Shaw: Parallels with Eve?

[quote=artyoh][i]Could even one Engineer be the equivalent of a benevolent sky-daddy? Sure...but would that really make sense in an "Alien" universe, where it already seems to have been established, that survival is about the best you can hope for?[/i][/quote] If it didn't make sense, but were done in a [u]really creative way[/u], it could be AMAZING! I don't think it makes PERFECT sense for Deckard to be a replicant, but I'm really quite OK with it. I'm still not completely convinced that THIS [i]Alien[/i] universe is the end-all be-all of THE Engineer's universe. If it is, and it's all tidied up logically and with a nice twist for panache, then I'll likely be just fine with it that way. If it's not, but it's still creative and elegant (and I get to go the the Engineer home world next time for further elaboration), then that'll be fine and dandy with me. This, of course, is where the Lindelof factor comes in and I HATED the ending of LOST. It was a cosmic cop-out to the Nth degree. But, I don't think Ridley would allow such. As for the moral relativism, well yes, it's a little more interesting as an exercise in the context of SF than in the reality of something like the Holocaust. What with all the evisceration (from the inside out), and face melting, and c-sections and whatnot, I'm not sure there is going to be a lot of time to explore this particular thread in the space of [i]Prometheus'[/i] running time, but I'll be happy to get just a few unicorns pointing in that direction. (You know that the unicorn in the dream was test footage for [i]Legend[/i], right? Maybe we'll get a sneak peak at the next [i]Blade Runner[/i] in this!? LOL)

@Myrddin365...I think you may mean the complete and utter arrogance to go and confront them mistakenly based on a completely misinterpreted and completely wrong idea to begin with?

@Myrddin365 Yes. The trailers are pretty "misfortune"-rich. No argument there. :•)

It definitely has the "we are insignificant beings at the mercy of unspeakably horrific entities should we have the misfortune to encounter them" Lovecraftian vibe.

Eve sought equality with God. Shaw only seems to want communion and relationship. These are noble goals, spiritually, but it is inaccurate to believe that those two things can be achieved in a temporal venue light years from earth.

Not crazy at all. there are a lot of things that one will come to make parallels with cause there are things in the plot [et al] that are pretty much hints to religious and non-religious matters. That seems to me a very good aproach you've made

I'm a little rusty on my Christianity... haven't been to church in YEARS... so forgive my inaccuracy Myrddin365. Perhaps it's not Shaw's fault then, more Holloway's I'm getting more of a reckless vibe off of him, but regardless she seems to be getting punished for it, no?

Thanks David1 :) Myrddin's made a good point though, perhaps Shaw might not have been the one that gives into temptation - that seems more like something Holloway would do to me. But just as Adam was punished for something Eve had caused, perhaps Shaw is being punished for something Holloway (?) has caused?

You weren't inaccurate. Shaw is. There are Eve parallels in the outcomes, but pandora is possibly a better analogy. Curiosity killed the whole effing race! Lol

Thanks Myrddin :3 You're right, pandora also makes sense as well!

But Shaw is [u]undeniably[/u] the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve]Mitochondrial Eve[/url] for Cuddles. I find Holloway immensely unlikeable, even in the "landing" clip. He reeks of 'JERK'. We'll see...

@sukkal Good point on both. Holloway does seem like a total douche.

@sukkal Totally agreed! The way he put his legs on the table. That's good acting there. I felt like I wanted to punch his face, the whole body language and voice tone when speaking to Shaw was so... Haha, back in the days, there was crazy theory about they using some wormhole or technology and arriving to prehistorical earth, David turning into real human through bio-liquid and then David + Shaw starting humanity in the end.

I'm getting a sort of arrogance off of him, can't really place it... LOL... I think that's a given sukkal, I was meaning more the metaphor of what happens to her!

Shaw is a bit too "innocent" to mirror the Biblical Eve. Of course, Biblical Eve—having been written exclusively by men—has certainly gotten more than one raw end of the shaft... if you know what I mean...

I know what you mean sukkal... I know exactly what you mean. I don't honestly believe Biblical Eve did it out of badness, I believe it could have been more along the lines of that she was just curious - something which is a VERY human trait. I agree that over the years the messages have become muddied and a lot of the stories will have lost their original meaning, but there was a human element to them - but that's just my belief!

Most christian biblical scholars find Adam and Eve equally culpable in the fall.. I can't speak for Jewish scholars. How can Shaw be too innocent for Eve? Eve was sinless until the apple incident.

They do now Myrddin... I don't think that's always been the case, at least not historically. I don't think Shaw's too innocent for Eve, I agree with your point on that Myrddin, but I was agreeing with parts of what sukkal was saying.

Fair enough. Interpretation is necessary, but risky.

It is, but it's part of what makes us human. It's good to have an interesting discussion on subjects such as this every now and then, wouldn't you agree?

@sukkal My dislike of Hollaway crystalised after I saw the "Landing Sequence" clip. It's been a slow build. First with the sandals; then with his shemagh...now, he's the, "Check it out - Ima just cock my leg up on the console during landing. You like that?....My crotch?...", guy. I can hardly wait for him to start suffering.

I completely agree. Respectful discussion of ideas is the highest form of mental exercise.

[sukkal stares into the terrifying snarling maw of dogmatic differences and turns to go find another topic. ;•) One about one of those (very) high colonic cobras should be safe enough...] EDIT: But seriously... There seems to be little controversy over Holloway's douchey-ness. RE: Eve's innocence: How innocent was she really if your dogma includes [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination]predestination[/url]? Oh my goodness! Free will. Ahh! [[url=http://www.samharris.org/free-will]Sam Harris is very down on that of late.[/url] And, he and Clavin share very little in common.] A LOT of Christians are harder on Eve than they are on Adam about The Fall. That's for sure. At least traditionally. I think we need a whole different BOARD for this topic. ;•)

Tempting... Off topic though.. Gotta clear it with the OP. In a less dogmatic bent, it would appear that Ridley dipped into most religions for the background of this movie so that the premises would seem universal.

[quote=Myrddin365][i]...it would appear that Ridley dipped into most religions for the background of this movie so that the premises would seem universal.[/i][/quote] YES. At least to a certain degree. But, this is where I hope we get some [u]complexity[/u] and not just "The Engineers are evil (= they are "demonic"). Shaw certainly mirrors Eve in some ways, but she might also mirror Mary in others. It's still to early to say.

Sukkal - It's all interesting to me! The fact that we, as fans, can have a civilised chat about this sort of thing in the context of the film, I find wonderful and I'd like to think that this is the sort of thing RS would like to achieve with the film. I agree Myrddin, there are a lot of different influences in this picture, I just picked up on the Eve one most because it seemed quite clear to me.

A more appropriate Christian parallel than Mary would be the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon]whore of Babylon.[/url] this is not to imply that she is evil, just that she is the mother of an abomination who falls prey to a great beast.

@sukkal If it came down to a choice between moral absolutes and moral relativism, where would the Nazis fit in?.....were they totally evil, or is it a matter of perspecitve: "I was just following orders"....or "I had no idea what was going on, just down the road at Auschwiitz"....? Nazi society was nothing, if not complex.

Or how about Tiamat? Who on one hand was a tranquil and serene creator, but on the other a terrible destroyer of life?

Morals are absolute. humans are subjective. Good or evil as a whole tends to get defined by where your shade of grey falls on the bell curve, at least by societal standards. I don't think I like society's standards.

[quote=DippyBird][i]Sukkal - It's all interesting to me! The fact that we, as fans, can have a civilised chat about this sort of thing in the context of the film, I find wonderful[/i][/quote] It is wonderful when it happens. I have to say that some of us here are better at it than others and I'm not giving myself top marks, mind you. ;•) The parallels with Mary or perhaps even her COUSIN might be even closer, though in a much more twisted fashion. Keep in mind that Shaw's first name is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_(biblical_figure)]Elizabeth[/url]. We don't know what Cuddles’ role is in the plot yet. Is s/he John the Baptist? Is the Engineer Goliath and is there a very different outcome for this David than that one?

Tiamat is a fascinating example. All a matter of perspective. How would we look back on Shaw as a race if she gave birth to our doom, regardless of her original intentions

Exactly my point Myrddin, perhaps that would be a better perspective to take, rather than a comparison with Eve or her ilk - but again this is all conjecture!

@artyoh — The Nazis collectively were an abomination. Hitler was clearly quite disturbed and lots of others around him were willing for his insanity to take the blame for their truly evil agenda(s). But, for all the atrocities there are always the stories of redemption within the ranks too. So, yes, lots of complexity. But for me, only by digging into it, the nasty, awful, smelly guts of it can we really understand how it was allowed to happen. The US was complicit for far too long. We interned Japanese-American citizens here and took away their homes, and futures too. I just look at these cultural phenomena (like films based even in fiction) as opportunities to get people THINKING. I hope that this movie will have its fair share of "Unicorns" too.

I believe John the Baptist and Jesus are benevolent characters who wish to better mankind and his relationship with God. It's cognitively difficult and emotionally unpleasant for me to equate them with what is wriggling after it's cut from Shaw's defiled womb.

Agreed Myrddin... I have problems with that one myself, as a woman...

There may not be any deliberate scriptural parallels in this movie......at least, I hope not. The most interesting questions are universal; not limited to any particular faith or scriptural tradition.

@Myrddin365 I agree with you 100%. But, all I'm saying is that we still don't know what the ultimate meaning of "We were so wrong" is IN THIS FILM. I'm sure that Ridley would not take offense at someone saying of the film it was "cognitively difficult and emotionally unpleasant" for me to experience. I doubt seriously that the the elements of the backstory are as "upside down" as Cuddles representing John the Baptist in some twisted fashion, but I don't know. As soon as an aesthetic like Giger's is introduced and so heavily relied upon and the entire premise of the film is diametrically opposed to traditional religious narratives (by that I mean "contemporary and mainstream"), I have no idea where the symbology is coming from and what happened to it on its way to the screen.

I get that artyoh, I kind of hope that as well. I was merely pointing out an observation that I had made, it's almost a subversion of those traditions IMO

Agreed sukkal, it's just interesting to have a wee 'noodle' and see what we can come up with! I certainly think it's been an intriguing discussion so far!