Bits Feed (Page 8,304)

@DallasDallas [i]And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as we do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today.[/i] Others, too like early nature philosophists like Epikur or Demokrit who were looking for natural explanations of reality...later Giordano Bruno...Kant-Laplace-theory of course, for a non-god-influenced cosmology, other than Newton. [i]Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science.[/i] I think that particular forces of Christ can be explained. Healing, mind/ chakra reading or clearvoyance are possible for very high developed person, even today.. [i] [i]But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue.[/i] right, there is no way possible to step [i]behind[/i] proven methods. Lets name it, even the most materialistic thinking scientist will say, That we dont know, BUT THAT we can define. The dino tracks yeah, I think that religious creationists are doing serious harm to people. [i]Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. In the end my God is my God. What my opinion is of him is of little consequence to you or the world. Except in action I take. We could take a page for Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer on that![/i] Right, there is only one way, and that is a personal god and my actions to other people. Thats why christian social theory is important, Karma. There simply is no [i]private[/i] science or even arts.

Nice Bella! Kind of like Alice in Wonderland a bit. Don't eat me, I might make you big! : p

What makes anyone here believe that a humanoid jockey has any bearing on what the jockey actually might look like? There is the actual idea of [i]suit[/i], and also the type of [i]suit[/i] an intelligent life form might need in order to communicate effectively with humans. If you are talking about an evolved species, odds are that it has transgressed any one physical form (i.e. suit). Squid, humanoid, beastie, whatever. You aren't likely to know more about the actual physicality of the SJ after Prometheus... Unless I'm right. And by right, I mean I'm still sticking with my recursive evolution theory--The SJ are evolved from humans. We are the creators of our own destruction, over and over and over. Seems I'm alone in these thoughts, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me as something truly profound. Yeah, yeah, but we'll see--and likely, the answer will be ambiguous.

well it could be a warning, but unfortunatly humans arent that bright and most warnings dont work. i was helping do construction in a store years ago and there are signs on the fork lifts and other machines telling you what not to do on it. while i was there, 80% of the people were doing everything on and around the equipment that the damn pictures told us not to!!! they even had red X's over the images, how much clearer can they get!!!!???? JEEZ PEOPLE!!!!! if it is a warning ,the jockies could have left a big rosetta stone with all of our earth languages saying "DONT GO HERE, DONT DO THIS!" and people would have done it anyway lol. same way many humans are dumb enough to mess with poisonous and venomous animals when every other creature in nature knows to stay the hell away from them because of their colors and other warnings the animals have evolved to say "go away, dont touch/eat me!!"

Could be the backstory and Vicker's hidden agenda, but I doubt it. They're not on a terra-forming trip.

So, why would Shaw say they were so wrong? Wrong about what she thought was an invitation?

Why place a warning? To scare humans off just as they arrive?

you said genetic Play Doh, that is awesome! I for sure would stay clear of that Doh! Lol

Lifeboat with Vickers onboard, rather obvious if you look at the trailers.

[img]http://sleevage.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/deb_harry_kookoo_giger.jpg[/img]

He also did a cover for debbie harry i believe.

I don't mind. I'm looking at Prometheus as a separate movie. Connecting the dots is not that important for me. Prometheus is a 'hard' SF movie, a neglected genre. Ridley is directing. Strong cast. Even the CGI does not look like CGI. What more do you want?

I still stand by my idea. I love your ideas, except for the one about it being Weyland. Patrick just has this face that stands out and matches.

what is ELP and brain salad referring to? Giger made the cover for the LP: Brain Salad Surgery from Emerson, Lake and Palmer (ELP). Music from my time.

Does anyone else think they will repackage yet another anthology and include prometheus when it becomes scheduled for release ?. Its just dawned on me damn my immaculate blu ray ultimate alien collection box set will now become an in complete set .

I remember picking up a comic years (and years) ago that had the SJ's Alien in it. I can't really remember much about it, I didn't buy it just a quick flick through while I was in the shop. I do remember it was big and white and was now some-kind of guardian in-side the derelict. It killed other 'normal' aliens, saving the humans zzzzzz...... yeah that's why I didn't buy it

@Cryo is that a reference to "The girl with the drsgon tattoo" with Rooney Mara?

I'll watch Alien... maybe Aliens too. The others... well, I don't even know where they are at this point :P

Looks better than the jumping around they do in aliens

Weird. Ive never seen anything like this. When is it in the movie?! I honestly have never seen this scene at all and have no idea what's going on! *sarcasm*

I really don't understand what people are saying, I thought the 'water engine' was (and still is) a convincing effect. I can't think of any-other movie that has a 'blast' that wasn't a special FX ether animation or some kind of composite. Ridley's shot was all 'in-camera' I think I was in my teens before I figured out how he'd done it. There are a few things that do bug me 'a little' when I watch Alien and those are: A) The mirror at the back of the corridor when we first see Brett and Parker walking down it. (because you can see the refection of the actors in it.) B) The big washing baskets that are stuck to walls when Dallas is firing his flamer downwards in the vent and not only that... the fridge heat exchangers that make up the walls when he first enters. (I can forgive the set designer for using the metal backs of fridges to 'fire-line' the set but.... the plastic baskets are too easily recognised.) C) This one is not really any-ones fault because at the time it was 'recommended' treatment when some-one has a fit..... yeah you guessed it... forcing a spoon into Kane's mouth. It doesn't spoil the film just dates it (kinda like Ripley's underwear at the end, lol no one has wore them since the 80's) Maybe Ridley should do a Lucas and make some-one say "oh my ghawd he's a diabetic!" and CG a Mars bar over the spoon. D) This one I don't know why it bothers me and that is the 'three' explosions when the Nostromo goes bang, I could get away with two, int' shot, ext' shot.... but the 3rd..... I dunno.... like I say, dunno why it bothers me.

What if the big blue SJ is only a hologram-a way for Lindelof and Ripley to be misleading.As we saw with the TED stream,it is possible that those SJ characters don't exist!This may be a way to throw us fanbous off-plus think of the marketing!Two days before the release the studio says "We misled everyone!Come see the real deal.Unlikely,but kinda cool anyway. Also they might be trying to get ideas from us for a sequel.

I have no idea what you mean by "mystery". I didn't get a sense of "mystery" at all, it's just "Oh look, a dead thing in a chair." Adding a story to something is what makes it interesting. Also, why wouldn't a space jockey look that? They probably created mankind in THEIR image, just like androids look like us. It makes perfect sense.

Oh they're all really just "screams", arn't they

Does a clone count?

He's looking at his clubbed foot, OK. It's a monster

Maybe like the story of Pinocchio > #wantstobearealboy!

Ridley Scott just learned how to turn on his ipad, i doubt he is with us.

I wouldn't want us to be official, would you?

I think he is looking at his Weyland "W" on his fingerprint? Just sayin

@craigamore -"what I'm getting at is that there is NOTHING in the theory of evolution that proves God's non-existence" I never said or implied that Darwin's theories of natural selection and evolution were proof that there is no God. All I said was that Science and religion are not compatible... apples and oranges as they say. -"Science constantly recognizes an impossible level of detail in the natural world and especially in biology that makes it difficult to argue natural evolution as the sole source of life." That claim has never happened, at least not by real scientists (show proof of this if you have it); I'm pretty sure of this, and if something of the sort were to have been said, it was probably in poetic form. In fact, as time goes by our understanding of these processes gets better and rules out any "intelligent" designer. If you don't believe me check out the Dover Area school district law case: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District]Dover Area School Case[/url] -These claims of science yielding some way to religion are baseless, but somehow people seem to believe they are accepted norm... -Now, proving or disproving whether a God exists or not is a different story. Some philosophers use scientific findings as examples in their arguments against the existence of God, but this is done in philosophy, not science. Up until now, I don't believe anybody has been able to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Just keep in mind though that it is very difficult to disprove a negative... and how would you be able to define and describe a God to begin with (as Kane77 pointed out earlier)???

Alright, just watched it. I still don't think the end was that terrible...it's pretty damn hard to depict floating in space unless you actually 'are' floating in space. Bottom line, they can't turn off gravity to make the scene and unless you CGI it I don't see how it could be perfect....I hate CGI btw..unless it's done really well. I do have a question though, unless I'm missing something or maybe looking too hard into it. But at the end when the alien is in the smaller ship with her why is it just laying curled up in that spot? Was it hurt or something? I don't know...I just found it odd it just laid there and didn't really try to attack or anything.

I cannot wait--no spoilers.

As others have stated, probably not "official" but definitely the best. Only time I cruise other sites is when the server takes a dump. c'mon june!!!!!!!

"Its mathematical skill matched only by its virtuosic invention. All else is drivel." Lol!

I think that many of the names in the movie are from Lawrence of Arabia, not on a play of words.... He enlisted as "Shaw" Vickers was a type of machine gun he used A.C. Fifield was a publisher that T. E. lawrence worked with. also, one of the quotes "small beginnings" is from Lawrence of Arabia.

Good question DarthSpock

How did that TED storyboard make it out of the restricted area...?

@Grindolf.....Not if it affects the real world of physical logic the film is asking you to follow................the following if from another thread in which this point was argued...[url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/1901&page=3]Alien vs Aliens[/url] The moment a film allows its audience to break its suspension of disbelief it loses credibilty. This is even more dangerous in science fiction, where audiencies are being asked to take a leap to begin with. This is no minor oversight. It is so ridiculous as to cheapen the entire film.....as in any other action film when a stunt or explosion appears stupidly over the top or impossible, it gives the audience an excuse to break suspension of that disbelief and it [b]should[/b] lose self respecting movie goers at that point. For it to happen in an Alien film is pathetic, especially considering the first film takes the time and effort for its lead to put on a suit so that she won't die in the process of blowing the airlock. Movies don't have to follow accepted reality. They establish their own, but when the reality they establish requires an acceptance of the basic laws of physics, then it must adhere to the rules it establishes, both intentionally and unintentionally, or else it it loses its credibility. That's an immoveable foundation of sound writing. Writing establishes a story's rules in the course of it being written. The act of writing forces a writer to intentionally formalize the world in which he or she is telling their story. The process of writing also results in the rules being established unintentionally. Good writers are aware of both circumstances; they know when it is appropriate to bend them and that he or she should never break them. The Alien saga assumes in its story telling that its physical universe applies and is bound to the laws of physics as far as they are known to this point. No one can fly, no one can breath in space and no one has magical powers. It is accepted and understood that human beings are as fragile and susceptable in that universe as they are in our own. It also follows that the laws governing matter in it's various forms and their relation to the forces of the vacuum of space are accepted in that universe as in ours. Again, breaking that basic level of understanding about something as simple as the dangers of an open airlock in space is INSULTING and OFFENSIVE to intelligent viewership of the moviegoing public. No, "movies do not need to follow reality to be good," but only in as far as it applies to a movie such as 'Alice In Wonderland' where the point is to defy accepted physical reality rather than to operate within it as the Alien franchise asks us to do at a basic, substantive level.

I'd have to agree Dutch...clearly the best