Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)

Themes

Is anyone good at, and willing to write up, a themes section? I'm not particularly good at the analyzing side of combing resources to find significant information and I think once it has a Themes section it can quite easily go to Featured Article as a thoroughly complete article. OR just post useful info here with the source and I will try to write it up. I would think the underlying implication that we killed Jesus/an Engineer and thats why we are sentenced to death would be a large part of it, and a lot of David related things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Like Avatar, this film is also influenced by or draws from or is reminiscent of other works of literature and films. I think it would be useful to have a section that includes these, the way the entry on Avatar does. eg. links with Lovecraft's aesthetic and link with Ursula Le Guin's conceit of planets having been populated with humans in the distant past. If anyone has found a source that picks up on the similarities between Prometheus and Le Guin's Hainish cycle, this would be a good place to refer to it. I haven't found one so far. Totorotroll (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I worked on a little here User:Darkwarriorblake/Sandbox#Themes but I've never written a Themes section before so if anyone wants to take a look, edit, contribute before it is moved into the article, its there to have at it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

K, guys you're being slow so I'll post what I have here for you to take a look. It's in need of a good copy edit, I've just found what sources I could and drawn info from it, but I'm not sure where it stops being themes and starts being synthesis, so could use someone to look it over in that regard.

Project

A central theme is about the Titan Prometheus of Greek mythology who defies the gods and gifts humanity with fire, for which he is subjected to eternal punishment. The gods want to limit their creations in case they attempt to usurp god. The film deals with humanity's relationship with the gods-their creators-and the consequence of defying them. A human expedition intends to find god and receive knowledge: Shaw seeks to reinforce her religious beliefs; Holloway to debunk them; Weyland seeks immortality; and Vickers seeks his death. They meet superior beings who in contrast to humanity are god-like, and the Prometheus crew suffer consequences for their pursuit.

The film suggests that 2,000 years before the events of the film, the Engineers chose to punish humanity with destruction. Scott suggested that the an Engineer was sent to Earth to stop their increasing aggression, but was crucified, implying it is Jesus Christ. However, Scott felt that an explicit connection in the film would be "a little too on the nose".

In Spaihts's draft, Shaw is directly responsible for the events of the plot because she wants to seek out potentially dangerous knowledge. Shaw, and by association humanity, dares to seek out knowledge believing she is entitled to receive answers from God, and her questions either remain unanswered or she is punished for her hubris. The film offers similar resolution, providing items of information but leaving the connections and conclusions to the audience, potentially leaving the question unanswered.

David, the android, is like humans but does not want to be anything like them, eschewing a common theme in "robotic storytelling" such as Blade Runner. David is created in the image of humanity, and while the human crew of the Prometheus ship are searching for their creators expecting answers, David is among his creators and is underwhelmed. David in turn questions his creators about why they are seeking their own. Lindelof described the ship as a prison for David. At the conclusion of the film, David's creator (Weyland) is dead and his fundamental programming is ended without someone to serve. Lindelof explained that David's programming becomes unclear and that he could be being programmed by Shaw or his own sense of curiosity. David holds an attraction to Shaw, watching her dreams as she sleeps in the same manner that he repeatedly watches Lawrence of Arabia. Following Weyland's death, David is left with Shaw, and is sincere and interested in following her, partly out of survival and partly out of curiosity.

Another central theme is creation and the question of "Who Am I? Who Made Me? Why Hath Thou Forsaken Me?". Development of the in-universe mythology explored the Judeo-Christian creation of man, but Scott was interested in Grec-Roman and Aztec creation myths with several gods who create man in their own image by sacrificing a piece of themselves. This creation is shown in the film's opening in which an Engineer creates man, who then create artificial life (David) in their own image. David then introduces the black liquid to Holloway who impregnates a sterile Holloway, and the resulting child combines with an Engineer to create a new lifeform; the result of all three generations.

Shaw is the only religious believer on the crew and openly displays her religious belief by wearing a crucifix necklace. Lindelof said that with her scientific knowledge, her beliefs felt outdated in 2093. Shaw is excited when she learns that she was created by the Engineers and not a supernatural deity, but it does not cause her to lose her faith, it instills it. Lindelof said that asking questions and searching for meaning is the point of being alive, and so Shaw as the sole survivor is left to question if she was protected by God as the only true believer. Scott wanted the film to end with Shaw announcing that she is still searching for definitive answers.

The Atlantic's Govindini Murty noted further influences, and wrote that "[t]he striking images Ridley Scott devises for Prometheus reference everything from Stanley Kubrick's 2001 to Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man and Mario Bava's Planet of the Vampires. Scott also expands on the original Alien universe by creating a distinctly English mythology informed by Milton's Paradise Lost and the symbolic drawings of William Blake." Scott drew many influences from Paradise Lost including the Engineers which he compared to the poem's dark angels.

Bioweapon Assumption

It is assumed the black goo is a bio-weapon based on the word of one of the movie's human characters. From watching this movie and its implications this assumption is logically false. The canisters on the ship represent an engineer's graveyard much like Asians place their dead in urns. Based on the opening sequence I believe the black goo is another dead engineers's remains. The fact that I come to this conclusion indicates another idea for the black goo and the references to the bioweapon are therefore questionable. I believe all references to a bioweapon should be removed or attributed to the character who stated to it rather than as a statement of fact in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.0.55 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has always said it was a speculation. It says "The Prometheus's captain, Janek, speculates that the structure was an Engineer military installation that lost control of a virulent biological weapon, the dark liquid." There is no part that says it was true in this article. Shaw's assumption was just her assumption. "If you don't stop it, there won't be any home to go back to. It's carrying death intended for us." She assumed it will destroy earth. Her assumption might be incorrect, but the fact that she said it is true. The article states it that she said it, not that what she said was true. It's verifiable, so it goes in. Janek acted on this assumption, true or false, it didn't matter. He acted on it. That was factual, and the article states it as such.

That you believe the black goo is another engineer's remains proves nothing. People arrive at different conclusions. Who is to say which is better besides the creators of this movie? Maybe not even them, since they might want to say what it is differently later. An urn could contain anything from simple water, oil, biological weapon, or human remains. How can you tell which is correct? And how can you tell how they treat their dead? Also note that their DNA match humans, which means they're almost physiologically identical to us, and our remains don't kill people who eat them. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

He calls it a biological weapon here, not in those two words but describes it as "Other than that, there’s no real link except it explains, I think, who may have had these capabilities, which are dreadful weapons way beyond anything we could possibly conceive, bacteriological drums of shit that you can drop on a planet and the planet… Do you know anything about bacteria? If you take a teaspoon and drop it in the biggest reservoir in London, which also scares the shit out of me, and amazes me that there are not huge guards around it… That’s the way to do it. You don’t do 9/11, you just get a teaspoon of bacteria, drop it in, and eight days later the water is clean and then suddenly on the eighth day the water goes dense and cloudy, but by then it’s been sent to every home and several million people have drunk it, you’ve got bubonic. " Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

David the android called the part of the alien ship with black goo capsules a "cargo bay" when they went to wake up that sleeping beauty "engineer"[without at least kissing with a prince like in famous fairy tale]. Next movie may answer some questions, but it is clear that this goo is only half a weapon - it's obvious that it is the substance (soup) for "making a new lifeforms" - in the opening of the movie where "engineer" drinks it and it gives us a clue about the making of humankind on Earth, also the new forms from the little worms in the "giant head room" [the camera shows us this little worms with close-up frame for a 2-3 sec], this goo makes sterile women pregnant and even "engineer" of uncertain gender was pregnant from the creature which was born from that sterile woman, with making of completely newest lifeform in the end of the movie...by all means it's the juice for making new species (with little complications of the accidental death of the pregnant carrier). Maybe that's how this "engineers" ending their forever life in harmony with breeding at the same time, considering that this looks very parthenogenetic. Westsomething (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe their plumbing is backed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.6.110 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Principal Photography

I'm trying to improve the accuracy of the article with regard to Principle photography, but need some guidance on how to achieve this and keep everyone happy with the quality. Here is what I know:

Studio-based principle photography for Prometheus was shot entirely at Pinewood Studios in Iver. There were some minor pickups/reshoots on the stages at Shepperton scattered over a few different days towards the end of 2011 / beginning of 2012, but not principal photography. I'm the source for the info above, so not really useful for citing in a Wikipedia article.

Some info on naming confusion: There is no Pinewood Studios at Shepperton, it is called Shepperton Studios but is part of the Pinewood Studios Group The Pinewood Studios Group. Digijon (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That needs the citation of a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hellraiser influence?

I was musing the other day whether there had been any discussion in Reliable Sources about the Engineers' resemblance to the Cenobites (pale blue skin, black eyes...). Struck me as interesting.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to discuss this resemblance in theme section of this talk page. It is an interesting idea, provided that you are correct and have proof. But unless you can find a source that confirms this, it will be treated only as original research and speculation. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen anything written and did a brief google search which suggested some discussion on forums but nothing concrete. However, I haven't edited much in film-related articles so am not crash hot at finding and sourcing, hence I might have missed some obvious places to check....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

5th movie in franchise?

The statement "Development of the film began in the early 2000s as a fifth installment in the Alien franchise." may not be accurate as the Aliens universe shares itself with the Predator universe and a crossover between the species is the basis for two movies (Aliens vs Predator and Aliens vs Predator: Requiem). The fact that this movie involves neither franchise, but is still set within the same universe would invalidate the term 'Aliens universe'. Counting both Aliens and Predators movies as the same universe and thus the same franchise, that would make this the 10th movie in the shared mythology. Wait till James Cameron makes an Avatar prequel to tie in the giant smurf people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.75.54 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Aliens vs Predator is a spin off, and when it talks about it being a fifth installment, that was before AvsP even came out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Terminator and Blade Runner are also set in this universe. Also, this universe appears frequently in DC Comics with superheroes battling the Aliens, Predators, and Terminators. At one point in filming, Ridley Scott wanted to put the name "Batty" on the uniform of one of the men/replicants serving him on the Prometheus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What in the heck are you talking about? on any/all of that. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Do the research moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.162.21 (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please be civil and explain yourself. You're making the claims, so you need to do the research and provide the sources. Otherwise take a hike. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The only way I can see the claim he's making is that Dark Horse did an Aliens vs Predator vs Terminator comic, but that'd be like concluding that Spawn is set in the same universe as Archie because of Spawn meets Batman (a non-canon one-shot connecting Spawn with the DC universe), Marvel vs DC, and then Archie Meets the Punisher. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he may have been referring to the fact that the android manufacturers in The Terminator and Aliens are called Cyberdyne and Hyperdyne, but that's nothing more than a tenuous meta-reference, and it's hardly worth bringing up in an article.

As for the bit about the connection between Prometheus and Blade Runner – that's actually true. There's a featurette on the Prometheus Blu-ray called "Merging Ridleyverses" where they discuss how they considered tying the films together with a Roy Batty reference. The Blu-ray Steelbook also contains an Easter egg which strongly implies that Eldon Tyrell was the mentor of Peter Weyland – that one might be worth mentioning in the home media section. You can get the full story here. —Flax5 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Script rewrite fun

Okay, so my local paper has written about a lost script emerging - see here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Creature Image

I think the article would benefit from a combined image of the film's creatures to aid in understanding where description falls short, perhaps a 4-in-one single image would suffice and I think it would be fair for it to pass NFC. As far as I recall that'd be the tentacled creature (Probably only fully grown version), the Hammerpede, the Engineer and the Deacon. Of those I think the Tentacled creature, the Engineer and the Deacon are the most important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember that even if you combine 4 screenshots into a single image, it still counts as 4 pieces of non-free content. Each would individually have to pass NFCC for it to be acceptable. For example this is a pretty clear NFCC fail. I suggest a single representative image of either the adult trilobite thing or the deacon whatsit. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look while I'm trying to burn through all these links i have bookmarked for the article, might get lucky and find a single image with a few in it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"improving the article" per WP policy: re science as presented in the film

Some articles reviewing the movie have compared and contrasted the science as presented and objective science. In the film the atmosphere is referred to as consisting of 70% nitrogen, 23% oxygen and 3% carbon dioxide with a little argon as a planet breathing mixture that will "kill in two minutes" per a character!!!! Is this balderdash? Should they be referring to 3% carbon monoxide? Should similar dodgy science gaffes make up a distinct section in the article? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No. It isn't a scientific documentary and isn't held to the standards of reality. Are we going to dissect how that holocube thing works? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

[1] [2] --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

These are pointing out or criticizing plot holes, perceived or otherwise. It wasn't advertised as the most realistic take on science exploration ever, that's why it is called science fiction and not science fact. So no, a section on how the science isn't realistic would not be appropriate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between using speculative fiction to guess at where science might lead in the future or telling a story using risible gaffes and glib fundamental science errors in the script and attempting a scientific documentary. Do the opinions that it " isn't held to the standards of reality" or that WP articles content should be entirely dictated by the marketing of the subject constitute WP:OR ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Darkwarriorblake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FILMSCI#Historical and scientific accuracies....Does WP agree with Darkwarriorblake.?... --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Try reading what you linked. "and filmmakers sometimes use history or science as the basis of their films." It isn't Chain Reaction using Cold Fusion, it isn't Apollo 13, it isn't using realistic science as a basis, it is not in any way the crux of the film. You might as well be trying to explain Terminator time-travel or a lightsaber. Pointing out that these things are not realistic is not a suitable thought process. The bee in your bonnet seems to be that the air on a fake planet inhabited by things that don't exist is different to the air you would expect it to have despite it not existing and you having no knowledge of what it's air should be like. You are asking to explain why a science fiction film not founded on any existing scientific achievement is not strictly accurate when it isn't pretending to be such, in the opening you have a lifelike humanoid robot, a holographic cube, a ship light years ahead of anything in existence and still not stated in the film to be an extension of any existing science. The page you link to in that Forbes article isn't even discussing science, its bitching that it is unrealistic to send a team who don't know each other and the expert answer says "no thats normal". Or complaining that the ship is apparently moving faster than the speed of light and should explode, even though the mere act of moving faster than the speed of light is impossible, so to say that the magic faster than light ship should explode is...guh. It's not a critical analysis, it is whining about plot holes and script errors.

So it comes back to it being about pointing out plot holes in a film, and it is neither notable nor an acceptable purpose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Try to remain civil. The problem is not the moon atmosphere itself but the script definition of what gas mix is toxic to humans and the technology depicted. Scientific gaffes' 'of which the many experts in the two articles list several dozen, detract from the film's overall artistic impact. Forbes magazine thought it a useful exercise to examine these faults using experts in half a dozen science fields (including the soft science psychology plucked out above)- we might do well to recall the reference to )experts in the WP policy section we are referencing. "bitching" and "bees in bonnets" aside any junior high school science student could confirm most of these gaffes. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe at all that any Junior High School student would pick up that mistake/gaffe/genuine science for a fictional universe in what is a brush off excuse for the temples breathable atmosphere in an inhospitable environment. It's still asking to debunk fake science that doesn't exist. Where would you be planning to put "In the film it is mentioned that the external atmospehre of the alien world is a mixture of whatever that is toxic to humans. In reality it is whatever that makes it toxic". "The ship moves faster than light, in reality you can't move faster than light", "the snake regrows its head, in reality it would have probably died", "david is an incredible android, in reality the high fructose syrup fusion reactor used to power him is unlikely to be invented and he would be forced to carry around a massive array of solar panels to function or a big bag of batteries". It is not a critical analysis of science, its calling out the film for not being scientifically accurate when its based on no real sciences. It's a universe filled with armored insect-like monsters with highly acidic blood. Anyway, I'm not getting involved in another lengthy argument, will wait for a different user to give their input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents, admitting I haven't read all of the above: Criticisms of relevant plot aspects, reliably sourced, can be incorporated into the Reception section. But care must be taken to avoid undue weight: If there are only 1 or 2 sources nitpicking at fine details rather than reflecting legitimate criticisms shared by other sources, then this is not something worth covering in an encyclopedic treatment of the film. Nitpicky criticisms about the atmosphere of the fictitious planet, even when published by a source like Forbes, aren't very relevant in comparison to the larger criticisms of the film's writing and plot as reflected by a good deal of critical sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the two articles before wading in. A geologist, archaeologist, biologist, physicist, astronomer Mike_Brotherton, and psychologist, all eminent, rubbish several central premises of the film. The atmosphere gaffe is not mentioned in Forbes......--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read them too. The forbes one is criticizing or agreeing with the staff procedures taken in the film. Basically that they didn't spend the film sat inside their ship and just send hte probes and the android into the structure was the wrong thing to do. Or they discuss science they cannot debate like the exploding alien head, when its a fictional creature. The only scientific thing i can find is about the ship moving faster than light and should therefore be invisible, ignoring the fact its a film and the audience need to not be staring at a blank piece of space, ignoring that its arriving at its destination and therefore slowing down, and ignoring that there is no implication in the film that it is travelling faster than the speed of light. But even if it is, its nitpicking over a film being a film. The Mike Botherton source, I'm not sure why the particular individual is notable and glancing at it, its a critique of pretty much the entire film regardless of context. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the most damning aspect of the film's science base, as elucidated by these two articles is that it is sloppy about BOTH current science and the application of consistent scientific method as imagined in the future. Mike Botherton is a tenured Professor of Astronomy and of Astrophysics and a successful author of hard science science fiction. But what would he know! --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Forbes article mentions nothing about existing science used in the film in any realistic way as I have said. ALl I can see is the FTL thing I've stated and criticism of the crew not following safety procedures which is like criticizing John McClane for not obeying orders and leaving the terrorists to the cops outside. It's a film, if they obey safety procedures its a boring film. If they obey safety procedures Alien doesn't happen because Ripley locks them all outside the ship and Ash doesn't override her. So that leaves the Brotherton article, where he criticizes how the magical black goo he knows nothing about defies his understanding of DNA and brings about the events of the science fiction film that ends in the combined result of a mutated sperm/self sugery/giant tentacled monster raping god-lite, producing a big, black monster with a separating skull. The plot wasn't solid, this is covered in the article, unless FTL was a major part of the film, if it was at all, I fail to see what enlightenment it brings to say it should have taken them n years to get there instead of 2.5. I'll defer to Illazilla, if sources can be found that actually and realistically debate the non existent science of the film, a sentence could be added to the critical reception saying that the science was criticized for lacking realism, but it would not be itemised like that carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope that my fellow editors have discovered the first two pages of the Forbes article -it appears that this may not be so--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* I've read the entire thing, it doesn't back up anything you are arguing for so try not to be passive aggressive in suggesting we are in the wrong and unable to read. Like I've stated (and I always seem to attract the editors where I have to repeat myself multiple times) the first two pages you are highlighting specifically discuss aliens that cannot be discussed by any science we understand because they don't exist, and evidence collection procedures which are not scientific failings. Also I don't believe the discussion was over, nor do I think that adding "Forbes wrote a long light-hearted article despairing at scientific failings of the film" with no source is either an acceptable outcome to the ongoing discussion nor anywhere approaching encyclopedic, informative or neutral. I suggest you remove it and save me the trouble. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It is remarkable that the scientific illiteracy demonstrated by the film makers is being mirrored here. When 6 eminent scientists deconstruct dozens of elemental howlers of the movie in easily understood language in a prestigious international publication it behoves WP to at least mention it per policy. Perhaps film fan enthusiasm gets in the way. With this in mind here is a comic filmic parody making a few of the same points, comprehensible to all [3] --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a clever parody of the film script from a science perspective . http://digitaldigging.net/blog/prometheus-an-archaeological-perspective/ It goes on to point out some of the same and new science and procedural lacunae . It may serve to illuminate the darkness where I have failed. Here is an article from "The Economist" slating the movie largely for dodgy science.http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/ridley-scotts-prometheus How many more prestigious articles might prevent instant reverts? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Go request a 3rd opinion because I'm not explaining for a 4th time how film characters not obeying procedure and remaining on the ship doing real science for the entire film is not how films work and not something that requires mentioning. Judging from the clearly not neutral edit you made to the article in this regard, I think it would benefit you to consider not accusing others of rejecting this information because they are film fans of an article where the film's flaws are clearly defined when your personal agenda is not immediately incorporated. Nor is it appropriate to accuse others of ignorance when it has to be explained multiple times that pointing out plot holes is not encyclopedic nor is it some grand discovery you have made, as many of the reviews mentioned illogical actions by characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to continue to revert any and all mention of articles in The Economist and Forbes and elsewhere which feature the science failings centrally? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything, another user did for the same reasons I would have however. The source doesn't matter if it isn't saying anything useful. I've debunked your forbes article half a dozen times as not saying anything of encylopedic value or anything criticizing the events of the film that can be applied against real world science. Amazing you can pick up the inaccuracy of atmospheric percentages but not that fact. Nothing you're adding is enhancing your point, merely prolonging this agony. Go request a 3rd opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"remaining on the ship doing real science for the entire film is not how film's work" Can anyone explain from grammar or content what this phrase means or refers to? I wonder whether the vaguely creationist slant of the movie has attracted an anti-science editor coterie? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of wasting time accusing me of trying to protect this science fiction film with no grounding in reality and my new alien space gods from being disproved by your big bad science, do what I said and go request a third opinion from a user who will no doubt tell me off for my legendary sarcasm before hopefully calling you out for your completely bias stance and lack of logic/comprehension skills. I mean you thought I reverted you, that is how much attention you are apparently paying to this. It's no wonder I have to explain myself multiple times. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Darkwarrior: Third opinion is for when there are only two editors so not cogent here. I will consider RfC however if all interested editors cannot resolve this. Also when I wish to address a comment to you specifically I will do so as here.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is poor scientific awareness in movie Prometheus screenplay relevant?

Is the poor scientific method practice and knowledge in this movie as criticized at length in The Economist and Forbes magazine articles and elsewhere worthy of inclusion in the article section on the critical reception of the movie? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor comment: Barely worth a mention, The Economist is one review, the Forbes article seems more like a blog/cracked.com post. We really need some more sources about it first. --Otterathome (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  roughly how many more sources would you reckon need to be listed apart from these two international prestigious publications incorporating the views of 6 top scientists before this critique can get any mention space at all? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, per my comments above re: undue weight. While the Economist and Forbes articles are interesting reads, the overwhelming focus of negative critical opinion regarding Prometheus has had to do with the story—not answering its own "big questions", the evident lack of creative decision on whether to make it an Alien prequel or not, the unresolved and predictable plot elements, etc.—not "scientific gaffes", "poor scientific method practice", etc. Criticisms of the "science gaffes" are few and far between, as one would expect for a work of science fiction. If one digs around the internet there are numerous articles complaining about the scientific inaccuracies of every sci-fi work from The Time Machine to Star Wars, but these are not representative of the works' critical reception as a whole. Recall that the central aspect of this film is mysterious black space goop that causes aliens to disintegrate, mutates humans into spider-monsters, and causes an infertile woman to give birth to a face-sucking squid. Whether the atmosphere inside the fictitious alien temple would technically be breathable or not isn't an analysis that bears mentioning in an encyclopedic treatment of a work of fiction such as this. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  There are several issues here. The capacity to tell a credible story depends partly on the audience acceptance of one's competence to do so. This point is inherent though not explicit in both articles and the several parodies mentioned. If the script contains ludicrous failings in knowledge about human physiology (atmosphere info- my example or post op gymnastics) and huge errors about all six academic disciplines represented by the scientists aboard then that diminishing occurs.

  doggedly and repeatedly listing the exoitc aspects of the phenomena encountered is again skirting the issue of the dodgy reaction of the crew studying it -such gay hollywood abandonment of scientific method is wince territory and is, as the only big publication reviewers whom i am aware of qualified to do so have so thoroughly pointed out, a central weakness of the film. The painstaking adulating volume of detail in other sections of this article describing the film combined with this adamant reverting of even a ten word mention of these important critiques push the article towards fanzine rather than the top WP status craved by its minders. Maybe this is a central flaw of WP --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can't just keep requesting comment until someone comes along who agrees with your position. Several editors have said that it is in appropriate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• No I haven't seen the movie, and do not intend to, but it seems to me that there is a confusion of issues here. The movie as such, which is what the article is about, is not sufficiently significant to support a thesis of this nature. No one in his right mind whose concern is cinematic standards of science and cogency is likely to go haring off to consult an article on Prometheus as an appropriate source. Rather locate an article specifically dealing with such a topic, or even write one if you happen to think it is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, and insert a link to this film if you think that it is a sufficiently significant example. (It has some hair-raising competition for prominence in these respects I must warn you!) But in any case, I really do not see that this particular article can justify including such a topic. JonRichfield (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• No... Gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor issues. I would say something different if there was a significant claim that Prometheus was scientifically accurate (if this were the case, then a refutation of that statement would be appropriate)... but since no one claims that the film makers tried (or even cared about) scientific accuracy... so there is no reason to go into it. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• No, per IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)