It's all in the delivery. If this is, in fact, what the story is about, I'm going to wait to see how it's played out. It's also entirely possible that the whole thing is a marketing feint, to generate interest in the sequels he's producing, and give us something entirely different, like some ancient culture mysteriously disappearing 2000 years ago or something. The Incas and Anasazi are a little too recent for that, but there may be other, more innocuous, occurrences in history that he could use. Maybe the Mayans, or something out of India like the Mahabharata. The crucifixion seems almost too convenient, but who the hell knows?
Not if it's not in the movie. Do you get credit for things you don't put in a school paper? Just things you were thinking about? I understand the desire to make this movie more than it was (a popcorn movie with equally pop science) but if it aint in the movie, it aint in the movie.
According to some scholars, he wasn't even that - he was just a fictional character created as an amalgam of various characteristics common to mythologized precursor messianic figures who appeared in the centuries preceding his era. We could call him a reboot.
um, wow. That is REALLY stupid. (uh, to clarify, I don't mean your post or analysis, just Scott's explanation.)
I'd rather he'd stick with either Greek Mythology or Christian Religion rather than having these engineers representing all Gods. I'm starting to get Stargate-SG1 vibes here.
Except that Prometheus IS a mindless popcorn action (horror) flick. It has no depth. The whole idea that the Engineers decided to destroy humanity because we crucified space jesus doesn't make sense. They didn't like our violent nature so they plan genocide on a planetary scale?
The fact of the matter is that Ridley Scott and the writers were afraid of offending Christians with the whole "Space Jesus" thing. When the time came to do what needed to be done to make this movie profound, they pussied out. And now what we have is a bland, lackluster film, instead of the speculative masterpiece it should have been. l don't even want any sequels. They had their chance to pick their balls up off the floor and they blew it.
l don't think any sort of extended cut can save it. No matter how much footage is put back in, the Engineers will still be humanoid instead of the biomechanical monstrosities that were insinuated in Alien. The characters will still be morons and the dialogue will still be lame. l'm not saying l won't buy the extended blu-ray when it comes out, l' just saying that, when l do, l'll probably have this look on my face>>>
My take on it (having seen the movie a second time now), is that the movie being more on-the-nose about the cause of the Engineer's wrath was a consequence of earlier (and poorer) drafts but was deliberately moved away from for a bigger purpose than just feeling too on-the-nose or the rather silly claim that they were afraid of offending anyone. I think that watching the movie, it is clear that they "reason" for their wrath cannot be definitively assumed from anything, including Ridley's comments. I think it has to be considered still open ended; once they decided to set the movie up for a sequel, they explicitly have Shaw going off to get the answer. David even says that it is not important, but Shaw says it is to her because she is human and he is just a robot. So at this point it isn't Space Jesus (but it still could be in the future). So in summary, I don't think they intend for the audience to understand it yet, nor do they expect you to have to read outside material to understand this part. I think it is unanswered on purpose. Apparently there is a whole conversation between David and the last Engineer that was cut from the film, maybe they discuss some of this there? Also apparently there is a fight scene between the Engineer and Shaw (with the axe) on the life boat that they cut because they thought it was too unbelievable compared to him easily killing the other crew earlier, but I would like to see that fight in the deleted scenes.
They were also pissed off because humanity learned civilization from the violent Predators (whole stole and misused the xenomorphs) instead of following the Engineer's plan or developing it on our own. It's amusingly easy to tie AvP into a movie that wanted to distance itself from that film. Peter learns of Charles Bishop Weyland's expedition knows there's intelligent alien life connected to humanity...after all, who'dfund a trillion dollar expedition based on just cave paintings/engravings? Regarding Weyland. One thing I realized was Miss Vickers' line to David asking "Did anyone die?" She really was asking, "Did Peter Weyland die?"
Which really begs the question.... why was she THERE? If she wanted to control the company, you know, assume the throne, wouldn't him LEAVING be the perfect time to do that? Instead she left on a 5 year (?) voyage to some remote planet, while OTHERS were running her Daddy's company... a perfect time for THEM to stage a coup. Vickers.... as dumb as the rest of the characters.
Huh, it's funny. After 30 years we finally get a prequel to Alien directed by freakin Ridley Scott-- which I actually enjoyed-- and after 2 weeks I'm already over it and ready to focus on the next summer movie. Never thought that would happen. Lol
It was interesting seeing the guy from bad robot picking his teeth with Ridley Scott's bones of course. Reminds of how they treated GR and TNG. Did I mention I walked out on it and was the only one in the theater anyway?
I've been in when there's only been me and a friend there and the film played. 250 seater screen I believe that particular one was.
I think I've been the only person in a showing before. I remember seeing Sicko near the end of its run, it was around 6pm. I thought there was a guy sat behind a few rows behind me but at the end of the film I think it was just someone who worked there catching it too