Invite us to their planet then kill us?

We don't seem to be mentioning that these tablets were separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of years, and yet they depict identical information. Most allege that the Engineers continued to visit every few hundred years or so just to check up and give a society the pictogram. Have we considered the possibility that they never left? Have we considered the possibility that the "fire" is developing sentient, albeit mechanical, beings? Maybe one of the Engineers planted 50000 years ago or so went native and gave mankind something he was never supposed to share.

Nah craig...no jockeys....no 'growing out of the chair space jockeys' David is the blue guy, David is at the waterfall looking and marvelling at himself, David is in the Map Room and standing over Noomi in the hallway. David is Prometheus, exploiting his creators.

@myrddin365...kind of my point, and fits well with the Prometheus mythology of that's what they want to explore. I also don't think the ship and their mission being called Prometheus is a coincidence. I think Peter Weyland has the intel about the origins of man - perhaps even had contact with the outcast, to create the technology just to get there

@JP I don't think the Engineer/Engineers left behind were left behind as a punishment, I think the engineers always leave a team behind to push a species in the directions they want them to go. One of them just got too deep under cover. And in a completely rediculous left field (I have no rationale for this other than rabble-rousing) speculation Vickers is the outcast Engineer who gave Weyland what he was never supposed to have, which could explain why she is in a constant state of beneath the surface panic. (Theron mentions this aspect of her character in several interviews) This theory has very little credibility. I'm just stirring the pot. ;)

@silica I don’t think it, “foolish”. I agree with much of it. I'd would spin on your last: while, personally, I also dispute that the significant issue is likely to be a matter of simply our evolution, or our sheer numbers, I do think it could be a matter of the single thing you point out that has fundamentally and significantly changed about us in perhaps hundreds of thousands of years - our [i]technology[/i]: that is not to say our technology [i]itself[/i] would be of any interest, at all, but what our technology is a signifier of: our ability. Perhaps intelligence can be enhanced, assisted or planned for, but perhaps its development cannot be predicted? Perhaps, it's the unknowable factor of [i]when[/i], if ever, we will have made certain significant technological advances that cannot be anticipated that is of significance and it is this event that requires waiting for - and the leaving of messages, in advance of? Perhaps our [i]being able[/i] to go to them, is what is required - and until we can, we are of no immediate interest? Perhaps, if we can even get there, the fact itself is sufficient demonstration that we'll at least have achieved a level that is tolerable to deal with, or communicate with at some minimum level - or suits some other purpose: "Come on over - when you're not still so stupid. Then at least we can communicate on a, "basic", level...". @ Windood The evidence of your own words suggests that you need to follow your own exhortation.

for Myrddin-------I consider my rabbled roused..more to ponder. But this film has to flow, and so many theories, great imaginations at work...seem to me to bog things down. This film has its needs of it's own in terms of time, exposition and detail, things in backstory within the film that the audience can see and don't require explanation in dialogue. I don't see most of the wonderful elaborate ideas I see here making it in...it has to be more simple and direct.

@Forever War After all, you have come to the conclusion that this movie is regarding nothing but the humans and David? I can't tell: are you really serious, or are you joking, now? We see characters, (albeit holograms), that appear to be neither Crew nor and David, even in the trailers. Ridley Scott has indicated the scope of the film - I don't see how he could cover that scope just from the perspective of Humanity. Furthermore, he has said that "we find a civilisation"?...

@allinamberclad I'm convinced that this film is about David and his progression to a higher form and yes I'm serious. He is Prometheus, utilizing his position as part of the crew to equalize himself to what he considers on a level playing field with humans, if not in fact higher. I don't believe it is a malicious deceitful plan on his part at all. He has distinct signs of a sociopathic personality, allowing him to advance his goals without remorse, possibly justified by the fact that humans do much the same....dog eat dog in the natural world. First, he uses his place on the crew to get to the planet, then the technology left there by a long gone race to rise to a elevated, evolved status. I'm like everyone else on this board at this moment in time...a rather unique time at that. I have thought about what makes sense to me considering so many factors may be involved. I am sure that David is the key operative character..and the last one left at the end.

I think that someone finds what's left of the crew. I think the scene when Shaw wakes up with intent to cause bodily harm directly follows the doctors around her administering a synapse re-establishing treatment.

Interesting that no one actually specified which of my words are "wrong". I'm not religion bashing, but, as we fefine terms in a regular dictionary, websters or oxford, the old testament god is a vengeful spiteful genocidal maniac. FACT. http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html its almost as if man as depicted in the bible were some experiment that occasionaly required a cull, a tweak, and an upgrade....... It's just as well it's a work of fiction isn't it?

and i haven't accused the 'entire community' of ignorance, i said some people need to read more. Ifi was referring to all the community i have the ability to type 'all'. But i meant 'some'. It was in reference to what is written about god and the gods in the old testament bible. Christians and Jews tie themselves in academic knots trying to explain away how god is plural in genesis and a lone spiteful vengeful singular later on. And the multiple contradictory accounts.

Invite us to their planet then kill us? No. Invite us to their planet then(we screw up,then) kill us? Yes The old testament god, and i imagine all gods as depicted by people of a more brutal less civilised time, never lacked the compunction to terminate life as a punishment. Presumably because thats how man felt in those days, they assumed gods did too? But that is hard for believers now because we see God as some sort of benevolent being, tho it is hard to see this benevolence as having always been there, in the bible god became more benevolent as mankind did. I think because gods are manmade ideas. But, back to prometheus.... if the blue guy is based on god'gods that have been written about in our past, he would have a different code of ethics to us. I'm not going to go on about working in mysterious ways, but if you had the ability to create life and species etc, i doubt you'd ponder about the value of human life for an instant before writing it off? I'm wondering now if they'll have a 'blue-neck' engineer who'll mount our heads to the front of his pickup truck/rover when he's off on a skeet shoot :-) the true horror would be if god was like us

Us like was God if be would horror true the

Awesome Thread with great posts. I have two theories that i cant decide between. 1- the tablets/maps are a warning not to go to that specific place much like how in 2001 Starman-Bowman relays the message " All these worlds are yours, except Europa" and in this case, they go to the one place they were told not to. Pure Arrogance...or Ignorance. 2- The jockeys that made us are actually a rogue group of the Jockey Culture. Similar to the plot (if you can call it that) of TF2, the rule was not to harvest energy from suns that gave light/heat to life bearing planets. The Fallen breaks this rule and says whatever, then begins posing as God to the natives before he plans to blow up their sun. He is entombed/punished. In the case of Prometheus....a "fallen" jockey and his "converts" begin making their own lifeforms, even on planets with existing life (they obviously did this on the planet the movie takes place). They even go and genetically corrupt lifeforms made by the "sanctioned" Jockeys. The humans are actually one of these illegitimate lifeforms or were pure then corrupted, and need to be wiped out. WE are the ABOMINATIONS. (Nephilim, Anakim) We in our corrupted forms did/are doing to the Earth pretty much exactly what the Xenomorphs would do albeit slower. We carry the dna of the Fallen Jockey. But we also could carry the DNA of the Pure Intended lifeforms as well. Yin and Yang. The "Allegory" between Satan and God is that Satan wants to be God, and rule over God's creations. He will not respect that the humans are to be left alone. Instead he goes and tries to convert them "through temptations" to be like him, Defiant. Satan's flaw is that if he "succeeds" he will be killed and replaced by a new "Satan" who will defy him by design. Like the MIB in lost...he has to get the candidates to kill "God" and each other so he can "leave" his prison. Its possible that this Fallen Jockey and his crew were imprisoned on the planet and cant leave. They have all died except for him. Something the humans do enable his ablility to Leave. Much like how Hercules freed Prometheus, i think David will free this Fallen Jockey.

i did wonder if it was a warning to avoid that place too. I think the movie will concentrate on being a great movie, and leave a lot of open ended questions to discuss things, rather than give answers, and thats the beauty of it, you only have to look at this thread to see the melange of opinion, and i think thats great. Great art does that.

Well we dont know what the significance of the name David is. David is a very important name in the Bible, seems to have more so impact than Adam. David is the 2nd King of Isreal (God was the first). Now could the "a king has his reign then he dies" mean that David sucseeds as the King? Maybe also of note is the David in the Bible is the David who defeated Goliath who was a 9ft Giant, which is the same height as the Jockeys in this movie. So if the Jockeys/Engineers represent Goliath and the Kings, could David 8 represent the David of Isreal from the Bible. I would not put it past the use of the name David and the story that is having something to do with our creation and gods etc, is more than just coinsidence. I mean why not name the Android Tommy or Bobby. Nope David has to have some significance

It's unlikely the SJ's left the map there or the markings, I see primitive humans doing that rather. We're clearly not invited.

Ok well how about this theory... If we say these Engineers are a little more like the God from the Bible, then i would pretty sure thing that the God of the Bible would not be too pleased with mankind doing one of these. 1) Manipulating Genes, making Hybrids (i.e if we make a half man half ape that becomes inteligent like in Planet of the Apes). 2) Maybe also creating synthetic lifeforms to the extent of David 8. Weyland said we are the Gods now.... Now the God from the Bible i am sure would not be happy at all, at mankind acting as God and going about trying to recreate mankind or a lifeform simular to us. Playing God, is certain to upset God more than breaking his 10 comandments. Maybe this is what the Engineers see that our race has now done, and that they detect that our aim is to create life just as Gods, to manipulate life just as Gods. And maybe the final straw would be when we then have the ambition and greed to use/steal the technology of these Gods to further the potential of what mankind can create. Again this would no doubt upset these Godlike Engineer race.

Ugh, even as a non-religious person, It pains me to see folks trashing religion, since religous inspiration is directly or indirectly responsible for an overwhelming majority of the most important, beautiful examples of art and architecture created throughout human history.

What about that was respectful Spartacus? Thanks artyoh...

You're welcome craigamore. Nothing is quite so simple, or black and white. The development of agriculture: [i]the foundation upon which every single human civilization rests.[/i] was intimately and inextricably bound up with [i]religous[/i] beliefs.

I appreciate it..I really do..

@Spartacus I like you too. You seem like a guy it would be fun to have a beer with. The last post was very derogatory toward many sets of beliefs that millions of people have devoted their entire lives to and billions have ascribed to believe in. I respect your right to have your opinions about religion, but the way it was expressed offended me simply because of the indelicate and disrespectful manner these core beliefs were attacked. This film will not kill God or religion. This film will tell a story based on fictional premises in order to evoke a visceral response in order to entertain. I can make a statement that all Atheism is based on self-defeating logical fallacies and has no rhetorical defense, but without supporting evidence what good is my statement? We all believe things we will never be able to prove or see directly. I won't trash your brand of faith. I would appreciate it if you do not bash mine.

Thank you Myrddin365

No problem craigamore.