Maybe this theory makes sense? Just read it and think about it...

@Xenothinker - i agree with you in that i believe it is riddled with holes, but it isn't a very good sci-fi movie. @Rubirosa - once again my friend you spew negativity about us who rail against the film. hello pot - this is the kettle. really - we're just touching on some points and i guess we should start our own "disenchanted with the Prometheus thread" at another site, so that absolutely nobody is here to challenge anyone's beliefs, love of the film, insight, etc... "it is public here, right?" if it isn't let me know otherwise.

Please do, begin your thread. Its going to be pretty lonely in there.

Hey man, I am not saying it is a terrible film. I do believe it is an enjoyable slick looking sci-fi film, but fails to deliver on what was promised due to its weak script, actor portrayals an editing. That doesnt sound radicalist. In fact, those who find Prometheus the secon coming of RS seem to be more extreme then those that don't and this thread is perfect representation as such. It seems to me that those, like me, are more open to discussing the film and it's workings more then those who, like you and deftones, enjoyed the film. It seems people like you are quick to try and shut down any form of intelligent discussion or thought/critiques of the movie, which in turn makes you people the naive ones. It's funny, all the threads dedicate to proving Prometheus as a master piece never tend to touch on some of the issues I mentioned previously...wonder why? Oh yes, because they are glaring examples of poor story telling that no one wants to mention. Let me state this again for your simpleton mind : I think Prometheus is a fun, slick action sci-fi film but it palls on its promises and I really think people are digging way to hard to find a deeper meaning in the context of the film to feel better about it.

Also this is in the Prometheus discussion thread therefore inviting people from both sides of the fence into discussing the probabilities and possibilities of any truth in the OPs theory, however I find it disturbing that any opposing views get shut down without any actual discussion.

but i truly have no desire to do so! I believe it is funny that everyone here seems to believe that Weyland (who has the world at his disposal) needs to have a team of misfits as test subjects. Literally - he could have any genius or military he wanted/needed to help secure "forever life." Doesn't it make more sense for him to hire the top experts in every field to help secure the holy grail? Yes, it does! You can keep pushing on this form (Prometheus) until it fits into your mind and hearts exactly the way you want and the way you want everyone else to view it, but it doesn't change the fact that most (not all) everyone knows there is something not quite right about all of it. An unsatisfactory taste, a disjointedness that everyone seems to adhere to, a Phantom Menace feeling! If it were just a good sci-fi movie, you'd leave it at that!

I thank you for calling me simple minded @Xenothinker. You just made my day. I dont know if you have ever heard of American poet and author Oliver Wendall Holmes. He once said--- Simple people...are very quick to see the live facts which are going on about them.

@Xenothinker - here here! A toast! you can toast its ok-ness and i'll toast its sub-par attempt to become a sci-fi masterpiece!!!

i prefer Wilde myself.

This is all in fun guys. It does make the forum more interesting I do admit. By the way @Inquisiter Tremayne I love Oscar Wilde myself. He was the one of the craftiest authors of all time.

he's a hoot and had the lifestyle to go with it! unfortunately it wasn't as glamorous as many (would be) poets and authors would believe it to be. i suck at writing; i just enjoy the reading!

He was married and had two or three children I think. He was also a homosexual who was rediculed in England for his life style. He even had a relationship with sime Duke or Sir. He was also imprisoned for sodomy for four years. When he got out he moved to France. But because of the time he spent improsned he was never the same man again. No, great poets and writers have to suffer to be great. That is why we admire them so much.

Just to make it clear....I don't hate this movie, I quite enjoyed it actually, but was VERY dissappointed in it for its flaws and there are many. I refuse to let those issues slide because I like it, especially when I fully believe it had the potential to be so much more. I honestly believe this film was lost in the cut. It was edited so poorly as to make an already untennable script that much worse.

Now - back to Prometheus ;^)

The only people here that are disagreeing with me are the ones who don't like the movie. I never once said that you guys saying the script is bad and full of plot holes are completely wrong. This is me saying you guys COULD be right and maybe we are all wrong and this movie was horribly made with no intention except to look cool. I DON'T KNOW THE FACTS. And yes this site is here to discuss the movie and argue but look. Put it this way, this site is a neighbor hood and each thread is a house. I built this thread saying what I believe and you guys came and knocked on my door, stating your opinions and I disagreed. So why would you keep coming back and knocking here when you already know that I won't accept your beliefs about the movie? And by the way, I am really enjoying reading what everybody else is replying, besides of course the negative nancys

Cheers!

"....Vickers was smart...." I guess that is the thing about the movie,Vickers may have been smart,,but nobody came to her aid,,,or saved her. Shaw,,by default..was more likable that anybody, David is sort of likeable..but is devious and has a separate agenda. than the mission So I guesss the two likable charators live another day....and that is kind of sad considering the number of roles..

One likable character (not really like by me by the way) and one android go onto Paradise - supposedly! Should it not be purgatory, considering we were just at inferno? Whichever, us "negative nancys" will probably be trolling a bit longer. It is fun to watch everyone have so much fun talking about one person's take or anothers' or getting completely shot down (not really - but my internal monologue plays it out that way - kind of like RS wanting us to intuit what is happening).

Not even RS could think of all the scenarios here...But if he has a vision of the storyline,,it must be quite amusing to him to read threads based on the lkittlest thing.. Perhaps us using brain matter on the various aspects of 'Prometheus'....is his way of raising the I.Q. of this world's citizens..

I for one am glad that the movie didn't just have a beginning, a middle, and an end clear as day, thrown in my face like a damn childrens book. To me, that is not the way you go about changing Sci-Fi after so many horrible movies have come out **ahem.......(Transformers, Battleship) Ridley Scott chose Lindelof ON PURPOSE If you read up about the movie, you will notice that there was an entire script that linked right in to the first ALIEN. But RS said you know what, screw that.....let's give them something to think about. All you people that just want to complain about the acting, from what....a f$#*ing 1 minute clip out of the whole movie? you obviously did not carefully read my posts, and everybody elses posts EXPLAINING why the characters where dumbed down. So now you can go watch Men in Black 3 because that has a beginning to remind you of the originals, a middle full of questions, and an end that answers them. There is nothing wrong with that at all whatsoever. But movies are art. And let me just be clear on one thing. There is no way that I ever said this was the greatest movie ever created. No. My favorite movie is Pulp Fiction, not Prometheus. I just fell in love with the idea that all the answers weren't right there, and the bonus was that the movie was tied in with friggin ALIEN, which has the best creature, animal, horror villian out of any movie ever, IN MY OPINION, so how cool is that? There is just something about the mystery and the unanswered questions, and the wondering why they where so stupid as to do this or that, that just drew me into the movie even more.....like an awesome piece of artwork, it can be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways, which is great. But anyway back to the movie. I don't know if everybody just skipped over my one post, but I'll mention it again. I think Ridley Scott was trying to tell us the whole time....that Sir Peter Weyland is THE ANTI-CHRIST of the ALIEN universe and he had us witness what happens when the story of the Anti-Christ unfolds. I strongly suggest everybody read into the stories of the Ant-Christ because it fits so perfectly with Peter Weyland that it's unbelievalbe, and it's scary as shit. I did my own research and here are some things I found interesting. Please read everything after this sentence and tell me it doesn't tie into (Sir Peter Weyland) hint hint....and by the way these are NOT my beliefs but they make senses as far as the movie is concerned The Antichrist!--also described in the Bible as the son of "perdition" or "hell" - Like Hitler, who was one of history's antichrist archetypes, he will have great charisma & speaking ability, "a mouth speaking great things". - He will have a "fierce countenance" or stern look, and will be "more stout than his fellows"--more proud and boastful. Weylands TED video anyone? - The coming world leader commonly known as the Antichrist has at least 33 titles* ascribed to him in the Old Testament and 13 titles in the New. The coming Antichrist is called a "Prince" in Daniel 9:26-27; "the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary," yet he is also called a "King" in Revelation 17:8; "the King who was, is not, yet will be again." This shows us that the coming Antichrist is not just metaphorically called a King, as some believe, but that he will move through the normal procession of a monarchial tradition, being first a European Prince, and then a King. ATTENTION: If you check the Weyland time line you will see that Peter Weyland becomes a "Sir"........... - Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. - The real “Beast” of the Bible is a very different person. Instead of being a frightening person, he will be greatly honored, respected, and loved by the majority of the world. He will also be accepted as the prophesied Christ to rule the world in peace and prosperity. When [his] Anti-Christian Kingdom is finally destroyed, the world will not rejoice in thanksgiving for their release from oppression and Satanic control. They will do just the opposite. People will “weep and mourn” over Babylon’s collapse (Revelation 18:11). They will “bewail” and “lament” because this kingdom of human excellence and perfection has come to an end. Trade and craft will have reached dazzling heights of prosperity under the “Beast.” Culture and the fine arts will show the apex of human accomplishment during his reign. - There is nothing terrifying in what the real “Beast” of the biblical prophecies will do. The false prophet will certainly bring fire from heaven to support the worship of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:13), but the main miracles will be accomplished to excite the public’s admiration of the “Beast.” The supernatural displays will show what a profound “benefactor” and “philanthropist” the man is to the human race. Indeed, the “Beast” will appear to have the attributes of divine excellence—a brilliance beyond human attainment. ATTENTION: I advise you to go to www.weylandindustries.com and read the timeline, and all of his accomplishments and then read the next paragraph........ - The “Beast” will perform such wonderful works for humanity (and do some things that the real Christ is prophesied to do) that Christ himself warned that even the very elect Christians would be on the verge of accepting him (Matthew 24:24) if they did not know better. No, there will be nothing terrifying about the “Beast” in his outward demeanor as Hollywood imagines. Just the opposite will occur, and Christians should be aware of it. - But let us understand one thing, the kingdom of man under the antichrist, which will exist at the end of our age, will be the finest, most wonderful, and thoroughly beautiful kingdom that man has ever devised (that is, from the point of view of mankind). It will be more glorious than any earthly kingdom of the past and it will reflect the height of man’s endeavor and achievement. It is nothing like The Omen imagines. There will be no terror associated with it at all for those who will welcome it and abide by its benevolent rules.

Deftones 1986: thanks. I just went to see the movie for a second time (2D, Matinee). THere have been peole saying this or tha tis a plot hole. (1) One of them is that there are no shifting of the bodies after the Juggernaut crashs. I looked very closely when Shaw comes back for David: to Shaw's left is the suit lights (yellow) of another memeber that has rolled to just behind David's body. Also: (2). Dumb Scientists: This is nothing more than a milk run for a lot of these guys. Milbirn introduces himself as "Biology" not Biologist.......he may be nothing more than a sample tech! There is a lot going on in this movie that is easy to miss. I think I may start a thread about my new observatiosna fter a third viewing.

Long post - can't read all the little tod bits. I'll just touch on the intro "beginning, middle, and end" - Alien - and it was fantastic!

Lol I keep making my posts too long. But in the last one I did on page 4, it talks about my theory that Ridley Scott is trying to tell us that Peter Weyland is the Anti-Christ......if you take the time to read it I explain it a little bit, but IF its true, what does everybody think about that spin, would you watch the movie differently next time?

@deftones1986 I thank you for starting this thread. It has produced some very interesting points. Re: The Antichrist. I don't agree with you that R.S. or Damon L. connected Weyland's character directly to the Biblical characterization of "evil incarnate." I also suggest that you read [url=http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/03/05/120305crbo_books_gopnik]Elaine Pagels’ take on [i]Revelations[/i][/url]. Weyland seems very much like a Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison or Jeff Bezos to me. They are all technically *great* men who do impressive things (which require evil things along the way, of course) for reasons (a personal drive?) that are often difficult for people without that kind of ego (pre- or post-success) to grasp. Pagels believes that that Nero was [i]The Beast[/i] in question. He probably suffered a few more character flaws than the rest of those I've listed above. I have to agree essentially with craigamore. If this were a better film (with better writing and editing) it would have made $600 million dollars already. The WORST thing about it is the editing, and I feel FOX's hand in that mix. Ridley had to be at least partially complicit, though, of course. I have seen this film 5 times in the theater. Real D once. IMAX 3D twice. 2D twice. I am quite the enthusiast. I believe that the story harbors thoroughly fascinating topics on an almost endless number of axes, but I also feel that Ridley Scott is *better* than this film (as we have seen it in theaters) is. It is a bit shocking to me that he has said publicly that he feels that THIS VERSION is the director's cut, HIS cut as its director. There IS a better cut of this film—theoretically. The better cut (if it is ever created and released) will reveal more about how and why the Engineers behave the way they do. It is NOT the black goo that is the crux of this film’s mystery. It is the Engineers as "a superior species." The goo is just one of their tools, in parallel (agreed) to our human relationship with intentional nuclear fission. [u]Powerful[/u] things (substances), processes, and ›››people‹‹‹ are inherently [u]dangerous[/u]. The brilliance of this film and its story is that it easily allows for all of the [u]diverse[/u] interpretation and speculation that's going on here . I choose to believe that David is an Oscar Wilde-like hero, while others choose to believe that he is the film's ultimate villain. The tragedy of this film is that the so-called scientists did not NEED to be so moronic (and, for me personally, that the Fitfield garage attack scene ate up budget and screen time that could have been spent on further exposition of the Engineers.) In the end, it is what it is—and for me it's an imperfect, fascinating film and hopefully the beginning of even better things to come.

You are on point again @deftones 1986. You must really be an avid reader to bring all of these topics into a single idea. When it comes dowm to it the whole film is about human nature at its best, and at its worst.

Yeah, I'm not saying that he was the anti-christ in the 100% literal meaning of it, but more on the side of the Revelations thing you brought up. Thank you for clarifying that for me because that's more what I'm leaning towards. All in all there are a TON of different things going on in this movie with trying to tie it in with ALIEN, and the space jockey, what would they look like?, trying to come up with who the CEO of "The Company" would be, along with a back story, along with generating an android that would stand out from all the other movies, along with a Ripley-like main character, along with making the movie as a whole not seem like ALIEN with just updated CGI and different actors, along with trying to tie ancient alien theories, religious beliefs, greek myths, and so on and so on. But that leads me to my next point and agreement with you: I agree 1,000% about the editing and the way this film was put together. It had to be what FOX wanted right, because they gave him the budget. I guarantee that if Ridley was given 130 million dollars to make an independent film version with no worries about ratings or what is politically correct. We would have seen a masterpiece. So here's hoping that by making Prometheus, he calmed down all the critics in the movie financing industry, and we'll get to see some real classics being made again, instead of talking cars that morph into robots, and aliens that put bubbles over our oceans, and aliens invading cowboy ranches or whatever the hell that movie was about........

Yes @ Rubirosa "Big things have small beginning." It means that you can either simplify the meaning of the movie or write post, after post, after post, after post explaining it. You can either say: This movie is about the Good and Evil inside of EVERY intelligent creature. Engineers came off as doing "good and bad" things Shaw and Weyland came off as "good and evil" David came off as both at different times, because he was created by "good and evil" aka "humans" This particular story is in short, about what would happen if the "evil" part of humanity was to reach our creators first.......we saw first hand the result. Now: If the movie was to be twisted and reformed to where Shaw had control over David.....and he told the Engineer that they where here to meet them, and come to an understanding as to why they wanted to destroy Earth, and tell him that all humans aren't all bad, we're just curious but most of our intentions are good. Would the results of the movie have turned out different? My guess is yes, it would have turned into a nice storybook ending. But the real question is. Is that what we really wanted?

Sorry, the theory does not make sense. If you have to assume this for all the weak characters in the movie to fill in the plot holes for lazy screenwriters then have at it. I was upset when Hicks and Newt died in Alien3. That was not the original story. I even brought the ridiculous two-hundred years later cloning of Ripley. But to go with a prequel that is less tangible and comprehensive shows the latter (or former based on perspective) is not better than the former. I don't care what your motivation is going on a two-year hyper-sleep but good writing will develop those motives through its characters; not rush it and make viewers make rash assumptions because they want a sequel. Let us be more better and intelligent than that please.

@colonial soldier Because times have changed, the movie was rushed, and FOX told them what to put in the movie, and what not to put in, to have it make money. In the end Ridley did the best he could with the rules that where given to him in this changing age where kid friendly Sci movies are the only things allowed to be made anymore to bring in all the big money. Plain and simple. Some of us just chose to see that yes, there really was a story underneath it all.....it sparked our imaginations like a wildfire, so what if we had to spend months trying to figure it out, and so what if I'm wrong on every last letter of every last word that I put on this site. In the end I had fun coming up with theories about it, that's what it's all about.

@deftones1986 [quote]In the end I had fun coming up with theories about it, that's what it's all about./quote] Exactly, and like Ridley Scott said in a behind the scenes, all of the questions raised in the film are real life questions. Also, like someone said in this thread but I can't remember who it was. The movie also ties in Ancient Aliens, Greek Mythology, and popular religious beliefs very well in my opinion. And thats the point, the questions raised in the film are QUESTIONS that don't have a concrete answer, just lots of theories. So of course they are not going to be answered in the film. Although maybe some of them will in sequels. For example, there was many questions after watching The Matrix and some got answered in it's sequels.

if you are happy with a movie, of if you are disappointed by a movie, is only a question of EXPECTATIONS. When watching a David Lynch Movie, you dont EXPECT conclusions, some answers. You expect some kind of "weird dream scenes" sticked together like a patchwork, but not much "logical" sense. More "dream" sense, as in dreams the strangest things are possible and seem to make sense in "dream logic". But here we had an science fiction movie - which leads to DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS. You expect some exciting story about some findings you have never seen before, some BIG sense and ANSWERS. Remember "the sixth sense" - this movie was a MASTERPIECE, and it HAD the answer at the end. WITHOUT the answer at the end, it would simply be "mystery crap" that could mean ANYTHING, and maybe by ACCIDENT some of the audience COULD come to the SPECULATION that this is about him and bruce willis has been shot and this was the time between the shot and him moving on to beyond... THATs the reason for the disappointment MANY people feel about prometheus. Big pictures, hints here, hints there - but you never KNOW what it really should mean (if it does anyway have a meaning, i am not sure), so you are forced to leave it unresolved, or to SPECULATE. And thats what we do here for month. I dont like that.

Hey, you can't satisfy everybody.

Not everybody must be satisfied - but the MAJORITY of the audience. And it is not satisfying to stop in the middle of each sentence, and the listener has to "think" how the sentences "could" end.

If RS has to work with what he's got - $130 mil, time constraints, and possible ratings issues, then you work the best film you can within those parameters. I just don't believe that that RS did. I believe the mind of Lindelof helped warp what would've otherwise been a good film! Everyone agrees it is poorly edited and a good number of people believe the characters were stupid and not believable. Why continue seeing the movie repeatedly to answer its high-brow questions if it is mediocre (good) and has poor editing, pacing, and character development - especially when this particular movie was not designed to answer questions. Would you date a hot enigmatic woman that constantly required your cash for a peak but never delivered? You're a fool to do so when there are plenty of great movies (girls) that do deliver and not at a financial cost or a mind fuck!

@Inquisitor Tremayne — I am MARRIED and to a MAN, so your allegory of dating enigmatic women in order to get them into bed is not particularly effective on me if I am the proverbial "fool" to whom you refer. I saw the film originally in each of its native market varieties in order to contrast them. I'm interested in film making and market delivery (for valid personal reasons that are quasi-professional in my particular case). I then saw it two more times with two separate friends because we wanted to have discussions about the film both from film-making and philosophical perspectives. I have not seen the movie repeatedly to answer any "questions" that are not answered in the first viewing. I have seen it repeatedly to (a) appreciate the differences between the three different presentation formats and the visual detail that IS present on screen. (The speck of detritus that David picks up off the floor pre-arrival is not visible on a small screen. It's perfectly clear in IMAX.) And, (b) to share social experiences with dear friends that have led to new mutual opportunities for intellectual discussion. I had similar discussions during and after SETIcon II and the film itself was mentioned more than once during the conference. Regardless of the imperfections in Prometheus, it is a good catalyst ("mind fuck?") for stimulating discussion re: the ramifications of our becoming aware of the existence of non-human intelligence. We seem to be in agreement that it is not Ridley at his finest. My needing to be categorized as a "fool" in order for your core point to be valid... not so much agreement there. PS: Lindelof—for all of his apparent inability to keep track of and tie up the loose ends that he himself creates—doubtlessly created at least half of the enigmatic content in this film that is so fascinating to the audience that likes it. For that he will be valued if financial expectations are met or exceeded; and derided and dismissed if they are not. Such is the business of filmmaking.

My you use a lot of big words and speak so eloquently! I caught the flick (that's what it is - not really film worthy) at an IMAX and covered all my basis in the first sitting! Sorry you had to view multiple times on the big screen to catch every little nuance that will be available on blueray in the not so distant future at about half the cost of your viewings. About my dating anology: I thought most would ignore it or just simply think me making another asinine comment. If I'd known I was going to touch someones sensitive heart, I may have listened more closely to my internal monologue and truly thought about the multitude of differing auduiences I may or may not be appealing to. You have schooled me on both Prometheus and allegorical references! I'm glad you are impervious to such things! Why so serious???

Why so serious? Simply because in my book (and apparently for my 'sensitive heart') the business of calling someone you don't know a 'fool' is a rather serious one. I assure you I'm not [u]impervious[/u] to anything. Have a nice day and best of luck with your inquisition.

How can a viewer be watching a movie and asking/answering questions at the same time? I mean if the movie experience is to be experienced,,,,having your mind work overtime to analyze each scene.. each charactor,,,leaves little time to actually 'experience' the movie presentation. Afterwards.. yea .. I can see the discussions ..concerns..critique start....but during the movie,,not so much,,,

@sukkal - thanks for the luck with my inquisition!

Keep up the good work @deftones 1986, Make them all think.