If you don't agree with this, then I give up!

..maybe Christians are finally growing up?..;)

the beauty of prometheus is that it opens a grand new mythology.....it's not a science project and it is not a religious exercise either....but it's crazy how much debate it has spawned.... now that 's the mark of an excellent sci-fi !!!...what i love about the story is how straight forward it plays out...but then once one starts to really think...it's then when that grand mythology opens up!..and all the mystery arise.....I hope Prometheus always remain an enigma...cause that's the best thing about it:)

The following is a good read trust me! And it furthers my theory. This also fits into my theory of everything being about the PERSPECTIVE of the individual. Read this and then think of the relationships between: - Weyland and Everybody else. - Humans and The Engineers. = Humans and The Black Goo. - The Engineers and The Black Goo. - Most importantly you and me vs trying to figure out what theories are right or wrong in this move. Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals I. First Essay Nietzsche begins with a story of how the terms 'good' and 'bad' got their meaning: Originally, there were two kinds of people--"the noble, the powerful, the superior, and the high-minded" and the "low, low-minded, and plebeian." The former had an unquestioning hold over the latter--they had a feeling of ruling and superiority that was justified by the fact that they were ruling and they were superior. Nietzsche calls this feeling of the superior over the inferior the pathos of distance. He thinks that it is through the pathos of distance that 'good' and 'bad' first acquired their meaning. That is, 'good' was associated with those who were superior, noble and privileged, while 'bad' was associated with those who were common, plebeian, and low. However, descendants of the lower class began to resent being so powerless; they began to resent being bad. Their hatred toward the superior class resulted in a "radical transvaluation of their values." That is, 'good' and 'bad' began to reverse in meaning such that 'good' now applied to the common, low, poor and powerless, while 'bad' now applied to the superior, privileged, rich, and powerful. In this way, the deprived, poor, sick, and helpless become pious, whereas as the powerful, noble, and rich became impious. This transvaluation of values is possible when the ressentiment of the lower classes for the superior becomes so great that they find compensation only in imagining or creating a different moral code. It is this creation of an opposing moral system that Nietzsche calls the slave morality. So in order for the powerless to feel better about the situation that they are in, they create for themselves a morality--a slave morality--where they, the powerless, are 'good,' while their superiors, the powerful, are 'bad.' *A Quick Note on Part 13* It is here that Nietzsche presents the analogy of the lambs and the eagles. The lambs may not like that the eagles take off with one of them from time to time, but it would be ridiculous for the lambs to blame the eagles for doing what they do. This would be just as bad, Nietzsche thinks, as the eagles blaming the lambs for doing what they do--namely, sitting there waiting to be eaten. Nietzsche claims: "To demand of strength that it should not express itself, that it should not be a will to overcome, overthrow, dominate, a thirst for enemies and resistance and triumph, makes as little sense as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength." As with the lambs and the eagles, so too with human beings. According to Nietzsche, the strong and superior can no more resist being strong and superior than the weak and inferior can resist being weak and inferior. At root of this idea is the belief that there is no distinction between strength (or weakness) and the expression of strength (or weakness). As he puts it, "...the doing itself is everything." One of the main problems with the slave morality, Nietzsche thinks, is that it assumes the exact opposite of this--that is, it assumes "that the strong may freely choose to be weak." Nietzsche thinks that strength just is doing strong things; weakness just is doing weak things. So the thought of tempering or taming strength, would just result in one becoming weaker; likewise, beefing up weakness, would just result in one becoming stronger.

So your theory is that the film is all about the perspective of the individual? And you needed all that to figure that out lol? I agree that's one aspect of what the film is about and have mentioned a few things in regards as well. That's my favorite aspect of the film as well. The stuff you posted is a great find and very interesting. It seems to reaffirm what I already thought.

YES @ Engineering your'e mostly right! You're wrong in the fact of me needing all that to sure myself of this, no I needed all that so that the people who are denying this movie as a work of art, and are simply just bad-mouthing it, completely understand my point of view. Q: What is the Engineer doing exactly in the opening scene? A: You would have to be the Engineer, with his races experience and intellect to understand. Like the humans and chimpanzees and/or ants theory. Q:How can they understand us, and our motivations, if they are not of the same intelligence? A: Well they would have to be on the same level as us wouldn't they? Q: Why does David seem nice, and then not so nice, is he good or bad, is he just following orders or is he becoming human-like? A: You would have to BE David to fully understand how he is wired to get a grasp on what he is, and what his motivations for his actions are. Q: Why did Weyland hide from everybody, why did he seem like such a good part of society, curing cancer and all the "good" things he accomplished, but it seems like he just wants to be recognized by humans as a God? A: You would have to be Weyland to understand his never ending thirst for fame and his quest for eternal life. The same can be made for every other character in the movie but that's not important..... Q: Why do some people like the movie, why do some people hate the movie, why are some people sort of indifferent towards the movie, why do some care about the characters acting dumb, why? A: You would have to be each individual person, you would have had to go through everything that they have gone through, in order to understand their questions and beliefs. It's so simple but no doubt people are still going to rain down on this whole entire theory..........oh well that's life I guess.....

Chill Winston. One theory at a time is enough. You'll burn yourself out

Yes, I believe MVMNT is right. And don't "give up" if people don't agree. Also don't "give up" in regards to opening your mind to new ideas. That's the great thing about Prometheus. There is no right or wrong in regards to certain questions the film leaves us with. At least not yet anyway. BTW..didn't mean to sound like a jerk with my earlier "needed" comment.

Yes - give up!

@Engineering....... [quote]There is no right or wrong in regards to certain questions the film leaves us with. At least not yet anyway./quote] Thats exactly why there is no concrete answer to the big questions asked by the film. Not only because nobody knows the answer yet, but also because the individual has his own answer. Truth is a perception and everybody's opinions are based on their past experiences and environment. (This is showed by having the characters in the film have different opinions and beliefs) The reason there is no answers in the film (although it is possible some will come in sequels) is not because Scott and Lindelhof were not sure what they were doing or anything like that. It is because they are very open minded and they know what I said in the first paragraph is true. For example, the first scene is perfect. It can be perceived as meaning creation or assisted evolution, or whatever. Someone can think that the Engineers are just an evolved species from single celled organisms that has the ability to create. Or that there is still something that created them and is a true supreme being or God. That gets me to another thing I think the film is about. I think Prometheus is like Contact and many other films. In that it is asking can Science and Religion co-exist? Do findings by Science disprove God? How does finding an alien effect/affect (I still always get effect and affect mixed up) the belief in a God? Especially like in the film if you found an alien species that appears to have created you but is trying to kill you. How much hardship can you go through (your loved one dying and your whole world crashing around you) but still keep your faith. It also doesn't have to have anything to do with God. It can just be the classic get back on the horse. That you have to hope it gets better, can't just give up. It is for this very reason that I don't like it when people say that Prometheus is just a film. For one thing a film is art. Just like paintings, music, and books. What is art? The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. To entice thought about ideas. That is exactly what Prometheus is. A beautiful looking art that gets the viewer to think, discuss, and share views on the big questions in life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwjT8wLenE

Not long after he died, Nietzsche was roped in to support both the ‘right’ and ‘left’ wings of “political thought” – a euphemism for attempting to control others by telling them that only you and your supporters own the solutions to the world’s ills, i.e. humanities’ woes, which have been foisted on them by anyone who thinks differently. The Nazis ground his reputation into the dust of course but there were other fascist regimes. In fact, if you think about it, what regime isn’t fascist? Whoa! The only thing I’m getting at is that the root of the words ‘fascist’, ‘fascism’ comes from that axe the ancient Romans brandished as a symbol of authority. They took an axe and tied a bundle of rods or sticks around the handle to represent the superior strength and power of everyone pulling together. In that sense all governmental systems are fascist, the Nazis and others just hijacked the word. Those pathetic democracies couldn’t stand against the onslaught of ‘fascist’ might could they? What good were dreaming democracies against iron and steel? They forgot that democracies are also ‘fascist’ and could bundle together against them. This isn’t just a bit of low wordplay … I hope! Fred Nietzsche considered Christianity wrecked the Roman Empire simply by strolling through it with compassion and forgiveness for thy fellow Man. Of course it wasn’t at all like that, some disembodied set of ideas grabbing the Romans’ collective attention, it was fashioned into a political tool, force and device. This is why Mr Nietzsche is fundamentally flawed, although maybe not floored, because the lambs can become the eagles and the eagles might become the lambs. OK, argument by analogy is dangerous because it can blow back in your face, but he did (humble opinion) strap his intellect to soritical argument. E.g. A man with no hair on his head is bald. A man with ten hairs on his head is also bald and a man with a hundred hairs on his head is bald as well. Tie these three statements together and Nietzsche would tell you that a man with one million hairs on his head is … bald. What the Shreyas and the Preyas story picks out is the ancient thread that every apparent strength is inherently weak and every apparent weakness has an innate strength. Somewhere. It’s that old bundle of sticks again. So sure, if the human characters in the movie had trained together and then worked together on LV223 they probably could have all gone home safe and sound leaving behind just the bodies of Peter Weyland and a late David8 but that wasn’t the story Sir R Scott wanted to tell. We won’t work together and we do chase the main chance and that crock of gold. We lust after and treasure all those crazy and not so crazy material things that our children later throw out or sell off or use up and we do ignore and trample on the most valuable gifts, one of which is language. The Engineers certainly do seem to be right alongside Nietzsche and the Nazis and anyway their concerns were never going to be ours and that should have been obvious once “WMD” was juxtaposed with “target earth” but again, no communication. These characters were doomed long before Weyland was domed. Language really does tell the story here, with the characters living down to the meaning of their own names. They never tell each other who they really are (Peter = stone; Jared = God is gracious; David=beloved; Charlie = free man; Meredith = Great Lord/ Vickers = vicar/substitute); they never pull together so they get pulled apart. They’re stuck with themselves and they die in their own inability to develop. The only exception is Elizabeth = my god is a vow/Shaw = sure/certain. Hmmm, apart from Ford. Maybe that was just product placement. Are Ford launching a galactic cruiser? LoL ... Is it available with $100 down?

Don't take it so literal. All I'm saying my theory is about is the PERSPECTIVE of the individuals. We can not understand WHY the Engineers did what they did because we are the same DNA but we are not the same intelligence. Therefore how can we even begin to comprehend everything if anything that they do? If Ridley Scott was trying to say that Jesus was an Engineer, then so be it, but don't you think he thought of what that would mean if people found out? Catholic people would go insane bashing him. I'm not saying that's the focus of the story but he'd need to have some big balls to go in that direction, once word gets out, who knows what might come of that storyline...... My PERSONAL theory, is that Ridley was showing us mankind in general, on the screen, how do we know GOOD from BAD? we only choose what we believe to be GOOD or BAD. People who worhip God, believe that Devil worshipers are bad. People who worship the Devil, believe God worhipers are bad. It's about individual perspective, and being able to see things from that individuals frame of mind. Does ANYBODY get what I'm trying to say? I'm not being a d*** but maybe I'm just not wording myself right?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There, one line I think.:)

Yes, @Juxtapose! You hit it exactly on the head. What makes Prometheous great is not its complexity but it's simplicity. It's straight forward style is underlined by a greater story which is right in front of our eyes if we just relax and let the film come to you. Do not try to define the film. Let the film define itself.

having said that...i do wish for a sequel...but it must never answer all the questions!!

another interesting thing to note is that prometheus has not spawned nearly as much religious debate as what i would have imagined or anticipated....seems most of it went over peoples heads...not that i am surprised...most religious minded people does tend to lack a bit of imagination..they sadly can't think past Jesus on a cross...?!

So if i WOULD have been LINDELOF, i maybe would understand his lazy writing? Yeah, maybe. But as i am not him, i dont understand. They should have simply talked more things out - thats the point. Seems like they did not want to annoy religious people, so they "hided" most of the story in miracles and hints. Ah come on, its 2012, we CAN say that religions believe is mostly nonsense, WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS! So why not SAY it?

@ Deftones1986 "My PERSONAL theory, is that Ridley was showing us mankind in general, on the screen, how do we know GOOD from BAD? we only choose what we believe to be GOOD or BAD." I agree. But … "… how do we know GOOD from BAD? we only choose what we believe to be GOOD or BAD." Adam and Eve were not supposed to know the difference between good and evil (bad). They were meant to get on with the job. It’s the appreciation of the difference that screws us up, not whether we choose to do one or the other. "People who worship God, believe that Devil worshipers are bad. People who worship the Devil, believe God worshipers are bad." People who worship the Devil believe God worshipers are fools. @ Nuck Chorris “They should have simply talked more things out - thats the point. Seems like they did not want to annoy religious people, so they "hided" most of the story in miracles and hints.” I agree. And then they created this website. Only joking!

Why does a two hour movie generate thousands of messages,,hours of discussion and a worldwide interest? There is something going on,' Having said that it is still humans creating many more theories than the movie has so far shown..almost taking a life of it's own.!!!!! The more discussion based on the storylkine,,I think would be better... My brain is going to explode with ego boosting ideas,,(having only a remote connection to 'Prometheus:The Movie) then I want to write the next installment myself!

@ Indy John "Those whom the gods need to buy their next movie they first drive mad"