Alien and the religious angle

"It might be better to keep the concepts to the human condition."

How is religion not part of the human condition?

"Observing Shaw throwing a fit in her condition when David grabbed her crucifix was almost laughable."

She was waking up from passing out (presumably) after watching her boyfriend get incinerated while being consumed by an alien contagion, and someone is fiddling around with her throat.

What's laughable?

It is a learned part of the human condition. Not biological or natural. Show empirical evidence otherwise. I will wait.

Wouldn't a learned part of the human condition still, by definition, be part of the human condition?

I think I see your point, but that part really has no effect on the human condition for basic survival and life- the Xeno cannot be prayed away for instance. A problem with going in a religious direction with scifi is it can seem pretty preachy.

Had a feeling this one would get ugly lol.All good points though.

Thanks nin. You knowingly instigated this. Now take on a political thread and really see some fireworks lol!

We like what we like.

"I think I see your point, but that part really has no effect on the human condition for basic survival and life- the Xeno cannot be prayed away for instance. "

True, but someone's faith may influence how far they are willing to go in order to survive and where lines are that might not be crossed.

I sort of did.Thankfully it died before it could get any where.As soon as Trump was mentioned i shut it down.

I will admit this one has gotten a bit carried away lol.

The thing is that faith is not fact. One could attribute faith for achieving great things or how far they will go to survive- but it really comes from inside with sheer will. Shaw bore a Christian cross- an individual who said to turn the other cheek and accepted his fate- to hastily paraphrase the New Testament.

nin,

To get the thread back on track.  To me it seems David during his 2 years of being alone on the ship, seems there has been a lack of boundaries on David's part either from lack of interaction with humans to learn these boundaries or Mr. Weyland purposefully removed some programming that would be used as a boundaries guideline during human interaction.  Davids actions during Prometheus, are odd and I feel like we're missing something

He pulls the urn from the chamber and takes it back to the ship, he then talks to Mr. Weyland in cryo and he tells him to try harder.  He then doses Holloway with the black goo.  What did we miss there?  I know that is kind of broad stroking it.  SM or BD can narrow it down some more.

Thank you Rick.I wonder if he talked with Weyland at all in that 2 year time frame.

Although Debating Shaw's faith is within The boundaries of the thread i suppose.

This thread doesn't give me any difficulties with wanting to be surprised by Covenant and it actually touches on the core challenge of making a further A L I E N movie.

I am 61 and so I suspect as close as anyone on this forum to Ridleys age. I couldn't give a rats tush about seeing a monster movie or a monster wars movie. However I am very taken with his attempt to contextualise the creature he made his name with. 

Up until '3' they allowed, quite sensibly Ripley, to become the driving force behind the franchise and made her the A L I E N of that film. After that holds zero interest for me.

So we come back to how to create a philosophical context out of which this extra ordinary nightmare creation of Giger et al came into being and at the same time play with other themes which have become more prescient since 1978.

So you have to have something that makes you think, that challanges you, that is more than another dull movie for American and the burgeoning Far Eastern teenage market.

Curiously the idea is a very simple one. A superior species began experimenting with their given mode and created the mutagen described in one of the more accurate and articulate responses from Muther.

What will be nailed in Covenant is that Holloway and Shaw were completely off piste as Muther also hints. Just because there are some self regarding cave paintings doesn't make the objects our creators. It was a  conceit driven by the loss of her mother at an early age. So a person with faith is made a fool of in Prometheus and used as Davids very own Petrie Dish. However having been humbled and been so wrong by her own admission Elizabeth recognises through Janek and her own deductions that this has lead to deep .... and its through her faith and determination and Janek's sacrifice that mankind is saved. It completely mystifies me that people do not see she was taught an appalling lesson with terrible personal consequences and produced another type of heroine. Yes she was wrong to begin with but she put it right. Anybody no any stupid human beings and even ones that have transformative experiences, and for some part of that comes out of the rigidity of faith however unfashionable and uncool to some. It was that rigidity with the symbolism of the cross that made her keep going, faith sounds like a good idea ?

Ridley as Wayne Haag said in his IV with AP pulls in things from all over the place, not one place, so we have riffs of the annunciation, sacrifice, ancient astronauts, bagdad batteries, flying saucers and thats intellectually entertaining but it does not mean he is preaching he is leaving us to think. If Lindelof was preaching he ain't very good at it, thats self evident.

Paradise Lost through retribution, The Arc of the Covenant unleashed, Artificial Intelligence gaining sentience and mankinds desire to go up against mortality, Valhalla and the Einherjar will all inform the film but that doesn't make it religious with a capital R it makes for fascinating entertainment, thought provoking entertainment going beyond the tired stereotypical tropes of Hollywood and using a myriad of sources to offer a fragment an insight into how might we end up with a super creational bio weapon (the black goo) which does none of its creators absolutely any favours. If you are going to create something as Jon Spaiht's said you need a creation story.

The 121 is a bit of punishment, a bit of biology, a bit of mechanisation and a lot of reproduction without a moral compass. Who would make such a thing someone with an axe to grind and a desire to cheat mortality. So far everyone (in the future) has tried to align it with their needs from a place of naivety. What will be interesting is the creators reaction to it when it realises it has entered another creator/creation rebellion cycle. Time to channel Elizabeth.  

The movies and the prequel book will give context through riffing many philosophical elements of ancient myths to give the story weight just like all the visual riffs give the films a sense of authenticity. The difficulty is people get uncomfortable with the former whilst accepting the latter as "good thinking batman". Why thats the interesting one. This story isn't religious with a capital R its philosophical with a capital P. It touches upon belief systems without making any judgements, it might riff them even inform some characters but it is not a religious allegory. The only message is art can stimulate you to think about concepts which are covered by various mythos.   

@Rick 

You will find when you have seen Covenant that David (and Weyland) knew a great deal more than was revealed by the script writers of Prometheus and that David and Weyland's relationship was much more complicated. Weyland thought they were Co Dependent Quasi Father/Son. David had other ideas and he could bide his time whereas Sir Peter could not. David already knew at the point of that conversation with the mind visor "There is nothing in the desert and no man needs nothing" but he stuck to his servant role waiting for his moment, he very nearly miscalculated but then faith came along and helped him how ironic. Sir Peter should have listened to his daughter her human intuition told her what was going to happen. David neither wanted or could be the candid friend. He was full on curious as encouraged by his "father" in the opening scene of Covenant I expect.      

Good morning MJ,

Long time no see.   I agree with you there was a lot going on behind the scenes between Weyland and David.  I think David was a bit rebellious of is "father" at the very least extremely independent.  How does the desert allegory tie into Weylands death scene?

Rick

@Rick,

Think about this when David allowed Sir Peter to head on down to the pilot chamber :-

1) He already knew there was nothing for Sir Peter and said so when Sir Peter acknowledged it. Interestingly he does not say the same thing to Elizabeth either when she asks him to take her to Paradise which he makes clear he is aware of. Is he dissembling again or does he believe there is something of value. Elizabeth assumes the Engineers are good and dandy. David knows where to find them what does he know of the state of Paradise before they fly out, that may play into the Covenant narrative. Presumably he doesn't think they are all washed up like LV 223. When the script writers were planning Prom 2 it was not nice but it was alive and kicking, will we read the same intent into David and Elizabeth exchanges once we know what and in what order things happened on Paradise. 

2) He knew the Black Goo was "all wrong" By this time he had seen its effect on Holloway and Elizabeth.

3) He had seen the effect of it on the Engineers and as will become clearer he knew what LV 223 was all about. 

So rather than caution his "father". There is nothing here and I agree with Meredith he allowed the whole shebang to head down and wake up the pilot. As Ridley said by this time David's influence on the narrative was rotten/evil and he wanted his parent to die not because he was his parent but he viewed him as a creator with whom he wished to rebel against.  

How did David know there was "nothing" for Weyland?

You always give us philosophical depth and interesting analyses, Michelle. What are your thoughts about “Laurence of Arabia” and David’s fascination (identification?) with T.E. Lawrence? The film is about rebellion and war and about a person seeking himself (like David?).

Also, “There is nothing in the desert, and no man needs nothing” is a double negative. Is it colloquial or meaning “Every man needs something”?

Michelle Johnston,that is a lot for me to wrap my head around,thank you.