Say What?

This is beginning to take the shape of what is called an Irish Argument, Sukkal: both sides really agreeing but enjoying the argument too much to notice. Be well.

I wasn't aware that I was arguing.

I believe; and accept as story context, (based upon his reaction later in the film) that Weyland didn't know that Vickers (his biological daughter) would be on board the ship when he made the holographic recording. If he did, he certainly would have made the distinction between his daughter and Shaw/Holloway being in charge. (my take) I also observe that in this discussion, many (including myself) are positing that David was in effect a servant- both to the crew and to the mission. OK- He seemed to be just that. It is assumed that he was more importantly, a hidden instrument of Weylands actual agenda. Exceptional due to his being artificial- Superior memory and durability, no qualms about ethics, etc... potentially a hero probe, if you will. As a hidden instrument to Weyland, David (for reasons noted above) could easily manipulate Shaw & Holloway without their being aware of it- or why. Therefore, David was technically in charge- even though the rest of the crew were unaware of it. He was deliberately shown to be a member of the crew- with special abilities. An effectual disguise perhaps? He wasn't ever delegated or assumed to serve. I have said so elsewhere in this forum that perhaps Vickers was a thorn in David's side with regard to his mission agenda, as well as her meddling with her father's interests where it concerned Shaw & Holloway. I now propose that Vickers presence on the ship made David appear to be a servant. Where it is shown throughout the film that David behaves and does things that a servant wouldn't, I default to this point.

I understood it differently. I was pretty sure that David was able to read the text. And just like when he shut of his camera when streaming to Vickers when he found the SJ sleep chamber, David told no one but Weyland. I thought that was why he knew what was in the urns and what the black goo was used for and how to dose a crewmember with it.

Charlie didn't ask David "What does it say?". We have seen that David is very good at massaging the individual components of both speech and larger, all encompassing truths in order to retain/obscure information and remain focused on tasks of which most of his fellow crew members are unaware. David also seemed quite pleased with himself when he verbalized the notion that he could in fact read the engravings. He clearly was able to properly interpret the engravings because he was able to operate the control system that opened the door to the Black Goo chamber. It was only the contents of the BG chamber and the events that took place in it and outside the pyramid, meaning the dust storm, that kept the crew from stopping to ask David what exactly the control panel outside the BG chamber said.

@sukkal I think you might be missing the point, whether it's the "carte blanche" you claimed he had, or whether it's a sense of "leeway", conferred by the introduction by Weyland. Even if these things were true, David's agenda is hidden from the crew. The [i]crew[/i], then, would have to interpreting his actions according to their frame of understanding. What you call his, "leeway", unless it was explicitly stated that he was in charge, or could do,"whatever the hell he feels is necessary", over and above the chain of command and any instruction given him, would still have to be interpreted by the crew, according to the frame of their understanding. David's behaviour, regardless of whatever, "leeway", they might allow for, would [i]still[/i] extend into conduct that a believable crew would have to question or challenge at some point - unless you're suggesting that a credible crew in this situation would interpret that, "leeway", as David doing, "whatever the hell he feels is necessary", unchallenged at every turn, even at risk of their personal safety - which, I just don't think it very credible that they would do: that was the point. The absence of a minimum level of credibility in the crews' responses to David's behaviour - over and above any credible level of, "leeway", that could be accorded him, by the crew, in the context of the Story - was the point. So, nothing seems to have changed.

@Red Wolf: David does not say "I believe I can". You're confusing that with the statement that he made when asked if he could pilot a ship to the Engineer's home world. @allinamberclad: Actually, after David answered the question "perhaps", things moved on very swiftly indeed, with the triggering of the ancient holographic playback within a few seconds. There wasn't time for anyone to drill David on how much he'd been able to figure out. We don't know how much of the inscription David knew. He certainly knew enough to start pressing buttons with purpose. He could have potentially figured out a lot more. General: However, the point I originally made was that the concepts being described are likely to be ones that would not make a lot of sense to humans (from our very human culture), let alone a robot. For example, it might say: [i]Here and Inside Here imbue Exordium and Terminus Through the purity and essence of our natural fluids Permit Transitional Form only Ergalitris in Era 81794[/i] I choose to believe that advanced alien culture will be indistinguishable from magic as far as we are concerned.

@ allinamberclad By definition, any hypothetical "synthetic [i]human[/i]" could not always and consistently behave with stereotypical [i]robotic[/i] subservience. Doing so, would obviate any semblance of humanity, which would be its' entire raison d'etre. Therefore, if the term "synthetic human" isn't entirely nonsensical, your objection to David's behavior is spurious.

@allinamberclad — With the exception of Shaw, Vickers, Janek and David, the entire "crew" are written to be pure red shirts or comedic relief, with Charlie reserved the role as prick extraordinaire. I'm not counting Weyland as crew. If David had revealed to them that the door said watch out for the [i]bioquinoxic mutosa[/i] inside Charlie simply would have said "Oh, I gotta get me some of that!" even though he has no idea what it is. I get your point that the crew is not written as a realistic, sensible group of scientists, and it is a shame. The film could have been even more frightening (and just "good" at that level) if "intelligent" people had faced the remnants of the Engineer equivalent of a "nuclear meltdown" on LV-223 instead of a bunch of dufi to whom a typical theater-going audience is better able to relate. I'm just saying that "the writers" and Ridley—in the way that most of the writing is not too deep—threw out a bone that David is favored of Weyland, and "not your typical robot" and I believe that they did that intentionally to help explain to the audience why David is not promptly locked in a closet after first contact. To the writers’ credit, however, they also had David play the part of the gallant hero in saving Elizabeth and Charlie from the silica storm. This obfuscates further the fact that he is NOT working for them as "the help." David is the only character with any true complexity at this point and that is why I love him and am thrilled that he is along for any future ride. @Svanya— I am a little dubious that David knew exactly what the goo from the specific vial he selected would do, but I'm pretty sure he knew it would do something; something dramatic. Even though he may have a general understanding of the basics of the Engineers’s language, it is unlikely that he'd have a perfect understanding of their modern technology terms because he lacks full context. This is what zzplural it touching on. Speaking/reading English does not mean an immediate understanding of: — CERN — Large Hadron Collider (LHC) — Higgs boson — The God Particle ...or even Monosodium glutamate (MSG) for that matter. The black goo likely has parallels to MSG, actually; in the sense of its having been created for a specific purpose. It's just that it gives you *E*gineered *E*bola instead of a headache. ;)

@sukkal I cannot understand how the crew being, "red shirts", is either here, or there? They remain badly drawn - whatever shirt they're wearing. If you're suggesting the fact that the shirts are red is some kind of excuse for the fact that they are badly drawn in this film, I just cannot accept it, nor agree. No: that might be what [i]you[/i] would have had Charlie reply. That is not to say that is all he could have said - and not to say that someone [i]else[/i], [perhaps with more of an obvious flair in this area], might not and could not have had him say something else, that was not conveniently facetious, [or that was - but good], and that improved the character, the scene and - by token of the cumulation of similar effect, elsewhere - the entire film. Yes: of course, I do understand what was being attempted with the whole, "spotlight David", and - while I really don't think it had one bit of the least much of the smallest thing, at all, to do with explaining why he wasn't to be placed in a closet - what I say is that, having been built, whatever the consequence was of that little piece of construction, (in terms of how the crew were given to react to it), was just not properly 'played out - leading to jarring anachronisms in perceived behaviour. However, I do agree with one thing: the fact of it, is a shame. A very great shame, indeed.

@allinamberclad- Buddy. In the original Star Trek (William Shatner) crewmembers wearing red shirts were the fodder. They were the first to encounter deadly monsters, killer lightning, get dropped during the first shoot-out, fall into bottomless pits, found dead, etc.. I think this is how sukkal is referring to "red shirts".

Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous.- Plato (BC 427-BC 347) Greek philosopher.

Of course he can read it. He can speak it. Also, how else could he be so fluent in opening the doors?

@aircraftfixer ?... Uhm...."Sonny"? I understood perfectly well the reference to, and shorthand meaning of, "red shirts"?.. But: thank you. @artyoh ?... I haven't suggested one thing, at all, about a synthetic human necessarily, "always and consistently maintaining stereotypical [i]robotic[/i] subservience"? I have not, "objected", to David's behaviour, directly, or necessarily? I have questioned the credibility of the [i]Crews'[/i] [u]responses[/u] to David's behaviour... With that, it does appear that it is, actually and comprehensively, every single thing that you have said, here, that is, "spurious" - and, also, quite badly informed, sad to say.

Buddy... Someone to ask a favor of. Someone with whom I prefer to scheme with. A pal. As in- I like the way you express yourself, and admire your vernacular. Please- no offence, smart *ss or condescension intended!

It explains what the black liquid is. That's why he knows what is does.

@aircraftfixer I see - then, I beg you: forgive my ignorance. I am not at all used to interpreting this term, from a screen. I never see it written and have never spoken it, nor written it, in my entire life... I only readily understand it, in the context of hearing it - having heard it many, many, times in films and so on. I am not an American.

@ allinamberclad You wrote: "He plainly, it seems to me, regularly, "acts out" - I don't think there is a swerve." My reading comp. is AOK. If you aren't objecting to his behavior, exactly what were you trying to convey with this statement? David is either an appliance, or he isn't. If he isn't, we cannot expect him to act or react robotically, nor can we reasonably expect the crew to be surprised, perplexed or angered by the fact that he doesn't. Crew reactions to David are entirely consistent with what we might expect from people who understand the difference between a robotic automaton and a synthetic [i]human[/i]. In more than one post, you've repeatedly referred to David as a "robot" in spite of the fact that the story makes it quite clear he is much more than that. It would appear that what you're really objecting to, is the entire notion of a "synthetic human."

@artyoh ?... I do find this very mystifying as I am certain I have just answered this? As you have chosen to present me with your Reading Comp. credentials, you only force me to immediately wonder why, then, I am having to answer it, again? As you insist: That statement was not an objection, it was an observation - what it was intended to, "convey", was a re-iteration of the same observation/position that I made, several posts, previously - I am a little surprised this is not clear to you. [u]Again:[/u] I neither hold, nor promote, an expectation that David should, act or react robotically? I am very certain indeed that I have already corrected this mistake, by way of: [i]"I haven't suggested one thing, at all, about a synthetic human necessarily, "always and consistently maintaining stereotypical robotic subservience"[/i]?.... I find myself almost staggering, in a ragged, confused and bewildered state - calling up to the Heavens and asking Them, why - why, then, must it be that I am having correct the same redundant and mistaken conclusion, presented to me by the same, [accredited], correspondent, [i]again[/i] - and immediately following? When, to my further horror, I come to the passage where you, apparently in all sincerity, would take issue with my use of the phrase, "robot boy", or, "robot man", or whatever the Hell it was - and also declare that what I, "really", object to, is the entire notion of synthetic humans...I'm sorry: this actually does seem to be extremely odd thing to me and the majority of my interest wanes. As far as I can see, my last response to you still applies. As far as you have given me to understand, the answers you seek are contained there - and in the comments I have made that support that last response: I can really only suggest, as my final word, that you read them..[/again?]

In future, you could save yourself some "horror" by not making statements that require semantical gymnastics to wriggle out of.