Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)

Over-sourcing

Do we need 3-5 different references for sentences and sentence fragments? No wonder it took five minutes for the main article to load. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's loading slow for you, either WIkipedia is slow (Which happens for me with several films) or you need to buy a computer made this side of the 20th century. There are plenty of articles that have more sources, The Dark Knight (film) for one, which loads perfectly fine for me when The Avengers (2012 film) and Fast Five load slow. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who loads slow at times. (My laptop is going on two years, btw.) And just because twenty other articles have 3-5 refs per sentence doesn't make it right. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have tried, and am continuing, to cut down the few instances where there are 4 refs in a row where basically before I started editing it people had added early refs that contained loose information and then others have been added as more information has been made available. The nature of this film sadly means there are few sources which cover a great deal of info about the film but rather a single item. I'm also trying to chop some of the less reputable sources that were here from the start as well. That said, I do not think there is any particular excessive referencing on this article more than I have seen elsewhere, and I do not mean that others doing it makes it OK, I mean others doing it is what I expect for lengthier articles and certainly articles with this much detail available. The better sourced it is, the less hassle there will be post release when people tend to think it is most hilarious to add stupid information. And Wikipedia is just slow sometimes, I am and have been pretty much the main contributor to Fast Five and to this day, any attempts to load older versions of the article or update it are sloooooooooooooooooooooooooow. I'd blame it on popularity since I'm experiencing the same thing with The Avengers but Fast Five is nowhere near as popular anymore as that film is. So I don't particularly understand it, but I don't think it is the referencing since, as I said before, TDK has more sources than The Avengers and loads fine and this article loads fine for me as well. But I AM checking refs now to try and cut the chaff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My struggle at the minute is I have a lot of good journal refs, but I prefer web ones so anyone can check them rather than who has the May 2012 copy of Empire. Yet the journals contain the better info so cutting refs generally means I have to cut a web one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Buy a new laptop, I have no problem on my tablet and it's not powerful at all, seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're seeing long load-times on pages, you might check if you have some add-ons in your Wikipedia account. Editing tools that you've forgotten you had (?) might be the culprit. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is way too big

112,440 bytes even as it was not even released, maybe you should go and rather make a whole wikia about it or something. (Wikipedia:Article size) --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What rubbish. There is absolutely no rule anywhere saying an article can't be of significant length just because the film it's about isn't released yet. Detailed sections on the writing, development, casting, filming, marketing, etc. of the film (all things that occur before the film is released) are expected of any decent article. Darkwarriorblake has been doing a commendable job making this a detailed article with numerous citations to reliable sources. Of course once the film comes out additional sections on its plot, reception, and impact will be added and fleshed out, but in no way whatsoever does that invalidate the current content, which is good to excellent. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution and is likely to continue growing. Other editors will add to articles when you are done with them. This is not a technical problem, because, for most practical purposes, Wikipedia has unlimited storage space; however, long articles may be more difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend.

An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway. Readers of the Mobile Web version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation.

A page of about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50k and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb". Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%.

Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. Most articles do not need to be excessively long; however, there are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion.

Measuring "readable prose" size

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding material such as: footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.); diagrams and images; tables and lists; Wikilinks and external URLs; and formatting and mark-up.

The following script is helpful for estimating readable prose size: User:Dr_pda/prosesize.

You're welcome. And why I wrote "not even released" - because this so overdtailed article does not even contain plot and reception sections, but it's already breaking the average concentration span limit (that's not even counting references etc, just the content). --Niemti (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also rather silly for Prometheus (film) to be so much larger (even prior to the film's release - how long will it be if growing at this rate, over 200,000 bytes?) than Prometheus (only 32,176 bytes in total and badly written). --Niemti (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Blockbuster films have lots of information, someone call the press they need to get on this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

According to those guidelines about here we should have been considering splitting it? What a load of nonsense. The Avengers (2012 film) is 150kb and it has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times and has apparently not been an impediment to anyone. And the woman from The Daily Mail who keeps copy pasting this article as actual news seems to read it fine enough. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That made me laugh - do you mean Kirsty McCormack? Because she ripped off the Wikipedia page The Railway Man (film) for this article: [1] (as well as making assumptions and getting stuff wrong based on what she'd read on the Wiki page ...) 81.156.175.211 (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember the name though that sounds familiar, but she had copy pasted lines that I wrote here straight into her article. I mean you are allowed to do that, but you know, her sole job which I presume she is being paid for is to research and write articles, not copy paste Wikipedia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I tagged the other film too. You can discuss your views about this editing guideline at Wikipedia talk:Article size. --Niemti (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The script from the excerpt you posted above says the readable text is only 37kb and 6000 words. It is not 150kb, do not continue to tag the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The article loads quickly, is split into appropriate sections for ease of reference and is very well written. If the reader wishes to know about the film's musical score, for example, they can simply read that section. If they wish to absorb everything there is to know about the film as they await its release they can read to their heart's content, without having to trawl the Internet. I don't see what the problem is here. It certainly isn't overdetailed, whatever that's supposed to mean (See Encyclopedia). Conversely, there are articles such as British people which takes a long time to download, contains a myriad of wikilinks and (dare I say needlessly) digresses into such diverse topics as cuisine and religion, which would be more appropriate to split into separate articles. nagualdesign (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Off topic but thanks for the comment about the layout and writing, I've put a lot of effort into it and it's nice to hear positive feedback. :D Edit of course it's a collaborative effort and a lot of people have helped protect it from vandalism and make lots of positive contributions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"It certainly isn't overdetailed, whatever that's supposed to mean (See Encyclopedia)." Encyclopedia entries used to be extremely short and I'll just cite Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles about fictional works: "It is of course possible to write in great detail on fiction in a way that is factually accurate, espouses the neutral point of view and is not original research, but historically, encyclopedias do this only in the context of representing critical points of view (e.g. when engaged in literary criticism)." For overly detailed articles there is Template:Overly detailed. This article is much, much (several times, already) longer than Prometheus - tell me, which subject is more important, and was longer around, and had more influence on culture (and the world history, like helping to create extremely popular political ideologies), and so on? --Niemti (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the age of the story have to do with anything? I've already told you, the script you posted says the article prose is perfectly fine in length and file size. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What it does (and it's not just thae age): this "blockbuster film" is a very trivial subject as compared to its namesake, and I don't see any reason for whole big paragraphs about such trivial detail like the design of "the space suits worn by the ship's crew". It's not a book on making of the film, or a fansite. It's just an encylopedia entry. I'm sure Xenopedia can have an article about the space suits and everything else like that, but I don't believe it's essential for Wikipedia. Quite to the contrary. This is the stuff that belongs to fandom websites and the making-of featurettes in the home media releases. (Even as I admit it's pretty neat.) --Niemti (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you never edited a film article before? Just because they can look like this doesn't mean they should. Some people are actually interested in what goes into the background of a film and what contributes to what we see on screen, especially one that will be as popular as this one. It's marketing material alone gets a huge reception. Detail != fansite anymore than Lack of Detail = important article that noone cares about. Calling this a fan article is completely offensive to the efforts of the people involved and entirely untrue, there is no focus on in-universe information or rumors that meet some kind of pre-conceived fan notions, but an attempt to present an overview of how this film came to be what it is. I find it fascinating and I assume others must do since noone has been removing information in large chunks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point out the design of these fictional space suits are discussed in more detail than the ones used during Apollo 11. You know, the manned Moon landing mission - "one giant leap for mankind" and all that. Also, this article is also only 69,782 bytes long. --Niemti (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

K, this has gone beyond reasonable now. You'll have to point me to WP: Discussions about fictional space suits should not exceed that of Apollo 11. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"WP: Discussions about fictional space suits should not exceed that of Apollo 11" does not exist. Anyway, the development section for this film is already several longer than the "Framework" section for Apollo 11, one of the most important space race achievements and one of the most important events in human history overall. Apollo 11 has also only 66 references. Do you really think such a discrepancy is making Wikipedia serious? --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, Niemti, details on the making of the film are exactly what Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on. Having been involved with getting several Alien film articles up to GA or FA, I can assure you things like the design of the sets and costumes are exactly the kind of content we want. If a reader isn't interested in those things, they can skip over them. That's why the article is divided into sections with descriptive headers, to organize the info and help readers find what they might be looking for/interested in specifically. Just because some readers don't care about how the film was made doesn't mean we should exclude that information, or shuttle it off to a separate article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles about fictional works again: "It is of course possible to write in great detail on fiction in a way that is factually accurate, espouses the neutral point of view and is not original research, but historically, encyclopedias do this only in the context of representing critical points of view (e.g. when engaged in literary criticism)." So it's critical reception that is actually essential. And this article will will probably double in size at this rate - there will be plot and reception, not to even mention the continued development detail trivia. Like this spacesuit design stuff, which I'm sure is neat (no sarcasm), but would better belong elsewhere, like in a book, a wikia, a fansite, a blog, an official making-of featurette for the fans from the producers, and so on. --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not discussing fiction, it is discussing practical elements of a practical process that will generate a fictional media item that is only one part of this article. It is not discussing the suits in the scope of the film, it is discussing them in the scope of the film design process. And again, the creation of the Universe is one of the most important achievements EVER, it's THE most important achievement ever. Should all articles be less in size than that article because it is deemed more important than all? Please just stop now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood you well, but you seem to be confusing real world with fiction. Or maybe you thought I was talking about Apollo 11 the film, but I was talking about the real event. Anyway, "the creation of the Universe" is actually discussed at the article creation myth (and its sub-articles). --Niemti (talk)

I mean are you under the impression that it is discussing the suits worn by the characters in the fictional universe or what? Like they are real space suits? This is not under the scope of Fancruft at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just the importance of going into such a detail. Maybe something like Universe of Alien (or whatever title) would be a better place for discussing the technology and design in the series. --Niemti (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, with respect, I think you are misapplying the guidelines about fiction: If you read over guidelines/essays like Wikipedia:Fancruft and WP:WAF you should find that they talk about the level of detail of the fiction itself, not of the real-world aspects of the works. In other words, the article should obviously not have an extensively lengthy plot summary or go into in-depth backgrounds of each character's fictional backstory, or go on extensively about the fictional history of the Weyland corporation. However, the article should go into detail on the writing, production, etc. of the film itself, including things like actors, sets, special effects, and costumes. In other words, these guidelines do not say "do not go into great detail about works of fiction", they say "do not go into great detail about the fiction itself". I believe that, in quoting these guidelines, you are failing to distinguish between discussion of the work and discussion of the fiction. Between us, Darkwarriorblake and myself have about 12 years' experience working on Wikipedia film articles, including contributing to a number of Good and Featured articles. Not to sound domineering, but I'd like to ask you to just trust us when we say the length and level of detail in this article is acceptable and within guidelines. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along with IllaZilla and Darkwarriorblake's observations that discussion of the real-world production of a fictional product is not the same as overwriting about the actual fictional plot and fictional universe. I'd also agree with Niemti that the article is very long and that with science fiction, especially, it is always wise to keep an eye out for fancruft.

After giving it a quick going over, I'd like to suggest something that addresses both sides' issues: Part of the reason for the article's length is simply lengthy writing. I think with a little effort, wordy phrases can be trimmed and sentences shortened to reduce the size of the article without removing pertinent content. (Also, I'd be surprised if every single bit of content here does need to be here, but that's something that can be addressed afterward. One step at a time.)

Does this sound like a first step that both sides can work on for now? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I copy edit all the time and would get one of the GoCE to do it after release for a move to GA, but I don't think CE is going to make any particular dent except for the last paragraph of Development, which is basically people adding source after source to confirm its ties to Alien, but which doesn't really have anything to do with Development. Also at the minute, the level of prose falls within the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Article size, there are about 6000 words and about 37kb of info, I don't find it particularly oversized in either manner though, more so than what our modern articles seem to be becoming as standard. At least articles with people interested in them enough to seek out that necessary info. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

@Niemti If you ask me this discussion is way too big. However, to clarify my earlier point about the article not being 'overdetailed'; (from Encyclopedia) ..the phrase literally translates as "complete instruction" or "complete knowledge". Also, arguing that any other article which you deem to be more 'important' than this one ought to set limits on the length of this article is absurd. Many people would consider the Greek myth, itself a work of fiction, to be equally 'trivial'. If a reader wishes to read about new films, Greek myths, Apollo space suits or any other subject, real or fictional, they should be able to do so. Good articles are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you should spend more time working on your own contributions rather than attempting to disparage the good work done by other editors. You have made your point and it seems that you are alone in your opinion, so perhaps you should just leave it there. I don't wish to sound rude by saying this so please don't aim any vitriol back at me. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And I would add that a big endorsement is that it has been viewed over 430,000 times in the last 13 days, and there haven't been any complaints or even any edits really to fix things. Only really myself, Illa and Kronaang who edit it frequently, so people obviously don't have a problem with what they are seeing. Original research I know. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And very good work you and others have been doing. The WP:TONE in particular is excellent — this article in many ways could serve as a model for other such special-effects epics.

As I've learned (the hard way!) as a journalist and editor, one can still trim even tight writing, like here, in a way that doesn't affect content. I've just done so, I believe, with the lead; hopefully my edits, too, can serve as a model. For example, "The film officially began production..."? If it began production, you can bet it didn't do so unofficially. "It was shot entirely in 3D and required no post-production conversion"? Well, if it was shot in 3D, then of course it wouldn't need post-production conversion; we can just say, "It was shot entirely in 3D." And like that. I did remove one sentence, though, about Ridley Scott saying that if the film were successful he'd consider making a sequel. That's what we in the biz call "Dog bites man." It's not really notable or unusual that a director would consider making a sequel if his film were a hit.

So we've brought four paragraphs down from 467 to 375 words — nearly a hundred words shorter, and except possibly for the aforementioned sentence, it reads virtually the same in terms of content. I hope my colleagues consider these edits useful. -_Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely they're useful edits, and your comments here even moreso, I hope others will take it on-board as concise writing is something I find people of all stripes struggle with. It is particularly frustrating in my workplace when someone fails to email their main message up-front in clear and simple language and instead sends me a verbose 'story' or 'report'. -Oosh (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

nagualdesign: and on Wikipedia "overdetailed" means:

{{overdetailed}} (a tag)

Because Wikipedia is not about "complete knowledge". Seriously, it's not.

And I spend "a lot of work on my own contributions", thank you. But at The Dictator (2012 film), for example (a "blockbuster film" also in development), we just don't go into any minor detail. Or minor detail at all (maybe except the Hollywood incident, but not mentioning how Cohen was then jumped on by the real-world security and led away), in this case, which might be untrue in some others, like Max Payne 3 is pretty detailed (some stuff is also at Max Payne (character)), but I don't think it's OVERdetailed, or very long. And so on.

DWB: it might be 'only' "6000 words and about 37kb of info" right now, but this film is not even released. After plot, reception, also maybe controversy etc., and of course continued adding of development detail like that, it's going to be H-U-G-E. Maybe you guys would better make a fan site or write a book, or something. Again, no sarcasm. --Niemti (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

First: We don't preemptively do anything, we can't get articles locked because things might happen. Second: People read what they want to read, noone is forcing them to read the entire document, that's why we have section headers and subsection headers. Third: It is not too long, it really is not. Far and away it is not, there are tonnes of Good and Featured articles that exceed this in length and none have complaints about length, in fact in the 6 odd years I've been here you are the first and only person I've seen to complain about article length and the first to do so because you're not happy it's longer than Apollo 11. Fourth: I'm ignoring everything you say because I've asked you to stop referring to to this as a fan work and you continue to ignore that. Detail does not equal fan, there are tonnes of articles that go into detail and your opinion of what constitutes a minor detail is basically anything more than a film name, unless it is an article about a real event. Some people are actually interested in the detail behind the making of a film, that you are not is not of consequence since we aren't catering specifically and only to you. You've made quite clear above you won't be satisfied. You complained about the length, I provided you with evidence that it is not too long. Then you complained that it might be too long in the future. Then you complained it was longer than the article on the myth of Prometheus and Apollo 11. You have an agenda, and you clearly won't be happy until it is fulfilled. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all of good faith here, and no one has an agenda; there are simply some disagreements. My two cents: If it's 37K, this is below the 50K Wikipedia recommends as the threshold for considering splitting. And honestly, in my experience, the Release and Reception sections for most movies are not very big — most of the work of a movie is preproduction, casting, development and the like. We can probably trim a couple of K from it just by tightening some of the prose, and we should. But speaking for myself, I go along with the consensus of virtually all the editors here that the article is not overlong. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you're trimming it after all (already down 4 kb since yesterday) and it's good for me. Carry on. --Niemti (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We're all in it together, collaboratively. You and I got off on a bad foot with The Dictator, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from and that we all have the same goal of making this altruistic, free encyclopedia as good as we can. I'm sure we'll continue to work constructively and I look forward to seeing your work. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So we've moved back from offensively calling it fan wikia material to file size being the problem again? I need to clarify that the copy edits are being done to improve the language, not to satisfy your unrealistic length demands, because it doesn't exceed the guidelines or come close to them, so I don't need your approval to "carry on". I was working on making it a great article before you stopped by to make unfounded complaints and I'll be working on that after you find someone else's hard work to belittle. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is waay too big, and you just have undone all my efforts to reduce its redundant information over and over again. The intro above all. The premise description in the introduction is actually as long as the one in the premise section. Also, I see lots of technical information regarding the process of filming, which I believe is actually unnecesary to understand the most important and basic aspects of this film. Damon Lindelof's contribution to the film also has been maximalized to ridicule lengths. His own article page is not even as long as the Prometheus article information regarding his writing process for the film. And his photo in this film article is just the same found on his own biographical article (totally unnecesary for understanding the contents on this page). I thought this article was for everyone to read and/or edit, not just writers and filmakers. I sense lots of fan pageism and pet articleism here...Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• When the film is released, that plot synopsis in the lede will give an overview and WON'T be the same length. It being the same length is a completely silly argument, the lede is to give an overview of the article content such that a reader can read just that and have a decent understanding. That lede summary covers it and has been written in such a way that it can last even after the film is released and a longer plot is in place. EDIT It's also an outright lie that it is as long as the one in the premise section.
• That Lindelof's article doesn't cover as much as this is also a stupid argument. That article is about Lindelof, it can cover as much as it wants but someone obviously hasn't been inclined to do so. This article is about the film, and it covers the contribution and thought process in creating the film.
• You can use the same image more than once, I told you go to look at the Alien (film) article and the use of image in decoration and information. It is a Good Article, it was not barred from being a Good Article because the image of H R Giger is the same there, and in his own article. If you want to start being bitchy about images, that image of the ship is WP:NFC, it offers no critical commentary and is just there. Per WP:NFC, it should be removed.
• I find it humorous that you try to make the article shorter by cutting the lede (which was already copy edited by the very well trained Tenebrae), but you then added a load of unnecessary info about the girl playing a young Shaw to compensate.
• Putting an end to this ridiculous length argument, please see American Beauty (film) and Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), both Featured Articles, both double the size of this one.
• Finally, the article isn't just for those who want a brief overview. Some people enjoy the more technical aspects of filmmaking and expect a thorough overview of the making of the film, not just the barest of bones. That is how it is for everyone to read.Darkwarriorblake (talk)

I do not think this article is too big. Some sections may have to be a little trimmed when more info becomes avalible after the release, but not for now. This is exactly what a film article should look like! It is really great to see that the article is already this good before the release, when the peek in views will probably occure! Many thanks to Darkwarriorblake for all the great work (s)he has put into this article! The User 567 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much 567. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture of the ship, I can see why it's there. The smugshot of the writer (the same as in his article) adds absolutely nothing to the article, besides making it more bloated and longer to download. --Niemti (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cry me a river. Then nip on over to Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), American Beauty (film), or Alien (film) and lament, for they must take you days to view in their entirety with so many images to download on your 14kbps dial up modem. If you can't wade through my sarcasm, I'll break it down. You complained about the size, then you complained about the amount of prose, now you're complaining because you can understand why the WP:NFC failing image is there but not the one you don't like. It is not some vast increase to the size of the article nor is the article bloated. You're basically picking any avenue you can to attack the very normal file size of this article because your initial argument didn't end with it looking like this. Take your smugshot and process that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"The picture of the ship, I can see why it's there. The smugshot of the writer (the same as in his article) adds absolutely nothing to the article, besides making it more bloated and longer to download...". Most rational comments I have seen so far!!! This article seems like a Damon Lindenof fan page, not an article about the movie "Prometheus". No, this article's size is not adecuate, and no, this article is not as good as some people may think. Is still too long.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not too long, and the picture of Lindelof is perfectly appropriate: He's a highly notable figure and a key person involved in the development and promotion of the film. Illustrating an article with freely-licensed pictures of the key persons involved is standard practice, and something you'll see in many FAs. For example 300 (film) (photo of Lena Headey), Alien vs. Predator (film) (photo of Lance Henriksen), Little Miss Sunshine (photo of Abigail Breslin), and Star Trek: First Contact (photos of Ronald D. Moore and Jonathan Frakes). I don't see how this case is any different from any of those exemplars, especially since this is a photo of one of the film's writers, promoting the film at an industry event. It certainly does not make the article look like "a Damon Lindenof fan page" and such sarcasm/blatant exaggeration doesn't validate your argument. If you find it to be "a Damon Lindenof fan page, not an article about the movie 'Prometheus'", then I dare say you haven't read much of the article. The article's size is perfectly adequate in comparison to most of our good and featured articles, and no, it is not as bad as some people may think. It certainly isn't too long. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Illazilla, have no idea what they are basing their "too long" critique on or this Damon Lindelof fan page thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't you at least use a DIFFERENT photo than is in his own article? And one that he looks a bit less smug, hopefully? --Niemti (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you think he looks "smug" is entirely, utterly irrelevant. My overwhelming impression from your comments is that you just hate Damon Lindelof & don't want him associated with this film, which of course is ridiculous. Again, this is a photo of one of the film's writers, promoting the film at an industry event. It is an entirely, 100% pertinent visual representation of Lindelof's involvement with the film. Should we also remove the photo of Scott, Theron, & Fassbender (taken at the same event) because they look "smug"? <sarcasm>Oh please, let's let Niemti's personal opinion of the depicted person's attitude be the pass/fail test for all photos!</sarcasm> --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't really seem to be a picture of him available on here anyway that is either clear or not making a similar expression to the current one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Actually, IllaZilla, both you and Darkwarriorblake's 24/7 passion to Lindelof and his remarks about Prometheus not being a prequel not being part of ALIEN, your anti-spoiler editing, your article-petism make it seem that: a) One of you (or maybe both) are him, b)One of you is Spaiths and the other Lindenof, c)One of you is Ridley Scott and the other Lindenof, or d)One of you or both are a 20th Century Fox employees. Bad news: this page is free for anybody to edit. If you want to promote the film, there are other, way more eficient means...Kronnang Dunn (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There are three people who can provide info about the film itself. Spaihts, Lindelof, and Scott. Of those, only Lindelof is particularly forthcoming, Spaihts has only done one interview I've seen and Scott just keeps repeating the same lines for the most part. That said, it is still an inaccurate observation. There is no anti-spoiler editing, people have ruined films for users who contribute to articles but avoid the plot section because they edit the article and discuss plot elements in the edit summary, which I explained to you already, appropriately in an edit summary. It's not a command, it is a request/reminder to people editing the plot to just be considerate of other users when they explain what they have done. You MAY appreciate it when you check your watchlist and see: "Prometheus: I changed the plot to say that everyone but Elizabeth dies" when you haven't even seen the film. Also, accusing people of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is not something to do lightly AND it's stupid considering you know I edited The Thing and it is neither a Fox film or a Lindelof film, or even a Spaihts or Scott film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kronnang Dunn, your accusations are petulant and unfounded, your attitude poor, and your comments generally unhelpful. It's one thing to make reasoned arguments about aspects of the article, and quite another to accuse those who disagree with you of being people they are obviously not and of having a promotional agenda. Certainly neither I nor Darkwarriorblake are connected to the film in any way other than being Wikipedians interested in the film and in writing about it. I have watched this article as it's developed and I think Darkwarriorblake has done a commendable job, investing much time and effort into updating and improving it. Your and Niemti's constant belittling of the article's quality, and of other editor's efforts, is unconstructive and a general annoyance. I have no intention of spending any more time reading or responding to your inconsequential arguments and thinly-veiled insults. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

...and yet, the article is still waay too big...Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is not, and you've yet to present a compelling argument to that effect or any objective proof that its length exceeds any of Wikipedia's standards. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just added the official plot of the film. Is it now...? =] Kronnang Dunn (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, so quit being a child. You've been told numerous times about sourcing, about removing images and about adding Gregson-Williams to the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

However, thank you for being considerate with the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is NOT way to big, or overly referenced. I learned a lot from it, and without having to click on links! I wish more Wiki articles were like this one.--$tephen T. Crye (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

First release

Diffusion in Belgium, France and Switzerland was May 30, 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Counny (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked Switzerland wasn't France, fifth time I checked, your source doesn't say any of that. It doesn't say it is the earliest date nor does it mention Belgium or Switzerland, and if you have information that says that these 3 are first, why aren't you using that instead of the allocine thing? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The first projection in France takes place on May 29, 2012, and national output on May 30, 2012.</ref>"Prometheus - released". cinemasgaumontpathe.com. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>

Counny (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2012 (CEST)

Belgium in French</ref>"Prometheus - released". kinepolis.be/fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>

Switzerland in French</ref>"Prometheus - released". cineman.ch/fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>

Counny (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2012 (CEST)

That still isn't France, that's French speaking areas of other countries so you're just giving preference to France, presumable because you live there. And your source I can't even check, it pops up to ask me to pick a cinema and won't let me do that. We also don't list a specific format release. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We also don't list a specific format release.</ref>"Prometheus - released". imdb.fr. Retrieved May 21, 2012.</ref>

Counny (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2012 (CEST)

(Findolfin (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)) I am from Switzerland and the releasedate for Prometheus in Switzerland is 09 August 2012 (also in Germany). You can see that on the official homepage from FOX Switzerland (if you understand German): http://www.fox.ch/modules/obomovie/detail.php?page_id=1&lang=1&suisa=1008.382

Releasedate for France was May 30th. You see this on the official homepage of FOX France: http://www.foxfrance.com/cinema/prometheus-20586/20586/

Cambrian period

There's no indication whatsoever in the movie that the introductory scene takes place during the Cambrian period. While it takes place on Earth, it is not indicated and someone that has seen nothing before the movie came out would understand it was Earth later in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.44 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it really clear that it was Earth? I didn't understand it even later in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.229.245 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear that it is. Why show another planet? What is never given is the date for sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see any indication that the planet is the earth. For all I know, it could be the planet on wich the film takes place. "Why show another planet ?" is in no way a good proof. Can anyone point to what reveals that it is actually the earth ? The Alien at the beginning of the movie drink something that destroy his DNA to recombine in a new one. And we know from the movie that both Aliens and humans DNA are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.2.188.186 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is Earth, as confirmed by Ridley Scott himself in countless interviews and promotional videos previous to the film's release... Really guys... You need to stop complicating things even more than they already are, LOL. Kronnang Dunn (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis added by me. If you've got the sources, could you please do the article a favour and add a suitable footnote? I was surprised to see this in the plot summary because it certainly isn't confirmed within the film that the alien is deliberately seeding Earth with his DNA. The guy above is quite right. Directed panspermia would be the obvious guess, but if you only had the film to go on, you would have other possibilities in mind (especially since there are sequels to come and riddles that haven't been answered). It could have been the planet they were on or some other planet. It could have been an accident, the significance of which will only become clear in a planned sequel. It could have been, I don't know, an infected space jockey killing himself to contain bad DNA, but accidentally releasing it into the water. So, if Ridley Scott has confirmed exactly what was going on in this scene, please whack a footnote in, because without one it looks like someone jumping to conclusions (i.e., presenting a reasonable but unproven fan theory as fact). I'd do it myself, but I've never read a Ridley Scott interview, and it sounds like you already know some good sources :o) Señor Service (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the landscape of the first sequence and the landscape of the alien planet look similar, I assumed it was on the alien planet, not Earth. The fact we're having a debate about it just proves how stupid this film is in utterly failing to get it's message across or explain anything.Gymnophoria (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To say that the alien sacrifice initiate evolution also doesn't mean a thing, since evolution began much before the Cambrian period and it's clearly stated in the movie that the alien DNA is close to that of a human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.82.27.44 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, now the 'distant past' has been linked with the Archean period. No! If that sacrifice took place at the beginning of life on earth, engineer and human DNA wouldn't be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think wikipedia should knock it off with lines like this.

"In a scathing review of the film, Variety film critic Justin Chang accused..." It's clearly written by someone attempting to project their own viewpoint. Not sure why this page is protected either, was there even a discussion about it? 2.96.75.185 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right: This language is not neutral WP:TONE. I'll address. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'd also suggest that if we're saying it's received generally positive reviews and has a 79% on RT, that for purposes of proper weight we lead with some positive reviews, rather than the paragraph of negative reviews there now. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried adding some more reviews, tbh I thought someone else might pick up the slack but alas no. Can't add many more, they're all british ones, don't want to make it too bias one way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot

Please change the introduction of the plot to include a setting: "As a hovering spacecraft departs [a barren planet, etc]..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loff (talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT, events do not have to be described in the order in which they happen if it easier to explain. There is no need to be literal, jumping from event, to event, back to the previous event, unless it causes a paradox of events of course. There is no need for the to be in 13 separate 2-line parts. One-off hand comment by Janek does not make them vases nor that link added accurate. As a compromise I have just named them cylinders as the most basic of descriptors. There is also no need to waste precious space talking about lifeboats and escape pods as separate entities, the fundamental understanding is carried forward, if someone has not seen the film and reads the plot, they understand that Vickers leaves the ship, there is a pod, Shaw goes to that pod and events carry on from there. Being told that there was a lifeboat and an escape pod serves no fundamental understanding of the plot, it's minutiae. Referring to Weyland as father, this is an unexplained and minor plot point that doesn't need to be mentioned any more than the flashback into Shaw's childhood that sets up her religious bent. The david taking a cylinder part, he cannot steal it, there is noone to steal it from. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Editors should read WP:FILMPLOT before editing a film article, as a courtesy to other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd be nice if wikilinks worked while in edit mode/commented text so people could click it and get the info.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume Tenebrae's remark was an oblique swipe at me, as I was the editor whose plot edits were altered. However, WP:FILMPLOT is not the only necessity for writing a plot summary: the prose must also meet normal prose standards (see Verbosity). The reverted version has the following problems.

• 1) It's overwritten. Consider the opening sentence "In the distant past, the spacecraft of an advanced humanoid alien race arrives on Earth. One of the aliens consumes a dark liquid, causing its body to disintegrate and fall into a waterfall, seeding Earth with its DNA.". The words "advanced", "causing", "one of" and "race" are unnecessary, and the word "consume" is prolix. Replace this with "In the distant past, an alien spacecraft arrives on Earth. A humanoid alien drinks a dark liquid. Its body disintegrates and fall into a waterfall, seeding Earth with its DNA."

This verbosity continues: "several otherwise unconnected ancient cultures", "identical to that of humans", "living Engineer in stasis", etc, each of which contain unnecessary words ("otherwise", "that of", "living").

• 2) It's inconsistent. Don't use different words for the same thing. The Engineers are referred to as "humanity's forerunners", and "ancient aliens". Shaw's alien child is referred to as an "unknown creature", a "cephalopod-like creature", the "tentacled creature" and "alien offspring". Introduce one phrase early on and use it consistently throughout. If you find yourself getting repetitious, recast the sentence or use the words "it" or "them".

• 3) It's too precise and not precise enough. Let's leave aside the fact that the article confused ampoules (glass containers with a crimped top) and vases. Does Weyland fund the construction of the Prometheus or does he just pay for the crew and mission? The article says he funds the construction, but the film isn't that precise (I don't know if the associated websites and virals says he does: if they do, I apologise). It then says "Janek theorizes that the planet was used as an Engineer military base"...er, did the film say the whole planet or just the structure(s)? You can get round this by using phrases like "Peter Weyland, the elderly founder of the Weyland Corporation, funds the mission of the scientific vessel..." and "Janek theorizes that the structure was part of an Engineer military base..."

• 4) It's misleading. It says "The remaining crew return to the structure and awaken the Engineer". Er, no: at least four crew (Vickers, Janek, and the two co-pilots) remain in Prometheus.

• 5) It omits important subtleties. There is some debate about whether Vickers is an android, or was one in a previous script and the thread was left hanging in the rewrites (she dresses the same as David, she can overpower him, she awakens from stasis without assistance, she refuses to answer when asked explicitly, etc). I'm not putting that in the article because it's somebody else's WP:OR, but it does underline that the fact that she refers to Weyland as her father and Weyland refers to David as (the nearest thing to) his son is not actually minutiae, there's a subtextual reason for it.

And I hesitate to add this, but...

• 6) Wrong punctuation. It's "Vickers' lifeboat", not "Vicker's lifeboat". You don't use a semi-colon if you haven't used a colon first - so it's "biological weapon: the dark liquid." not "biological weapon; the dark liquid." You are allowed to kill me now... :-)

I've changed your version slightly, but to avoid 3RR I won't touch it hereafter. But consider the points I make above and inwardly digest them. They are good ones.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Prometheus was constructed with the funds of Weyland Industries, as Vickers explains to Shaw and Holloway.--Lightmint (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Youtube "Before the Adventure Begins" clip of the conversation between Vickers, Shaw and Holloway doesn't say Weyland paid to build the ship, it says he paid to find "this place". My memory (I saw it today) also doesn't include that. That's not to say it isn't true (the clip may be edited, my memory faulty) but it's not conclusive. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Verbosity is not an issue, conveying key points of understanding under the word limit is. People copy edit, people trim as necessary. In the case of this: "In the distant past, an alien spacecraft arrives on Earth. A humanoid alien drinks a dark liquid. Its body disintegrates and fall into a waterfall, seeding Earth with its DNA.", it loses any connection between the liquid and the body disintegrating even though it is made clear that the two are connected in the film. The loss of that word destroys the implication of what that liquid does. It's an alien, disintegration could be for any number of reasons including natural, but a connection is there and losing "causing" loses coherence. Which it's done since you've changed it to this.

2) The plot as it stands is a mixing pot of several authors, different words are used, though I fail to see why humanity's forerunners (which I'm not a fan of) and ancient aliens causes any kind of disconnect, one is stating they're humans ancestors, the other moves on and just refers to them as a general descriptor.

3) He funding the creation of the ship, the mission, the lot. He's a trillionaire, it's covered in the film and the external materials. Whether Janek said structure or planet I don't know, I don't have access to a copy of the film to check. Considering there were many structures I don't believe he would be referring to the one.

4) This is no more misleading than merging the individual adventures of the lifeboat and the escape pod. If the next sentence was "it kills everyone but Shaw", then we'd have a problem.

5) Yes, that he wanted a son and not a daughter. She overpowers David because he is not an immovable object and offers no violent resistance. She dresses similar because she is a professional, cold and calculating, this is explained in the design. Multiple previews explained that she gets out unassisted because she is a hard ass, she does push ups because she is a hard ass (do androids need to do push ups?) She's driven. Sadly she is victim of the fact her character was only intended to be small until Theron was cast, and the character suffers for it. Unless it actually leads to something in the plot, which it didn't, it doesn't belong.

6) "It's 'Vickers' lifeboat', not 'Vicker's lifeboat'". The spelling mistake part is true, the other part is not, Vickers' and Vickers's are both acceptable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Coherence is not actually lost. Just as the eye concludes from the film sequence that the disintegration is the consequence of the drink without it having to be explicitly stated, the eye will conclude the same from the sentences. Reading "Dog bites man. Man gets rabies", one would draw the same conclusion as "Dog bites man. Man gets rabies as a result of the bite".

2) An earlier version of the plot used so many different words for Shaw's child that I was unsure whether the thing that attacked the Engineer and the thing removed from Shaw's abdomen was the same thing. By use of consistent phrases, we avoid this.

3) That he is a trillionaire is covered in dialogue. That he funds the mission is covered in dialogue. But where is his construction funding of the ship covered? That's not a rhetorical question.

4) Er, if "the remaining crew" is killed...then who pilots Prometheus into the Engineer spaceship?

5) Good point: if Weyland wanted a son not a daughter, then that would explain Weyland ignoring his daughter's heartfelt request and her sibling rivalry with her pseudo-brother David. But...isn't that a reason for putting her relationship to Weyland in the article, instead of leaving it out?

6) "Vickers'" is correct. "Vickers's" is allowable (I think). But "Vicker's" is just wrong. Which is what I said.

Still, look on the bright side. We're not discussing whether Agent Coulson is really dead in the Avengers movie. And we're not pointing out that Vickers burning Holloway to death just because he asks her to would get her immediately arrested in real life... :-) Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

3)I don't understand what you are saying here. In the film it is said they created the ship, in the ancillary material it is said they created the ship. It wasn't lying around, it is the core reason it is named Prometheus.

4)Yes that's what I said. I said it doesn't say that, if it DID that would be a problem, thus there is no conflict in saying that the remaining crew go. Shaw also convinces Janek at some point, is he on the ship at the time? Off? Doesn't matter, she convinces him, he goes and does it.

5) No, the animosity between her and David or with Weyland would be a tangent on the plot to explain her personality, which isn't covered in the plot. Perhaps some interview will come along that will explainthat stuff and it can be added to their respective character development sections.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

3) OK, it says here that Prometheus was manufactured by Weyland. No probs, regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Directed panspermia

Different topic, an editor has included Directed panspermia in the opening sentence of the plot. I think it injects a confusing term for a start but reading it I don't see how it is applicable either, it seems to concern microorganisms being transported here by meteorite or shuttle. This does not appear to be what happens in the film, it follows the similar ancient astronaut theory where panspermia is only one theory in the collective, and they seed it with their own DNA, not bacteria and fungi. I don't believe it belongs in the plot, but maybe someone who understands that concept better can say if it actually fits or not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Back in the 70's (Ridley is showing his age) when stuff like that was being proposed, directed panspermia was seen as a cheap way to colonise a galaxy when all you have is slower-than-light spacecraft. You'd send out your little seed packets, start hitting planets after a century or so, then after about a million years, there's Earth life everywhere and - voila - you've conquered the galaxy on the cheap. Describing the process in Prometheus as this is a stretch, but that's more because the Prometheus process is so shambolic (you send a spacecraft, you send one of your crew to pointlessly commit suicide (!), then wait millions of years for something to evolve. As opposed to just landing and moving in straight away.)

From the POV of improving the article, I'd suggest moving the directed panspermia link to under the "seeding Earth" phrase - i.e. replace the phrase "...seeding Earth with its DNA, in an act of directed panspermia." with the phrase "...seeding Earth with its DNA." I think the concepts are close enough not to trigger the "no easter eggs" restriction. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall give it a try, though I feel like it is overexplaining the situation. And maybe its really hard to create decent life without a sacrifice, or at least replicate humanoid life. Might even be a religious event. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the note, intending to go back and improve the language later. I think Anameofmyveryown's solution was appropriate. The core idea of directed panspermia is use of simple organisms/organic matter as a means of seeding compatible life to other worlds. In Prometheus the notion is that the alien broke down his own DNA as the source of life on earth -- which we're supposed to take as being an intentional (i.e. directed, rather than accidental) act. I have my suspicions albeit without direct evidence, that writer Damon Lindelof (of Star Trek and LOST fame) took the idea from the ST:TNG episode "The Chase" -- which likewise involved an ancient humanoid species that seeded the earth and rest of the galaxy with their DNA, leaving behind clues to finding their own world. --HidariMigi (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Was it clear in the movie that the opening scene was on earth, or is that a reasonable guess? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well according to this, the point of that scene was to replicate Aztec creation myths where the god sacrifices a piece of itself to create man in its image. Scott himself said that the Iceland filming (where that was filmed) represented the beginning of time, and the following scene is them finding evidence of the aliens thousands of years earlier. It's not explicitly stated, but it seems to be a reasonable conclusion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not explicitly stated, seems to be a reasonable conclusion... That´s Wiki-speech for "shouldn´t be in the article", right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why "Ridley was more interested in Greco-Roman or Aztec creation myths where there are many Gods and they make Man out of themselves. The idea that they sacrifice a piece of themselves to create Man in their own image I find very interesting and the question was can we do it on a sci-fi level and so the opening of the movie is that exact idea and that theme carries through to our future which, in this case, is embodied by our creations – David who we make in our own image though we don’t know why." isn't sufficient. The opening scene is a "god" sacrificing itself and theme carries through to our future on Earth and our creations. Then "The Engineers who create us, then we create robots." EDIT Or this particular review which just states it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I´ll buy that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

According to some forums, Scott have stated that the planet is not necessarily earth. I have not found this statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no "Earth - Dawn of Life, 3.5 billion years ago" caption, but we're to make that connection, as the filmmakers have acknowledged. Just as the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) which presents a parallel scene of alien-directed evolution as occurring on Earth at "The Dawn of Man." Prometheus clearly um, borrowed from 2001 much of its thematic content, including using an opening shot of a sunrise over the earth (dawn) as seen from space. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up, just came across this newly posted interview with Scott and Lindelof from the Detroit Free Press which directly states the influence of Kubrick and 2001: "Scott admits that a major influence on "Prometheus" was Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- which is about as lofty as you can get when making a mainstream science-fiction movie... "There were entire days when we just talked about '2001,' " Lindelof says. "Then the next day, we would circle back to our script, and I would understand why Ridley had been talking about Kubrick. He wanted to give me a sense of pacing for this 30-page stretch of the movie." --HidariMigi (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening planet is not necessarily Earth, see this interview:

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232?wssac=164&wssaffid=news

CaraPolkaDots (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good find, but with all due respect to Sir Ridley, if the planet at the beginning is not Earth, then the movie makes no sense. However, the interview does support the description that the alien is conducting directed panspermia, with Scott's answer, "All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself." --HidariMigi (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That source seems confusing, "no, it doesn't have to be" Earth? So it is, but it doesn't need to be? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It does have some good theme stuff in there though. If I'm reading that right, Jesus Christ was an Engineer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the interview is that the Engineers seeded many planets so "it doesn't have to be" Earth. The wiki article says that Scott confirmed the planet was Earth in an interview, then cites this interview, in which he doesn't actually say that.

"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."

And re the Jesus Christ theme, yes it did occur to me watching it that the Engineers dying (overcome by an escape of their own bioweapons) 2,000 years ago just as they were about to destroy their own experiment of life on Earth might not be a coincidence. However, they created life on other planets - why were they going to destroy all of them? It's not explained in the film. My take on it was that when the display which David watches switches off, the "Earth" light-ball stays up a bit longer and he notices that the Engineer in question is still alive in his hypersleep pod - it is just coincidence that the Engineer tasked to purge Earth is the one still alive. But maybe they can cover for one another and he would purge all the other planets as well, who knows.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the article mentions that RS toyed with the title "Paradise" and the Engineers were partly inspired by Milton's Dark Angels - that seems to me to be a point worthy of inclusion.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In this interview, Lindelof implies that the idea of the crucifixion causing the Engineers' wrath has not entirely been written out, and may be used as the opening scene in the sequel.

I know it’s obnoxious to say that you should see the movie a couple of times to really appreciate it but that is how the movie was designed – things that seem throwaway, for example when they do the carbon dating of the dead Engineer and realise that he’s been dead for two thousand years and you think ‘if two thousand years ago The Engineers decided to wipe us out what happened back then?’ Is there any correlation between what was happening on the Earth two thousand years ago and this decision? Could a sequel start in that time period and begin to contextualize what we did to piss these beings off?

He doesn't explicitly mention Jesus here, but it's pretty clear that he's referring to the "Jesus is an Engineer" storyline that Ridley described in the Movies.com interview. Could this be included in the article, perhaps in the writing or sequel sections? —Flax5 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it would go, I was thinking perhaps a theme section as there is obviously a lot of sourcable subtext going on including the religious motifs and that he says they did consider the crucifixion to be a catalyst but thought that including that would be too "on the nose". Theres a lot of good theme info out there if someone puts it together. I'm not sure if the jesus stuff would fit into existing parts as it doesn't specifically talk about the writing or development side.

@Cara, "The wiki article says that Scott confirmed the planet was Earth", do you mean the footnote? I didn't say it confirms it is Earth, it confirms that he is seeding the planet with life, but I purposely did not say he confirmed it was Earth as he does not in that reference. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Cara again, if he based the title on these Dark Angels, that would be a point of inspiration. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the plot summary says it is Earth and the footnote refers to the interview, in which he declines to confirm it is Earth. The Dark Angels are Satan's gang in John Milton's Paradise Lost. Whether the Engineers are actively evil or just swelled up with Pride is of course not something we have yet been told. I'm guessing from "these" Dark Angels that you're not familiar, apologies if that's not the case.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the note is only in referral to what is being done, not where it is, that is why it doesn't mention a specific name. Is this Dark Angels stuff in the source you provided earlier? I'll take a read and see if there is something worth adding about it and his thought process. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

thanksCaraPolkaDots (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hill, one of the film's special effects supervisors, explains the opening sequence in this podcast. While Scott and Linelof insist on remaining vague, Hill just cuts through the mystery and says exactly what's going on.

"Well, the Engineer, which is the creature of the opening sequence – he's effectively an idealised human, in a lot of ways. He's sort of got this alabaster skin and perfect physique, and he's come to what we discover is Earth to effectively seed Earth with life, and he does this by effectively committing ritual suicide by drinking some black organic goo which destroys him from within, and from that, we go right down into a molecular level, and see, you know, his DNA being torn apart by this transforming substance, and he falls into this beautiful waterfall, and we see the DNA that's been torn apart re-form into what becomes Earth DNA, if you like, and effectively creating life on Earth."

I suppose the question is whether an SFX guy can be considered a reliable source for plot information. —Flax5 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Science fiction horror

I've added the category which has been removed twice called Category:American science fiction horror films. I understand that this film is not primarily considered a horror film, which is why I'm not adding it to the lead. But I still think it stands that it should be added secondarily as I have. I've provided three sources (Allmovie, The Huffington Post, Roger Ebert, Winnipeg Free Press, Washington Post, Time Magazine). These are all notable sources and I think it warrants the category. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So did you not read my edit when you undid it? Because science fiction horror is still there.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhh. Well. Um. I guess I'm used to edits of my own or..uh..It's too early for me. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, do you think that having both American science fiction films and American science fiction horror films are redundant? Because the latter category has the American science fiction films cat within it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's bizarre, if true. American science fiction films is not a sub-category of American science fiction horror films. It's impossible to claim that 2001: A Space Odyssey is in a category beneatch sci-fi horror films. ... Categories need to go from the more general down to specific, not vice versa. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Geographical Error

"Filming also took place at one of the most powerful waterfalls in Europe, the Dettifoss waterfall in the Vatnajökull National Park in the north of Iceland."

Dettifoss is in the north of Iceland but the Vatnajökull National Park is in the south, where I suspect (but don't know) that the panoramic aerial shots were achieved.

(My first time commenting so please excuse any conventions that I have inadvertently violated.)--DecBrennan (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange, source must be confused, I will change it for you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, Dettifoss says it is in that park in the North. Are you sure you have the right part? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm now a bit confused myself even though I've been treking in Iceland a couple of times. Looking at the map, it does appear that the main part of the park is in the south (where the Glacier is) but there is a small addendum in the north where the runoff and the waterfall is:

http://www.vatnajokulsthjodgardur.is/media/skjol/Heildarkort_EN-12okt2011.jpg

So although this suggestion could be ignored if you like, I still think it's a bit confusing implying the Vatnajökull National Park national park is in the north. --DecBrennan (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Vatnajökull National Park, and I'm not sure why, it is present in the south and north of Iceland. Specifically the South, Southeast, North, North east regions, and Dettifoss exists in the North East part. I've made a slight change to avoid any confusion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Praise for you all

...for all the feuding I've seen since this article made my watchlist, you might think that the article would have suffered. It amazes me each time contentiously edited articles turn out as really very WP:Good as this one has. The Wisdom of Crowds at work, I guess. Kudos to all who contributed, it reads like silk. Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much the entirety of conflict is relegated to the plot (which is pretty normal, certainly for something that does not offer straightforward conclusions), so thankfully the sourced info avoids disruption *touch wood*.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Internal link to Alien (creature in Alien franchise)

An effort to provide relevant internal linkage has been consistently blocked by Darkwarriorblake [2],[3],[4].

A proposed sentence read:

• "In the lifeboat, an alien creature resembling a xenomorph bursts out of the dying Engineer's chest."

A alternative read:

• "In the lifeboat, an alien creature bursts out of the dying Engineer's chest."

This interpretation is derived from a comparison of the following related images:

• Giger's Alien
• Scott's 1979 Alien
• Scott's Prometheus Alien

Despite the obvious similarities, Darkwarriorblake holds that there is no connection between Alien (creature in Alien franchise) and Prometheus (film) worth making in the plot summary. The central issue is that we have, as with almost all articles that provide plots, an un-sourced account of what took place in the final scene. Since there is no source that states categorically what the creature is, or isn't, we appear to have situation where the POV of the primary article contributor is determining content inclusion. However, a cursory look across forums etc. (in lieu of any real sources) establishes that the majority of viewers see this alien as a xenotype (proto-xenomorph or whatever). Therefore, I would suggest, and specifically in the context of providing an un-sourced plot, we should use common sense when it comes to the imagery comparison. We should also acknowledge, when writing an un-sourced plot summary, popular opinion when it comes to determining consensus. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That forum dwellers do not require evidence is not a concern of Wikipedia. I have told you once, what you propose is an unsourced plot, not the other way around which establishes events as they are shown. The film acts as the primary source for plot so calling it unsourced does not invalidate its content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

the plot summary is an editorial interpretation of the film: the film is not the source. There are articles where secondary sources are used to support plot summaries. Here we have a primary account based on a subjective editorial analysis. Currently it conforms to a POV you support. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• le sigh* Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot, particularly this part "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• In terms of plot summary policy, I stand corrected.
• I am aware that it is now irrelevant to the mater at hand, but this guideline appears to contradict WP:PSTS:"Primary sources are very close to an event...They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident."
• Logically, this fictional film is the "event," the film viewer is the one "very close to the event," a "witness" that is a "primary source of information". Semitransgenic _talk. 11:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% what you are saying, but right below the part you're talking about: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Prometheus (film) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

After review of this disussion and having consulted MOS:Film#Plot and WP:PSTS, it seems that this debate comes down to the question of whether the linkage is a descriptive claim, "the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". As a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, my opinion is that the creatures resemble each other. You should be careful, though, how you treat the linkage if you choose to include it. I would not include a link of the term "alien creature" to the wiki page on the movie Alien (as in "alien creature"). That would imply they were meant to be the same creatures in both movies, which would at best be an interpretation since, according to the article, the movie Prometheus is not is not directly connected to that franchise. Nevertheless, it seems reasonble to include a phrase such as "a creature resembling a xenomorph" or "a xenomorph-like creature" with linkage of xenomorph to the article on the movie Alien. Such a description should not be controversial because any reasonable person who had seen both movies would recognize the similarity, especially since in both movies the creature bursts out of human chests. It would arguably be remiss to leave such a description out of the article on the grounds that Scott may have meant the creature to be a reference to the other movie, in which case the reader would miss an important aspect of the film.Coastside (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)|}​

@Coastside thanks for your opinion here. I agree that "it seems reasonble to include a phrase such as "a creature resembling a xenomorph" or "a xenomorph-like creature" with linkage ofxenomorph to the article on the movie Alien". It is nonsensical to ignore mention of a resemblance when it is patently clear one exists. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion

I disagree with both User:Coastside and User:Semitransgenic because including an internal link to Alien (creature in Alien franchise) is a form of original research through WP:SYN and must not be included as it violates a page with greater consensus, a page of policy.Curb Chain (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I hadn't noticed the pictures above, but it looks even less like a Xenomorph than I had remembered, beyond having a lengthened skull of a different shape. Looks like a guy in one of those cycling helmets. I appreciate Coastside's opinion though, I get he is facilitating a compromise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No, unfortunately, the current wording is better than linking something as that is editorial synthesis. I noticed on talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) another editor expressed that the alien that pops out of the chest in this film looks like an alien queen, so User:Semitransgenic is performing WP:OR to insert this pointless addition.Curb Chain (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

it has zero to do with OR and everything to do with common sense. The creature does resemble a Xenomorph, such an observation is uncontroversial in a plot summary for a film that is directly related to the original Alien franchise. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The current description of the alien popping out of the chest as "...jet-black..." is an observation as well and everything to do with "common sense" apparently. What is wrong with it?Curb Chain (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movie, and so I can say with objectivity that the current descriptions are deficient. There are four descriptions of aliens in the plot summary:

• humanoid alien

• giant alien

• decapitated alien

• alien creature with jet-black skin and an elongated skull

Only one of these descriptions creates a clear visual image, and that's the first one. "Humanoid" is descriptive enough, because I know what a human looks like, and the "-oid" tells me it's not entirely human, but "human-ish". Good enough - I get the picture. The second description, "giant alien" tells me nothing. Is it humanoid, too? Who knows? After all, these are completely different time periods,so how do I know what the alien looks like? The third description is just the second with no head. I still don't know what it looks like. Now we get to the fourth description. Let's see, "jet-black skin and an elongated skull...". The best visual I get with that description is a black Neanderthal:

Neanderthal

Now, on the other hand, if one of the descriptions says "xenomorph-like alien": well,now I get a visual image: thumb|left|75px|Xenomorph

And the "-like" tells me it's not entirely a xenomorph, but "xenomorph-ish". Good enough. It isn't de facto WP:SYN or WP:OR whenever a plot summary refers to another movie. It could simply be a way to describe a scene, which is the case here. You could argue that an editor could use words to describe the scene instead, but a plot summary needs to be brief, so saying something like "xenomorph-like" is a good way to be succinct.Coastside (talk)

Such detail is unnecessary.Curb Chain (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

French artbook

Scans from a recently released Prometheus artbook have surfaced online, and include, among other things, plenty of information on the design and nature of the film's creatures. Perhaps this article could benefit from a section on each creature, similar to this one? Unfortunately the whole thing is in French – all I could get out of it was that Shaw's offspring is called the "Trilobite" and the alien born in the final scene is called the "Deacon". —Flax5 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

very interesting, thanks! Semitransgenic _talk. 18:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon, makes sense with the cathedral it came from. If we can get an english version we can cite that book, so yes. Though we'd probably be limited in how much detail we can add. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And the structure is called the Pyramid. I thought the Snake would be called Hammerpede, there is a song named after it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

English version published in the UK by Titan Books. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Now maybe it's my poor French but what is there in that that means there is "little doubt" that, that is what it is or like? Because the images in that book look even less like one than the film one that looks nothing like them. I'll give you a chance to explain why you've reinserted that, if you said "the book says it" that'd be ok but you said "little doubt" which basically means you're assuming again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

should I take it then that you are choosing to discount the third opinion on this dispute? Semitransgenic _talk. 19:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say "making change based on discussion" that yes, I still disagree with as it creates a false impression, you said "little doubt now the book is released" (paraphrased) which comes across as you've seen the image in the book, which looks no more like one than the film version, but like your previous arguments it has been boiled down to "it has a longer than average head, its a xenomorph".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

based on a comparison of pictorial evidence, a statement concerning the creatures xenomoprh-like appearance (in the context of a matter that relates directly to the Alien film franchise) is hardly unusual. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so we're clear you're making it up again based on your observations. As long as we are both on the same page. An art-book with concept art is not evidence of anything, it's concept art, the thing in the book is itself different to the thing in the film. Might as well say that Spaihts 2009 pre-Lindelof script backs it up then because that's as much of a concept. But I'm not too concerned about that, I just wanted you to confirm that you're still using OR rather than less relevant things like facts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are inappropriately applying WP:OR. Saying he's "making it up again based on [his] observations" doesn't make it OR. As it says in WP:FILMPLOT#PLOT, "basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." How would an editor write basic descriptions without reference to an outside source if they didn't base them on their own observations? As I said above, the criterion for such "descriptive claims" is whether their "accuracy... is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". If you're going to argue against describing the creature as "xenomorph-like", your argument should be that reasonable, educated people who see the film would not find this a reasonable description of the primary source material (the film), not that any attempt to describe the film based on "personal observations" is inherently OR. Writing "xenomorph-like alien" is helpful to the reader. I can't see a better way to convey the appearance of the creature that is not unduely verbose. If there is one, why don't you suggest it, and maybe we can use that instead. Coastside (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It creates a false impression. A Xenomorph is a very distinct iconic image, the only thing this one shares in resemblance is a long head, which is itself a different shape. When you type Xenomorph-like, people are getting a distinctly incorrect impression of what is coming out of the chest of that creature, all because it has a long head. I don't see what was wrong with just saying "alien creature bursts out of its chest". If you want to think "chest bursting" and "xenomorph" as the reader, go nuts. From what I remember (and I may be wrong it's been a week) it doesn't even burst, Alien's Alien BURSTS, explodes out of the chest. This basically is given birth, it slices the chest open from top to bottom from inside it crawls on out like an infant, it even had an umbilicus. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a link to it here (until it is taken down). It really does not look at all like one, its passing resemblance is the longer than average head. Fans are stupid with this stuff, they were already fan-naming it the Proto-Alien, an Alien Queen, and that the umbilicus was an ovipositor or whatever for birthing eggs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Stating "the only thing this one shares in resemblance is a long head" is disingenuous, but as I said elsewhere, I personally have zero interest in nit-picking on such matters.

We are saying it resembles a "xenomorph," and nothing more.

Your view is that it does not bear a notable resemblance, but others here see it differently, and that is sole basis of the dispute. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't say others, tehre is you and Coast. Then there is myself, Grapple X, Illazilla and Curb Chain up there, and you down here still unable to actually prove anything about it. List a resemblance beyond having a lengthy head of a different shape. It's almost humanoid, no webbed fingers, no bio-mechanical parts, it even looks blue. I'll give you a couple of minutes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm content to escalate to the next dispute resolution tier if you believe that is required. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather you just answered my request. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Futile, we view the available imagery differently, that is why there is a dispute. Let's just focus on that. Semitransgenic _talk. 01:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The official production name for the alien popping out of the Last Engineer is PROTO-XENOMORPH, according to the Art of Prometheus French artbook.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

An internet search will show that plenty of reasonable people think the Prometheus creature has some kind of resemblance to a xenomorph. Many go so far as to assume that the creature is meant to be the evolutionary ancestor of the franchise-version "Alien". This review, for example, describes the scene: "at the very end, you learn how the first xenomorph was created." Of course that's an interpretation of the movie. I'm simply pointing out that many reasonable people on the internet clearly think the creature not only resembles a xenomorph, but that it is actually supposed to resemble a xenomorph. If a reputable reviewer makes the association, then we could just use that as an inline citation. Then there wouldn't be a debate. The question here is whether "xenomorph-like" is an objective description based on observation of the movie without reference to outside sources, and based on a multitude of discussions on the internet of the movie it clearly meets the criteria. Coastside (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Coast, people see what they want to see, as much is evidenced here. People are also complaining that the Engineer doesn't die where it does in Alien, because people are stupid. What forum dwellers want to think it is should not have anything to do with this discussion or this article. Noone here can say one damn thing that is the same about them beyond having a long head which makes the implication of its appearance incredibly incorrect. @Kronaang you need to back stuff like that up because someone here has already said it is called "The Deacon", and in the book it's quite easy to see it is called "La Diacre" or something like that. Unless Xenomorph is itself translated into french, it is not stated in that book. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate, this is about whether or not it is appropriate to provide an internal link to an article that directly relates to a creature mentioned in the plot summary.

Based on the range of imagery at hand (Giger's original, Scott's original, and the film and book images showing the so-called "Deacon") it would appear that the "descriptive claim" is "verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". The views of those claiming to have "specialist knowledge" should not take priority over the concerns of the general reader. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just throwing this out there, and I'm sorry if someone's already stated this, but I'm certain we could find at least one reference stating that a creature that resembles the xenomorph pops out of the engineer's chest. Darkwarriorblake - would you be oppose to stating something to this effect? Certainly you recognize that this was intended to be the precursor to the Alien, and that the end of this film is where both stories take their own independent paths, right? Am I way off there? I understand your position, and I agree with the change from Chestburster to what it is now, but I think it makes sense to note of what this appears to be. That said, I'm not entirely unhappy with the way it is now either; I guess I'm just trying to throw a fresh perspective in here. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

from Richard Corliss's review in Time: "After all these years, the director or his team should have dreamed up a few novel scenes. Perhaps they’re saving their real ingenuity for a sequel to the prequel. Lindelof says there could be one or more films that would “run parallel to and independent of Alien.” Independent of? Really? The familiar image in the movie’s last shot indicates that the Prometheus series, should there be one, will close the narrative circle on Alien as Revenge of the Sith did on Star Wars."

from Time interview with Lindelof: "There are certain songs that have to be on that set list, and it’s the same when you’re talking about an Alien film: Do you need to see a xenomorph bursting out of the human body? And how do we do it in a way that you haven’t seen before?" Semitransgenic _talk. 09:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

With the first quote from Corliss, you now seem to have a reputable source stating that the creature was xenomorph-like in the final scene. You would be justified in using that description with an inline citation to this Time review. It's seems unnecessary to have to cite that description, as I've argued here, but now at least you have a citation to back it up. Coastside (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Slight interjection here: I haven't read this discussion, but whatever the result is (re. whether this is to be considered one of the Alien franchise creatures and whether we link it to that article), I object to the use of the word "xenomorph" in the plot summary. I've given an explanation here. Short version: that word is only used as a name for the creatures in comics and games; the films have always called and credited them as "Alien"s. Please at least stick to the language used in the films. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I just reverted someones edit to that effect and you immediately removed the link and verbiage I added. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lindelof, Prometheus's screenwriter, uses the term in a recent interview about the movie. It's hardly contentious at this point, nor is the matter of linkage, but I agree that the term xenomoprh can refer to the species as a whole, rather than just one specific manifestation. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional usable citation for connection today in Time. S.J. Snyder states:"The closing shot of the film witnesses the end result of this altercation: The birth of the alien creature, as we know it in Alien..." Semitransgenic _talk. 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Conveniently forgot to quote the part where he says someone had to correct him that his theory was on the wrong planet, because the entire article is one long theory about events which he states at the end. Honestly, your link is there in the plot, stop wasting your time grasping at every bare mention by people not knowledgeable about the film's development and just leave it alone now until an actual source appears. That it's been an ongoing discussion for 3 days and your latching onto Corliss mentioning a "familar scene"...well, it's just wasting everyones time at the moment.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

and again you are attempting to obfuscate the true nature of the dispute. Credible sources note a clear resemblance. That's all we need. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding IllaZilla's comment that the word is "only used in comics and games", we need to recognize that the Wikipedia article on a xenomorph defines the word as the creature from the Alien films. Whether that's right or wrong, that's how the article defines the word. The whole point of linking to that article wasn't just to placate one side of this debate by linking there. The point was to succinctly describe the creature by saying it looks "something like" a xenomorph, i.e., "xenomorph-like", and then linking to the article to aid readers who didn't know what "xenomorph" meant. By linking to that article without using the word xenomorph we have made a stronger link to that movie, not a weaker one. As it is now, it appears that when we say "alien creature" we literally mean the "Alien" (capital 'A') because we link directly to that article. There is no ambiguity with the word "xenomorph-like" because it's clear we only mean it looks like that creature, not that it is that creature.

If you really have issues with using the word "xenomorph", you could try using "Alien-like creature", but that is very awkward (try reading it that way), and it's awkward precisely because "alien" is so generic a term (as compared to xenomorph) that "alien-like" isn't descriptive enough. What do "aliens" generally look like?? And in anticipation of the retort that we should take out the link altogether, I'll just repeat what I said earlier (see the Neanderthal picture above) that the reader has no idea what the creature looks like when you merely call it an alien whereas with xenomorph-like, at least they would get some sense of the creature's appearance in the film. Coastside (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The name 'xenomorph' is used in the movie Aliens and is also heard in a deleted scene from Alien 3. The creature at the end of Prometheus is a form of xenomorph - It grows within the chest of it's host after being implanted by a form of facehugger, it has an elongated head, incredibly similar body and physique, and also has a set of inner jaws. Differences between the traditional xenomorph seen in Alien and the one seen in Prometheus are easily put down to differing host species - I believe host differences is something explained in the main xenomorph article. It seems the problem here is that some people don't want to admit that this movie happens in the same universe as Alien, includes the same aliens as in Alien, and is in fact an Alien film, albeit with a different title and themes. -TUAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.94 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol at all these rationales. It is obviously just a knock-off of Giger's original design, but of course Ridley's folks don't say this out loud. There's no way in hell they ended up with that design independently, regardless of their claims of it being based on a shark wearing a deacon's hat or whatever. But if the sources don't call it a "xenomorph", or "Alien franchise creature", we shouldn't either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-release

There is an overabundance of information comparing this film to Madagascar 3 incuding information specifically related to that film and not this. They're not comparable films beyond releasing at the same time, they're clearly aimed at entirely different audiences. Surely this can be said in a much more streamlined fashion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

"Far in the past, a Humanoid Alien watches its Ship leave while it consumes a dark liquid. His body begins to disintegrate and he falls into the river below, where his DNA becomes part of the ecosystem."

What is this nonsense doing in the plot section? I gave good, clear reasons for removing all mention of the opening scene, and IllaZilla agreed with them: we don't know when this scene happens, where it happens, or what it has to do with anything else that happens in the film. It isn't important to the plot, and should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While I didn't restore it and certainly don't like how it is written, we do know it takes place well into the past since they're all long dead, and what they are doing establishes why humans go off to find them in the first place. But I'm fairly sick of anything to do with that fecking plot section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The alien dies in that scene, sure, but that's the only thing we know for sure. We absolutely do not know when it happens - that's OR. It's not even relevant to the rest of the plot, given that we can't say anything meaningful about it. The reasons I and IllaZilla gave for removing it stand, and I shall remove it as soon as I can, given 3RR. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well there was a footnote with Scott explaining what the alien was doing. So we do know what he was doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We don't know that they're all "long dead", just the ones on LV-223, which isn't where they originate from anyway. And it doesn't establish "why humans go off to find them in the first place"...the humans go off to find them because of the constellation they find depicted in various cultures. The humans have no idea about the black goo or what the Engineers may have been up to. The opening scene gives us (the viewers) a hint as to what the Engineers do, but it's totally unknown to the Prometheus crew and doesn't help readers to understand the chain of events that make up the film's plot. If it requires a footnote to explain, it probably doesn't belong in the plot summary. It could certainly be discussed elsewhere, such as in the sections about the film's writing and themes. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my view is, at the moment there is no indication that the Engineers created humanity in the plot, but at the end she goes off to find out why they created them then tried to drop a bunch of black goo on them. We just introduce Shaw and Holloway, say they found these images and that's it. No mention of a less traditional creation theory until the end, with a hint midway that they share the same DNA. I think this is a plot that will probably end up with a few footnotes along the way, especially the end scene. Some stuff could go in a theme section such as the cycle of creation by engineer > creation of android > android essentially impregnates creator > creator gives birth > alien baby impregnates engineer > engineer gives birth to humanoid alien hybrid thing. But I do personally think there is a clear connection between the opening scene and seeding the planet > identical dna > going off to find the creators. I do also think that, that Scott quote about "that is our planet right?", "no, it doesn't have to be" is being a bit misrepresented. "Is that Earth?", "it doesn't have to be" is what is being said, not "no it isn't". To make it clear I'm not arguing for its inclusion, because im sick to death of arguing over the plot section, I'm just stating a case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Folks, go read the myth of Prometheus. Then go see the movie again. You may not believe it part of the plot, but it is certainly in the film, and could be interpreted as a foreshadowing of the scene when Shaw sees that our DNA matches the Engineers' exactly. I added/corrected a couple of things after seeing the film yesterday afternoon. The "Distant Past" sentence was already here. And I think it is relevant to the plot. ... I'd also caution all editors of Wikipedia's policy on letting other editors collaborate on an article. Don't be overly protective of an article no matter how much time you've put into it. It's not "your article" or "mine." It's Wikipedia's. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 12:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If the footnote mentioned above ever gets written, it may be the case that the intercourse between infected Holloway (Holloway's infection from a tiny amount of black goo is presumably the same but slower than the geologist's from getting a faceful of the stuff) and Shaw adds another level of mutation. It occurred to me watching it that the squid-creature might be a hideously deformed version of a human sperm, perhaps linked to the tiny tailed creature Milburn sees wiggling in his eyeball, presumably living in his body fluids. It's not clear what function the snake which attacks the biologist serves - it seems to kill him without turning him into anything else, and if it's laid larva inside him they must be feeding off a dead body.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No one ever said the opening scene isn't part of the film. The case for removing it is that it is not an important aspect of the plot, given that no one can say when or where it happens, or what relation the events it depicts have to any of the other events that occur in the film. Saying that it should be in the plot description of this article because it "could be interpreted" in a certain way is laughable, really. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be in the plot because it's how the filmmakers chose to open the movie, and the opening scenes set the stage for everything that follows. To not include it leaves a hole that an encyclopedic reference should not leave. This seems to suggest that the filmmakers could simply have cut the scene and opened with the expedition at the cave. While perhaps you or I might not understand why the scene is there, let's give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt and presume he had a good reason to open with it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. We don't include something in a plot description simply because the film makers put it in a film - whether it's the opening scene or anything else. We include it because it's relevant and an important part of the plot, and that's all. No one has any idea what relationship the events depicted in that scene have to anything else that happens in the film, so that scene is not an important element of the plot. "It sets the scene for everything that follows" confuses the appearance of the scene at the start of the film with its importance to the events in the film - those are two different things entirely. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Rubbish"? Really. Someone disagrees with you and their point of view is garbage? Huh.

I and evidently other editors find the opening scene relevant and important. Simply because you, personally, do not understand it is no reason to remove it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you may find it important, but you haven't produced a good reason why it should be mentioned in the plot summary. Important to you is not the same thing as important to the plot or important to this article. My "not understanding" it is only my admission that any claim about where/when the scene happens, or what its connection to the other events of the film is, is original research. Why can't you admit likewise? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion of opening sentence relating to black liquid.Sorry, but its ridiculous to suggest that the opening scene is "not an important aspect of the plot." Semitransgenic _talk. 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• what's consumed at the beginning? a dark liquid.
• what's found on LV233? a dark liquid.
• what does Holloway ingest? a dark liquid.
• what gives rise to the chain of events that leads to the birth of the deacon? a dark liquid.
• what then is clearly central to the plot? a dark liquid.

Whether or not we understand what the dark liquid is, or how it works, is not the point, but note that Lindelof has stated: "I felt that the punchline of Prometheus was going to be that there is human DNA in what we have come to know as the human Xenomorph."

• Does it appear that there is a direct connection between the dark liquid and the xenomorph? yes.
• Is DNA central to what happens in the movie? yes.
• Does the opening scene connect the black liquid with changes to DNA? yes.

Seems pretty important to the plot from what I can see. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening scene is not directly connected with any other scene in the movie, and remains unexplained. There is no indication when it takes place (past, present or future) or where (Earth or another earth-like planet). The figure looks like an Engineer, but could be another alien that looks like an Engineer or could be native (not alien) to that planet. The spaceship may or may not be an Engineer spaceship. We do not know why he drinks the black liquid, or what effect it had on the surrounding life or environment after he falls into the water. It is a mysterious mood piece that echos the Prometheus myth and foreshadows elements of the story, but it does not directly further any plot point in the rest of the movie (other than to establish that the dark liquid affects DNA--a point that is not developed in the summary). Also, as currently written, someone reading the plot summary without having seen the movie may be confused by this opening sentence about a humanoid alien who trigger a biogenetic reaction (and whether you believe the scene connects human DNA with the Engineers would depend on whether you choose to believe the opening scene takes place on Earth). For clarity and to avoid confusion, the paragraph regarding the opening scene should be deleted from the Plot section, but a discussion of it may be appropriate in another section for critical commentary. Jjuo (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jjuo. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't — the opening scene seemed obvious to me, and it certainly seems obvious to The New Yorker critic David Denby, for example, in his review here. If one of the world's most respected film critics and one of the world's most respected and intelligent magazines feels the opening scene is significant and important perhaps we should consider that the scene is not a mistake on the part of the filmmakers. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article about a film is a very different thing from a Newspaper review of a film - the two should read differently, and the kind of material that is suitable for a review isn't necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia. No one has said that the scene is a mistake on the part of the filmmakers, but that doesn't mean we should describe it in the plot section. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize; I'm a journalist, and I should have expressed my point more clearly. What I was suggesting is that while person A or person B might not understand the scene and might think it extraneous, person C or person D might understand it and believe it's intrinsic to the plot of the movie. I was simply giving an example of someone who understood it. Not all storytelling "spoon-feeds" the audience; sometimes a filmmaker makes his or her point obliquely, or in a way that requires the audience to "connect the dots." If one person or other doesn't get the point of the opening scene, that's cool — but that doesn't automatically mean that other people don't get it and that the scene is useless or extraneous. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Language

The connection between the Engineers and humans is established in the first 5 minutes of the film when they find ancient concrete slaps and a specific map that means they can even be on the planet. At no point is him speaking to them considered a revelation, and it does not specify what language he is speaking.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of this article, I propose saying "David speaks to the engineer in an unknown language" because A)while we may know it's some ancient language, we don't know which, B) We have no idea what was said and C) It conveys to the reader that the audience does not know what was said without some clunky explanation. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well since we don't know what he says and potentially never will, there isn't much gain in going into detail about it. If he had said "Hi", it wouldn't make a difference, but I prefer that implementation over the full sentence of description about it that was added before.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not altogether unhappy with your way, I just feel that the filmmakers left us in the dark about what was said for a reason and is thus worth a few extra words. Let's see if the other editor would like to make his position clear, and if anyone else cares to share their thoughts on this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as language goes, at the beginning we saw that David was systematically studying a specific ancient language by means of an interactive computerized tutor. When Shaw attempted to speak to the Engineer in English, it became clear that the Engineer did not understand and showed no reaction, but when David spoke in the ancient language, suddenly the facial expression of the Engineer changed and reflected a mixture of irony, disdain and anger before the Engineer executed David and two crew members. This shows that not only there was a connection between the Engineers and some ancient human civilizations, but the Engineer remembered even after so many thousands of years, and this is not original research but an important detail we need to add to the plot summary. FormalLogician (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What? That is complete original research. First he isn't remembering after thousands of years, as far as he would be aware it's been moments, he's been in stasis. Second there is no evidence that he is speaking that specific language. Third, you're ignoring the part where I said that a connection is already made multiple times. Stone slabs with a map that lead them there, humanoid appearance and DNA match. David being able to figure out their language (which he has done multiple times in operating their systems), is not a notable connection nor a revelation and it is not an important plot point. English is not even the global language, let alone the universal, why WOULD he understand it? And of course that is before we get into your interpretation of the emotional status of an ancient alien. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my interpretation of the emotional reaction of the Engineer when David spoke in the ancient language (as opposed to the Engineer's expressionless behavior when Shaw spoke in English) was after having seen the film 3 times. After I see the film for a 4th time I will clarity it again here:) Anyway, as for your remark about the hypersleep/stasis of the Engineer, if I remember correctly, the carbon dating showed that the Engineers were ravaged by the accidental epidemic some 2,000 years ago, and probably the ancient language existed for a longer period of time. So it must be that the Engineers decided to annihilate humanity more recently many thousands of years after the cave paintings of humans worshiping Engineers were made (much before 2,000 years ago as stated by Holloway and Shaw). Anyway, the way the ancient language was used to communicate with the Engineers is definitely worth noting in the plot summary, in my humble opinion.

Sorry I forgot to add my signature. FormalLogician (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is an addendum to my observations about the ancient language David used, and the meaning of what he said to the Engineer. I now recall more clearly that after David awakened the Engineer from hypersleep, initially Shaw desperately attempts to talk to the Alien in English to ask "why do you hate us, why do you want to destroy us after you created us?", and then Weyland gets angry and tells his armed guard "to shut her up", the bodyguard hits Shaw in the stomach and she falls temporarily. At that moment Weyland orders his servant David "Now tell the Engineer why we came here". Understandably, Weyland is ordering David to translate his wish to the Engineer, that Weyland's goal is to attain immortality, which stated before to Shaw and other crew members. At that moment David is using his knowledge of the ancient human language that was shared with the Engineers once upon a time, when there were good relations between the race of Engineers and the humans who were worshiping the Engineers in the 35,000 year old cave paintings. Thus it is clear from context (in view of how Weyland ordered David to say to the Engineer "why we came here") that what David said to the Engineer in the ancient language, is simply Weyland's wish to attain immortality. FormalLogician (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't know exactly what David says to the Engineer in his logically-deduced version of their language. It may be "my master travelled across the stars to meet you" or it may just be "hello, let me explain who we are and why we came". His head is pulled off before he has finished. CaraPolkaDots (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

He may've said, "We estimate you've been asleep 2000 years. Would you like a hamburger, or a large Coke?" EXCEPT that Weyland repeatedly tells David to ask him something. I think we can conclude that David does just that; no subtitles were needed. I do recall a reference to Weyland asking David if he'd completed his studies of languages and David affirmed he had, and could attempt communication based on commonalities between them. That the Engineer promptly responds (non-verbally) to David, then attacks him, is good indication that the Engineer got the gist of David's attempt to communicate. ... Those of you who've seen the film multiple times already (wow) can refresh my/our memory on what Weyland orders David to ask. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Weyland tells David to tell the alien "why I came". We simply don't know how much of that message he managed to get across in a sentence or two, how much of it the Engineer understood or why he is angry, except that he had just been sent to exterminate the humans before he went to sleep. There was an interview in which they said there was an active decision not to subtitle that bit of dialogue, i.e. to leave it ambiguous. Until there is a sequel or another interview, we simply don't know any more.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As you said, maybe David was executed before he was able to finish his sentence and explain that Weyland wants to live forever. Nevertheless, the fact that the Engineer recognized and understood the ancient human language is important because it confirms that in addition to having genetically created us, the Engineers also attained a certain status on earth where they culturally interacted with humans one way or another, confirming the cave paintings where humans were worshiping the Engineers. For this reason I would like to build a consensus in this forum to add a sentence to the plot summary: " David speaks to the Engineer in one of the ancient human languages, and the Engineer immediately recognizes and understands, but the Engineer responds with anger, by decapitating David and killing Weyland and the rest of the crew." Also let me emphasize the way the facial expression of the Engineer changed when he recognized the ancient human language: in the face of the Engineer there was a mixture of irony, disdain, and anger before the Engineer decapitated David. This is difficult to quantify in writing, but the anger was clear in the face of the Engineer. FormalLogician (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't clear or even indicated that David speaks in "one of the ancient Human languages." Until someone (Scott, Lindelof, et al) discloses in a reliable source what it is David's speaking, we can't make our own conjectures on what he speaks. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (oops, my signature got cut off)

It seems that he recognises the language as an effort to communicate with him. We don't know for certain that he understands. If somebody from afar had deduced English from an old copy of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", you'd have a hard job understanding what he was trying to say, even if you recognised it as a form of English. Figuring out enough of a language to read it can be done by deduction - learning to speak it properly requires listening to someone else who can.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) The language David used in an effort to communicate with the Engineer, is what David was studying with the interactive computerized language tutor when he was alone during the long trip before Prometheus landed. The "language instructor" on the computer screen was a human wearing traditional clothes from India, and the language sounded like a more rare language or at least geographically related to that section of the world, probably one of the forgotten languages or dialects. Evidently David intentionally used this language to talk to the Engineer with the obvious assumption from his part that once upon a time, this language might have been shared by the Engineers and humans who worshiped them as on the cave paintings. (2) If you see the Prometheus film more than once and if you pay attention to that scene where the Engineer is confronted by Shaw, David and Weyland, you will see that the Engineer's facial expression significantly changed between Shaw's attempt to communicate in English and David's attempt to communicate in the other language: when Shaw spoke in English the Engineer's expression was blank, but when David spoke in the other language, the Engineer's facial expression was: "Ahaa! That one!", and the facial expression of the Engineer included some irony, disdain, and anger, different from the expression when Shaw was speaking. It would seem that when the Engineer recognized the human culture, he was enraged even more, possibly becasue once upon a time there were good relations between humans and Engineers (the cave paintings show humans worshipping Engineers who are leading them), but something went wrong later. FormalLogician (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to keep this to what the film says with no more speculation than necessary. David has "spent two years" studying several (I forget how many) ancient languages "down to their roots". The instructor looks Indian - that doesn't mean the language is Sanskrit. Apparently linguists have deduced something of the core root between Sanskrit and the European language families (Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavonic etc). Whether there is in reality a link between that hypothetical Indo-European language and the languages of Hawaii, ancient Sumer, ancient Mexico, Skye 35,000 years ago (pre-Celtic), I've no idea. But if we assume there was, that's what David has learned. You can deduce ancient dead languages like Minoan or Ancient Egyptian in exactly the way you'd deduce a cipher (it's why professors of linguistics were used as codebreakers) but how they were pronounced is little more than guesswork. Even within the same country pronunciation can vary beyond the point of mutual intelligibility. We know David has deduced enough of the language to read inscriptions and operate their control panels, but we don't know for certain that the Engineer understands exactly what is being said to him, although he does seem to recognise it as an attempt to communicate in his language. Nor do we know why he is angry. Plot hole: languages evolve, but the Engineers' language doesn't seem to have evolved in the thousands of years between their last visits to Earth and their going to sleep.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are saying that perhaps the Engineer did not understand what David is saying because David's mastery of the language and his attempted pronunciation might be inadequate. Even if this were true, I am sure you will agree that the Engineer at least recognized that David was trying to communicate in the ancient language that was once upon a time shared between humans and Engineers, when the relations between the two races was rather good (humans worshiping Engineers who are leading them, as in the cave pictures) during the good old days. But when the Engineer recognized David's attempt to communicate in that language, his reaction (facial expression and his composure) became substantially different from the Engineer's expression when Shaw was speaking to the Engineer in English. Then at that precise moment, the Engineer put one of his hands on the head of David and his facial expression contained a mixture of irony and contempt, followed by a burst of rage when the Engineer's face became very angry while decapitating David and brutally hitting Weyland in the head and then also killing the other two crew members with almost martial arts type movements. I am sure the Engineer would have killed them anyway since his mission was to annihilate humanity, but on the basis of the Engineer's composure, I am sure that the Engineer definitely became enraged when he heard David trying to communicate in the ancient language. When I see the film again I will let you know more details about the facial expression and the composure of the Engineer when confronted by humans: I still feel that the Engineer's psychology turned significantly more negative when he recognized David's attempt to use the ancient language. You are saying that the Engineer's language doesn't seem to have evolved in the thousands of years. Maybe it evolved in other ways. Maybe their alphabet stayed the same as in the instructions manuals on the walls (but it is possible that David is so intelligent that he was able to extrapolate and figure out the new symbols on the basis of the old symbols and even variations in grammar). And maybe the Engineer language and science became so advanced and so perfect that it was already very perfected, and perhaps difficult to improve. Another possibility is that once the Engineer science/culture/language became very advanced, they perhaps legislated that any changes would be made very slowly, since the Engineers have been colonizing many parts of the space, and if they are traveling in relativistic speeds under just under 99.99 % of the speed of light, or even if they are bypassing relativistic constraints by going through gravitational holes, still, there would probably be significant time differentials between travels from one place to another. So in order to coordinate and synchronize their activities in their home planets and distant places many light years away, perhaps they legislated that culture and education would be conservative and would change very slowly. FormalLogician (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This has gone on way too long, it's a very detailed theory but it is theory based on very little provided information. Where a suggestion has come from that they ever shared a common language, I don't know and that is pure theory. Boiling this down to the root problem, it does not need to be included in the plot how he communicates with them, it is a minute detail which has no bearing on the plot events. This discussion really should come to an end or the theory should be discussed elsewhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will end the discussion, but only because it is too long, not it is because it is just a theory or it is irrelevant. The composure and facial expression of the Engineer indicates that the Engineer at least recognized David's attempt to use that language and reacted differently in comparison to what Shaw said. And secondly, as the other commentator CaraPolkaDots noticed, David recognized and deciphered the written instructions on the walls (to open doors in the Engineer ship, to operate Engineer computers etc) on the basis of the ancient languages he studied on earth. The fact that David was so confident about the possibility that the language he studied might just work, is an indication that at least Lindelof and Scott thought it that way! What David does, definitely has some weight, and should not be dismissed as just a theory. Adding just a few words to the Wikipedia plot would not hinder the quality of the article, and I contend that this is one of the most important scenes of the movie. FormalLogician (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Going back to basics, the star map found was independently created by separated cultures, so David was studying multiple ancient languages in order to find common ground - Commonality would suggest the word had a possible 'universal' usage and could be understood by the engineers. David spent a long time studying these languages, but you all seem to forget that once he was on the ship he spent a few minutes in front of a door and worked out how to open it. Later he witnessed a holographic recording of an engineer use the ships computer systems. David then imitated this usage, and from there I think it's quite reasonable to assume his usage and experience with the systems increased his understanding of the engineer language considerably. In the end there is no way he could have been speaking an ancient language - He was speaking 'engineer'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.89 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agreed above with Darkwarriorblake that I made this discussion too long, but thanks for your comments about the holographic recording of the Engineers. Please note that when David viewed the holographic recording in the control room, he also heard a conversation among several Engineers, and although the sound quality of this recording was not very audible, it seems to me that this language sounded similar to what we witnessed David studying at the beginning of the film. Basically, it is not so much the "language", but the several confirmations that we have in this film about the shared culture between ancient humans and Engineers is an important subject to cover somewhere in this article (maybe not in the plot section but in a new "philosophy section"), because as Scott and Lindelof emphasized, this interpretation of the Alien movie does try to focus on the philosophical question instead of being just a good action/horror film. After all, it is shown in cave paintings that initially humans and Engineers had good relations but something went wrong later. FormalLogician (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed at this ... speculation on the part of editors. The whole point of this scene is that we don't know what David said. Just prior to this David explains, "don't all children want to see their parents dead?" He has the motivation to do anything at all, as plot lines go. Then Shaw and Waylen bicker about what message David should translate and what he finally says is left a mystery to the viewer. If an editor is trying to make the jump to say that the Engineer understood the words or that it was in an Earth tongue, then that's Original Research, plain and simple, since all the film shows us isn't what David said, just what happened next. If you can find documentation to indicate that Scott and Lindelof wanted us to understand those words please cite it, but for me this is just an example of editors trying to bridge gaps because they can't stand mysteries in a complex story. Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellently put. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but my "original research" is only in observing the facial expression(s) and composure(s) of the Engineer when he was confronted by Shaw, David, and Weyland. Non-verbal clues constitute an important part of communication and books are written about it without being original research.Otherwise, because the implications are somewhat not tangible enough to be considered "action", we are not including it in the plot section, but it is still not original research and it's still worth at least discussing here. Let me summarize again: Engineer's facial expression was different when he first listened to Shaw's attempt to speak to him in English and then David's attempt to speak in the other language as follows:

• (1) When the Engineer first heard Shaw, his facial expression indicated that even though Engineers collectively decided to annihilate all humans, the Engineer was at least listening to Shaw's attempt to communicate, with a serious facial expression in the Engineer's face that indicated full concentration without irony or disrespect, at least the Engineer was taking Shaw seriously.
• (2) But when David spoke in the other language the Engineer's facial expression indicated not only that he recognized this as a different language (not necessarily as an ancient language he understood the contents but certainly something that was familiar with or without understanding) but the Engineer's facial expression also indicated something like irony and disrespect, as if he was saying "Aha! That one again!", and then, after having looked at David with the new facial expression as a reaction to what David said, before decapitating David,
• (3) the Engineer suddenly turned his face away from David and toward Weyland, and he directly looked at Weyland's face with a facial expression that included irony and disdain, like saying "Aha! Is that so?" And only after having looked at Weyland's face with this irony and disdain, then the Engineer once again turned towards David again and finally decapitated David. Soon after David started to speak, before decapitating David, why would the Engineer distract his attention away from David and suddenly turn his face toward Weyland with this new disdainful facial expression, unless the Engineer understood what David was talking about and what Weyland wanted for himself? From these observations it really seems that the Engineer perceived David as the mouthpiece of Weyland and reacted to what was said to him by David with a different more disdainful facial expression than in the case of Shaw. And in particular, the Engineer perceived what David said as statements that came from Weyland (because of the way Engineer temporarily looked at Weyland while David was speaking, before decapitating David.) Thus it is a strong indication that the Engineer understood what David was saying, although this is not because both David, Shaw and Weyland believed that David figured out the language of Engineers, but because of the way the Engineer behaved. Noticing these subtle differences is not original research, but simply paying attention to events. FormalLogician (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all really interesting and may very well be valid, but the vast bulk of this is personal interpretation. For example, RE "{H]is facial expression indicated that even though Engineers collectively decided to annihilate all humans, the Engineer was at least listening to Shaw's attempt to communicate..." : That's a subjective interpretation. And personal POV isn't allowed. I know you're sincere, and believe in all honesty that these the only things those expressions and gestures could possibly mean to any rational person. I respect your view; I don't believe it's the only posible interpretation that a reasonable and rational person could have, and I think that's the general consensus in this discussion. A good artist, after all, leaves something to the viewer's imagination and interpretation. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, this is the last time I am emphasizing this, but my digression you are pointing out ("even though Engineers decided to annihilate humanity") was just peripheral, it was not the bulk of my observation. How about my third observation that the Engineer suddenly switched from looking from David to Weyland with the same irony and disdain in his face (this facial expression intensified even more toward Weyland actually) before decapitating David even though Weyland said nothing to him? Only after temporarily looking at Weyland, the Engineer switches back his attention once again towards David again and decapitates him. This last behavior of the Engineer almost certainly indicates that the Engineer perceived David as the mouthpiece of Weyland, and moreover, the Engineer's behavior of switching back and forth between David and Weyland with that ironical facial expression, most likely implies that David did in fact totally obey his master's command and translate Weyland's wishes before being decapitated. As you said, "there may be other interpretations", but the third observation seems to make sense. FormalLogician (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly? I have to say that "with the same irony and disdain in his face" is a subjective interpretation. I read something different in the scenes. Other people appear to read something different still. And you see this as well, when you say, admirably straightforwardly, "most likely implies" ... to you. Not necessarily to others. In any case, under Wikipedia's definition, at least, that time of interpretation falls under POV / original research and can't be used. I do have to say, it's a shame we can't sit and talk about the movie, because your viewpoints are all so interesting. With my regards, Tenebrae (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, nothing is written in stone, and others can surely interpret it differently, but this is why we have the talk page. In any case, by the year 2013, when you get the DVD of the movie, you will have a chance to re-examine under the microscope that scene where humans for the first time talk to an Engineer. Then you will see:). But here is an additional observation:

• The Engineer actually uses the removed head of David to hit Weyland in the head to kill him. It is somewhat awkward to do this and not even necessary because the Engineer is already so strong that as you can see, it was even faster for the Engineer to directly hit and kill humans with his/its own hand. So it seems that this method of killing Weyland is connected with the way Engineer associated David's statement with Weyland, it was not arbitrarily chosen by Ridley Scott...FormalLogician (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Or Ridley might have thought it just looked cool ... which it did!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's very possible that Scott and Lindelof sacrificed/compromised the logic and adapted the plot in order to fit the visual impression it will make on the audience. Scott already said that his emphasis is more on the visual part of the film than the more logical plot that Cameron adhered to in Aliens. For instance, at the beginning of the film, there is no reason for the advanced race of Engineers to do a ritual sacrifice by killing one of their own people in order to donate their DNA to the planet Earth: they could have just given one drop of blood or a surgically removed microscopic piece from each internal organ to create an equivalent material in sufficient quantities in a laboratory before pouring the DNA into the river on Earth. This was just to make an impression on the audience and a way of introducing the race of Engineers to the audience in a spectacular way. In any case, the scene where the Engineer is confronted by humans for the first time, is quite interesting: after Shaw escapes from the Engineer's spaceship, the way the Engineer then prepares the telescope and then climbs into the pilot chair, is very militaristic, this is exactly how the fighter pilots climb into the airplane before they go to war. (And even the music became military, with drums when the Engineer was climbing into the pilot seat, once again this scene was making a big impression on the audience.) Thus althoughPrometheus covers more ideas and philosophies than Alien, the Alien movie was more modest and less manipulative, less compromising. More homework had to be done to make a movie commensurate with these bigger ideas. FormalLogician (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

To put to rest a lot of this theory, this is what David apparently says: "This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life." This according to the language expert who worked with the film (apparently), the source it traces back to is a blog as far as I can tell and not reliable enough to use in the article itself but information none the less Collider link Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for mentioning this.I assume that you are referring to the website

http://thebioscopist.com/2012/06/20/the-linguistics-of-prometheus-what-david-says-to-the-engineer/

where it is said that the name of the expert language consultant who worked with Ridley Scott is Dr. Anil Biltoo, and that he was the computerized "tutor" that we saw training David at the beginning of the film. I don't know how credible this website is, but it makes sense because it is unlikely that David can do something against the interests of his master Weyland. This also confirms my comments about the 3 different facial expressions of the Engineer when he looked at Shaw, David and Weyland. When we get the DVD, we will have a chance to re-examine this scene under the microscope. Also the longer director's cut version on the DVD might reveal more details. I wonder when the DVD will be released. But separately, I have read that the writings on the walls in the underground structure that David deciphered to open the doors and operate the computers of the Engineers, contained Sanskrit letters. I don't remember who made the latter claim, but it is likely that Ridley Scott did not put arbitrary letters on the walls, whatever linguistics he used was probably coherent. FormalLogician (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Meredith Vickers calls Weyland "father"

When Meredith Vickers calls Weyland "father", she also reveals considerable tension against her boss. She is not sympathetic to Weyland's quest for immortality, and responds by saying "A king has his reign, and he dies, it's inevitable." But towards the end of the movie, David, who is obviously very familiar with the situation of his master Weyland, cynically says to Shaw: "Isn't it true that all humans want the death of their parents?", and Shaw revolts and says to David that she never did. In view of David's implied or insinuated comments, it seems that Vickers is waiting for her father's death to take his place. In any case, we should add to the plot summary that Vickers called Weyland "father" (she seems too young to be his daughter, but it's still possible in view of the way science is progressing), and that Vickers is not sympathetic to Weyland's goal of attaining immortality, even if Vickers is not actively wishing that her father should die. But in view of the comments of David, this is very possible, since David's universe is basically focused on Weyland and by extension his family, and when David asked Shaw "If all humans want their parents to die", this must be what David observed from the family of Weyland. Thus the relationship between Vickers and Weyland is worth adding to the plot summary FormalLogician (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

She might want him dead because he's been a terrible father. She might be clinging to him hoping she will get acknowledgement eventually. If she had any chance of inheriting that company she would have stayed behind and been running it instead of having to listen to who does. His death in no way is confirmed to give her the keys to the castle. That's a different interpretation because that is the only option available to us, to interpret it. Without the interpretation it basically involves adding a random "she calls Weyland father" with no idea of what that means considering "is she an android", "isn't she?", "Why is she hiding her name", "if she is the daughter of the world famous Peter Weyland how is changing her name enough to hide her identity", etc, etc, etc. It's all theory. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct because it is virtually impossible for a certified narcissist like Weyland to be a good father. At the end of the conversation between Vickers and Weyland, when Vickers called Weyland "father", her eyes were becoming (slightly) filled with tears and there was an expression of deep pain in her facial expression. God knows how badly Weyland treated Vickers when she was a child, probably manipulating her psychologically in order to force her to make a good impression on other rich families, etc. To answer your question about why the daughter is calling her Vickers instead of Weyland, it is possible that she got married in an effort to get away from her father and took the married name, but that she later divorced she kept the married name. Quite often the children of narcissistic parents are confused and they often end up getting divorced more frequently than other groups. Also, it is often impossible for the children of narcissistic parents to free themselves from their parents psychologically, even if they try to distance themselves, and perhaps this is why Vickers still ended up working for her father as an executive, as she was still attached to power and prestige, etc. So it is quite likely that Vickers wants her father's place, and she probably wants her father to die. Here is another indication that Vickers would want Weyland to die (besides her statement to Weyland that "A king has his reign and he dies, it's inevitable, it's the natural order of things"): Recall that David, who is a close confidant of Weyland (he knows the ideas and wishes of Weyland more than Vickers as shown in the film), asks Dr. Shaw rhetorically "Isn't it true that all humans want their parents to die", as if David has not seen anything else in his limited social circle. (When Shaw revolts and answers "I never did", David smiles with satisfaction.) So combining the conversations between Vickers and Weyland, as well as what David said to Shaw, we can safely infer that Vickers definitely wants her father to die. FormalLogician (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Without wishing to spend too much time on idle speculation, Vickers may also be illegitimate - the child of one of Weyland's mistresses - and have spent years trying to win her father's acceptance (and lots of men have children in their fifties or even older - it is perfectly possible for a well-preserved 40-something to have a 100-year old father). Perhaps he has legitimate daughters (he says he has no natural son) who will inherit large shareholdings, but of whom he disapproves. We don't know that Vickers wants her father dead - not, at least, before he confirms her as his successor - that is just David's take on the matter, perhaps based on Weyland saying to him (as a trusted confidant) "that girl, she just wants me dead". Who knows.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

according to this she is his daughter in some capacity, it still doesn't explain the name change or secrecy. It does however throw in a tidbit of info that they intentionally made Theron and Fassbender look alike, because in-universe, David was designed to be Vickers if she was a man, the son he wanted. The part about them making them look the same seems like a relevant piece of design information, though I can't think of where to add it or how to word it as it relies partly on the source and partly on in-universe info to explain. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As you said, maybe it's just what Weyland said to David about his impression about his daughter, but the conversation we have witnessed between Weyland and Vickers also adds some weight to the possibility that Vickers really wants him to die: her eyes were becoming sligtly filled with tears and her eyes were becoming red, and her voice and facial expression were indicating pain and also anger. Her choice of words "a king has his reign, and he dies, it's the natural order of things", seems to indicate that not only she does not approve of her father's wish to live forever, but that she also has some kind of succession in mind. Thus I would like to build a consensus here to add the following sentence to the plot summary at Wikipedia:" Vickers calls Weyland "father" and she makes it known that she is opposed to his wish of attaining immortality." This is worth mentioning even if there is no guarantee that Vickers will be allowed to take over the corporation after Weyland dies, but clearly it seems that Vickers has her own reasons to disapprove of her father staying alive FormalLogician (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, this was exactly the point I made previously, which was deleted without consideration by IllaZilla (talk · contribs) who called such comments as somehow being "irrelevant" or "general discussion", and found support for it being "off-topic" to mention. As Hurley would say, Dude!? --HidariMigi (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to stick my little paw into this rat-trap, but I agree with both of you: that Vickers' parentage is important and that the plot summary not include every single extraneous detail. May I suggest a compromise? The fact that Vickers refers to Weyland as her father can be put in the actor/character section (e.g. "Charlize Theron plays Meredith Vickers, Mission Controller of the Prometheus and daughter of Peter Weyland"), not the plot summary, which seems to be heading back to "dark and stormy night" status ("dark, bubbling liquid"? Oh, good grief...). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I think we need to say that Vickers calls Weyland "father," without making too much of it. It's a big reveal in the movie, and I don't believe an encyclopedic plot can just ignore it. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Infection

Because it isn't a complete week if someone isn't creating hassle with the plot and ignoring comments, yet another discussion. The second video here details the effect that the goo has on the Engineer, referring to it multiple times as infecting the system/DNA. Infection/infection is a perfectly apt term, a foreign element in the body causing abnormal harm. Introducing information about a testing conspiracy is not apt or accurate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

nice to see you are still getting a major boner with your WP:OWN trip. Awesome dude.-- Semitransgenic _talk. 23:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT events do not need to be described in chronological order if it is easier to understand otherwise. Even without that guideline, how it is unreasonable to consider him being infected with the black liquid I don't know. Crying OWN every time you're challenged on something is childish. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

you accuse an editor of "creating hassle" and then have the audacity to call them childish? Persistent reversion of all content one disagrees with points to a possible OWN issue. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 23:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Correcting incorrect edits isn't OWN, it's correcting incorrect edits. You added something, I explained why it was invalid, you readded it, I provided evidence, undid it and started a discussion, you readded it again without discussing and when you did, did not stick to the topic of discussion but issued a declaration of OWN using the word "boner". My audacity is purely audacious in its accurate implication of your lack of post-childishness actualization of implementation of the very model comprehension of OWN. If you feel I OWN the article, go fetch someone to deal with my rampant dictatorship. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the content was "incorrect" and "invalid" based on your assessment; sounds familiar. Again, not a matter of the substance causing infection, a case of stating this appropriately in the summary. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You stated it was incorrect to call it an infection at that point and thus explained in a much more wordy, plot expanding way the events including introducing a goo testing conspiracy, don't change the facts to support your argument. I've cited WPFILMPLOT above about the explanation of events, the plot is not there to tell you the plot of the film, it is there to give you an understanding of the film, so saying that he was infected at the earlier point is not inaccurate. It's not inaccurate even IN the film itself, what else would you call it? A leisurely stroll into Holloways lower intestine? It was incorrect because you introduced incorrect conspiracy info and it was incorrect because it was explained succinctly in its previous state within guidelines. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Budget

Total Budget: $180,000,000

http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/prometheus-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.185.15.147 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources which estimate between 120-130 million. That is the first time I've seen 180 million. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Boxoffice lists that figure at 'total budget', which may include marketing/distribution. The standard here seems to be production budget only.--Williamsburgland (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

Hi, would you add localized link(Korean) for Prometheus? http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%94%84%EB%A1%9C%EB%A9%94%ED%85%8C%EC%9A%B0%EC%8A%A4_(%EC%98%81%ED%99%94)

Freebits (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia isn't a reliable source on its own!! Mdann52 (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they meant the link at the bottom that links to the different versions of the article on non-english Wikipedia? I tried to add it but i've not done it before so I'm not sure if I've done it right.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you did it right. :) (and I just double-checked the Korean page to make sure it's the correct article for this) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Zeta Reticuli

Ridley Scott has mentioned on Video that the film is set in the Zeta Reticuli star sytem....

See the source I put in my edit as it contains the video interview in which he explicitly said that(although he mistook it for the planet and got a little confused, he ment to say "Star System").

So why are my edits being deleted... He said it and you can watch the video where he said it as I properly sourced it! Discuss.

Colliric (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was removed because it was sourced by a blog, and you spammed the information all over the article as if it was somehow of note or relevant. I've seen others mention the Zeta system, if it was the same place where Alien took place people would probably make more of a deal about it. While the references I've seen have him researching that specific galaxy for this film like it is new. And considering the source refers to the planet as Zeta2 Reticuli, and NOT the galaxy, it's even more unreliable than previously thought. Provide an actual source that makes it relevant and stop spamming it even if you do. Looking at the Alien article, even there it is mentioned only once and only suggested by an outside source. What you are doing is spamming info to try and forge a connection between the films with trivia when connections are already firmly established. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just responding to your "oh he said it was a planet" thing, it was an interview and he obviously got a little confused(as it would really be pretty odd for astrologists to call a Star System and a Planet exactly the same name, could you find an example for me?). For your information the Star Map(which shows the origin and destination of the engineers, when it's revealed they're coming to earth) that we see later in the film also shows the origin point of the engineers as the Zeta Reticuli star system. However I will yeild for now and leave this in the talk section till more information comes avalible, Obviously I could rereference the thing better and point instead to the video rather than a Blog(something you could have also done too instead of just plain deleting the whole damn thing despite the fact it's right), as that would be a more valid reference(and obviously a primary source). And also even though Alien was in fact set in the same system(actually shown on film in the scene where Lambert is calculating their distance to earth, as well as in the calcuation of distance to earth, but not verbally mentioned specifically), obviously in the 30 years since making the original, Ridley was reaquianting himself with the setting, and updating his knowledge of the system and it's many controversies(it's the system that all the "UFO Nuts" believe aliens in flying sauces come from! a fact that Ridley and company were obviously aware of, even when setting Alien there).

Colliric (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that even if they do take place in the same star system or constellation, which isn't clear and various interpretations are made in different sources, including the Weyland Industries timeline for this film which claims that the planet is outside the Reticuli system: "Weyland astronomers discover multiple moons and a ringed planet just outside the Zeta 2 Reticula System, which are possibly able to support life, which is supported by Lambert saying that they are just outside the Zeta 2 Reticula system when they wake up. Weyland expects to travel there within the century." Whether it is or isn't, it is in-universe trivia that does not need to be and should not be spammed in 3 places in the article, not in the lede, not in the plot where that is never mentioned. It was being used to connect the films when the films have enough connection established without spammed trivia. Might as well start pasting "Prometheus is made by Weyland Corp, just like the Nostromo in Alien" all over the place too.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

In the first sentence of Prometheus (film)#Development pls change "sequel" to "prequel". Thanks. 203.59.61.115 (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   REPLY   TOW  talk  07:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pls read the second paragraph of the lede which the sentence I have requested the change on currently contradicts. Cameron may have approached Scott about a sequel to Aliens but Scott was already considering a film about the origins of the Alien species. I think it's fairly obvious that a film which explores the origin of a prev film's characters is a prequel. 203.59.61.115 (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet the obvious comparison is Predator, Alien vs. Predator (film) is set in 2004, Predator (film) is unspecified, but fits its 1987 release. Dru of Id (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing mentioning a 'sequel' in the first sentence of the section. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 14:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand the OP's confusion here. When this film was initially conceived before AVP, JC and RS referred to it as a sequel, and while it would have explored the origins of the Alien and space jockey, it could have done so chronologically after Resurrection. After AVP, there was a period of inactivity on this project, and when RS returned to it it was re-imagined as a direct prequel. Both sections cover that adequately in my opinion... is that any clearer?--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah according to the available information, Weaver was in talks to return at one point so it would have taken place later. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Black Goo and Squid Babies?

Is it ever explained in the movie why, when everyone except Sean Harris' character ingests Purity (sorry, that particular black goo was from the X-files) they begin to decompose, whereas Harris is turned into a homicidal zombie? Is it explained why Noomi Rapace never bothers to tell anyone she just cut a squid-baby out from inside her and left it locked up in Charlize Theron's tummy cutting machine? (granted if I was forced to wear Leeloo's underwear from the movie The Fifth Element I might be in a state of shock too) Why would the Engineers give humans the location to their bio-weapons base in 30,000 year old pictograms in caves? Also, how could the two scientist/red-shirts get "lost" inside the cave when they were in constant radio communication and visible on the hologram/GPS computer back in the ship? I am not looking for speculation, since that is OR, rather I haven't read as much background information as some of the editors here and was curious if anyone had read Scott's explanation? Cheers! Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who ingests it becomes building blocks, everyone exposed to it evolves. Simples. And this is not a discussion forum.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

DVD will contain the 20 minutes longer Extended Cut

According to this article, Ridley Scott says that the DVD will include an Extended Cut that will be 20 minutes longer, plus the deleted scenes: http://movieline.com/2012/06/11/ridley-scott-prometheus-dvd-deleted-scenes-20-minute-longer-extended-cut/ It might be worth adding a new section to the Wikipedia article about this subject. FormalLogician (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Added line to opening of plot section

Wasn't sure where best to put this - the plot section is discussed at various points in the talk page - so please feel free to move this somewhere more sensible.

I agree that the opening scene needs to be included and know that it's difficult to describe without wandering into OR/speculation. In its current state, while it managed that important feat, I thought it seemed a bit abrupt (spaceship departing from where...?). I hope my addition of the following sets the scene without making any controversial or speculative claims:

"At an unknown point in time, a spaceship is seen hovering over Earth or an Earth-like planet."

I also think the link to Earth analog is a nice one here.Señor Service (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Humbug!! I see this has already been edited - I did slightly prefer my version to the current one :oP for two reasons.

"If a time is unknown, we don't have to say "unknown" -- we just don't say what time it is." Normally yes - but since we then jump to 2089, I think the obvious question from a reader who hadn't seen the film would be, "When and where did the previous bit happen? How much time elapsed before the next bit...?" By saying "At an unknown point in time..." we remove the possibility that the information is known but wasn't deemed worthy of inclusion. I think it adds more to the reader's understanding of the scene than the addition of "rocky landscape". Of course, at least the reader now knows a bit about the "where".

The second para now begins "2089: Archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway..." which doesn't quite feel like encyclopaedic prose? That's a minor detail though.

I'll leave it up to other editors to compare the two.Señor Service (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I can't edit the article 'cos I'm on my phone and not logged in. Someone has changed the description to "a desolate planet". That's factually inaccurate and needs to go - the planet is shown to be fertile and have vegetation. A desolate planet would be something like Mercury. Even if the scenes shown are desolate in the sense of having no visible inhabitants, we can't generalise about the whole planet based on a few flyovers. "Unidentified planet" would be better, but can we please discuss the removal of "Earth or an Earth-like planet", because I feel that's the most succinct and illuminating description. Also, the editor seems to have misread it before he or she removed it? The reason given in the edit history is that the planet isn't necessarily earth. Agreed; that's why it said Earth or an Earth-like planet and linked to the Earth analog article. Cheers, Senor Service.