Another take on Prometheus

I thought you were on to something but you slightly missed the trick. The difference in how the black stuff affected him is not sufficient. They can surely distill it differently to act more like lysosomes, that dissolve organic material, than any weird agent that mutates it Scott's hint about wholesale denial of Darwinism isn't the only hint, "Big things come from small begginings" is another flaming hot hint. But these are still insufficient, and your next point shows where you're still trying to pick a compromise between this and a more straightforward solution. [u]"Obviously within the context of the movie the engineers designed us" [/u] It is assumed. It is not obvious. The order in which certain scenes are shown leads us towards this conclusion, but that's not proof. [u] Even for a Sci-Fi movie it's just to scientifically imposable. The genetic lottery is so vast that what are the chances that billions of molecules would reassemble into the desired cell leading to anything close to the organism one is trying to engineer? [/u] I agree 100% but then you fall into the wide open mythology trap, set by the movies title and viral prmotions, especially the TED talk (which was a stroke of genius) [u]So what's the significance of the engineer in the opening sequence? It is my opinion that the engineer in the opening scene is a symbolic Prometheus. [/u] It certainly fits as a metaphor, depending on some basic assumptions. a) This is primodial Earth of billions of years ago b) This guy is volunteering to do it, and fully aware of it. Not just some schmuck told, hey go down and drink that. [u] So ask yourself,"Why would the engineers leave maps for their creations to find some of their most powerful weapons?" As a whole they wouldn't. [/u] and perhaps they didn't. This comes down to interpretation. Shaw saw it as an invitation. But just because some superior being tells you where they are from, does not mean they want you to go there. (after all even with modern technology, finding a match for that pattern, which may not be even the view FROM here isn't easy, and you'd have to be very determined.) [u] I believe that he is the one that spread the star map or the "fire from the engineers" [/u] How would he have spread the map? He's dead. He didn't go painting it in caves 35,000 years ago, and then every few thousand years, if he died 4 billion years ago. [u](the engineers themselves can be seen as gods through human eyes) around the ancient world. [/u] Surely they knew that when they came, or realised it pretty quickly. Going by the paintings, the visiting Engineers were the ones who gave the map (probably by projecting a hologram - but it's odd that every cave dweller drew it from the same side if it was in 3D) [u] it is of course a map to a powerful biological weapon of theirs.[/u] Is it? Where on that map is LV-223? Take another listen to how Holloway went from six stars to 1. He picks the star "most likely to support life" THEN eliminates the other 5. THEN looks for a planet or moon in that system. Do you not see where he took a careless shortcut? He may well have found LV-223 by accident. And assumed he'd done it right (confirmation bias). How do you know that around one of the other 5 stars (slightly less suited for life, but perhaps adequate) there isn't an alien homeworld with cities etc? [u]A weapon that may be used to endlessly propagate and infinite amount of subservient species which would make the engineers something like gods to other organic life. [/u] Yes indeed. Handy. Created from what, by the way? [u]Like Prometheus, this engineer may have wanted the created to progress past their creators, so he gave man the engineers' fire, and like Prometheus suffered for his actions. [/u] Ah, a rogue creator. [u] the movie is clouded with to much ambiguity to make any conclusive assessments.[/u] It's meant to mimic real life in that regard. We have to be very thorough and careful in our thinking. The myths don't have to be true at all. How about this counter-theory. Ignore the misleading assumption (which is done entirely by association in the editing suite, not by anything else on screen) that Scene 1 is taking place on Earth. Seeing as there's little point in seeding one organisms DNA if there is already competing life, obviously those sweeping shots filmed over central Iceland are supposed to evoke the idea of a primordial Earth before even the simplest life. about 4 billion years back. If you accept that this is Earth then you're very likely to believe that its the seeding of life, and you can't hold onto Darwin because he suits you, ... 4 billion year old DNA seeding improbably as it seems, must be connected because it comes out with the same pattern in modern man. We see DNA float down river, cellular mitosis etc, all lovely. Then, in the very start of scene 2, Isle of Skye modern day, a standing stone silhouetted against the sun (Kubrick Tribute!) in the shape similar to the departing disc ship. It's a common enough shape, but we can be influenced by it to assume that it shows a continuity from scene 1 to scene 2. But, it's just landscape. IF we do not accept that Scene 1 is Earth, then it could be a sacrifice on a planet 100 light years away, And the key thing is, that means it doesn't have to be 4 billion years in the past. That guys DNA could still be fresh in the water, as Shaw and Holloway find the cave drawing in Scotland. That brings up a question. Why does their DNA match ours? I have an idea. But I think it's a huge spoiler not just for this film, but for the next one... and it does have a link to the 1979 film.

Hadley did a pretty thorough explanation there in replying to all of your questions that kind of conflict because of the context they are trying to be connected in, which of course is what is going to happen with a movie like Prometheus that does have a lot of open ambiguity like you say. But back to the first question, was the engineer in the begining an antecedent to mankind? Totally. Of course he was. Though I don't think he was an "Engineer" per se. I think he was just a prototype of man kind created for the purpose of being "distributed" into the ecosystem after drinking the black gooze. His only purpose was to sacrifice himself (after being created by the actual Engineers) so that evolution for organisms could take place once he seeded into the environment. At some point the real engineers would have to come back and visit this evolution, making periodic contact with different civilizations which would explain the cave paintings. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was the giant white bald guys who engineered or created the sacrificial human prototype in the beginning. Could be a completely different or similar intelligent race altogether.

[u]But back to the first question, was the engineer in the begining an antecedent to mankind? Totally. Of course he was.[/u] Bishop79... the genius of this film is that I had the completely opposite views on these things from my first viewing to my second viewing, and figuring out where he lay the traps, and then what is really inferred shows that Scott is a devious s.o.b. and is making a point about his characters by inflicting something on the audience. I am not a fan of internet language like ROFL, Lol and all those memes, but I think I will allow myself this one. Ridley Scott mindf*cks like a boss.

Thank you for both of your responses. Below is directed towards Hadley "They can surely distill it differently to act more like lysosomes, that dissolve organic material, than any weird agent that mutates it." I agree with this "It is assumed. It is not obvious. The order in which certain scenes are shown leads us towards this conclusion, but that's not proof." You're right it's not proof, but the movie leans towards this and I feel that it is the more lucid direction to go. If it turns out not to be true and both humans were made by another common entity that would be fine, I just hope that Scott won't convolute things like was done in the matrix trilogy. "You fall into the wide open mythology trap" I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that mythology is so malleable that it can be applied to any scenario? If that's so I somewhat agree with you, but I feel that some scenarios can be more coherently and rationally related to myths than others. "He would need to be on primordial earth" I think he's on earth but not earth in the distant past of billions or even millions of years. "This guy is volunteering to do it, and fully aware of it. Not just some schmuck told, hey go down and drink that" The point I was trying to make is that he mirrors Prometheus and him drinking the ooze and subsequently dying is his punishment for rebelling against the engineers. So I would not say he is volunteering at all. "But just because some superior being tells you where they are from, does not mean they want you to go there." I don't even think the engineers want their creation to know where they are from. They either will never develop the tech to travel there. Or they will have the potential to travel there which implies that the creations' reach is exceeding their grasp. Not something a creator wants. "How would he have spread the map? He's dead. He didn't go painting it in caves 35,000 years ago, and then every few thousand years, if he died 4 billion years ago." I should clarify my position. The Prometheus like engineer that died did not die on a primordial earth. He died after humans were already on the scene. He was the one that gave the map to early man. So he died as a punishment for pointing early man in the direction to attain the "fire of the engineers" so to speak. "How do you know that around one of the other 5 stars (slightly less suited for life, but perhaps adequate) there isn't an alien home world with cities etc?" I don't but how do you know that they other stars are slightly less suited for life but still adequate. Whatever the case I think we can both agree that one of the most, if not the most, pivotal places in that cluster of stars is the planet holding this horrific biological weapon. I'm insinuating that maybe humans were given the map to travel to that planet to take that weapon and gain some advanced knowledge to be on the same playing field as the engineers. Or perhaps slightly more unlikely but still interesting, maybe humans were given that map to set off a chain reaction were the ooze would be introduced into humans and then the subsequent organism into the engineers which would produce the deacon. There is something relevant about the xenomorph to the engineers and this could all have been planned to perpetuate its birth. "Seeing as there's little point in seeding one organisms DNA if there is already competing life, obviously those sweeping shots filmed over central Iceland are supposed to evoke the idea of a primordial Earth before even the simplest life. about 4 billion years back. If you accept that this is Earth then you're very likely to believe that its the seeding of life, and you can't hold onto Darwin because he suits you, ... 4 billion year old DNA seeding improbably as it seems, must be connected because it comes out with the same pattern in modern man." I noticed in the sweeping shots that there was moss. Moss is a living thing and has a genome which means it has DNA. If this scene is the seeding of earth then there should be no life present whatsoever. If the Moss is there than that means that there should be two domains of DNA, or DNA and the other information copying molecule. They acknowledge Darwinism in the film so it safe to assume that the idea that all life, humans and moss included, descended from the same ancestral organism. I don't really like that the human DNA matched so closely with the engineers. The probability of seeding life with a particular strand of broken down DNA and then 4 billion years later seeing that life has evolved an organism whose genome matches so closely to the antecedent material is a little to implasable for my taste. "I have an idea. But I think it's a huge spoiler not just for this film, but for the next one... and it does have a link to the 1979 film." Please share.