR whenever a plot summary refers to another movie. It could simply be a way to describe a scene, which is the case here. You could argue that an editor could use words to describe the scene instead, but a plot summary needs to be brief, so saying something like "xenomorph-like" is a good way to be succinct. Coastside ( talk)
Scans from a recently released Prometheus artbook have surfaced online, and include, among other things, plenty of information on the design and nature of the film's creatures. Perhaps this article could benefit from a section on each creature, similar to this one? Unfortunately the whole thing is in French – all I could get out of it was that Shaw's offspring is called the "Trilobite" and the alien born in the final scene is called the "Deacon". — Flax5 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You are inappropriately applying WP:OR. Saying he's "making it up again based on [his] observations" doesn't make it OR. As it says in WP:FILMPLOT#PLOT, "basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." How would an editor write basic descriptions without reference to an outside source if they didn't base them on their own observations? As I said above, the criterion for such "descriptive claims" is whether their "accuracy... is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". If you're going to argue against describing the creature as "xenomorph-like", your argument should be that reasonable, educated people who see the film would not find this a reasonable description of the primary source material (the film), not that any attempt to describe the film based on "personal observations" is inherently OR. Writing "xenomorph-like alien" is helpful to the reader. I can't see a better way to convey the appearance of the creature that is not unduely verbose. If there is one, why don't you suggest it, and maybe we can use that instead. Coastside ( talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding IllaZilla's comment that the word is "only used in comics and games", we need to recognize that the Wikipedia article on a xenomorph defines the word as the creature from the Alien films. Whether that's right or wrong, that's how the article defines the word. The whole point of linking to that article wasn't just to placate one side of this debate by linking there. The point was to succinctly describe the creature by saying it looks "something like" a xenomorph, i.e., "xenomorph-like", and then linking to the article to aid readers who didn't know what "xenomorph" meant. By linking to that article without using the word xenomorph we have made a stronger link to that movie, not a weaker one. As it is now, it appears that when we say "alien creature" we literally mean the "Alien" (capital 'A') because we link directly to that article. There is no ambiguity with the word "xenomorph-like" because it's clear we only mean it looks like that creature, not that it is that creature.
If you really have issues with using the word "xenomorph", you could try using "Alien-like creature", but that is very awkward (try reading it that way), and it's awkward precisely because "alien" is so generic a term (as compared to xenomorph) that "alien-like" isn't descriptive enough. What do "aliens" generally look like?? And in anticipation of the retort that we should take out the link altogether, I'll just repeat what I said earlier (see the Neanderthal picture above) that the reader has no idea what the creature looks like when you merely call it an alien whereas with xenomorph-like, at least they would get some sense of the creature's appearance in the film. Coastside ( talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The name 'xenomorph' is used in the movie Aliens and is also heard in a deleted scene from Alien 3. The creature at the end of Prometheus is a form of xenomorph - It grows within the chest of it's host after being implanted by a form of facehugger, it has an elongated head, incredibly similar body and physique, and also has a set of inner jaws. Differences between the traditional xenomorph seen in Alien and the one seen in Prometheus are easily put down to differing host species - I believe host differences is something explained in the main xenomorph article. It seems the problem here is that some people don't want to admit that this movie happens in the same universe as Alien, includes the same aliens as in Alien, and is in fact an Alien film, albeit with a different title and themes. -TUAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.94 ( talk) 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of Prometheus (film)#Development pls change "sequel" to "prequel". Thanks. 203.59.61.115 ( talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand the OP's confusion here. When this film was initially conceived before AVP, JC and RS referred to it as a sequel, and while it would have explored the origins of the Alien and space jockey, it could have done so chronologically after Resurrection. After AVP, there was a period of inactivity on this project, and when RS returned to it it was re-imagined as a direct prequel. Both sections cover that adequately in my opinion... is that any clearer?-- Williamsburgland ( talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
According to this article, Ridley Scott says that the DVD will include an Extended Cut that will be 20 minutes longer, plus the deleted scenes: http://movieline.com/2012/06/11/ridley-scott-prometheus-dvd-deleted-scenes-20-minute-longer-extended-cut/ It might be worth adding a new section to the Wikipedia article about this subject. FormalLogician ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't sure where best to put this - the plot section is discussed at various points in the talk page - so please feel free to move this somewhere more sensible.
I agree that the opening scene needs to be included and know that it's difficult to describe without wandering into OR/speculation. In its current state, while it managed that important feat, I thought it seemed a bit abrupt (spaceship departing from where...?). I hope my addition of the following sets the scene without making any controversial or speculative claims:
"At an unknown point in time, a spaceship is seen hovering over Earth or an Earth-like planet."
I also think the link to Earth analog is a nice one here. Señor Service ( talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it ever explained in the movie why, when everyone except Sean Harris' character ingests Purity (sorry, that particular black goo was from the X-files) they begin to decompose, whereas Harris is turned into a homicidal zombie? Is it explained why Noomi Rapace never bothers to tell anyone she just cut a squid-baby out from inside her and left it locked up in Charlize Theron's tummy cutting machine? (granted if I was forced to wear Leeloo's underwear from the movie The Fifth Element I might be in a state of shock too) Why would the Engineers give humans the location to their bio-weapons base in 30,000 year old pictograms in caves? Also, how could the two scientist/red-shirts get "lost" inside the cave when they were in constant radio communication and visible on the hologram/GPS computer back in the ship? I am not looking for speculation, since that is OR, rather I haven't read as much background information as some of the editors here and was curious if anyone had read Scott's explanation? Cheers! Chalchiuhtlatonal ( talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
When they first enter the chamber of vases there are small worms in the dirt, exposed by a fresh footprint left by the humans. The black goo mutates these worms into the snake-like creature that kills one scientist. The black goo then mutates Fifield into that hideous murderous monster. Finally a fraction of a drop, introduced by David into the glass of champagne, causes a mutation in Charlie that affects not only his own DNA but that of his sperm. The black goo is an "accelerant" for mutation and evolution. The alien is an advanced form of humanity. nhand42 -- 121.45.211.250 ( talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Diffusion in Belgium, France and Switzerland was May 30, 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counny ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The first projection in France takes place on May 29, 2012, and national output on May 30, 2012.</ref>
"Prometheus - released".
cinemasgaumontpathe.com. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Counny ( talk) 09:11, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
Belgium in French</ref> "Prometheus - released". kinepolis.be/fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Switzerland in French</ref> "Prometheus - released". cineman.ch/fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Counny ( talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
We also don't list a specific format release.</ref> "Prometheus - released". imdb.fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Counny ( talk) 15:29, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
(
Findolfin (
talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC))
I am from Switzerland and the releasedate for Prometheus in Switzerland is 09 August 2012 (also in Germany).
You can see that on the official homepage from FOX Switzerland (if you understand German):
http://www.fox.ch/modules/obomovie/detail.php?page_id=1&lang=1&suisa=1008.382
No, more exactly the release date in german speaking part of Switzerland might be on august 9th. It's was release on the 30th of May in french speaking part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.181.108 ( talk) 21:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Releasedate for France was May 30th. You see this on the official homepage of FOX France: http://www.foxfrance.com/cinema/prometheus-20586/20586/
"Far in the past, a Humanoid Alien watches its Ship leave while it consumes a dark liquid. His body begins to disintegrate and he falls into the river below, where his DNA becomes part of the ecosystem."
What is this nonsense doing in the plot section? I gave good, clear reasons for removing all mention of the opening scene, and IllaZilla agreed with them: we don't know when this scene happens, where it happens, or what it has to do with anything else that happens in the film. It isn't important to the plot, and should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Folks, go read the myth of Prometheus. Then go see the movie again. You may not believe it part of the plot, but it is certainly in the film, and could be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the scene when Shaw sees that our DNA matches the Engineers' exactly. I added/corrected a couple of things after seeing the film yesterday afternoon. The "Distant Past" sentence was already here. And I think it is relevant to the plot. ... I'd also caution all editors of Wikipedia's policy on letting other editors collaborate on an article. Don't be overly protective of an article no matter how much time you've put into it. It's not "your article" or "mine." It's Wikipedia's. -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If the footnote mentioned above ever gets written, it may be the case that the intercourse between infected Holloway (Holloway's infection from a tiny amount of black goo is presumably the same but slower than the geologist's from getting a faceful of the stuff) and Shaw adds another level of mutation. It occurred to me watching it that the squid-creature might be a hideously deformed version of a human sperm, perhaps linked to the tiny tailed creature Milburn sees wiggling in his eyeball, presumably living in his body fluids. It's not clear what function the snake which attacks the biologist serves - it seems to kill him without turning him into anything else, and if it's laid larva inside him they must be feeding off a dead body. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 11:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not we understand what the dark liquid is, or how it works, is not the point, but note that Lindelof has stated: "I felt that the punchline of Prometheus was going to be that there is human DNA in what we have come to know as the human Xenomorph."
Seems pretty important to the plot from what I can see. Semitransgenic talk. 09:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The connection between the Engineers and humans is established in the first 5 minutes of the film when they find ancient concrete slaps and a specific map that means they can even be on the planet. At no point is him speaking to them considered a revelation, and it does not specify what language he is speaking. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to add my signature. FormalLogician ( talk) 18:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
We don't know exactly what David says to the Engineer in his logically-deduced version of their language. It may be "my master travelled across the stars to meet you" or it may just be "hello, let me explain who we are and why we came". His head is pulled off before he has finished. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Weyland tells David to tell the alien "why I came". We simply don't know how much of that message he managed to get across in a sentence or two, how much of it the Engineer understood or why he is angry, except that he had just been sent to exterminate the humans before he went to sleep. There was an interview in which they said there was an active decision not to subtitle that bit of dialogue, i.e. to leave it ambiguous. Until there is a sequel or another interview, we simply don't know any more. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that he recognises the language as an effort to communicate with him. We don't know for certain that he understands. If somebody from afar had deduced English from an old copy of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", you'd have a hard job understanding what he was trying to say, even if you recognised it as a form of English. Figuring out enough of a language to read it can be done by deduction - learning to speak it properly requires listening to someone else who can. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 17:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Trying to keep this to what the film says with no more speculation than necessary. David has "spent two years" studying several (I forget how many) ancient languages "down to their roots". The instructor looks Indian - that doesn't mean the language is Sanskrit. Apparently linguists have deduced something of the core root between Sanskrit and the European language families (Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavonic etc). Whether there is in reality a link between that hypothetical Indo-European language and the languages of Hawaii, ancient Sumer, ancient Mexico, Skye 35,000 years ago (pre-Celtic), I've no idea. But if we assume there was, that's what David has learned. You can deduce ancient dead languages like Minoan or Ancient Egyptian in exactly the way you'd deduce a cipher (it's why professors of linguistics were used as codebreakers) but how they were pronounced is little more than guesswork. Even within the same country pronunciation can vary beyond the point of mutual intelligibility. We know David has deduced enough of the language to read inscriptions and operate their control panels, but we don't know for certain that the Engineer understands exactly what is being said to him, although he does seem to recognise it as an attempt to communicate in his language. Nor do we know why he is angry. Plot hole: languages evolve, but the Engineers' language doesn't seem to have evolved in the thousands of years between their last visits to Earth and their going to sleep. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Going back to basics, the star map found was independently created by separated cultures, so David was studying multiple ancient languages in order to find common ground - Commonality would suggest the word had a possible 'universal' usage and could be understood by the engineers. David spent a long time studying these languages, but you all seem to forget that once he was on the ship he spent a few minutes in front of a door and worked out how to open it. Later he witnessed a holographic recording of an engineer use the ships computer systems. David then imitated this usage, and from there I think it's quite reasonable to assume his usage and experience with the systems increased his understanding of the engineer language considerably. In the end there is no way he could have been speaking an ancient language - He was speaking 'engineer'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.89 ( talk) 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, nothing is written in stone, and others can surely interpret it differently, but this is why we have the talk page. In any case, by the year 2013, when you get the DVD of the movie, you will have a chance to re-examine under the microscope that scene where humans for the first time talk to an Engineer. Then you will see:). But here is an additional observation:
Many thanks for mentioning this.I assume that you are referring to the website
OK, it is established what the original script said and that the language is Proto-Indo-European (assuming, for the sake of plot contrivance, that the Engineer can understand David because he was able to calibrate his knowledge of the language on the basis of listening to the Engineer's pre-take-off home video). Nonetheless, a deliberate decision was made not to subtitle those lines, thus leaving any possible plot direction (e.g. David's wish to "kill his parents") open. I can't produce a source for that,but I did read it somewhere. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
When Meredith Vickers calls Weyland "father", she also reveals considerable tension against her boss. She is not sympathetic to Weyland's quest for immortality, and responds by saying "A king has his reign, and he dies, it's inevitable." But towards the end of the movie, David, who is obviously very familiar with the situation of his master Weyland, cynically says to Shaw: "Isn't it true that all humans want the death of their parents?", and Shaw revolts and says to David that she never did. In view of David's implied or insinuated comments, it seems that Vickers is waiting for her father's death to take his place. In any case, we should add to the plot summary that Vickers called Weyland "father" (she seems too young to be his daughter, but it's still possible in view of the way science is progressing), and that Vickers is not sympathetic to Weyland's goal of attaining immortality, even if Vickers is not actively wishing that her father should die. But in view of the comments of David, this is very possible, since David's universe is basically focused on Weyland and by extension his family, and when David asked Shaw "If all humans want their parents to die", this must be what David observed from the family of Weyland. Thus the relationship between Vickers and Weyland is worth adding to the plot summary FormalLogician ( talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to spend too much time on idle speculation, Vickers may also be illegitimate - the child of one of Weyland's mistresses - and have spent years trying to win her father's acceptance (and lots of men have children in their fifties or even older - it is perfectly possible for a well-preserved 40-something to have a 100-year old father). Perhaps he has legitimate daughters (he says he has no natural son) who will inherit large shareholdings, but of whom he disapproves. We don't know that Vickers wants her father dead - not, at least, before he confirms her as his successor - that is just David's take on the matter, perhaps based on Weyland saying to him (as a trusted confidant) "that girl, she just wants me dead". Who knows. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it isn't a complete week if someone isn't creating hassle with the plot and ignoring comments, yet another discussion. The second video here details the effect that the goo has on the Engineer, referring to it multiple times as infecting the system/DNA. Infection/infection is a perfectly apt term, a foreign element in the body causing abnormal harm. Introducing information about a testing conspiracy is not apt or accurate. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Do we need 3-5 different references for sentences and sentence fragments? No wonder it took five minutes for the main article to load. — WylieCoyote ( talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Buy a new laptop, I have no problem on my tablet and it's not powerful at all, seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
If you're seeing long load-times on pages, you might check if you have some add-ons in your Wikipedia account. Editing tools that you've forgotten you had (?) might be the culprit. -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Total Budget: $180,000,000
http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/prometheus-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.185.15.147 ( talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Opening planet is not necessarily Earth, see this interview:
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232?wssac=164&wssaffid=news
CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
My reading of the interview is that the Engineers seeded many planets so "it doesn't have to be" Earth. The wiki article says that Scott confirmed the planet was Earth in an interview, then cites this interview, in which he doesn't actually say that.
And re the Jesus Christ theme, yes it did occur to me watching it that the Engineers dying (overcome by an escape of their own bioweapons) 2,000 years ago just as they were about to destroy their own experiment of life on Earth might not be a coincidence. However, they created life on other planets - why were they going to destroy all of them? It's not explained in the film. My take on it was that when the display which David watches switches off, the "Earth" light-ball stays up a bit longer and he notices that the Engineer in question is still alive in his hypersleep pod - it is just coincidence that the Engineer tasked to purge Earth is the one still alive. But maybe they can cover for one another and he would purge all the other planets as well, who knows. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 08:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Also the article mentions that RS toyed with the title "Paradise" and the Engineers were partly inspired by Milton's Dark Angels - that seems to me to be a point worthy of inclusion. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 08:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In this interview, Lindelof implies that the idea of the crucifixion causing the Engineers' wrath has not entirely been written out, and may be used as the opening scene in the sequel.
I know it’s obnoxious to say that you should see the movie a couple of times to really appreciate it but that is how the movie was designed – things that seem throwaway, for example when they do the carbon dating of the dead Engineer and realise that he’s been dead for two thousand years and you think ‘if two thousand years ago The Engineers decided to wipe us out what happened back then?’ Is there any correlation between what was happening on the Earth two thousand years ago and this decision? Could a sequel start in that time period and begin to contextualize what we did to piss these beings off?
He doesn't explicitly mention Jesus here, but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the "Jesus is an Engineer" storyline that Ridley described in the Movies.com interview. Could this be included in the article, perhaps in the writing or sequel sections? — Flax5 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the plot summary says it is Earth and the footnote refers to the interview, in which he declines to confirm it is Earth. The Dark Angels are Satan's gang in John Milton's Paradise Lost. Whether the Engineers are actively evil or just swelled up with Pride is of course not something we have yet been told. I'm guessing from "these" Dark Angels that you're not familiar, apologies if that's not the case. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Martin Hill, one of the film's special effects supervisors, explains the opening sequence in this podcast. While Scott and Linelof insist on remaining vague, Hill just cuts through the mystery and says exactly what's going on.
"Well, the Engineer, which is the creature of the opening sequence – he's effectively an idealised human, in a lot of ways. He's sort of got this alabaster skin and perfect physique, and he's come to what we discover is Earth to effectively seed Earth with life, and he does this by effectively committing ritual suicide by drinking some black organic goo which destroys him from within, and from that, we go right down into a molecular level, and see, you know, his DNA being torn apart by this transforming substance, and he falls into this beautiful waterfall, and we see the DNA that's been torn apart re-form into what becomes Earth DNA, if you like, and effectively creating life on Earth."
I suppose the question is whether an SFX guy can be considered a reliable source for plot information. — Flax5 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, would you add localized link(Korean) for Prometheus? http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%94%84%EB%A1%9C%EB%A9%94%ED%85%8C%EC%9A%B0%EC%8A%A4_(%EC%98%81%ED%99%94)
Freebits ( talk) 06:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There's no indication whatsoever in the movie that the introductory scene takes place during the Cambrian period. While it takes place on Earth, it is not indicated and someone that has seen nothing before the movie came out would understand it was Earth later in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.44 ( talk) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it really clear that it was Earth? I didn't understand it even later in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.229.245 ( talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is clear that it is. Why show another planet? What is never given is the date for sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see any indication that the planet is the earth. For all I know, it could be the planet on wich the film takes place. "Why show another planet ?" is in no way a good proof. Can anyone point to what reveals that it is actually the earth ? The Alien at the beginning of the movie drink something that destroy his DNA to recombine in a new one. And we know from the movie that both Aliens and humans DNA are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.2.188.186 ( talk) 08:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
To say that the alien sacrifice initiate evolution also doesn't mean a thing, since evolution began much before the Cambrian period and it's clearly stated in the movie that the alien DNA is close to that of a human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.44 ( talk) 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, now the 'distant past' has been linked with the Archean period. No! If that sacrifice took place at the beginning of life on earth, engineer and human DNA wouldn't be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ridley Scott has mentioned on Video that the film is set in the Zeta Reticuli star sytem....
See the source I put in my edit as it contains the video interview in which he explicitly said that(although he mistook it for the planet and got a little confused, he ment to say "Star System").
So why are my edits being deleted... He said it and you can watch the video where he said it as I properly sourced it! Discuss.
Colliric ( talk) 08:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Just responding to your "oh he said it was a planet" thing, it was an interview and he obviously got a little confused(as it would really be pretty odd for astrologists to call a Star System and a Planet exactly the same name, could you find an example for me?). For your information the Star Map(which shows the origin and destination of the engineers, when it's revealed they're coming to earth) that we see later in the film also shows the origin point of the engineers as the Zeta Reticuli star system. However I will yeild for now and leave this in the talk section till more information comes avalible, Obviously I could rereference the thing better and point instead to the video rather than a Blog(something you could have also done too instead of just plain deleting the whole damn thing despite the fact it's right), as that would be a more valid reference(and obviously a primary source). And also even though Alien was in fact set in the same system(actually shown on film in the scene where Lambert is calculating their distance to earth, as well as in the calcuation of distance to earth, but not verbally mentioned specifically), obviously in the 30 years since making the original, Ridley was reaquianting himself with the setting, and updating his knowledge of the system and it's many controversies(it's the system that all the "UFO Nuts" believe aliens in flying sauces come from! a fact that Ridley and company were obviously aware of, even when setting Alien there).
Colliric ( talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please change the introduction of the plot to include a setting: "As a hovering spacecraft departs [a barren planet, etc]..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loff ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMPLOT, events do not have to be described in the order in which they happen if it easier to explain. There is no need to be literal, jumping from event, to event, back to the previous event, unless it causes a paradox of events of course. There is no need for the to be in 13 separate 2-line parts. One-off hand comment by Janek does not make them vases nor that link added accurate. As a compromise I have just named them cylinders as the most basic of descriptors. There is also no need to waste precious space talking about lifeboats and escape pods as separate entities, the fundamental understanding is carried forward, if someone has not seen the film and reads the plot, they understand that Vickers leaves the ship, there is a pod, Shaw goes to that pod and events carry on from there. Being told that there was a lifeboat and an escape pod serves no fundamental understanding of the plot, it's minutiae. Referring to Weyland as father, this is an unexplained and minor plot point that doesn't need to be mentioned any more than the flashback into Shaw's childhood that sets up her religious bent. The david taking a cylinder part, he cannot steal it, there is noone to steal it from. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I assume Tenebrae's remark was an oblique swipe at me, as I was the editor whose plot edits were altered. However, WP:FILMPLOT is not the only necessity for writing a plot summary: the prose must also meet normal prose standards (see Verbosity). The reverted version has the following problems.
And I hesitate to add this, but...
I've changed your version slightly, but to avoid 3RR I won't touch it hereafter. But consider the points I make above and inwardly digest them. They are good ones.
Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
1) Verbosity is not an issue, conveying key points of understanding under the word limit is. People copy edit, people trim as necessary. In the case of this: "In the distant past, an alien spacecraft arrives on Earth. A humanoid alien drinks a dark liquid. Its body disintegrates and fall into a waterfall, seeding Earth with its DNA.", it loses any connection between the liquid and the body disintegrating even though it is made clear that the two are connected in the film. The loss of that word destroys the implication of what that liquid does. It's an alien, disintegration could be for any number of reasons including natural, but a connection is there and losing "causing" loses coherence. Which it's done since you've changed it to this.
2) The plot as it stands is a mixing pot of several authors, different words are used, though I fail to see why humanity's forerunners (which I'm not a fan of) and ancient aliens causes any kind of disconnect, one is stating they're humans ancestors, the other moves on and just refers to them as a general descriptor.
3) He funding the creation of the ship, the mission, the lot. He's a trillionaire, it's covered in the film and the external materials. Whether Janek said structure or planet I don't know, I don't have access to a copy of the film to check. Considering there were many structures I don't believe he would be referring to the one.
4) This is no more misleading than merging the individual adventures of the lifeboat and the escape pod. If the next sentence was "it kills everyone but Shaw", then we'd have a problem.
5) Yes, that he wanted a son and not a daughter. She overpowers David because he is not an immovable object and offers no violent resistance. She dresses similar because she is a professional, cold and calculating, this is explained in the design. Multiple previews explained that she gets out unassisted because she is a hard ass, she does push ups because she is a hard ass (do androids need to do push ups?) She's driven. Sadly she is victim of the fact her character was only intended to be small until Theron was cast, and the character suffers for it. Unless it actually leads to something in the plot, which it didn't, it doesn't belong.
6) "It's 'Vickers' lifeboat', not 'Vicker's lifeboat'". The spelling mistake part is true, the other part is not, Vickers' and Vickers's are both acceptable. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 02:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Still, look on the bright side. We're not discussing whether Agent Coulson is really dead in the Avengers movie. And we're not pointing out that Vickers burning Holloway to death just because he asks her to would get her immediately arrested in real life... :-) Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
An effort to provide relevant internal linkage has been consistently blocked by Darkwarriorblake [1], [2], [3].
A proposed sentence read:
A alternative read:
This interpretation is derived from a comparison of the following related images:
Despite the obvious similarities, Darkwarriorblake holds that there is no connection between Alien (creature in Alien franchise) and Prometheus (film) worth making in the plot summary. The central issue is that we have, as with almost all articles that provide plots, an un-sourced account of what took place in the final scene. Since there is no source that states categorically what the creature is, or isn't, we appear to have situation where the POV of the primary article contributor is determining content inclusion. However, a cursory look across forums etc. (in lieu of any real sources) establishes that the majority of viewers see this alien as a xenotype (proto-xenomorph or whatever). Therefore, I would suggest, and specifically in the context of providing an un-sourced plot, we should use common sense when it comes to the imagery comparison. We should also acknowledge, when writing an un-sourced plot summary, popular opinion when it comes to determining consensus. Semitransgenic talk. 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Prometheus (film) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
After review of this disussion and having consulted MOS:Film#Plot and WP:PSTS, it seems that this debate comes down to the question of whether the linkage is a descriptive claim, "the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". As a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, my opinion is that the creatures resemble each other. You should be careful, though, how you treat the linkage if you choose to include it. I would not include a link of the term "alien creature" to the wiki page on the movie Alien (as in " alien creature"). That would imply they were meant to be the same creatures in both movies, which would at best be an interpretation since, according to the article, the movie Prometheus is not is not directly connected to that franchise. Nevertheless, it seems reasonble to include a phrase such as "a creature resembling a xenomorph" or "a xenomorph-like creature" with linkage of xenomorph to the article on the movie Alien. Such a description should not be controversial because any reasonable person who had seen both movies would recognize the similarity, especially since in both movies the creature bursts out of human chests. It would arguably be remiss to leave such a description out of the article on the grounds that Scott may have meant the creature to be a reference to the other movie, in which case the reader would miss an important aspect of the film. Coastside ( talk) 12:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)|}
I disagree with both User:Coastside and User:Semitransgenic because including an internal link to Alien (creature in Alien franchise) is a form of original research through WP:SYN and must not be included as it violates a page with greater consensus, a page of policy. Curb Chain ( talk) 21:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie, and so I can say with objectivity that the current descriptions are deficient. There are four descriptions of aliens in the plot summary:
Only one of these descriptions creates a clear visual image, and that's the first one. "Humanoid" is descriptive enough, because I know what a human looks like, and the "-oid" tells me it's not entirely human, but "human-ish". Good enough - I get the picture. The second description, "giant alien" tells me nothing. Is it humanoid, too? Who knows? After all, these are completely different time periods,so how do I know what the alien looks like? The third description is just the second with no head. I still don't know what it looks like. Now we get to the fourth description. Let's see, "jet-black skin and an elongated skull...". The best visual I get with that description is a black Neanderthal:
Now, on the other hand, if one of the descriptions says " xenomorph-like alien": well,now I get a visual image: thumb|left|75px|Xenomorph
And the "-like" tells me it's not entirely a xenomorph, but "xenomorph-ish". Good enough. It isn't de facto WP:SYN or WP:OR whenever a plot summary refers to another movie. It could simply be a way to describe a scene, which is the case here. You could argue that an editor could use words to describe the scene instead, but a plot summary needs to be brief, so saying something like "xenomorph-like" is a good way to be succinct. Coastside ( talk)
Scans from a recently released Prometheus artbook have surfaced online, and include, among other things, plenty of information on the design and nature of the film's creatures. Perhaps this article could benefit from a section on each creature, similar to this one? Unfortunately the whole thing is in French – all I could get out of it was that Shaw's offspring is called the "Trilobite" and the alien born in the final scene is called the "Deacon". — Flax5 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You are inappropriately applying WP:OR. Saying he's "making it up again based on [his] observations" doesn't make it OR. As it says in WP:FILMPLOT#PLOT, "basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." How would an editor write basic descriptions without reference to an outside source if they didn't base them on their own observations? As I said above, the criterion for such "descriptive claims" is whether their "accuracy... is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". If you're going to argue against describing the creature as "xenomorph-like", your argument should be that reasonable, educated people who see the film would not find this a reasonable description of the primary source material (the film), not that any attempt to describe the film based on "personal observations" is inherently OR. Writing "xenomorph-like alien" is helpful to the reader. I can't see a better way to convey the appearance of the creature that is not unduely verbose. If there is one, why don't you suggest it, and maybe we can use that instead. Coastside ( talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding IllaZilla's comment that the word is "only used in comics and games", we need to recognize that the Wikipedia article on a xenomorph defines the word as the creature from the Alien films. Whether that's right or wrong, that's how the article defines the word. The whole point of linking to that article wasn't just to placate one side of this debate by linking there. The point was to succinctly describe the creature by saying it looks "something like" a xenomorph, i.e., "xenomorph-like", and then linking to the article to aid readers who didn't know what "xenomorph" meant. By linking to that article without using the word xenomorph we have made a stronger link to that movie, not a weaker one. As it is now, it appears that when we say "alien creature" we literally mean the "Alien" (capital 'A') because we link directly to that article. There is no ambiguity with the word "xenomorph-like" because it's clear we only mean it looks like that creature, not that it is that creature.
If you really have issues with using the word "xenomorph", you could try using "Alien-like creature", but that is very awkward (try reading it that way), and it's awkward precisely because "alien" is so generic a term (as compared to xenomorph) that "alien-like" isn't descriptive enough. What do "aliens" generally look like?? And in anticipation of the retort that we should take out the link altogether, I'll just repeat what I said earlier (see the Neanderthal picture above) that the reader has no idea what the creature looks like when you merely call it an alien whereas with xenomorph-like, at least they would get some sense of the creature's appearance in the film. Coastside ( talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The name 'xenomorph' is used in the movie Aliens and is also heard in a deleted scene from Alien 3. The creature at the end of Prometheus is a form of xenomorph - It grows within the chest of it's host after being implanted by a form of facehugger, it has an elongated head, incredibly similar body and physique, and also has a set of inner jaws. Differences between the traditional xenomorph seen in Alien and the one seen in Prometheus are easily put down to differing host species - I believe host differences is something explained in the main xenomorph article. It seems the problem here is that some people don't want to admit that this movie happens in the same universe as Alien, includes the same aliens as in Alien, and is in fact an Alien film, albeit with a different title and themes. -TUAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.94 ( talk) 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first sentence of Prometheus (film)#Development pls change "sequel" to "prequel". Thanks. 203.59.61.115 ( talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand the OP's confusion here. When this film was initially conceived before AVP, JC and RS referred to it as a sequel, and while it would have explored the origins of the Alien and space jockey, it could have done so chronologically after Resurrection. After AVP, there was a period of inactivity on this project, and when RS returned to it it was re-imagined as a direct prequel. Both sections cover that adequately in my opinion... is that any clearer?-- Williamsburgland ( talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
According to this article, Ridley Scott says that the DVD will include an Extended Cut that will be 20 minutes longer, plus the deleted scenes: http://movieline.com/2012/06/11/ridley-scott-prometheus-dvd-deleted-scenes-20-minute-longer-extended-cut/ It might be worth adding a new section to the Wikipedia article about this subject. FormalLogician ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't sure where best to put this - the plot section is discussed at various points in the talk page - so please feel free to move this somewhere more sensible.
I agree that the opening scene needs to be included and know that it's difficult to describe without wandering into OR/speculation. In its current state, while it managed that important feat, I thought it seemed a bit abrupt (spaceship departing from where...?). I hope my addition of the following sets the scene without making any controversial or speculative claims:
"At an unknown point in time, a spaceship is seen hovering over Earth or an Earth-like planet."
I also think the link to Earth analog is a nice one here. Señor Service ( talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it ever explained in the movie why, when everyone except Sean Harris' character ingests Purity (sorry, that particular black goo was from the X-files) they begin to decompose, whereas Harris is turned into a homicidal zombie? Is it explained why Noomi Rapace never bothers to tell anyone she just cut a squid-baby out from inside her and left it locked up in Charlize Theron's tummy cutting machine? (granted if I was forced to wear Leeloo's underwear from the movie The Fifth Element I might be in a state of shock too) Why would the Engineers give humans the location to their bio-weapons base in 30,000 year old pictograms in caves? Also, how could the two scientist/red-shirts get "lost" inside the cave when they were in constant radio communication and visible on the hologram/GPS computer back in the ship? I am not looking for speculation, since that is OR, rather I haven't read as much background information as some of the editors here and was curious if anyone had read Scott's explanation? Cheers! Chalchiuhtlatonal ( talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
When they first enter the chamber of vases there are small worms in the dirt, exposed by a fresh footprint left by the humans. The black goo mutates these worms into the snake-like creature that kills one scientist. The black goo then mutates Fifield into that hideous murderous monster. Finally a fraction of a drop, introduced by David into the glass of champagne, causes a mutation in Charlie that affects not only his own DNA but that of his sperm. The black goo is an "accelerant" for mutation and evolution. The alien is an advanced form of humanity. nhand42 -- 121.45.211.250 ( talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Diffusion in Belgium, France and Switzerland was May 30, 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counny ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The first projection in France takes place on May 29, 2012, and national output on May 30, 2012.</ref>
"Prometheus - released".
cinemasgaumontpathe.com. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Counny ( talk) 09:11, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
Belgium in French</ref> "Prometheus - released". kinepolis.be/fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Switzerland in French</ref> "Prometheus - released". cineman.ch/fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Counny ( talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
We also don't list a specific format release.</ref> "Prometheus - released". imdb.fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>
Counny ( talk) 15:29, 21 May 2012 (CEST)
(
Findolfin (
talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC))
I am from Switzerland and the releasedate for Prometheus in Switzerland is 09 August 2012 (also in Germany).
You can see that on the official homepage from FOX Switzerland (if you understand German):
http://www.fox.ch/modules/obomovie/detail.php?page_id=1&lang=1&suisa=1008.382
No, more exactly the release date in german speaking part of Switzerland might be on august 9th. It's was release on the 30th of May in french speaking part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.181.108 ( talk) 21:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Releasedate for France was May 30th. You see this on the official homepage of FOX France: http://www.foxfrance.com/cinema/prometheus-20586/20586/
"Far in the past, a Humanoid Alien watches its Ship leave while it consumes a dark liquid. His body begins to disintegrate and he falls into the river below, where his DNA becomes part of the ecosystem."
What is this nonsense doing in the plot section? I gave good, clear reasons for removing all mention of the opening scene, and IllaZilla agreed with them: we don't know when this scene happens, where it happens, or what it has to do with anything else that happens in the film. It isn't important to the plot, and should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Folks, go read the myth of Prometheus. Then go see the movie again. You may not believe it part of the plot, but it is certainly in the film, and could be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the scene when Shaw sees that our DNA matches the Engineers' exactly. I added/corrected a couple of things after seeing the film yesterday afternoon. The "Distant Past" sentence was already here. And I think it is relevant to the plot. ... I'd also caution all editors of Wikipedia's policy on letting other editors collaborate on an article. Don't be overly protective of an article no matter how much time you've put into it. It's not "your article" or "mine." It's Wikipedia's. -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If the footnote mentioned above ever gets written, it may be the case that the intercourse between infected Holloway (Holloway's infection from a tiny amount of black goo is presumably the same but slower than the geologist's from getting a faceful of the stuff) and Shaw adds another level of mutation. It occurred to me watching it that the squid-creature might be a hideously deformed version of a human sperm, perhaps linked to the tiny tailed creature Milburn sees wiggling in his eyeball, presumably living in his body fluids. It's not clear what function the snake which attacks the biologist serves - it seems to kill him without turning him into anything else, and if it's laid larva inside him they must be feeding off a dead body. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 11:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not we understand what the dark liquid is, or how it works, is not the point, but note that Lindelof has stated: "I felt that the punchline of Prometheus was going to be that there is human DNA in what we have come to know as the human Xenomorph."
Seems pretty important to the plot from what I can see. Semitransgenic talk. 09:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The connection between the Engineers and humans is established in the first 5 minutes of the film when they find ancient concrete slaps and a specific map that means they can even be on the planet. At no point is him speaking to them considered a revelation, and it does not specify what language he is speaking. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to add my signature. FormalLogician ( talk) 18:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
We don't know exactly what David says to the Engineer in his logically-deduced version of their language. It may be "my master travelled across the stars to meet you" or it may just be "hello, let me explain who we are and why we came". His head is pulled off before he has finished. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Weyland tells David to tell the alien "why I came". We simply don't know how much of that message he managed to get across in a sentence or two, how much of it the Engineer understood or why he is angry, except that he had just been sent to exterminate the humans before he went to sleep. There was an interview in which they said there was an active decision not to subtitle that bit of dialogue, i.e. to leave it ambiguous. Until there is a sequel or another interview, we simply don't know any more. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that he recognises the language as an effort to communicate with him. We don't know for certain that he understands. If somebody from afar had deduced English from an old copy of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", you'd have a hard job understanding what he was trying to say, even if you recognised it as a form of English. Figuring out enough of a language to read it can be done by deduction - learning to speak it properly requires listening to someone else who can. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 17:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Trying to keep this to what the film says with no more speculation than necessary. David has "spent two years" studying several (I forget how many) ancient languages "down to their roots". The instructor looks Indian - that doesn't mean the language is Sanskrit. Apparently linguists have deduced something of the core root between Sanskrit and the European language families (Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavonic etc). Whether there is in reality a link between that hypothetical Indo-European language and the languages of Hawaii, ancient Sumer, ancient Mexico, Skye 35,000 years ago (pre-Celtic), I've no idea. But if we assume there was, that's what David has learned. You can deduce ancient dead languages like Minoan or Ancient Egyptian in exactly the way you'd deduce a cipher (it's why professors of linguistics were used as codebreakers) but how they were pronounced is little more than guesswork. Even within the same country pronunciation can vary beyond the point of mutual intelligibility. We know David has deduced enough of the language to read inscriptions and operate their control panels, but we don't know for certain that the Engineer understands exactly what is being said to him, although he does seem to recognise it as an attempt to communicate in his language. Nor do we know why he is angry. Plot hole: languages evolve, but the Engineers' language doesn't seem to have evolved in the thousands of years between their last visits to Earth and their going to sleep. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Going back to basics, the star map found was independently created by separated cultures, so David was studying multiple ancient languages in order to find common ground - Commonality would suggest the word had a possible 'universal' usage and could be understood by the engineers. David spent a long time studying these languages, but you all seem to forget that once he was on the ship he spent a few minutes in front of a door and worked out how to open it. Later he witnessed a holographic recording of an engineer use the ships computer systems. David then imitated this usage, and from there I think it's quite reasonable to assume his usage and experience with the systems increased his understanding of the engineer language considerably. In the end there is no way he could have been speaking an ancient language - He was speaking 'engineer'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.89 ( talk) 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, nothing is written in stone, and others can surely interpret it differently, but this is why we have the talk page. In any case, by the year 2013, when you get the DVD of the movie, you will have a chance to re-examine under the microscope that scene where humans for the first time talk to an Engineer. Then you will see:). But here is an additional observation:
Many thanks for mentioning this.I assume that you are referring to the website
OK, it is established what the original script said and that the language is Proto-Indo-European (assuming, for the sake of plot contrivance, that the Engineer can understand David because he was able to calibrate his knowledge of the language on the basis of listening to the Engineer's pre-take-off home video). Nonetheless, a deliberate decision was made not to subtitle those lines, thus leaving any possible plot direction (e.g. David's wish to "kill his parents") open. I can't produce a source for that,but I did read it somewhere. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
When Meredith Vickers calls Weyland "father", she also reveals considerable tension against her boss. She is not sympathetic to Weyland's quest for immortality, and responds by saying "A king has his reign, and he dies, it's inevitable." But towards the end of the movie, David, who is obviously very familiar with the situation of his master Weyland, cynically says to Shaw: "Isn't it true that all humans want the death of their parents?", and Shaw revolts and says to David that she never did. In view of David's implied or insinuated comments, it seems that Vickers is waiting for her father's death to take his place. In any case, we should add to the plot summary that Vickers called Weyland "father" (she seems too young to be his daughter, but it's still possible in view of the way science is progressing), and that Vickers is not sympathetic to Weyland's goal of attaining immortality, even if Vickers is not actively wishing that her father should die. But in view of the comments of David, this is very possible, since David's universe is basically focused on Weyland and by extension his family, and when David asked Shaw "If all humans want their parents to die", this must be what David observed from the family of Weyland. Thus the relationship between Vickers and Weyland is worth adding to the plot summary FormalLogician ( talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to spend too much time on idle speculation, Vickers may also be illegitimate - the child of one of Weyland's mistresses - and have spent years trying to win her father's acceptance (and lots of men have children in their fifties or even older - it is perfectly possible for a well-preserved 40-something to have a 100-year old father). Perhaps he has legitimate daughters (he says he has no natural son) who will inherit large shareholdings, but of whom he disapproves. We don't know that Vickers wants her father dead - not, at least, before he confirms her as his successor - that is just David's take on the matter, perhaps based on Weyland saying to him (as a trusted confidant) "that girl, she just wants me dead". Who knows. CaraPolkaDots ( talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it isn't a complete week if someone isn't creating hassle with the plot and ignoring comments, yet another discussion. The second video here details the effect that the goo has on the Engineer, referring to it multiple times as infecting the system/DNA. Infection/infection is a perfectly apt term, a foreign element in the body causing abnormal harm. Introducing information about a testing conspiracy is not apt or accurate. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)