Yes, there is an Xenomorph figure at the center of the relief on the wall, but that doesn’t trash any of the previous theories in this thread. For a start, it looks to have a slightly different physique to the ‘alien(s)’ xenomorphs - it seems to have more of a humanoid bipedal stature. So perhaps this new type of ‘alien’ is the pure, benevolent alien from which the DNA solvent originally came, but has since been corrupted by being combined with lesser lifeforms, hence the engineers trying to erase their mistake?
This film had a lot of unexplained moments. It really raises more questions than it answers.
As to whether Vickers was an android? Well, Weyland said David was the closest thing to a ‘son’ that he would ever have. But we later find out that Vickers is Weyland’s daughter. (Did she call him father or did he call her daughter - I can’t remember, but that might change a lot of what I think depending on the answer). But David is definitely an android, and I think we can assume that David was not made from Weyland’s DNA, because, if he were, then Weyland would have no trouble making a real son - he already had a real daughter. Or did he? I think I’ve just backed myself into a circular argument. I’ll have to watch it again and listen more carefully. 
I realize its the future and Weyland is CEO of a genetics company(is he? where did this tidbit come from?) but when exactly did he father Vickers? When he was 80?
Why no mention of her trophy wife mother? Or did he use a surrogate or synthetic womb or something, or even some kinda genetic hijinks?
I imagine having a dad on deaths door and your mom being a hired surrogate, and having to compete for affection with a robot brother might give anyone some serious issues.
Hello, sitcom pitch.
This site says there was a planned scene between David and a young Weyland on a yacht that was never filmed. Pearce was under contract to play Weyland in this scene. Wiki says that Max Von Sydow was to play the older Weyland, but it might (IMO) be that since Pearce’s scene was cut from the script, it would not be breach of contract if he were just put in old man makeup instead of contracting Von Sydow and paying off Pearce for cancelling the yacht scene. I don’t know if this is how these things work, but if an actor can sue a production company for breach of contract it makes financial, if not artistic, sense. I heard a similar thing (Pearce was locked into the role) on the AV Club discussion board, but the poster didn’t have any sources.
They should have gone with a lead-is-more approach to the aged prosthetics. Keep the frailty, bit show us how the future’s richest ancient guy looks like our time’s George Hamilton or something.
Huh, well I guess I was wrong on that one. So should we assume then that the saucer ship was just what the Jockey’s drove six billion years ago? Before replacing them with the two headed organic ships?
Yes, in my view. I read a review where a critic, anticipating criticisms, said something like, most people don’t drive the same car for a decade, but all aliens must have identical ships? Let alone billions of years apart.
Well I was looking at it more from the point of trying to figure out if a third party was involved in the plot(who or what was driving the saucer?) but I guess we’ll just have to wait and see for the sequel/s. It certainly is logical that ship design would change, but in a story it is just confusing.
This interview says different:
Movies.com: That is our planet, right?
“RS: No, it doesn’t have to be. That could be anywhere. That could be a planet anywhere. All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself.”
“doesn’t have to be” and “IT IS NOT AND THIS IS BECAUSE THE PLOT MAKES MORE SENSE WHEN YOU KNOW THE LOCATION” are such different animals.
it being the moon makes sense for a plot point. it being earth (or any planet where they seeded life) does what the movie intended to do: show the engineers seed life. “it doesn’t HAVE to be earth” works because i think the point, the take-away is they are universal sources for new life and evolution. not per se to show WE came from them.
GRUDE:
my first thought at that “father” scene was the same thing: did he knock someone up when he was like 78 years old?!
about the different space ship: while we can extrapolate it’d be a different ship (which, let’s face it, realistically the model and look of a craft could change over 10 years, let alone 40 year, 100 years, 1000 years or a billion years,) it DOES convolute the plot to show a different shape ship. esp when it’s obvious like that.
i revert back to my old “as dumb as this shit is, they seem really heavy handed about what they want us to pick up on” mantra…i think they showed the ship for a reason. it didn’t add anything to the poignancy of the scene IMO to show him being “dropped off.” it sticks out more to me as a really blatant attempt to point out a separate faction. it also stands out to me that attitude, clothing and over-all atmosphere of the engineer in that scene is so vastly different than the ones at the end…kind of strikes me as the difference between the rebel alliance and the dark side. one is more “of the earth” while the other is in extreme technology.
all that to say i think the next film reveals there are two factions of engineers with two agendas, one hostile and one not, which would have two ships.
or alternatively, who cares.
what was with all the “all the answers will come” bullshit w the dvd release?
anyone see the dvd release? have the answers? why aren’t you telling us the answers if they were all revealed on the dvds?
Fictional Science: 100 Glaring Logical Issues With Prometheus
He covers lots of the same problems I have with the film. It’s not so bad if a film has a few inconsistencies and the viewer comes up with their own explanation. But when the bulk of the film leaves you scratching your head, it’s just a big mess.
Becuase I’m enjoying reading all the mental acrobatics and pure anally-extrapolated fanwankery.
And, I don’t like you.
j/k
Ouch.
I can only think of two logical explanations as to why the story writing in “Prometheus” failed so badly:
a) the writers were incompetent / on drugs / on drugs and incompetent / willfully malicious
or
b) the whole story was slapped together scene-by-scene as a series of “what if’s”.
I picture Scott saying something like “OK, for the opening I envision the grey aliens on Earth, about to start the process that gives life…”
…and Lindenhof interrupting him with:
"Oh, cool! Wait… what if instead of “aliens”, it’s only one, and like huh, what if he gets abandoned there by his friends, because… umm… he has to do something dangerous, like umm… DRINK POISON TO START LIFE [Scott: Hmm, yeah, interesting] …and like, umm… what if like the poison breaks down his DNA and then he disintegrates into like the ocean [Scott: I’m getting a good visual off that…]
72 scenes later…
Lindenhof: … and so what if we time it to 2000 years ago, so the first alien was JESUS CHRIST! Wow! Wouldn’t that be a head trip…
283 scenes later…
Lindenhof: …and then what if the crew encounters a similar looking black goo, but like, instead of breaking down their DNA, it turns them into murderous spider-monkey zombies… and like what if there were worms and bugs in the temple and they turn into… NO WAIT! Let’s have them turn into proto-alien tentacle hentai monsters… and then what if instead of running away THE CREW TRIES TO PLAY WITH THEM!
Scads of scenes later…
…and then what if he has sex with her… BUT THE GOO GIVES HER A NEW STRAIN OF ALIEN BABBY…
…what if WEYLAND WAS IN THE SHIP ALL ALONG!
…and what if, my God, no one will see this coming, WHAT IF VICKERS IS AN ALIEN!!1!! [Scott: Err… I’m not sure that makes any…] OK, OK we can make her an android… OR NOT! WHAT IF WE MAKE IT REALLY AMBIGUOUS !!22!!2!
sigh
My personal guess is Explanation b), as there was apparently already a script that had too many “Alien” plot elements in it. I can easily envision Lindenhof “what offing” the Alien eggs into bioweapon containers etc.
So basically, I think it’s pointless to try and wring any sense, coherence, or rationality out of the film, because there was never any there in the first place. Every single plot element was introduced soley to tie one scene into the next with no overall thought towards the bigger picture (pun intended).
Yeah, as I said in our original thread, they seemed to want bto have too much stuff in there, but it all ends up being eqyally ridiculous and self-cancelling. The original Alien suffered from having too many ideas drifting around and too many cooks spoiling the broth. In the first Alien, they were going to have hieropglyphics showing the xenomorph life cycle, and they were in a sort of tomb (H.R. Giger actually made drawings of these). No, wait, it was a derelict spaceship (And someone else – Ron Cobb, I think, did drawings for this before Giger came on board. The film would’ve looked completely different). The Alien succeeds because the ship’s computer ends up siding with the Alien, thinking it “more perfect”. No – one of the ship’s company is really a robot, and sides with the creature, because it’s more perfect. No – because the company wanted to pick it up and bring it back. and then … and so on.
The problem was, they never seemed to think it all through and clear out the extraneous old stuff and make the story coherent sand self-consistent. So we end up with the superfluous scenes with the ship’s computer, “Mother”, which now have no point. Ash really is a robot, and he seems to be helping the creature because it’s “more perfect” AND because The Company wants it brought back (even though this seemsd a ridiculous way to do it). And so on.
So now it’s thorty years later and Ridley Scott has loearned his lesson, and doesn’t do it again, right? Of course not! He gets much of the same crew together, resurrevcts the old Giger tomb/hieroglyphic stuff, and they apparently throw out a lot of ideas and do complete rewrites where they keep a lot of pointless and inconsistent stuff, just like before, ending up with a midden heap pf a movie.
But why should he change? The movie made a ton of money and has a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and apparently a lot of people think that this mashup of uncongealed ideas is a profound and meaningful movie.
[quote=“filmore, post:72, topic:636980”]
Fictional Science: 100 Glaring Logical Issues With Prometheus
I’ve only read 3 pages of it so far, and while it makes a few good points it’s mostly nonsense and easily rebuttable:
1. What is the planet in the opening sequence? We never find out, and while ambiguity is fine in theory, what few conclusions the viewer can make given subsequent evidence make absolutely no sense. For instance, if we assume that the planet is Earth, major logical issues arise, because…
It’s not Earth. In the middle of the film it’s revealed that the engineers were seeding many planets.
2. This cannot be the origin of life on Earth. It is what we are led to believe later on as we learn more about the Engineers, but science tells us that life began hundreds of millions of years ago, and the terrain we see in the opening sequence – mountains, rivers, snow, etc. – is consistent with the modern geological era. When life originated on Earth, the planet would look almost entirely different. Even if we just traced humanity back to primates, we would be in a different geological era.
It’s not Earth.
3. If it is not Earth, what is the point of this scene? The only way this sequence actually serves Prometheus in context is if it depicts the creation event characters discuss later on. But if it’s not Earth – and it cannot, by simple math, be Earth – then it serves no point in the narrative.
Yes, it does.
4. If we share a perfect DNA match with the Engineers, why does the sacrificial Engineer’s DNA have to reconstitute itself? We see the DNA break up and reform before starting cellular mitosis, but this is not scientifically possible or necessary since Elizabeth Shaw later discovers humans and Engineers share the exact same DNA strands, indicating simple sexual reproduction and environment-based evolution, not complex DNA reconstitution.
No one said anything about ‘strands’. It’s a DNA ‘match’, whatever that means in the context of an advanced future. Whatever the engineer drank is, for all intents and purposes, a magic potion. How are you going to tell us that potions don’t work that way?
5. There are no thrusters on the Engineers’ ship. When the Engineers’ spaceship leaves the mysterious planet, we see no propulsion system of any sort that would allow it to fly. Even in futuristic science fiction, the laws of physics should be obeyed.
It’s an ‘advanced civilization’ capable of travel to other stars so we can assume they have advanced technology that would seem like magic to us. Really, if that’s your complaint, you better stop watching SF altogether.
It is the exact same design as the ship in Alien, he will have a ball with that movie.
I made a thread before on how Alien doesn’t make a lot of sense re Weyland-Yutani wanting a trawler to bring back the xeno, I feel like we’re missing something. They put Ash on the ship, they knew something was up from the beginning.
WY has wasted billions and billions on obtaining a xeno secretly using untrained space truckers, instead of just sending a fucking team of former marines or synthetics or etc.
I don’t think Vickers was an android. I think her being human & David not (combined with Weyland’s clear preference for David over her) was the major source of her animosity towards him (and the mission in general).
Also, I don’t know if this has been mentioned before but if you look carefully at the close-up scene where David has a drop of the black goo on his fingertip (right before he says, “Big things have small beginnings”) you can see that a small Weyland company logo (the stylized ‘W’) is actually etched into his fingerprint!
And I wonder (HOPE!) if they can get James Cameron involved in the sequel. He was considering returning to the Alien franchise but lost interest in it when they went ahead with the AvP stuff. 
Ok. Only 95 more to go 
The movie never makes it clear if it is or isn’t Earth. The intro sure looked like Earth. I spent the movie thinking it was Earth. It’s not enough to have some vague statement in the middle of the movie. Even if they seeded other planets, that doesn’t mean the intro planet wasn’t Earth. If it’s not Earth, he should have made it clear by having some bizarre alien landscape so the viewers would not misinterpret what they were seeing.
man, that guy is hatin’ with so much energy. i thought i didn’t like all the problems, but his hate morphed into a hobby or something.
he does bring up something i haven’t express: the absolutely terrible character and acting of Holloway. i can’t complain about him enough.
psh. what’s to like?