Shaw: Parallels with Eve?

The film is designed to be shocking and controversial. The same is true of [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i].

Exactly... I hope it can inspire similar debate, especially with regards to the big questions of "Why are we here?" and "How did we get here?"

@Sukkal It seems to take from the darker sides of religious thought in most cases, Demons, Titans, Giants, Dragons. There haven't been any obvious depictions of something good becoming awful. Like Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale, that scandinavian horror movie about Santa Claus being an ancient, demonic monster. @Dippybird I think that the most insidious thing is that Shaw is not punished for an evil decision she made. She is punished for expressing love, however misguided she may be in her choice of the object of her affection. This is assuming that sex with infected Holloway causes mr. wriggly to happen. I think that is the worst kind of evil, corruption because of a human's better nature and removing free will. Philip K. Dick does a lot of this kind of thing.

The chestburster "birth" as the result of "oral rape" were the taboos in the original film. The "vessel" happened to be male. That was pretty damn shocking at the time. But it was something to terrify MALES. The nature of "taboo-ing it up" has gotten a lot more hard core over the last 30+ years. They (FOX) know that males will come see this film. The hook to get females in will be Elizabeth's journey. I don't think Fassy alone is going to pull that off.

@DippyBird It wasn't directed at you specifically, I was just kinda throwing it out there. I [i]do[/i] think that we would view any beings which treated us like lab-rats or a resource, as [i]inherently[/i] evil. Nevermind what "larger purpose" they might think they were serving.

Myrddin... that was my thinking after our earlier discussion as well, it's far more likely she's being punished for something concerning someone else and her expressing love to the wrong person may indeed be correct. Sukkal, I cannot comment on what those elements must be like for a man to witness, but it is something primally terrifying for a female. It's hard-wired into us! The fact that the original alien was somewhat aesexual in its design (despite the overall phallic motif, there were also feminine qualities) I think is something that made it UNIVERSALLY terrifying.

@Myrddin365 I missed that Santa flick (thank goodness). I agree with you that most of the imagery is very in line with our traditional breakdowns of "good vs. evil". The Engineer is the spitting image (visually) of Frankenstein's monster, but if we peel back the surface of the monster in that story (by a woman), the monster is not quite so monstrous. And dragons are good guys in Asia. I don't know what Ridley's religious beliefs are, and if there is sacrilegious stuff in the subtext, we may never know what it is precisely. But, it is precisely the fact that Elizabeth is "sinless" and ends up with Cuddles inside of her that is so taboo. (Of course, why can't she see that Holloway is so inferior?? Why is she sleeping with him in the first place? What's the symbolism THERE? Layer after layer...)

[quote=artyoh][i]I do think that we would view any beings which treated us like lab-rats or a resource, as inherently evil. Nevermind what "larger purpose" they might think they were serving.[/i][/quote] BUT, there is still room in the story for them (the Engineers) to view us as "children" and not lab rats. WE. DON’T. KNOW. YET. Humanity is not universally EVIL. Why would ALL of the Engineers necessarily have to be EVIL? LV 223 could be the Auschwitz of the Engineer empire. Thanks goodness again that I've been on this board as long as I have without knowing (= "accidentally learning") that level of detail about the story!! LOL! :•D

@Sukkal lol at Holloway rant. The imagery is more of a race manipulating mankind for their own uses, whatever those may be. That is, in and of itself, evil. But if plants had sentience, farmers would be just as evil. If the engineers cultivated us as a necessity for their survival, is that evil if it's the only way? That's where the complexity comes in.

[quote=Myrddin365]If the engineers cultivated us as a necessity for their survival, is that evil if it's the only way? That's where the complexity comes in.[/quote] I hope that's where the complexity ONLY BEGINS...

that could be the tip of the Iceberg. Why wouldn't there be "pacifist" engineers who advocate hibernation in order to avoid "killing" sentient beings in order to continue their survival?

@sukkal My earlier comment about the nazis, was intended to point out the irrelevancy of moral relativism, if [i]you[/i] are the lab-rat. People who actually use lab-rats in medical research don't do it out of cruelty, but for a "greater good" which the rats are incapable of even conceiving. The same might be true of The Engineers. They have to have a plan; otherwise, their actions will seem capricious and/or random. We don't need to know specific details of the plan in depth, [i]only that there is one.[/i] In fact, knowing [i]exactly[/i] what they've been up to and why, might be giving away too much. 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?

@Myrddin 365 An implacably [i]hostile[/i] universe, yes. You can add depth to that idea, but not to the point where you dilute it, IMO.