The reason for SJs hating humans?

@ allinamberclad If you accept the premise that the Engineers are the creators, then everything in my theory falls into place. The Engineers created the Space Jockeys, the humans, and a few other species that they invited to come to this planet. Not all species will evolve to a point where they will come and meet these Engineers. The Space Jockeys did. They probably arrived first. The Engineers shared some of their technology with the Space Jockeys but not all. One thing that the Engineers did not share with the Space Jockeys is the location of the homeworlds of the other invitees. Why? Because, once one species knows where the other speces and homeworlds are located, that race is vulnerable for colonization and elimination. I think the Engineers are a dying race, few in number. The Space Jockeys kill the Engineers and steal their technology. They know that all they have to do is wait for the other species to arrive to be able to do the same to them. How do the Space Jockeys find the location of the other species Homeworld? I think that the starmaps displayed prominently in the trailers are generated only when a representative of that race is physically standing on that platform. When one of the Prometheus crew stands on that platform, a blue star map is created that appears to show all the planets of the earths solar system. I noticed that when one of the blue space jockeys is standing on the platform, a small minature green star map is produced. I believe that green starmap is of the space jockey's solar system. The minature star maps can be plugged into the derelict ship's navigation sytem to navigate to that solar system. Of course this is just a theory. This theory came to me after eating a "bad" burrito and a glass of warm beer.

..

What I was trying to get at is that no matter how much we rationalize the why...there is no answer to be had.....Human beings have this need to know...we want to understand things, the why of everything, but there is no understanding to be had with that to which we cannot relate....oil and water will never mix.....trying to fathom the nature of what would be truly alien to human conception is like asking an ant to try understanding the flippance with which we regard them.....we step on them as easily as we breathe with no regard for the breadth of the ant's experience, its life and the horror of its death..Why? It's no skin off our backs....WE DON'T CARE.....Why would anyone expect the SpaceJockies to? ..because we're human? ..because we think? I think therefore I am......the real question is... If and when they did come to wipe us out..would the why really matter? Wouldn't survival be ALL that matters? Ants don't argue with people......they run.. And regarding those Jockies, they are us and we, the ants...go ahead, try and reason with the shoe about to step on you....

@ craigamore ? Yes, all that stands in Actual Life – and it’s a long-standing fact of Actual Life that we, as Higher Beings, rarely consider the feelings or cares of the Lower – while the Lower are quite unlikely to even be able to properly comprehend us. As far as Actual Life is concerned, this is just stating the manifestly apparent – but here, in terms of this movie, we are not discussing Actual Life - we are discussing [i]Fiction.[/i] [i]Fiction[/i] can certainly convey ideas that are directly pertinent to Actual Life and that help us understand Actual Life, but nevertheless Fiction does require several elements in order to successfully and better do that. Fiction does require a Story. A Story is defined by Narrative. Narrative - at least to some degree, or other, necessitates a Plot. Plot, is predetermined upon Motivation and Character; Protagonist and Antagonist... Your position is as if we were in the Universe of the Story – however, [i]we[/i] are not. In order for the Story to be intelligible and enjoyable for us, as an Audience - and for it to succeed as Fiction - we have to be given some understanding of some of these basic elements, as best befits to the medium - in this case, A Movie. In that respect, it is perfectly reasonable for us to speculate and imagine the nature and basis of every single one of these considerations, in advance of those considerations actually being answered – because that's what Human's do and it is part of what defines us: we are programmed for the creative manipulation of abstract concepts, in abstraction, apparently like no other creature on this Earth and, as far as we know, anywhere else. It is also reasonable to do this because, 1] that is, in fact, the purpose of A Movie - to answer these considerations in pursuance of A Plot, and because, 2] that is, largely, exactly what we [i]hope[/i] will happen when sit down to watch the movie and part of what makes that process, (and the process of speculation and imagining beforehand), quite so enjoyable: the fact that these considerations [i]are[/i] "answered" ,to one degree or another, in pursuance of A Story. “Answered”, such that, by the end of a Story arc of 3 Acts, we [i]are[/i] able to rationalize – and, furthermore, feel that we have [i]“understood”[/i] something.

I think the SJ's want us to find them & it is the engineers that are the villains. There is a purpose for the SJ's wanting us there, not a clue what it is. Here are a few things that I beleive will happen:- 1.It's the humans that fuck it all up 2.LV426 will feature, but will not be the main planet in this story (the final 8 mins will most likely involve LV426 & the derelict not making it's intended destination).

"Your position is as if we were in the Universe of the Story – however, we are not. In order for the Story to be intelligible and enjoyable for us, as an Audience - and for it to succeed as Fiction - we have to be given some understanding of some of these basic elements, as best befits to the medium - in this case, A Movie." I understand where you're coming from and to an extent agree.... Regarding this business of "we have to be given some understanding of some of these basic elements"....you don't HAVE to be given anything. Since when is it the audience's place to demand details in a given story? A writer details to the reader the dictates of the story he or she is meant to know....and the apparently indifferent psychology or modus operandi of an alien race, that by definition is foreign to human understanding, does not HAVE to be known...particularly given the notion that the not knowing, the inability to understand or reconcile that indeiffrence is more frightening and to the point of a horror film....which, by all accounts this is. And...in the case of 'Prometheus', pursuant to the notion that realism - particularly in science fiction - bolsters a film's credibility, it is likely that not knowing this particular aspect is the most realistic component of any human/alien contact. In our daily lives, we experience any number of moments or the universal results of an infinite number of cascading events in countless lives beyond our own, never knowing or NEEDING to know the truth behind what led to what's happening now in this moment....and yet, life goes on......we somehow manage to function without knowing why this person did this to us or why they did that to someone we care about.....why does anything happen? We may want to know...we don't have to know, not to enjoy this filmic experience, not to process the evnts as they unfold or, more importantly, the response and the choices made by the people involved.......isn't that always the most interesting, valuable and pertinent aspect of any story? Look, I understand the wanting to know...I want to know......What I am ultimately saying is that not knowing may be part of the point....

@craigamore Interesting. I believe you have quite fundamentally and comprehensively misinterpreted the general point I was making? I'll try and re-phrase by way of the following: While you de-contextualise and raise issue with the notion of "having to know", what you actually go on to describe are the components of Plot, as a basis for that issue. However, I do not say that we have to know "all" components of Plot, nor "most" components of Plot, nor the components of Plot that "we" choose, or demand, or hold that we "deserve"? I am very simply saying that, for successful Plot, we do have to be given [i]some[/i] components of Plot - as without [i]some,[/i] components of Plot, there can be no larger element of Plot at all: and I say that in the context of the other basic elements of Story, that share similar terms. I do [i]not[/i] and have not said that it is us for demand or determine what the individual components are - of course, that would be absurd - I am simply saying that most of the elements must exist, to one degree or another, in order for there to be a successful Story in the first case - because that is how Fiction works. You continue to draw reference with Actual Life, but Fiction is, I thought it apparent, is something [i]other[/i] than Actual Life. [i]Fiction[/i], is composed of essential elements that allow it to achieve the objective of communicating an idea - if your objective was to walk up some stairs, use of your legs is an essential element in achieving that objective: and that is just the way things work, if you would enjoy to climb stairs, at all. You may test the theory by trying to develop a Story; where nothing happens, to nobody, for no reason, nowhere - and at no point in time. Then you may try to communicate that Story to somebody, or develop it into a Screenplay or Novel. That will not succeed. The components I describe are essential, and it those components that we must "have", or what we will have - is nothing. [i]Most[/i] people appreciate, either consciously or intuitively that, this is the way Story and Fiction works - and they know that that the elements I describe will be present in a Story, as they [i]must[/i] be present in a Story, as that is how a Story is constructed - and, without that construction, there can be no Story. With that, some of those people will take pleasure in considering and imagining, without prejudice and as part of their overall enjoyment of Fiction, how the Author will have to chosen or attempted to address, or[i] answer[/i], those requirements. Of course not knowing is part of the point - that is stating the obvious. All I say is that, in terms of [i]Fiction[/i], the desire to know how it has been constructed and the attempt to rationalize it in advance of consuming it are completely natural behaviours that we are programmed for, with good reason - and that it is actually a definitively intelligent and creative activity of ours: almost as much our ability and desire to create Fiction, in the first place. You seem to be parlaying that notion into some kind of commentary on Mankind's attempt to rationalize Existence which is confused as, although it may be related, that is a completely different discussion, to do with Actual Life - and it is nothing at all to do with what I said: I was not discussing Existentialism. I was discussing [i]Fiction[/i].

I think we're getting our wires crossed allinamberclad......I don't disagree with anything you just said, well, with a small exception.....my references to actual life are meant only in relation to the idea that realism in storytelling is often most often given creedence by certain details being deliberately left out of stories for effect or purposes that the author reserves for his or her self...in the case of 'Prometheus' the natural state of man's likely inability to relate to something alien makes the particular detail of motive we are discussing logically unknowable in a story like this...and there's nothing wrong with that.. One of my favorite short-short stories is by Raymond Carver entitled 'The Lie'...it's a story about a couple returning home from a party, arguing over a supposed lie told by a friend of the couple about the girlfriend. The entire story concerns this argument in which the reader NEVER learns what the lie is, only that it wasn't a lie and she is guilty of what the friend accuses.....The story is about their relationship, not the supposed lie at all....while the lie [b]IS[/b] a detail central to the story, it is entirely outside the plot elements necessary to understand the point and purpose of the story..... That's all I'm getting at with my argument about the SpaceJockey's motive......I personally don't believe THAT is a detail we'll have to know to dechiper this film's plot or its core purpose. There is absolutely nothing wrong with us debating it, speculating or asking the questions you and other members, even myself, have been asking.....I'm sorry if I got too hot about it...I just think we misunderstood each other...my larger arguments about realism and reality were meant about specific points, not overall plot structures....sorry about the miscommunication

@craigamore Another interesting position. Please let me say this: the “small exception” you hold, is absolutely crucial? If I agree with you, (which I do), that detail that is withheld is what can contribute to making Story interesting - one might even call that device the basis of Story. The withholding of detail, is often one of the driving forces of a Narrative – often driving toward that detail being revealed at some point: that little tease being the reason you turn the page; or the reason you sit through until the end of the film – or the reason you pick up the book, or buy your theater ticket in the first place, for that matter. If I also agree with you, (which I do), that, at least equally often, detail is withheld that is [i]never[/i] revealed - one might surmise that is because the Narrative is successfully driven forward by, other, details, devices or elements of Story. Where our mutual understanding appears to be critically broken, is in this: in either case I have just put – and however the Author has decided to utilize his “details”, or elements of the Story - the [i]way[/i] those “details”, (and what you have just described), are being used - is called [i]Plot[/i]: and [i]Plot[/i] - in entity, general, rather than detail, specific - is the thing I am saying a Story, (and the Audience), must “have”. [i]How[/i] we are supplied with our Plot, is, of course, the creative choice of the Author – (and I hope you can now see that the lie in the story you describe is, in fact, part of the plot - by it’s [i]absence.[/i] It sounds interesting, by the way). That said, I am also saying it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on what the Authors Plot may be and how, exactly, he has chosen to construct it – as that is part of the enjoyment so to do, as we are a quite unusual type of Beings who are programmed to “guess”; and, furthermore, I am saying that is perfectly within the whole conceit of Fiction, to do so. But saying [i]that[/i], is [i]not[/i] to say that we [i]need[/i] to, nor [i]have[/i] to, know specific elements (or “details”) of his Plot – of course, we don’t. Nor is it to say that what we guess, or imagine the elements of his Plot may be, somehow means they "should", or "need", to be the elements [i]he[/i] chooses – of course, they needn’t. I do not say, nor have I yet said, that we need to know the Space Jockey’s motives, for any reason at all – let alone in order to understand a film no-one has seen? *laughs* How on Earth could anyone make that declaration? I know nothing of how the Authors will eventually reveal those things, if they do at all... You [i]may[/i] have made an assumption, or misinterpreted me. What, and all, I have done, for the purpose of my own, personal, creative-rationalist involvement in, and enjoyment of, the conceit of Fiction, (and in advance of excitedly consuming the product that will be put before me, like everyone else: and without prejudice, nor expectation), is to dream, guess, wonder and speculate - what those motives might possibly be. Perhaps as closing, then: I thank you for your intelligent and considered replies.

allinamberclad....I think we're on the same page here... "That said, I am also saying it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on what the Authors Plot may be and how, exactly, he has chosen to construct it – as that is part of the enjoyment so to do, as we are a quite unusual type of Beings who are programmed to “guess”; and, furthermore, I am saying that is perfectly within the whole conceit of Fiction, to do so." I have no problem with speculation either my friend....and I totally agree with this... "What, and all, I have done, for the purpose of my own, personal, creative-rationalist involvement in, and enjoyment of, the conceit of Fiction, (and in advance of excitedly consuming the product that will be put before me, like everyone else: and without prejudice, nor expectation), is to dream, guess, wonder and speculate - what those motives might possibly be." It's kind of funny...I almost feel like we've been arguing the same point fron two different angles...I love this site man...You gotta love that.... Anyway, I also "thank you for your intelligent and considered replies."

allinamberclad...."I do not say, nor have I yet said, that we need to know the Space Jockey’s motives, for any reason at all" My apologies for the misunderstanding...