Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

I just wanted to say

That I am disgusted by the behavior of the editors here. It is evident to me that they want the article to stay exactly what they themselves have written, and that any deviation from that is to be instantly rejected without the slightest consideration of its merits. I suggest you folks start having a care for other people's input instead of being knee-jerk reverters. Vranak (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You made six distinct edits and only three were restored because they were better previously including the ridiculous "decapitation isn't as descriptive as wrenching" argument. So be disgusted all you want at the apparently inability of this article to change. Also every restore was accompanied by a comment explaining why, there was no knee jerk or lack of merit consideration.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Small error with names

Hi just to let you know it reads - A mutated Fifield attacks the hangar bay and kills several crew members before being killed himself. I think this was Charlie Holloway not Fifield. Cheers D.C Smith 124.188.57.120 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Holloway is the one who tells Theron to flamethrower him. GRAPPLE X 13:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2012

Please change "creatures" to "creatures'" because, in this context, the possessive form is necessary. See the third sentence of the third paragraph in subsection 3.2, Writing, within body section 3, Production. Thanks.

Bill

74.232.3.17 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Release Date

Please, add the release date in Japan: August 24, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.164.140 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant. Only the earliest date and those in the home country and countries of production are relevant. Otherwise we would be listing a dozen or more dates. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ridley explicitly says, "It's about Space Jesus"

I'll link to it, but because of the rules of WP, it "doesn't count" even though the man himself ("Word of God") is that it is what it is.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/did-ridley-scott-just-ruin-the-mysteries-of-prometheus-20120614 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html?nojs=1

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584373.html?nojs=1

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584565.html?nojs=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

the "earthworms" in the room with the cylinders

It seems these are the source of the "snake-like creatures" in the plot synopsis -- they are exposed to the dark liquid, and mutate, later attacking Fitfield. Perhaps this should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.161.213 (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not immediately obvious (my litmus test for this being that it took me a few viewings to twig) so there is a case for mentioning it. It's Milburn the biologist whom they attack.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the movie it was intentionally shown that the native earthworms of the planet were exposed to the leaking liquid, and therefore this almost certainly implies that the directors wanted us to infer that the snake-like creature that killed Fifield was one of the mutated earthworms... Therefore as you said, this is a case for mentioning it in the plot summary if we can make it concise (I am not good at making it concise.) Also of interest is the reason why the cylinders started to leak the dark liquid, given that these cylinders appeared to be intact for a long time. Was it the presence of humans nearby? It cannot be just the new air when David opened the door to the "temple room", since there were other cylinders also in the corridors leading to the door. Another (somewhat distantly related) observation is that it appears that 2 of the 4 hypersleep chambers in the control room of the spacecraft that David discovered, had mid-size chest-buster holes on top, clarifying to us the fate of each of the 3 crew members who managed to escape into the spacecraft in the original hologram at the beginning of the movie (the 4th got decapitated by the door). FormalLogician (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lindelof has already confirmed that the snakes are indeed worms mutated by the black liquid. [1] —Flax5 19:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case I suggest extending the sentence "David secretly takes a cylinder, while the remaining cylinders begin leaking a dark liquid" as follows: "David secretly takes a cylinder, while the remaining cylinders begin leaking a dark liquid, which comes in contact with the native earthworms on the ground." Does this look acceptable? FormalLogician (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They were mealworms by appearance, though likely aren't representative of the Earth species in the film (unless somehow introduced by humans), nor necessarily native to LV-223. Validusername 「Talk」 20:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If the worms were not native to the LV-223, then why would the Engineers bring these there? In any case, it now seems like a good idea to mention the worm-like creatures in the plot summary, as it would add continuity to explain the snake-like creatures. FormalLogician (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I reckoned 3 out of the 4 Engineer hypersleep capsules are chest-burst – you have to watch carefully as they are never all in shot at the same time. It’s not mentioned in the film (it would have been quite easy to have a character say “Look! “What are these Holes”? which suggests there may have been an explanation which got cut out) and I wouldn’t have noticed had I not seen it mentioned on a website.

There must have been more than four Engineers as Milburn and Fifield find the pile of dead bodies (or at any rate their armour, as the atmosphere in the corridor is not the same as inside the Head Chamber where they find the preserved head-in-a-helmet) burst from the inside. The underground ship, as shown on the scan on board the Prometheus, is down a long corridor so the Engineers fleeing into the Head Chamber (from what? Mutated earthworms? We don’t know) are not necessarily the same ones on board the spaceship or the ones found dead in the corridor.

I didn’t notice any cylinders in the corridors – it’s just rock and the control panels on the walls. There are of course loads more cylinders in the cargo hold of the Engineer ship, but why they don’t start sweating and leaking when humans breathe on them, I don’t know. Could be deliberate (they could be inside an outer capsule for the space journey, designed to break on impact or something), or could just be a continuity oversight.

There are quite a few plot loose/dead ends like this – David finding Alien glue on the control panel, which on first viewing makes the viewer think the explorers are about to be attacked by xenomorphs, unless it survived without hardening for 2,000 years; the chest-burst Engineer capsules which are never mentioned; the mystery liquid (“Martian Piss”) on the floors of the corridor which is not frozen despite below-zero temperatures – which may be because the script went through several drafts. Who knows. Can't really post any of that without a source though.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I counted 5 or 6 Engineers running in the corridor (although they are only all visible in the first shot) and about 8 or 10 "dead bodies" (actually remains of their armour, I think) in the pile which Milburn and Fifield discover.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the "mystery liquid" that Fifield and Milburn noticed on the floors of the corridor was the black liquid that leaked out of the many cylinders. In the region where Milburn was attacked by the snake-like creature, there were many leaking cylinders also. The only leaking cylinders were not in the big "temple room" where the giant statue of a humanoid head and the murals were discovered. But you are right about the "Alien glue" that David noticed on the control panel that opened the door of the Temple Room, it seems to indicate the presence of Alien creatures, but it is not clear where they went after killing the Engineers. But the DVD will be released in October 2012, and the additional 20 minutes plus another 30 minutes of deleted scenes should reveal more details about the chest-buster holes on the hypersleep chambers of the Engineers. FormalLogician (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Milburn and Fifield are attacked in the Temple Room (as you call it), which they had earlier refused to enter - F is just asking M what he thinks the Giant Head is ("some kind of God? Something they worshipped?") when the "snakes" appear. To repeat, I didn't notice any cylinders in the corridors - only in the Temple Room and later non-leaking ones in the cargo hold of the Engineer ship. The "Martian Piss" must resemble water, because that's what the explorers mistake it for. When they first go into the Temple Room Fifield says "what's all this black stuff?" and Milburn says something inaudible which sounds like "pistachio". So I don't think the mystery liquid is the same as the black liquid, unless it turns clear if it lies in corridors for 2,000 years. This discussion is going to get deleted if we're not careful.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Folks, let's not turn this into a general discussion of the film. Remember WP:NOTFORUM and let's stick to discussing the article ;-) --IllaZilla (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott one of the producers?

According to Pinewood Studios, here : http://www.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/uk/news/statement-ivan-dunleavy-death-tony-scott , the late Tony Scott co-produced Prometheus. His name should be under the Producers list in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.232.184 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He isn't credited on the poster so he probably only produced through Scot Free Productions with his brother. Will have to wait nad see what the film's credits say, but as far as the available info is concerned, the infobox only contains full producers with the "producer" credit and Tony Scott isn't one of htem.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Music Section - Chopin's music used in film but not mentioned here

I realise this is Good Article-nominated, and so naturally it is important to maintain its integrity, but there is a small but significant amount of music by Chopin in this film which is not mentioned in the article. Do you agree that it should be included here, even if briefly? Helmhholtz (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Provided it can be sourced, it can go in the Music section. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks IllaZilla Helmhholtz (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the "Raindrop" Prelude and I think it's mentioned in the credits at the end of the film.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious Propoganda

Can someone edit the article to point out the obvious pro christian bias in this movie. Given its filmed in the 21st century and set 100 years in the future I would have hoped that religion would be gone at that point especially in the scientific community. Understanding that this is not a discussion of the movie the fact that the only character that survives is constantly waving a crucifix around should be pointed out for those of us that are atheists (or even of other religions) so we don't have to sit through christian propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfual (talk • contribs) 11:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then don't sit through it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This would not be appropriate content for Wikipedia unless it has been discussed by reliable secondary sources, which it doesn't seem to have been. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and does not permit original research; your interpretation of a "pro-Christian bias" seems to be just that: your opinion, irrelevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the film. Pointing out religious themes so "atheists don't have to sit through it" is not among Wikipedia's goals. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at the Wikipedia page on Battlefield Earth and see how neutral Wikipedia are on the subject of a religion that presumably Christian editors don’t approve of. The whole article is a smug attack on scientology not the movie. It is a fact in the key character in this movie is a Christian. This is unusual in movies about the future. The symbolism of removing the crucifix when giving birth to the unfathered monster and the whole speech about faith = wear your cross and you will survive is a not so subliminal endorsement of the Christian myth. If she had been wearing a Muslim Hijab or Buddhist bracelet or been a scientologist it would have been stated as a matter of interest or concern or being unusual. Christian symbolism and messages are so ingrained in Hollywood movies "neutral" = American Christian educated editors don’t feel the fact worthy of comment. If she had been a muslim it would have been mentioned. Also read any interview with the director. The aliens were going to kill earth because they killed jesus ! http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/1575/ridley-scott-engineers-they-are-dark-angels/p1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfual (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given your lines "I would have hoped that religion would be gone at that point," and "presumably Christian" the bias more clearly lies with you. Try actually reading the Battlefield Earth article before citing it as an example of some Christian bias, it simply reports that the Church of Scientology invested money in the movie and that the movie was a commercial failure. That's not bias, that's reality.

Just because Wikipedia is not supporting your bias does not mean that Wikipedia is biased itself.

Stfual, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to preach from, and we do not tolerate attempts to use this site to "right great wrongs." We are also not a forum for general discussion.

If you have neutral and reliably sourced additions, they'll be welcome. Using an article on a bloody movie to push a worldview, regardless of what it is, will not be accepted here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Stfual, David survives and he is a soulless automaton that is superior to god's creations in every possible way. And the Christian helps give birth to a demonic creature. So...yeah. Not something I'd show at Sunday school. As for the underlying themes, well that is what a themes section is for, critical analysis from notable sources, not a complaints section about a christian being present in a film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Since the article is semi-protected, here's an edit request. In the Critical reception, please change "However the plot drew [...]" to "However, the plot drew [...]". And in the Sequel section, please change tangentialize to tangentialize. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, you only need to use a comma after words like However when it is being used to interrupt the flow of the current sentence. As for tangentialize, its a direct quote and that is what he said. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change the word "tangentialize" itself, I made it clickable. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Some other suggestions for the Plot section: the text fails to mention that they took the (helmet and) head of an Engineer to the Prometheus. (That's what they used to "the Engineer's DNA is found to match that of humans".) At the very end of the text, it says "a large alien creature bursts out of the Engineer's chest". The fragment "alien creature" links to Alien (creature in Alien franchise). I think "large" should be removed. Compared to the Alien creature from the Alien franchise, the alien creature in Prometheus is very small. And even compared to the Engineer the alien creature is small (it came out of the Engineer's chest). Compared to the alien offspring of Shaw, the alien creature is also (very) small. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your tangentialize thing, someone else would have to weigh in on that, I don't think it is normally acceptable to link to words. I assume you believe some people may not understand it? As for the plot it is meant to cover the broad strokes, though it could perhaps use a mention of them recovering something, it doesn't need to be stated that they recover both a helmet and head. Per WP:FILMPLOT, events do not need to be described exactly or even in sequence as long as understanding is conveyed. For the last sentence, I agree, it has been a struggle to describe it. It is large in that it is larger than most creatures in the film and probably comparable to humans. It is difficult to give it scale without comparative subjects. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"I assume you believe some people may not understand it?" What do you think? As for the plot: I know the plot doesn't need to mention the head, but... actually, you know what, just forget it. Have fun with your article. I won't post here again. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did think of adding the word "immature" or "juvenile" to the alien creature as it is clearly a young'un. Agree with the point about metioning "large" above (i.e. that it is misleading) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication that it will grow beyond what it is. Have you recently watched the film? If so it might be worth looking through the archives of this talk page for this and your question below as they have been discussed a lot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have watched the film - yesterday as it happens and the critter at the end looks smaller than the alien in the first Alien film (though is obviously not a juvenile stage as was in that film) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening sequence

Is there any discussion anywhere critically about where the opening sequence is supposed to be? Is this supposed to have occurred on earth? This segment mystified me a bit when I thought about it later and I figured might have been discussed somewhere. As well as more detail on alternative stories in the script. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Scott has said it is just any planet, implying they've done it more than once. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, ok. I think that'd be good to put in the article (unless I have missed discussion of it somewhere?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Box Office

A series of Ips, both from Virginia are very intent on adding boxoffice.coms BO figure to the article with no explanation for why it is an accurate figure over the existing Box Office Mojo source. BOM is used widely across Wikipedia, but the two IPs are adamant on having BO.com, either because the figure is higher so they aren't maintaining a neutral POV or because htey are involved in the site and self promoting. They refuse to explain why the figure is more correct than the BOM source so can anyone else add input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Biologist named 'Milburn' played by Rafe Spall is not spelled 'Millburn'

Please change this name spelling in three places under 'Plot' and three places under 'Cast'

The official character names and cast are listed on the films official website at www.prometheus-movie.com/articles/2 , in which it clearly shows the spelling of M-I-L-B-U-R-N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.236.5 (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fan site and a user has given you a pretty undeniable reason (beyond the film credits) why it isn't Milburn. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So what is the solution to getting it changed? Must I take a photo of the film's credits and post it? Perhaps a photo of the last name's spelling on his uniform in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.236.5 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

At one hour (1:00) into the film, in the scene where Millburn is attacked by the snake-like creature, you can see his name patch on his helmet reads "Millburn." Also, in the end credits (at 1:53), the listing is "Millburn" credited to Rafe Spall. We understand you have the best of intentions here, but it really is Millburn with two L's, both in the film itself and in the film's end credits. Hope that helps. If you don't mind, would you please adjust the change you made to the Rafe Spall article as well? Thanks. AzureCitizen (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

David acting on instructions

Regarding this, I think it's useful in the plot summary for the reader to understand that David is acting at the behest of someone (the yet unidentified Weyland), in the context of why he is undertaking those actions. It's clear from viewing the film that someone is directing his activities, even if we don't know for sure that it is Weyland himself from what we see later, and as it stands before this clarification there is no mention of it. I think we need to keep the plot from becoming bloated, but is adding ~1 sentence to clarify this really excessive? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No clarity is given to what he is told beyond "try harder". He took the vial from the ship himself and not for an ornament. It implies a connection that is not provable and seems to be there to explain plot twists, which is not what the plot is for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you also mentioned in your second revert's edit summary "it is also a lie since you don't know what he was told." I take it that means you are primarily taking issue with the words "prompted by someone", and not the portion about David asking Holloway what he would be willing to do to learn? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Darkwarriorblake. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The part about him asking Holloway is a minor detail. Unless it was done to override some programming or whatever, but that isn't said in the film and it'd still be a minor detail to attribute motivation. If that is the purpose youy then need to start discussing them treating him badly in general. It;s really something that should be explored in a themes section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think David putting the substance in Holloway's drink has anything to do with them "treating him badly" (he isn't supposed to experience emotions like anger, resentment, jealousy, etc), nor do I think it's connected to some sort of motivation or programming. It seems to me that he did this because of Weyland's directions, but since the part about including Weyland's prompting is ambiguous (i.e., "try harder"), and you object to it, I'll drop trying to introduce it that way and change my approach to something very simple and factual. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So the purpose of starting this discussion if you're not listening to two editors was what? Because my complaint was the insertion of minor details like "david speaks with someone in a pod and is told to 'try harder'". This is not an important detail to understanding the plot, its a setup for a plot twist and is in no way essential to understanding. I explained that, in summary and here, PoC up there agreed so you've just rewritten the unnecessary details and re-added them. I question the purpose of articles having a talk page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I ask why you opened a discussion if you were just going to do what you wanted anyway undoing it 3 times, ignoring myself, Polisher of Cobwebs and that IP? So 3 on 1 and you obviously were not interested in hearing what anyone had to say. Unless they agreed with you. Of course Janek choosing to collide instead of Ram means it was accidental *eye roll*. That's also your 4th direct UNDO over the same areas of content, which is edit warring. This is why editing this site is becoming untenable, you give a reason, the editor flat out ignores you and you can't do a damn thing about it. The user fails to continue discussion so you're left wondering what the hell "David communicates with someone unseen in a stasis pod on the ship and is told to "try harder". " adds to the plot.

• He communicates with someone unseen. So a plot twist is set up but the reader is not enlightened.
• He is told to try harder. No he isn't, we can't see nor hear the person and so we don't know what he is directly told yet the sentence implies he is directly told. Then we only have to take at face value what David says he is told second hand. Even if it was first hand, what does him being told to "try harder" add to the understanding of the plot. Why is the direct quote necessary?

And that's before the plot already being in excess of the word limit and the addition violating it further. So discussion! Let us try engaging even when it doesn't go our way, and try adhering to it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're portraying the editing that has taken place here in a very one-sided and distorted fashion. I would ask that you take it up with an admin or the relevant noticeboard if you think I've failed to communicate or exceeded 3RR as you suggested above instead of making accusations of edit warring here on the article's talk page. My reversion of a lone drive-by IP edit with an unexplained edit summary of "Mayans Rule!" was hardly improper or unreasonable. With regard to David receiving instructions from Weyland, I think it's important that readers gain this understanding earlier in the plot summary. Yes, the reader isn't fully enlightened when we set up that plot twist, but at least they realize such a twist is coming; the current summary essentially ignores the Weyland-David aspect. If you don't like the "try harder" quote on the grounds that we only see David saying he was told to "try harder", as opposed to seeing Weyland speak the words "try harder," then perhaps it would be better to phrase the sentence more accurately to the effect of "...with someone unseen in a stasis pod on the ship and receives instructions" rather than "is told to try harder". Would you find that more agreeable? What do others think? In any event, let's agree to stick to commenting on the content here as opposed to commenting on the contributors. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You did fail to communicate. The discussion was here, you ignored it and made frequent edits while I added to the discussion. The IP undid something you liked and so you undid that edit. You failed to heed the discussion with other editors here or wait until discussion was over because you were having it your way before you opened the discussion, just people didn't rush in to agree with you. You've continued to fail to explain why the scene is important, you say it sets up a DAvid and Weyland thing. What other David and Weyland thing is in the plot that you feel is confusing without this because I don't see any at all. Shaw and Holloway are lovers, we don't have to mention this in the plot, we say they get it on because that facilitates the plot but we don't mention their relationship because it isn't necessary to understand why they have sex. Whether it is romantic, angry bitter revenge sex, it isn't required to understand a plot which was already over the word limit before your edits. The Weyland scene assigns an unseen/unknown motivation because, as reviewers noted, it is impossible to tell what David's motivations are, and we have no idea what is said to him. It's not an important scene for readers to understand the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not fail to communicate, I'm the one who initiated this discussion, and in my humble opinion, you are the one pushing the hardest to get their way here with five word-for-word reverts of three different users in less than 24 hours (12345). If we'd simply focus on discussing the content here and the content only, rather than skewed perspectives of each other, we'd probably make a lot more progress. So let's stick to the content, okay? You say I've failed to explain why what is happening between David and Weyland is important, so I'll expand a bit more on why I think that is. In the movie, David's actions are mysterious and it is difficult to understand why he doing the things he is doing. Later we learn that David has been behaving in accordance with Weyland's agenda to discover the Engineers, their secrets, and the goal of avoiding his own death, but until Weyland fully explains this to Shaw in his room on the ship at the end of the movie, it's one of the plot's slowly developed mysteries. The viewer in the theater is given an important clue that this is taking place (such as David communicating with and receiving instructions from the stasis pod, and Vickers body slamming him against the wall demanding to know what "he" said, etc), but the reader here on the article is given no indication. I think it's a reasonable important enough event to warrant a single sentence. Editors, of course, may differ greatly over what they think is important to the story and what is not. Do other editors here think the point that Weyland has been directing David's inscrutable behavior throughout the plot is unimportant, or important? AzureCitizen (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh ok, I need to break this down because you're hurting my brain with your inability to understand how opening a discussion and then ignoring the results isn't a sign of approval, and crying "revert, revert" at every edit I make as a defense.

1. Making an edit is not a revert.
2. 1 It isn't a science fiction horror. I removed a factual inaccuracy. It's been done before by others and discussed.
3. 2 I undid your edit and gave a reason why I did sowith a reason, you OPENED a discussion, you were told by two people that it was excessive detail about small scenes, which it was. It exceeded the plot limit at teh same time, it was not an acceptable edit and I said that. I did NOT mention the plot limit, but then there are hidden guides that tell you that when you edit the plot.
4. Within 2 minutes you undid that, said it wasn't excessive and was important.
5. 3 10 minutes later I undid it again, restated my position giving further detail. Around the same time you open a discussion of which you never intended to follow the outcome.
6. 4 I undo a separate thing where you've unnecessarily changed the wording of the prose for no reason.
7. 5 The name of the media is Blu-ray disc, not Blu-ray, so again, fixing a factual inaccuracy that you have decided to chalk up as a revert to aid you in some form.
8. Seven hours after opening the discussion while continuing to edit but ignoring the input of myself and Polisher of Cobewebs and committing many actual content reverts to store your preferred version over an IP user as well, you finally reengage the discussion with the same argument as before and no compelling reason to do so. Of course this would not be an issue if you'd either followed the discussion as it was or allowed it to play out before reinserting your information. The issue is you reinserted it WHILE the disucssion was ongoing which indicates you weren't interested in hearing the outcome, just wanted an excuse to keep undoing edits to get your way with this, this, this and this edit, which are directly reverts and directly related to the same content, the content you prefer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you push this thread towards a distorted interpretation of what has transpired rather than focusing on discussing the content at issue, a single sentence about David's direction by Weyland. I'm not going to respond to such claims going forward from here, and will leave it to others to review the talk page and article page histories to parse out your claims that I'm not participating in discussion. Bottom line, if we focus on the material at issue instead, we'll get to the bottom of this a lot faster instead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I broke down each of your actions, and the time gaps in your discussion participation, lol. There is no parsing required for reality. If you'd focused on the discussion at hand instead of the content you weren't prepared to accept the discussion about, the discussion would already be over and your content wouldn't have been added. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some of you guys are waiting for a third opinion. (That, or you appear to.) I'd like to add to the discussion. I had seen the movie only once, and I didn't remember if the "Try harder" scene exists until someone put in in the article. But it seemed trival to me. The scene was confirmed today when I got the DVD, but I still think it didn't add much.

I went through the while movie and have been editting without remembering the "Try harder" scene, and I found the details sufficient. I don't need that talk to understand that David is a sinister android with his own agenda. It only shows that he's under someone's order, and pursues his own agenda. Same as Vickers, and maybe even everyone else on this ship. I find the details trivial even now after seeing that scene again. Dave's agenda/order simply highlighted to cast suspicion on him. The scene works only in retrospect when you know it's Weyland he's been talking to, but it didn't really matter, because I've made it without. Casual readers can do without too, and they won't be confused. They'll miss some details, of course. But this is synopsis. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Draco. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, AzureCitizen, I forgot. No sysnosis is intended to have the full impact of a movie or a full book. Building up suspense, showing relationships between characters, and create an impact of a plot twist are for when you have like two hours, or 100,000 word count. Not 700 words. Trying to convey the main points is already a stretch. Please work within the rule and its limit, not try to stretch it to suit what you think important.

If you really want "Weyland on board" to come out as a surprise in this article, there's simply no need to pave way to it. I read this article before I saw the movie, and "Weyland is discovered aboard the Prometheus" was surprising enough. I didn't see that coming.

If you really want to show David taking orders, we've already told you at length that it's not important. It doesn't help readers understand the story. And David is already shown being sinister and having agenda throughout the article. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Connection between "worm-like life forms" and "snake-like creature"

Do we need to put in the details saying that the dark liquid mutates "worm-like life forms"? I know that it's there to introduce "snake-like creature" that kills Millburn. But I don't think we need those details, due to the following reasons:

1. Too much details. We can reduce the word count.

2. When casual readers read, most of them usually simply read through. They don't have time to savor the small details and make the connection/interpretation. We haven't implied in the article in any way that "snake-like creature" came from a "worm-like life form." The connection is not that obvious from reading the article alone. It's a missable big jump. Casual readers might take these two as isolated incidences, and wonder why "worm-like life form" is important. We simply don't have space to help them make the connection. Unlike in the movie, where there are a lot of visual emphasis.

3. Where "snake-like creature" comes from doesn't affect the direction of the plot in any way. It simply kills Millburn, and that's it. Even without where it comes from, the readers won't be confused about anything. This is an alien planet. A creature can come from anywhere.

4. If someone put it there to say the dark liquid mutate things, it's simply not needed. The potency and effects of the dark liquid is shown throughout. Fifield is mutated. Halloway is infected, and Shaw gets pregnant even if she's sterile.

Do we really need these details? Anthonydraco (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think point 4 is basically the reason it is there, but I agree it isn't necessary and it is original research that they turned into Hammerpede's. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my man. Fixed. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Principal Photography

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

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

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

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

Hellraiser influence?

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

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

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

Bioweapon Assumption

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

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

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

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

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

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

5th movie in franchise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Script rewrite fun

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

Creature Image

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

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

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

Themes

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

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

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

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

Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So short of being copy edited, noone has a problem with this being added? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a danger Darkwarriorblake of confusing what people associated with the film have said they might have put in it but did not, with what is actually in it - e.g. the christ/crucifixion thing. Also these two bits of text - the first a scriptwriter interview quote and the second one how it appears in the theme section do not really match up in meaning in paraphrase. interview :" So, at the end of this journey and she’s only person who made it through you ask yourself why was that? Was God protecting her as the only true believer? " Theme section text "and so Shaw as the sole survivor is left to question if she was protected by God because of her faith." The audience wondering and the character wondering are two different events. The phrases in your suggested text here above "A human expedition intends to find god " and "The film suggests that 2,000 years before the events of the film, the Engineers chose to punish humanity with destruction" I cannot see borne out in the film. I wonder too whether this section might be enriched by mention of the Forbes essay exploring religious and political themes or should there be a new section maybe called "interpretation" ? I wonder too whether the current availability of 15 minutes of more explanatory outtakes including the engineer conversing with the humans merits mention http://blastr.com/2012/09/gorge-yourself-silly-on-1.php--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that coincidentally that while I scribbled the above, you have been smartening up this very section ! --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's why I asked for peoples input because I don't know how to write Themes sections. I've done the best I can taking the interpretations and I've put it into the article because it is more likely to attract attention and improvement there; which it has because I've just gotten feedback in 30 minutes that I haven't gotten in a month. I only skimmed the politics Forbes article so if there is useful info in there, more the merrier. The 2,000 years is said in the film, they say that the Engineer died approximately 2,000 years ago and the Scott (and I think a Lindelof interview) state that the intended implication is that what caused them to want to kill us happened at the same time Jesus was supposed to be hanging out, so I think that is a fair interpretation to state. The part about god protecting her is correct, I've interpreted that wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

[2] [3] --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is remarkable that the scientific illiteracy demonstrated by the film makers is being mirrored here. When 6 eminent scientists deconstruct dozens of elemental howlers of the movie in easily understood language in a prestigious international publication it behoves WP to at least mention it per policy. Perhaps film fan enthusiasm gets in the way. With this in mind here is a comic filmic parody making a few of the same points, comprehensible to all [4] --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a clever parody of the film script from a science perspective. [5] It goes on to point out some of the same and new science and procedural lacunae. It may serve to illuminate the darkness where I have failed. Here is an article from "The Economist" slating the movie largely for dodgy science. [6] How many more prestigious articles might prevent instant reverts? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  for the record, i believe this is the Forbes source under discussion "I talked with five scientists and described scenarios in Prometheus that relate to their respective disciplines. Then I asked them some frankly leading questions. They share their take on the film, below." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

  You are entitled to your opinion, but I still disagree. This is a work of fiction, not fact. It's a horror movie set in space, not Contagion or The Andromeda Strain that take a realistic approach to the scientific method and human physiology. A great deal of what happens in the film hinges on the android David completely ignoring any semblance of containment or scientific procedure by bringing an unknown alien substance aboard the ship and then slipping it into Holloway's drink. Does this represent a "huge error in academic discipline" and demonstrate "incompetence in telling a credible story"? Not really, because this is a work of complete fiction and not a depiction of actual scientific investigation. I also remain unconvinced that 1 or 2 articles criticizing the portrayal of science in the film are worth a mention when weighed against the considerably larger number of sources criticizing the more fundamental flaws with the film's writing and plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

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

  removing or editing an RFC is impertinent. Also editorial decisions are not dependent solely on "several" editors singing the same tune....--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  We could use a Forbes article detailing the inaccuracies in your arguments. A) You can't pay attention enough to the ongoing situation to notice that you have now blamed me for two edits done by another user, accurate edits mind you, but edits by someone else. B) Yes editorial decisions ARE dependent solely on "several" editors singing the same tune... it's called consensus and you are a lone voice singing in the counter chorus of our consensus. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  WP policy article re consensus : "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.".

  It helps to read policy documents rather than simply cite them.

  Another useful one -same article - "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group." (Taha Yasseri, Robert Sumi, Andras Rung, Andras Kornai, Janos Kertesz. Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia. PLoS ONE 1 June 2012, Volume 7, Issue 6, e38869 [7])

  I have outlined a strong WP rationale on why these two important articles(scientists-share-their-baffled-reactions-on-the-bad-science-in-prometheus) [8] [9] ought to be referenced here. I have no desire to repeat these arguments but I have yet to see any of them directly addressed or refuted.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  That's a lie, I've done nothing but refute them since this started and others have chimed in specifically citing the sources and the film and the guidelines. I'm starting to think you're reading an entirely different discussion and then posting your responses to that discussion on this page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Tumadoireacht, I'm the one who removed "society, sports, and culture" from the RfC sorting, because this discussion does not fit those topic areas. It's already sorted into "media and the arts", so anyone who watches the RfC noticeboard, the sub-board for media and the arts, or is part of WP:FRS will be notified. I have also posted a note to the Films project here, so this discussion is advertised in all the relevant places. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• No I haven't seen the movie, and do not intend to, but it seems to me that there is a confusion of issues here. The movie as such, which is what the article is about, is not sufficiently significant to support a thesis of this nature. No one in his right mind whose concern is cinematic standards of science and cogency is likely to go haring off to consult an article on Prometheus as an appropriate source. Rather locate an article specifically dealing with such a topic, or even write one if you happen to think it is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, and insert a link to this film if you think that it is a sufficiently significant example. (It has some hair-raising competition for prominence in these respects I must warn you!) But in any case, I really do not see that this particular article can justify including such a topic. JonRichfield (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  are you perhaps presuming to define how others use WP by you own original research? The issue of who the audience for the article is,is a red herring. The issue is not really about whether you and I think mentioning the dodgy science is significant but that Forbes and The Economist thought it significant that is worth referencing.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Do me a favour Tdr! As Wikilawyering goes that appeal to OR is an insult to your own intelligence rather than mine! It doesn't matter what what Forbes and Economist say, and what gets excluded as long as what they say isn't relevant to the topic. It isn't a matter of how people use WP, but whether the material is reliable, comprehensible, and coherent. I don't see your mentioning the writings of Fo&Ec on say, the economics of Hollywood in this article, or the politics of the Bundeswehr; and why not? Are you saying that those topics are not even more important than Prometheus? Hm? What was that you said? "Irrelevant"? Good heavens -- learned a new word apart from OR, have we? JonRichfield (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• No... Gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor issues. I would say something different if there was a significant claim that Prometheus was scientifically accurate (if this were the case, then a refutation of that statement would be appropriate)... but since no one claims that the film makers tried (or even cared about) scientific accuracy... so there is no reason to go into it. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, per IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• YES:there are several hundred reviews with some blithely praising the science in the movie. Referencing two quality articles which provide an erudite riposte briefly in such a massive article is not undue weight.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  If this is your own vote in your own RFC, then I hope you will not be giving yourself undue weight? Frankly I did not like the RFC in the first place, and I am beginning to think it smells... To put it politely. JonRichfield (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Against inclusion. The SPS doesn't cut it, so let's focus on the Forbes article: if other mainstream news outlets have picked up on the Forbes story then you'd have independent secondary coverage that has established the significance of the story. I don't see any evidence of that, but independent coverage is the key factor here; you can probably always find a source to back up a claim, but if no-one else covers it why should Wikipedia? Betty Logan (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Comment. I think The Economist article raises a legitimate criticism within a scientific context, which may satisfy both camps. The Economist feels that the premise of the film—that the human species is of alien origin—lacks a certain plausibility, because it fails to explain why we have DNA in common with chimpanzees for instance. I think noting this criticism may enhance the article since it is directly critiquing plot credibility, but doing so with a scientific argument. I think if we added something along these lines, we can find the middle ground between scientific criticism and film critique:

  The Economist felt that characterisation was sacrificed for grandiose ideas, but failed to successfully integrate them into a believable story. It criticised a poor screenplay and filmmaking for creating a plot hole that undermined the central premise of the film, asking if human DNA is of alien origin then "what about the 98% identical DNA in chimps—where does that fit in?" The Economist considers the film's failure to provide credible explanations will ultimately see it regarded as a disappointment.

  Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  None of the other articles or persons mentioned as reviewing the movie in the Critical Reception of the WP article were required to have "independent secondary coverage" to establish their significance. The Forbes article authors are better informed than any of them. This is why WP should reference it. The DNA question mentioned on its own does fall into the category some other editors rightly find objectionable - plucking out one or a thousand details rather than the governing point - badly science advised scriptwriting detracting from the movie. But it is refreshing to meet a fellow editor who is at least willing to consider the rationale --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  I appreciate your attempt Betty, but I don't see how the information is acceptable because there is no confirmation that the world the opening takes place on is Earth, that if it was it was completely barren at the time and that whether it created or evolved life, its all based on a magic black goo whose properties we cannot possibly know. It is capable of accomplishing whatever the plot wants it to and certainly capable of accomplishing things far beyond our capability or the limits of reality as we know them. It's not possible to critique something using real world science that is not based in any way on real world science. These are things that are just not answered in the film. Also, reading that, I'm not even sure how chimps having similar DNA would preclude alien origin. The reception already criticizes the plot and holes therein so Tumadoreacht's endless thirst to add more is unnecessary, and he/she is also just ignoring anything that goes against their POV. I've explained to them the inappropriateness of the Forbes article in which the writer admits they asked scientists LEADING questions about a film they had not seen and in which they critique minutia of health and safety standards. Tumadreach continues to ignore this no matter how many times it is said. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  @Tumadreach All the reviews used in the article—including The Economist—discuss filmmaking aspects: the script, the acting, the directing etc; what the reviewers actually say may differ in the points they make, but they are all basically conventional film criticism with the same scope. The Economist isn't really discussing bad science, it uses a scientific argument to identify a plot hole. The Forbes article on the other hand isn't actually reviewing the film, it is purely covering scientific accuracy, and we are probably going to need more secondary sources if we are going to extend the scope of the section to scientific accuracy; in fact I would say scientific accuracy doesn't really belong in a critical reception section, if there is sufficient secondary coverage to warrant its inclusion it would probably have its own section. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  The Forbes journalist Carol Pinchefsky DOES review the movie. She uses a clever but not unprecedented interrogative modus and the mock baffled assistance of a half dozen scientists to do so. Her colleague David di Salvo (nine days earlier with a slightly less science focussed eye gives it a thumbs down too: "Screenwriters and directors are not scientists, and will likely fall back on the kinds of formulaic, non-scientific ideas that would occur to people who work in the entertainment industry." [10].

  Pinchevsky's byline "I mean business about science fiction and geek culture." Di Salvo's"I write about science, technology, and the cultural ripples of both." i had originally proposed a new section devoted to science but this was vetoed here. I now think briefly referencing the two articles in critical reception makes the most sense. Critique is a wide term and is not confined to the Eberts --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. ...... Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces." --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment What on Earth does the foregoing exchange have to do with "...poor scientific awareness in movie Prometheus screenplay [being] relevant..."? It doesn't matter whether the film's science and suspension of disbelief are worth a cup of cold spit. This article is not the place to deal with the matter, and if it were, no one with an interest in such matter would read it here anyway. Stop wasting our time and resources. If think the topic deserves attention, write it in its own article and do a bit of intelligent linking. JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  Amidst the spittle is there a point? No one will read about an intelligent critique of the film in an article about the film? It night be no harm for you to get around to watching the movie Jon Hello? HELLO? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  The mind boggles at the idea of a movie being less scientific than some others I have seen (and I am something of a stickler for non-scientific material having to earn its place in a narrative, or even in a fantasy; to such an extent that I rarely see any such material because of the threat to my rapidly attenuating mental health). If you wish to deal with the material on a non-trivial basis, this is not the article to do so, until you can demonstrate the contrary. Ask yourself just one more time: "If I were to secrete pearls of wisdom, erudition and insight on the subject of true science, fictitious science and egregious, redundant, pointless, nonsense non-science in this film, who would seek out this Prometheus article as the place for a discussion of such a topic?" Is there a WP article on science in movie fiction? If not, here is your chance! I might even contribute instead of sniping, and might even add a link to this article. Try me! JonRichfield (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  Boggled minds aside, what I am proposing is to mention a perceptive consideration of this movie conducted by 6 scientists within a mainstream review. Anyone who is keen to write about their feelings, opinions, filmic experiences or mental health can do so elsewhere--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  While we are boggling, I wonder whether you understand the sheer ludicrousness of appealing to the fact that six scientists argued for a point, rather than fifty or just one. Einstein pointed that out in the nineteen thirties, remember? JonRichfield (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes (uninvolved, called over by RFC bot) I have not seen the movie, but I am a scientist. I find the topic interesting and enjoy seeing well-informed critique of the science when a movie makes scientific reasoning a component of the narrative (of course, for this to appear in WP would require reliable sources). So, from the point of view of a well-informed reader, I found the Forbes critique pretty interesting and after doing a bit of related searching on the web this seems to be getting a fair amount of attention from multiple sources. Of course, WP is not a newspaper and most of those sources aren't reliable, so due weight at this point would probably be just a mention of scientific criticism with a link to the Forbes article or another of greater weight if it exists. I don't think such a comment should be unduly detailed - just help the reader find more if they're interested. The drama here seems unwarranted - the additional length is miniscule and it's not filling a page. -- Scray (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's nothing to do with page size. It's about using real world science to critique a piece of science fiction that makes no claims to be based on any realistic expectation of science and criticizing characters for not obeying standard 2012 Earth experiment procedures nearly a hundreds years in the future in a science fiction action horror film. Might as well critique Friday the 13th because Jason keeps getting back up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  If a reliable source wrote a lengthy critique of Jason's relevations, then it might well be worth a mention. In contrast to your straw man argument, there's actually a source for the subject of this RFC. -- Scray (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  @Darkwarriorblake The point is not deciding whether to critique the movie. This has already occurred. The debate is on whether to mention here that the critique has occurred. A film that is based on science yet displays elementary ignorance of it per eminent scientists attracts such criticism. Resistance to mentioning that criticism is bizarre. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  As is you ignoring being told repeatedly that the science in the film makes no claims to be realistic and is not based on any real world science. At all. The opening scene is a marble sculpted alien drinking a black liquid, breaking down into a thousand pieces and creating life on an emtpy world. The film has plot holes and this is already mentioned in the article, it is impossible to discredit the science in the film and I've said this to you two dozen times now, because it isn't based on real science. JFC. I cannot believe this discussion is still ongoing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• No. Adding my no vote based on all of my previously stated arguments discrediting the sources and the argument given to try and speed this discussion into its grave. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  We are not debating the Darkwarriorblake school of filmmaking but the pros and cons of inclusion of a reference for a prestigious review of "Prometheus" by experts. Scholarly reviews by experts are lent additional weight for consideration per WP policy as transcribed above earlier in this discussion. The imagined "claims" of the film or original research opinions about its categorization do not pertain. [This is not strictly pertinent to this discussion but on a point of information watching the opening scenes once more one can perceive life on the planet preceding the "marble sculpted" (by Golds gym perhaps!) figure disintegrating. If the planet is Earth then it is also inferred that the "Engineers" visited several times throughout early human history.]

  "it is impossible to discredit the science in the film" This is clearly untrue. Half a dozen scientists and many others have done so. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• No. Sources provided are not sufficient to merit inclusion. Many movies show a similar disregard for the laws of physics, and there's insufficient evidence that this one is significantly worse than the general trend. a13ean (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  It is not Scotty's "the laws of physics" being "changed" here but the ignorance of many science immutables and the abandonment of scientific method that are so pathetic and so noteworthy.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. A solid yes. I have seen the movie, and I think the scientific shortcomings (and plot holes, which relate to each other) are overwhelming. However, as NPOV is mandatory, a summarizing pragraph should be inserted to the section critical reception and nowhere else. --Jesus Presley (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  The critical reception section is for film critique i.e. opinions on the film. If the article is going to include analysis of its scientific shortcomings then it should be beholden to the same standard for all scientific writing on Wikipedia i.e. such observations should ideally come from peer reviewed research or at least a respected scientific publisher, and not violate WP:FRINGE. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  You are mistaken about requiring peer reviewed research in this context, there is nothing WP:EXCEPTIONAL here, and your invocation of WP:FRINGE is not relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• No It would only be notable if the topic of Prometheus' poor scientific awareness were a major topic of discussion; I'm talking about numerous publications addressing just the topic, not mentions in reviews. That is not the case here, so it would not be appropriate to give undue weight. Mentioning, off-hand, that reviews cited the film's poor scientific awareness? Yes. Having an entire section about it? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  N.B. my "yes" said almost the same thing - a mention in proportion to RS coverage - the notion of a section was not the subject of the RFC - rather, the question is whether the topic is relevant at all. -- Scray (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are we any nearer a consensus? There seem to be a few Yes votes and even a partial Yes consensus amongst the NO votes for a reference in review section or perhaps in the header or both rather than an entirely new section. My two attempts to do this were rapidly cut. The gushy 4 line long Govindi Murty quote or James Cameron's 3 line quote need a counterbalance. Anyone else care to bait Cerebrus?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  8 against, 3 for = Yes is winning/nearing consensus? This has been going on for 10 days, it's gone on for long enough its time for the discussion to be closed and Tumadoreacht to start complaining that cartoons are unrealistic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  3 definite Yes votes. 8 no votes to a new section idea? 4 of the "No" flavour contributors give favourable mention to including a reference within their text ......-could this this then be seen as 7 to four in favour ..... but WP policy article re consensus: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." Lord of WP -why am I having to repeat policy!--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  Each NO argument is a grounded and solid argument even if you don't like it, and it is counted as a NO vote against the discussion, so your imaginary consensus is not present and this discussion about a science fiction film about the future not obeying modern science has been indulged far longer than it should have been. You had a discussion, it didn't go your wa y, then you opened an RFC that didn't go your way so you added another RFC and the Film Project is included and there is still a clear numerical vote of SOLID arguments against your POV. This ridiculous discussion has gone on way past its usefulness and it is time for it to be closed. And given how many times I've had to invalidate your sources, I wouldn't complain too much about repeating information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  No one "voted against discussion". Also we are not discussing the future. We are discussing providing a reference to a critique of a film. We have already included great chunks of gushy positive review from Hollywood promo magazines. Read back over the "No" vote content. Find the yesses within! (Read the Yes vote content too!) Try to step away from cheap personal shots like "go your way" and "even if you don't like it" They only serve to diminish what you say after them --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  I went and read them, they don't support your faux agenda. And you clearly haven't read the article where the only person getting praise was Michael Fassbender while the plot was almost universally criticized. Every time you're proven to be pursuing a particular agenda at any cost, don't try and accuse others of something like hiding the criticism the film received because it isn't true. And that criticism is handled in a balanced and fair manner unlike the piece of text you previously inserted that was easily one of the least neutral things I've ever seen added to an article, and Im including where users add "universal acclaim" to pretty much anything they like. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  Is this the edit that was "easily one of the least neutral things I've ever seen added to an article": Forbes magazine published a long light-hearted article with contributions from 5 eminent scientists despairing of the poor knowledge of scientific fact and procedure exhibited by both the characters and the action. Mike Brotherton, astrophysicist and SF author also wrote an essay along similar lines."

  or was it the 5 words inserted in the article header sentence:

  "However, the plot drew a mixed response from critics, who criticized plot elements that remained unresolved, were unlikely behaviour for scientists, or were predictable."

  You know, on the hyperbole note, I think either could be compared to the worst excesses of the Nazi regime also. Is the blake in you handle from Blake's 7? faux agenda? Is that possible?

  For other editors - are these two edits a reasonable compromise per discussion above?

  For those Yes and No voters who suggested compromise; if this wording does not suit, please suggest some that does.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  The first one relies almost entirely on a single article, the one asking leading questions, the one which relies heavily on basic scientific protocol and NOT the realities of the science, gives puffed up mention to the five scientists when not all scientists are created equal (because decent ones wouldn't be indulging a forbes writer with a cause), and includes the phrasing "despairing of the poor knowledge". It is entirely not neutral in that is enforcing a singular personal agenda based on how highly you personally value the input of five random scientists who haven't seen the film and their answers to leading questions by an admittedly bias writer about nitpicking complaints. It was not neutral in any shape or form. The second edit was just bad. Unlikely behavior for scientists. Jesus. When does this discussion close? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  Gentlemen, please: We already know how both of you (Tumadoireacht & Darkwarriorblake) feel about the issue. The constant back-and-forth arguing between the two of you does not facilitate the consensus-building process, and when two editors dominate a discussion in this way it generally only leads to a "no consensus" finale. This RfC has only been running 10 days; attempting to call a consensus one way or the other after such a short time is inappropriate. The default duration for an RfC is 30 days. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, as seems to be the case here, formal closure by an uninvolved administrator is advisable. See WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough IllaZilla - other editors may arrive or return in the next twenty days bursting with insights, references and solutions. In the meantime this guy hits most of the bases of the central argument [11] --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it should be included in the article, but No it shouldn't be discussed at length. One or two sentences is all that's necessary. LK (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• yes it should be mentioned, it has sufficient due weight. I do recall there being many such reports at the time of the release, and the no voters appear to be basing their decision from their own personal experiences rather than standard policies. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  The No votes offer logic, are based on policy, and take into account the fact that the given sources primarily critique plot holes which are already covered in the article. Discussion doesn't require your own interpretation/attempt to disparage the votes of others. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  IRWolfie has misinterpreted the guidelines here. Firstly, scientific analysis must come from qualified scientists (and not film reviewers), and must advance the mainstream position. Clearly there isn't a mainstream stance on fictional movie science so it violates FRINGE; an analogy here would be like presenting opinions of parapsychologists as a legitimate mainstream stance in The Sixth Sense article. Just because it's a movie article doesn't make it appropriate to include FRINGE theory. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  This seems, at least the analogy, to be a straw man argument. Scientific facts are verifiable, whereas parapsychology is inherently problematic in this context. One does not need to be scientist to note that sound doesn't travel in space - therefore, there's no need to have an astrophysicist make such a determination. -- Scray (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  But these claims are not reiterating established scientific facts are they? They are speculating about aliens and fictional space travel i.e. things that are not disprovable by modern day science. A single editor is wanting to use this as a pretext for adding a line that the film has been "criticised for poor science", when in reality what he wants to do is say the film has been criticised for being science fiction. At what point does speculating about futurist events and technology become a critique of the presentation of actual science theory? If we stick to the Forbes article which actually interviews a few scientists, here are a few choice examples:

  The archeologists know a storm is coming, and they need to get to their spaceship before the storm hits. They grab the head, shove it into a sack, and take it with them. Do you think that would have happened?

  "The likelihood that you'd just pick up and run off with it is pretty low in the circumstances you're describing."

  In this instance, the archaelogist is basically just calling them poor archaeologists, not criticising the actual "science". It's no different to what Indiana Jones does in his movies.

  One of the archaeologists drops the sack. What would happen to a specimen after a few thousand years if it had dropped on the ground?

  "It would probably shatter into a bunch of pieces, but hey, if it's an alien race, who knows what their skulls are made of?"

  Bad science or science fiction?

  The archaeologists don't do that. Instead, they hook it up to electricity.

  "I don’t think I've ever worked on a project where I've recovered a skull and tried to reanimate it. Is there tissue on it?"

  It's a complete head.

  "That’s very different. Of course I would try to poke electricity through it."

  Here the scientist is basically just speculating about what he would do with an alien head.

  In one scene, a biologist encounters an alien creature that looks like a giant phallus. The biologist refers to it as a "she." What would you call a creature that resembles a giant phallus?

  "A 'he.' Definitely."

  What resembles a phallus to a film reviewer may not look like a phallus to a phallus expert!

  In an early shot in the movie, we see a light moving across the sky: a ship on its way to a planet. However, the ship is moving faster-than-light…but stars emit light at the speed of light. What would that really look like from our point of view here on Earth?

  "My guess is that the ship should be invisible — just fade out into a deep red that vanishes as it surpasses lightspeed."

  He's speculating about futuristic space travel! It's not provable or disprovable under modern science theory!

  In most cases these scientists are simply commenting about how they would conduct themselves in fictional circumstances, so don't support the actual claim that the film has been criticised for "poor science"; in the odd case where the 'science' itself is commented upon, such as travelling at light speed the scientist is speculating about fictional technology, so his views cannot be proven or disproven. No-one in that piece comes outright and says "this contradicts what we scientifically know to be true" do they? It's mostly just speculation, and editors shouldn't be putting their own spin on it by saying the film has been "criticised for poor science". From what I can gather the scientists interviewed haven't even seen the film, and certainly don't criticise it. They are just speculating about absurd situations being put to them. As I pointed out in one of my above comments, a reviewer pointed out a possible plot hole from an evolutionary perspective, but it seems to me that the editors here in favor of including the criticism of the film's "poor science" are wanting to do so primarily based on an article that does not actually contain criticism of "poor science", but where scientists speculate about their own responses and futuristic technology which are not provable or disprovable. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Forbes article title; "Scientists share their baffled reactions to bad science in movie Prometheus" The article uses gentle humour and irony to do what it says on the tin. There are now also several learned scientists posting youtube vids mocking the ludicrous science gaffes such as carbon dating on another planet. The simple science howlers so pepper the movie that I am now wondering was it some sort of in-joke - will there be a prize from Ridley Scott for naming them all? The vociferous resistance to a twenty word mention of, or even a five word reference to, these critiques in a huge slavish article, could form a basis for study in another branch of science. No prizes for guessing which one. Lets all try some 70 amp ECT!--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is getting past a joke. How long can cross purposes last? I now have been goaded into skimming the article, only to discover that I could have saved my time; it is a movie like every other pretentious science-free SF movie, with the same stale pontifications and spit-fights and no worse than some of the Lord of the Rings series for example. The creators (forgive the term) were about as interested in science as if the film had been about the Prometheus who was chained to a rock and had a vulture eating his ever-growing liver, no doubt as an on-going oncological control measure or an effort in conservation; or as if they were doing a remake of Head Hiding Rude. The theme of the Pretentious Public's scientific and critical illiteracy, and heroic attempts to attain new levels of extravagance in underestimating public intelligence and taste, may well be of interest, but as I have already said, the question is not whether the film has merit, but whether this is where to air its makers' shame. If I wrote an article on the educationally instructive and destructive aspects of the traditional fairy tale, that could be a good public service <blecch!> but if I were to present it as a sub-section of Snow White rather than of Fairy tale, I would be in no position to sneer at the creators of Prometheus. While, given the wide range of critics and their comments mentioned in the article, it would be unreasonable to refuse to permit the barest mention of Forbes' et al's reaction to the effect that the science elements were unnecessarily shoddy, to the extent that they detracted from the quality of the plot and suspension of disbelief, it nonetheless would be excessive to list the gaffes and garbage. If anyone happens to be interested in such material (and why not, if they can make it encyclopedic?) then rather edit Science fiction film#Themes, imagery, and visual elements, or create a new article, say Technologies in Prometheus; there are precedents such as Technologies in 2001: A Space Odyssey. A more substantial article (if one does not exist already; does anyone know?) dealing with the educational or counter-educational role of SF in various media and genres could well include essays on the likes of Pm or Tc with relevant demonstrations and analyses. I might even help with such a one. JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes (uninvolved, called over by RFC bot). Three-five sentences in the "Critical Reception" could be enough, but it definitely has to be included. First of all, we have two very relevant sources, an Economist review and a Forbes article dedicate completely on scientists' reactions. Second, this is a science fiction movie -this means, given the specific genre it belongs to, that scientific accuracy plays a huge role on the amount of suspension of disbelief required and, thus, on the overall quality. But if this wasn't a concern (it is), the simple fact that very strong sources discussed this requires inclusion of the topic. --Cyclopia^talk 10:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Charity may be a virtue, but to call it a science fiction movie rather than a scienceless fantasy movie brings charity into ill repute by overpraising the film with overfaint damns. JonRichfield (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the comments here? 2-3 people (Search fr Betty Logan's comment in particular) have broken down why the Forbes article is completely worthless/bias/not at all reliable and the given sources nitpick plotholes. The plausibility of a time travelling killing machine from the future sent to kill the leader of the future resistance is not detrimental to suspension of disbelief in a science fiction film either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think it's also pertinent to point out that in The Economist review no scientist is quoted, the reviewer simply points out a possible plot hole based on evolutionary theory, which is potentially not a valid narrative criticism anyway: sharing a common ancestor with aliens doesn't necessarily preclude evolution in a science fiction film (indeed, the whole idea of 2001: A Space Odyssey is founded on aliens manipulating evolution); even if there is a decision to incorporate that criticism, it's still not the same as criticising the science, he is criticising a failing in the writing for not adequately incorporating what we know about evolution—the context of the criticism is important. Secondly, it's pretty clear that some of the scientists in the Forbes article haven't actually seen the movie; the writer simply describes certain aspects of the film and asks then what they would do. Again, I think it's misrepresentative to say the least to state that these scientists are criticising the "science" in the film when i) they haven't seen the movie and ii) they are not actually talking about the scientific theory, they are discussing scientific practises. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Comment re last three contributions The vociferous editor JonRichfield confesses to not having seen the film but at least seems to now acknowledge the necessity for inclusion. The Forbes article does not say the scientists have not seen the film. Darkwarriorblake previously calls the film science fiction and references scientific knowledge of the crew. But he also dislikes the scientists ("completely worthless/bias/not at all reliable") Betty Logan does not seem to get that article's irony ,scientific method, or that archaeology is a science. Betty vacillates on whether scientists are legitimate movie critics in several contadictory entries. WP is quite clear that they are, and should be given weight as referenced previously. The Rfc asks Is the poor scientific method practice and knowledge in this movie as criticized at length in The Economist and Forbes magazine articles and elsewhere worthy of inclusion in the article section on the critical reception of the movie? So: Theory AND practice AND knowledge folks. A science fiction film can choose to not explain phenomena but when it chooses to explain them and gets it spectacularly and repeatedly wrong then scientists notice and speak up. Attempting to pretend they have not by denying mention of it is counterproductive. Cyclopia puts it succinctly above--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  To everyone: I've read the above thread, including Logan's post. It's unconvincing to me. I don't care about the quality of such criticism, I care that such criticism has been done on highly popular and solid reliable sources and as such it merits mentioning. That Prometheus is a shitty science-fiction movie, I agree, but it is a science-fiction movie nonetheless, and as such the criticism has merit. But even if it was scientific criticism of Alice in Wonderland, the same: sources discuss it, we report it. That's it. --Cyclopia^talk 15:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a news source, we don't 'report' and we don't do it simply because it exists. We impart information that is relevant to broadening knowledge of the subject. Plot holes are covered, non existent science not matching up with existing science is not notable and it sets a terrible precedent for pointless inclusion of what amounts to trivia in all film articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry but it is notable by definition that it has been noted by reliable sources, as our WP:N definition says. Given WP:GNG, in theory we could have a full article on Scientific criticism of Prometheus film. These are the facts. I don't care about what you subjectively find "terrible", I care about mirroring what sources say and giving comprehensive coverage. As you say, "We impart information that is relevant to broadening knowledge of the subject.": If covering science criticism of a science fiction movie is not "broadening knowledge of the subject", I don't know what is. --Cyclopia^talk 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  *Correction! JR confessed to nothing of the type; he denied having seen the film. Watch yer mouf! What I refused to countenance in the section was discussion of the <ugh!> "science" in the critical reception section, or any other section until someone can write a suitable one that inarguably fits into the article. In other articles... that is another subject. Meanwhile, I regretfully contradict Betty's idea that it is pertinent. Science having nothing to do with the film, much less the critics, the only thing it is relevant and valid to quote is the fact that certain critics from certain named and cited publications panned the way the film misrepresented scientific matters of fact and implication. What they said about specific booboos, or why, or with what justification, competence, or accuracy, does not belong in the section detailing critical reception. As I pointed out, such discussions could conceivably fit into other actual or possible articles, concerning topics on subjects such as scientific awareness, linked or not, according to taste. To forbid such a statement on what critics said, while retaining most of the other critics' comments retailed in the article, would be unreasonable {POV & all that}. In this section in particular, going further in arguing the science would be unencyclopedic. And to continue with this pathetic hullabaloo would only serve to feed the trolls. They must be cackling their heads off; have you stopped to see what this page looks like? JonRichfield (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  It is preposterous that it takes this much teasing out to get to mention critique. JonRichfield --suggest a wording!--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ouch! Nasty! I never read any of the crits either, but having apparently talked myself into this... How about something like:

  "Critics from some publications such as Hom, Rick, and Tarry, commented unfavourably on the standard of the film's implicit and explicit assumptions concerning scientific principles and logic relevant to the plot. They also expressed concern about the possible effect on the scientific awareness of young members of the audiences."

  Now, as you can see, I am uncertain which parts of that statement are supported by the actual critiques, and those that do not match would have to be zapped or replaced. Nor do I know how many juicy and valid details of the crits should be added, but as I have said, the items that fit here are the ones that say "great or lousy" movie, and the ones that don't are the ones that argue about whether FTL will be possible in time for the action, or will work in the way they are portrayed in the movie. The actual length of the discussion of the subject is not in itself a concern; IMO it could be a lot longer or a bit shorter, as long as it is all pertinent and articulate and acceptably stated and cited etc. Am I making sense? <hunkering down and whimpering> JonRichfield (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Scientists have commented on the science..." would be OK. It doesn't imply they've seen the movie. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• perhaps. just as the "unrealistic" nature of every car chase and action-shoot-'em-up-movie might be worthy of mention if noted in the reviews that covered them. noting that there are several "unrealistic" sciencey bits may be worth mentioning in a sentence or two in the critical reception section here. but certainly NOT any stand alone section analyzing the "science" - this is a science fiction movie and not anything attempting to pass itself off as a documentary on science where the credibility of the science in the movie is somehow essential. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  and after finding and reading the Forbes interview with scientists, in this case its a No. (Forbes has 53 articles that come up in a search for "Prometheus 'Ridley Scott'"- WTF is up with that type of obsession?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Partial I agree with the assessment above by TRPoD. Just a brief mention, and referencing the source. The Forbes source looks okay, I have not seen the Economist, but the self published source mikebrotherton is a definite no, and this is not worthy of a full section. BollyJeff | talk 21:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. I could, without looking too hard, find more sources than this explaining that Big is a tragedy or that Glenda the Good Witch is the villain of The Wizard of Oz, but I understand the actual merit of such fringe views is small and not worth includin in a serious encyclopaedic article. The same goes for a pair of articles which are the text equivalent of this. It's undue and in this case it's bordering on WP:CHEESE. GRAPPLE X 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, this is an honest question: I don't understand your comment. Why are such articles "fringe views" like the examples you make, and what has WP:CHEESE to do with this? I am honestly puzzled. Can you elaborate? --Cyclopia^talk 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  Of all the discussion of this film, two articles specifically targeting its scientific accuracy have been found. Such a small selection from a large pool of sources is the very definition of a fringe view. As for WP:CHEESE, the idea that fiction films are not always scientifically accurate is as patently obvious as the fact that the moon is not made of cheese. It doesn't need to be elaborated upon with references, it's obvious to the layman already. GRAPPLE X 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  We have chosen so far to include detailed reference to, and quotations from, bits of 12 specific mainstream and industry and filmfan publications and one director's comments in the critical reception section. These praise and decry various aspects of the film. To dismiss another two mainstream ones (actually there are two Economist ones, making three mainstreams that I know of in total, as referenced earlier above) with fresh similar insights as "fringe" displays a poor understanding of fringe, which is ironically often more concerned with protecting WP from pseudoscience. I am afraid that my fellow Hibernian editor's interest in cheese, the Simpsons, Arnie, and their relevance elude me.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  The reviews are a summary of a selection of common praises and complaints from TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE reviews, comparing them with the leading forbes article about pseudo science from people who haven't seen the film being interviewed by someone aiming to obtain very specific answers to her leading questions is disingenuous at best. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  The 262 Rotten Tomato number hastily referenced by my learned Darkwarrior fellow editor includes such well known critics as the fragrant Jeanne Kaplan of the charming "Kaplan versus Kaplan" husband and wife his n hers (sic) website , and her husband counts as a second bonus number of the 262, RADHEYAN SIMONPILLAI of Askmen.com and my favourite (I swear I did nor make this up!) the notorious Willie Waffle of Wafflemovies.com. Sadly Roger Moore's review is no longer available but is still counted. Now if we decide against WP tradition to value such sources above mainstream ones then I suspect that at least some of the 262 will reference dodgy science too, and all our dreams will come true. I am glad that DWB has recognized Forbes as a leading article though --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  I said "leading" out of sarcasm, not respect. I thought that was clear but obviously not. Attempting to diminish the critical reception section by cherry picking reviews NOT in it seems pretty desperate. The reviews are counted by Rotten Tomatoes and it provides a score that is included as a part of that section, it has collected 262 reviews commenting on similar points. The reviews in the section itself are independent reviews, not reviews created or funded by Rotten Tomatoes from generally respected bodies making relevant points about the content of the film; the stuff that actually matters. Returning to the original point lost in your repeated use of the word 'riposte', that is why they are not FRINGE and the Forbes article is. Worse, the Forbes article is faux journalism, and the sad thing is it isn't even masking that, you just aren't capable of seeing it because you want your point to be made. No matter how many times it is pointed out that the article is misleading, bordering on joking, asking leading general questions about practice and not science, you continue to cite it as some vaunted example of brilliant journalistic criticism of a film that makes no claims to any realistic realm of science. The things you want to include, the things in the Forbes article, do not criticize the science in the film (and so I question which of the YES votes have actually read it), there are a good dozen scientific technologies in the film and the article complains that an alien head doesn't shatter when dropped, that you can see a ship travelling at an undetermined speed, and one of them wants to get up close and personal with a snake. These are not legitimate scientific complaints that belong in the article, they're complaints about the plot. No matter the result of the discussion, that Forbes article does not belong within 10 feet of this article. I'm going to try and not reply anymore because its like talking to a brick wall, but I couldn't let the disinformation stand.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  You are not supposed to exclude sources because you don't like what they say or how they say it. They're notable criticism and oughts to be included. --Cyclopia^talk 12:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: Now it's clearer, thanks. WP:FRINGE 1)is concerned with pseudoscience, more than anything else and 2)it doesn't require fringe views to be excluded, only not to give them undue weight. In fact, I'd say a couple sentences would be enough, for sure not a full section. As for "obvious", that's a nonsense concern. First of all, the layman may want to know how and why it is not scientifically accurate. Second, obviousness is not a reason: I guess it's obvious to all of us what a nose is, but we don't go and delete the Nose article for this.--Cyclopia^talk 12:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Are you just willfully ignoring all the other comments? It's been explained multiple times why it is an in appropriate source. I could love it and it would still be everything it has been explained to be that you don't get even though you claim to have read all the comments. It is unneutral, entirely unscientific and the writer god damn states that she is asking leading questions, aiming to get her desired response. The entirely unscientific results. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am not wilfully ignoring them, it's that they are irrelevant. "It is unneutral, entirely unscientific and the writer god damn states that she is asking leading questions, aiming to get her desired response.": Okay. So what? It's an opinion, not fact. As an opinion, it doesn't have to hold to strict scientific standards. I don't want to be written "The film is scientifically wrong here and there[forbes ref]". I want to see a couple sentences like "Critics also focused, in a few cases, on the scientific accuracy of the movie. The Forbes interviewed this and that, with scientists answering that...[ref forbes]. The Economist...[ref economist]". They're notable opinions and they deserve inclusion, no matter how wacky or nonsensical they look to us. --Cyclopia^talk 13:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  since when are either Economist or Forbes notable for either science data or movie reviews? if these concerns had come up in Variety or Science then there would be more weight given to them - but both of these coming from finance mags - WTF? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am not very familiar with Forbes, but have you ever read The Economist? It is more of a magazine like Time (magazine), The New Yorker or Newsweek than a financial specialized journal. Sure it is more focused on economics, but it is an extremly popular, quite high brow and respected magazine that covers both science and cinema regularly and with overall good quality. --Cyclopia^talk 13:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  So by that logic, if the President of the United States said "I haven't seen it, I never will see it, I have no idea what it is about, but my secretary said there is this one part that was totally unscientific and I agreed with her based on the particular phrasing of question she asked", that's just an opinion and should be included regardless of its lack of information and admission of such. Critics focused on plot holes, there is no scientific inaccuracy because it is science fiction and employs no real world science. Everything is based on technology that does not exist. The Forbes article complains about scientists in a science fiction/action/horror film not following standard protocol and dropping alien heads. Do you understand that? You don't need to reply because my brain is starting to hurt. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  So by that logic, if the President of the United States said "I haven't seen it, I never will see it, I have no idea what it is about, but my secretary said there is this one part that was totally unscientific and I agreed with her based on the particular phrasing of question she asked", that's just an opinion and should be included regardless of its lack of information and admission of such. - Absolutely yes, if he said so in public and reported by news sources, given that it would be a very, very notable opinion, it should be absolutely reported.

  The Forbes article complains about scientists in a science fiction/action/horror film not following standard protocol and dropping alien heads. Do you understand that? - Yes. It's a very reasonable observation in my opinion. The fact that you disagree with their observations doesn't make their observations less worth of inclusion. Remember WP:NPOV. You seem just to not want references you disagree with. --Cyclopia^talk 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  You would add to the article "The President said that despite not having seen the film or knowing anything about it, based on second hand information, the science is wonky[1]"? Yeah, we're not operating on the same level of article integrity or quality at all. I am entirely non neutral, I added bad reviews, I added good reviews, I have made no attempt to hide or otherwise disguise the criticism in the article as its main contributor. So maybe you should take that into account when I'm saying the article is not neutral and the points are tantamount to trivia at best, bias opinion at worst. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  This last comment makes little sense. Did you explicitly say you are "entirely non neutral"? If so, you shouldn't touch the article with a ten foot pole, but then you seem to argue you were neutral. Whatever. I am not talking about neutrality about the movie, I am talking of neutrality about the sources. You seem to strongly dislike the Forbes source for some reason, but well, it's still a notable and unique angle on the thing, and IMHO oughts to be reported here. Nothing of what you've said so far tackles the one simple fact that the Forbes or the Economist are quite respectable international magazine sources, and their take on the movie deserves inclusion for this very simple fact. --Cyclopia^talk 14:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  "unique" or "WP:UNDUE"? you are not convincing me that a review in a non-science, non-film industry magazine of a reporter asking leading questions to people who have not seen the movie is something that provides any valuable information to the readers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment this Talk page could find new life as a parody of Wikipedia. -- Scray (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This discussion has gone on long enough. I have posted a request to close this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Article namespace. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  6,000 words debating whether to include 10 words in a 35,000 word article is Beckettianly funny it is true Scray but LordSJones -the vastly experienced IllaZilla has assured us of 15 more glorious days as the default Rfc duration is 30 days Perhaps an admin can do a Solomonesque summing up sooner and help us find a solution and peace --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 04:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Whoops, sorry about that! I am going to remove the ANRFC for now as the RFC is still going on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  My impression is that a very small number of editors could be driving other commentors away by re-hashing the same arguments every time someone leaves a comment. It's pretty hard to walk into a RFC with a wall of text. I enjoin editors to allow people to comment, and consider not repeating points already made 3-4 times before on this page. Of course, I would not want to stifle discussion - just a thought. -- Scray (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  If people make a decision based on misinformation and the complete lack of involvement in film articles (like say including maths, science and technology in an RFC about a film article to try and get your way by involving people with a specific bent on the argument), then they need to be given the correct information. Because no rational person would think that a science fiction article with no basis in reality would be beholden to real world science, nor would they have read the sources provided as a basis for this discussion and think they are credible pieces of work that are not covered under general criticism of the plot that already exists in the article. Consider that it isn't the fault of others that they see so much irrational behavior that they are required to keep correcting people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  "Because no rational person would think that a science fiction article with no basis in reality would be beholden to real world science" - Sorry, I am both a scientist and a science fiction fan, and I take great attention at the scientific accuracy of the science fiction I read/watch. It's called science fiction for a reason. Nobody expects a sci-fi story to be 100% scientifically accurate, and wildy inaccurate stories can be still very enjoyable: but where and how much it is, or what criticism is done on these basis, is an important factor in the judgement of works belonging to the genre. --Cyclopia^talk 13:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  Cyclopia, I generally agree with you and I remark that the proper regard and disregarding of science in SF is a wide and interesting topic, but it happens to be irrelevant in this article, where it deals with the topic of what the critics said, not what the critics should or should not have said. As I already have suggested, if anyone thinks that the topic of what the film inflicted on science or people sensitive to and competent in science (or SF at that) the it is time to create a separate article with suitable links. JonRichfield (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not in this instance -- the issue lacks significant attention from third-party sources, no more than the types of passing references to goofs/errors just about every other work of fiction contends with. --EEMIV (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes -- if notable reviewers have discussed scientific gaffes, that is suitable to mention, though in proportion to the number and importance of reviewers who did so. However, we do not have a licence to hunt for gaffes and point them out in the article, which would be synthesis. Barsoomian (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV. The article has over 9000 words of prose, and should cover all viewpoints as referred to in reliable sources. If all critical reception focussed on such issues, then that would be the main thrust of #Critical reception. As I gather this isn't the case, then it should still be included proportionately, of course. To not do so would amount to the deliberate omission of worthy encyclopedic material. -- Trevj (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  actually, per WP:UNDUE we most certainly should NOT include the forbes content - it would be giving far too much credence to a review that consists of a reporter asking leading questions (yes she states "i asked frankly leading questions") to people who have not actually seen the movie. we represent proportionately the view of experts in the field, and the views of people who have not seen the film are obviously not experts in the field. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  It is not stated that the scientists who contributed to one of the three articles dissing the science did not see the film. Even if they had not the critiques are still bang on. The grounds for non inclusion of these references proffered keep shifting as the previous ones are dismissed. The current red herring of "leading questions" is amusing. Is it imagined that print media is a courtroom? Are those horrified by the idea of leading questions aware that journalists use them all the time? Are they aware that they are even permitted in court on cross examination: Are they aware that the journalist describing herself using them did so as a humorous and sarcastic device? Are they aware that objectivity is a myth in media and not pertinent in opinion journalism, yet central to the science critiques offered by the experts quizzed? Here is a third examination of Prometheus from Forbes examining political, religious, and literary underpinnings of the movie. [12] These are quality articles in quality journals. It is odd that we are still agonizing over referring to their like.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  Sigh, no grounds against inclusion have been dismissed, people are actively rebuking the new excuses made up FOR inclusion. The ironic thing here is much like the scientists (and yes tehy do say "I havent seen the film but"), the people saying yes have not seen the film/read the article/read the sources provided ("As I gather this isn't the case," - Trevj, so isn't actually aware what the case is in the article) and so give, much like the scientists, their opinion about a situation they know nothing about. Red herring? We've quoted it. How many times do you have to be told to stop making stuff up? We're not talking about a question designed to lure someone into giving an answer they would not have otherwise revealed; ya know, journalism, it's an individual who has issues with the film and asks leading almost personally flabbergasted "they did this in the film can you believe that?" style questions because she wants the scientists to back her up. It's clearly not intended as serious journalism, hence why she admits in the opening that the questions are leading. You don't seem to comprehend in the slightest after all this time despite your efforts to push your agenda, that the issue isn't that the source is Forbes, but the source itself, the individual article, the work on which you base your argument is worthless, and your complaints are about trivia, not even gaffes, because THE SCIENCE DOESN'T EXIST FOR IT TO BE CRITIQUED JESUS MOTHER LOVING CHRISTMAS. So attempting to justify one worthless source with a specific goal with another source by Forbes where the author interprets the themes of the film is a false equivalency, the two are not attempting to do the same thing, not using the same methodology to do it, nor reach the same conclusion. Again, dunno how many times (yes I do, ad infinitum), the complaints are about perceived plot holes, and plot issues are covered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I admit to this not being a subject area I often edit in (and I've not seen the film or really read much about it either). However, I do know that we need to proportionately represent all significant views published in RSes (not just those of experts in the field). Articles published in The Economist and Forbes would obviously count, unless there are solid policy-based reasons not to. -- Trevj (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  The viewpoint is covered, the user wants to include two specific sources that focus on plot holes in the film cited as scientific mistakes in a science fiction film, a film about fictional science with brilliant critiques like: The scientist in the film touches an alien snake, would you do that? No. That isn't even a critique of the science, that's "It's a film, and they're doing things to progress the film, even in a stupid way". It's a criticism of the plot, and the pretty much unanimous criticism of the plot is covered in the article. Tumaidoreacht hopes to disguise these thin criticisms as something other that what they are, thus this ridiculously long discussion to service his personal agenda. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  Everybody has a viewpoint, but joe blow's viewpoint dont matter anywhere, in encyclopedic terms. it is specifically spelled out in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response for film reivews - we dont cover man on the street reviews, only the expert reviews (or if a particular review got widespread third party coverage) - but none of those apply to this reporter asking guys on the street leading questions about a movie they havent even seen. (and the general case is Wikipedia:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  Another well reasoned argument. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I am removing this clusterfuck from my watchlist. The comments asking to remove notable criticism by comparing it to fringe pseudoscience or because "I don't care about its notable criticism on the grounds of science, so our readers shouldn't know either" are plain ridicolous and a slap in the face of NPOV, but well, it seems they are gaining momentum. Bye. --Cyclopia^talk 02:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  When users are giving fairly thorough (and well above what the YES votes are giving) information and reasoning against, try not to give such blanket judgments when you're the one who fails to heed any of the multiple explanations given. Later tater. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include it with a small mention. (Uninvolved editor responding to RFCbot.) It's worth a small mention on the page, but make sure that it doesn't become WP:UNDUE. Andrew (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Include (uninvolved, called over by RFC bot). Wikipedia is a source of verifiable information coming from reputable sources. At this exact second I didn't look in the disputed text, so this is my general opinion. First of all, the text must be neutral in tone, and phrases like "poor scientific awareness" in this talk title are inadmissible unless such phrasing is a direct quote from a scentist. Second, the section should not be a magnet for nitpicking, only major issues must be mentioned. Third, I don't think it is a good idea to assume that screenplayers were idiots; some deviation from "mainstream" science may be necessary for clever plot. About the example with human DNA mentioned here: I can find a dozen "scientific" explanations on the apparent contradiction with chimps, and this is not a point: the point is that someone reputable found it worthy to mention as a criticism, and it not to a wikipedian to assume he is smarter than the critic and dismiss criticism as irrelevant. Unless someone else reputable said that the first critic was over board. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  Can you (AND ANYONE ELSE) read the comments or sources or article before voting because none of you seem to be voting for what you think you are? The entire second half of your comment backs up the NO side, this isn't a vote about the overall exclusion of information, it is about not including spurious claims that the science is invalid when the science doesn't exist, and that the primary source being promoted is invalid as an unneutral, bias, unscientific and almost Onion-like work. Your vote is to support the inclusion of that Forbes source not to promote information, which the article sufficiently does considering it just passed GA and can easily pass for FA. Tumaidoreacht calling them valid sources doesn't make them so, and people are responding to his general question which has been sent out by RFC to unrelated topics instead of the sources at hand which will be what he wants to include. "Should we include criticism" which is the general tone of the question and something the article DOES ALREADY, and "should we include unfounded criticism" are not the same thing, and the Yes votes don't seem to be taking this into account, clearly demonstrated by the number of people remarking they haven't actually read anything at hand and are just responding to the title question. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with DWB here. I suspect one or two of the other voters haven't actually perused the Forbes article either, and we have to take their views on faith, but we can't really give any credence to the opinion of someone who openly declares they have not read the source. It's like someone reviewing a film and then openly declaring they have not watched it, or scientists cricticising behavior that they have not directly observed... Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am commenting on a specific RFC. Please let me remind you that I pointed out at a biased formulation of RFC, (and therefore it may be closed on formal gounds). Further, again, I am commenting on a specific RFC, which says it part "as criticised in... and elsewhere". Surely you dont expect me to read all "elsewhere". Therefore please don't assume I am an idiot and don't know what I am doing. The RFC as stated is effectively to (or not to) ban all criticism of science in the film. Banning is I am to OPPOSE That said, every statement intended for this kind of section must be judged it its own merits: relevance, importance, authority, verifiablity. If you want my opinion about Forbes article, my answer is "I don't care". If you want my opinion on inclusion or phrasing of some particular text into article, my answer is "which one exactly?". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  Fine, then it has been made clear that is what you are voting for, something which is already done (And thus this entire RFC is a goddamn waste of everyone's time) and not the inclusion of the specific sources. EDIT actually the RFC is if the criticism of science in the specific sources (the only two he turns up ever) are worthy of inclusion in the critical reception section, it mentions and is in no way relevant to the outright banning of science discussion since science is discussed in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) When I !voted above, I'd only skimmed the sources and this article. I then went back and read the sources in more detail (though not the entire article here yet). Whether or not the authors of other pieces are qualified to make such comments/undertake such interviews etc. isn't really relevant if editors of reliable sources have reviewed the pieces and cleared them for publication as being potentially of worth to their readers. We don't decide to omit encyclopedic information on the basis of our own opinions: we include it and (if necessary) note the context under which material was published. -- Trevj (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  That isnt how it works. You don't include a source JUST because it comes from a source with an editor/because it was published/because it exists, you include a source because it is relevant and informative. You certainly don't include work from people who are not qualified to make the comments. They don't bring in uninformed experts to testify in court. How do you think the Michael Jackson trial would have gone if the experts came out and said "I've no experience with Propofol BUT, what you've told me sounds bad". Otherwise we would include every single review ever written and every trivial item of information like release dates. But we don't, we decide what is notable, we decide what is relevant, we make that informed decision, so a source existing on Forbes does not, by simple existence, make it notable and I would love for you to explain how any of the Forbes article is encyclopedic. FOr the nth time, it criticizes plot holes, plot is covered. But maybe you won't believe me unless I get it published. Oh wait, it just was, posting here has published it to the Internet, and now my opinion is as valid as the Forbes article. And it's a joke that we can apparently include it but provide the context? So "The forbes author asking uninformed scientists leading questions about plot holes disguised as science questions concluded the science was dumb". Feel free to tell me how that is encyclopedic or informative, even if it wasn't written with the extremely sarcastic tone it deserves. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  No-one is disputing that Forbes is a reliable source, but the issue is whether the source backs up a specific claim that an editor is attempting to add to the article. The claim is that "scientists have criticised the science in the film"; the contention is that the scientists do not actually do that since at least one of them have not watched the film, and they simply respond to loaded questions asked by the journalist in a humorous manner. So, if you want to source "the scientist stated that dropping a million year old head on the floor would usually result in it smashing, but pointed out that we couldn't be certain what would happen to an alien head" then I suppose the Forbes article is reliable for that, but that does not necessarily make it reliable for the claim that "scientists have criticised the science in the film"—a claim that at no point is attributed to the scientists bein interviewed in the source, that is just an editor's interpretation of the interview. So on that basis I contend that the source is not suitable for the claim under dicussion, and I contend that any editor who does not read the source is not in a position to evaluate whether the source is suitable for the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  Given the response above Betty, people voting Yes seem to be doing so for a variety of reasons not related to the actual RFC. Some are just opposed to banning of information (Even though science is included throughout the article), some are voting yes because it is Forbes and the Economist, but many are voting Yes without having read any of the related documentation; the article or the sources, or apparently the question in the RFC. It's amazing that this has gone on for so long with all of that AND the general farce of criticizing non existent science in a science fiction film that makes no claim to being scientifically accurate. The YES votes also seem to ignore the clear arguments made by the No's like the last sentence there I've had to repeat a few dozen times and your thorough breakdown of why the Forbes article is inappropriate even if it is published by Forbes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  <edit conflict>Here we go again. The responses actually are related to "the actual RFC". As I explained and you ignored, the RFC opener screwed up with the formulation of the request, hence the results. Instead of bitching about how lazy or stupid responders are, the proper solution is to close this one and re-open a new and improved RFC learning from the experience. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think you're right. The RFC question wasn't specific enough i.e. the specific claim and the sources being used to back it up. The "and elsewhere" is WEASEL too, since further sources have been requested and not provided. RFC responders are anwsering the question in general terms, which incidentally no-one actually contests: if Stephen Hawking sat down and wrote a thesis on the science of Prometheus I suppose we'd use it in the article. The RFC needs to be closed and reformulated. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Forbes source: while scientists are speaking their mind, their criticism is mostly not criticism of "poor science", it is criticism of the portrayal of scientific work. In this way I can criticize portarayl of "law and order" in almost any mystery/criminal film. Still, it is ridiculous to expect in a space opera for archaeologists for take XYZ coordinates and spend hours to carefully brush off dust from an artifact with feather bu=rushes, map the area around a cave, and so on. Heck, if you fill a film with it, there will no screen time left for sex and stuff :-) Concluding, while scientists may or may nor right, it was the reporter who gave a sensationalist title to the talk, which title does not exaclty fit the text, and therefore for the purposes of wikipedia this source is irrelevant and/or undue. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes The poor science shown in the movie has been commented on by numerous sources, many mentioned above. It's important also to distinguish between poor knowledge (i.e., making incorrect statements), and poor science, which is the fact that the behavior of the supposed scientists in the film is very much at odds with the actual practices and protocols of actual scientists. Additionally, the film goes to some lengths to present itself as a piece of science fiction, with all sorts of technological wonders and a supposed scientific interest driving the plot. The most important point is that we have numerous sources, all of which pass WP:V, that make note of the poor portrayal of science and scientists in the film, of course. siafu (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  Poor science apparently equals space scientists 80 years from now not dusting bones for 10 hours in a science fiction film about finding god. Jesus. See the below discussion. Sources denote plot holes, none breakdown the science because the science doesn't exist. HOW HAS THIS DISCUSSION GOTTEN THIS FAR?! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  Your anger is both misplaced and entirely inappropriate in a wikipedia discussion. This discussion has gotten this far, because discussion is how consensus is achieved. If you are unable to engage in the process, I strongly suggest you recuse yourself. siafu (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Improperly formulated RFC

• Close RFC due to improperly formulated RFC question I would like to request that a third party close this dicussion. The dispute was in regards to a specific claim sourced to Forbes. The contention from those that opposed the claim was that it was WP:UNDUE and not directly backed up by the source. Editors don't actually object to the dicussion of scientific depiction that the RFC was established to resolve, and RFC responders are makiing general observations and not addressing the dispute, so a successful resolution of the RFC still won't resolve the issue. The RFC should be closed, and re-formulated specifically to address the actual claim and the source being used to back it up. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that it would be helpful if we were discussing alternative specific proposed wordings for potential inclusion/exclusion. Perhaps some initial suggestions could be made, and then extended as necessary by contributors to the RfC. In the interests of a full and fair discussion, IMO it'd perhaps be most helpful to leave this until January. -- Trevj (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am the editor who posted the RFC and the two discussions (one deleted oddly enough) which preceded and contextualize it. Immediately after the Rfc I listed the Forbes and economist articles and have since referenced several other mainstream articles mentioning the poor script science awareness. I have also referenced several scientists giving youtube talks rubbishing the science. While we might not normally include (but the idea is NOT forbidden) such references they are at least indicative of a wide amused contempt at howlers in how the tale is told. I did not expect a debate of such length and vehemence to follow. The original Forbes journalist is most impressed by the thoroughness of editing here. Dr. Johnson said that only a fool writes for anything but money.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  I looked through a number of reviews which discuss science and frankly they are not anything outstanding beyond common nitpicking about science fiction (you know, how we see a starship exploding in the interstellar space and hear the sound of explosion). Paraphrising good Dr. Johnson, only a fool writes a screenplay for anything but making big money, and surely not for promotion of "true" science (with the exception of being paid for science, which exception only confirms the rule). Therefore such nitpicking is nothing notable and undue for wikipedia, unless someone finds nitpicking for this particular film amusing and writes a text about this nitpicking. By the way, can you ask Dr Johnson, did he ever write love letters and if yes is he planning to make a bestseller off them? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• support closure under a "no consensus to include any specific text". (and then if any editor feels the desire to formulate a different, specific content proposal , either for those editors watching the page to discuss or a formal community wide RfC, to make such a specific proposal). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  Conversely, the closure could be "no consensus to exclude any specific text" (because none's been discussed specifically). How about "no consensus on extent of coverage, pending subsequent RfC"? In the mean time, it might be suitable to include something as brief and non-specific as As with many science fiction films, there has been some criticism of aspects of the film's realism. There may be no consensus on what to include, but there's certainly no consensus to entirely exclude the mention either. Further details could be discussed in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  name one sci fi movie wherein the "science" hasnt'been criticized? that is just absolutely standard reaction/coverage.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  Gattaca, perhaps? [13] While scientific criticism of sci-films is rife, [14][15] [16] AFAICS it's not always reported in reliable sources. The case of Prometheus seems to be one of the exceptions. Once piece of notable criticism (relating to another film) which I found quite easily here on Wikipedia is at Armageddon: apparently it's so flawed that NASA use it as part of their training programme! -- Trevj (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  And how about the approximately 1,300 digital effect shots? Mightn't that be classed as standard reaction/coverage too? -- Trevj (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  Considering it's the only source I could find on the matter I'd consider it non-standard and completely unrelated to the topic. One is factual technical information, the other is fantasy literature. One was based in modern times and used existing technology for the most part, the other is set in hte non existent future and uses technology so far beyond what we have today that it is literally science fiction. I've not seen Gattaca so I can't comment, I only know it was bad and I'm pretty sure not set in space. Take [17] for example regarding Prometheus, 1st site that appears after the Forbes article in that google link Tumadeiaadadaeadasd posted below.

  First criticism: "A Lord of the Rings-inspired panoramic landscape gives way to a humanoid standing by a waterfall. He drinks some black goop, and then his DNA begins to fall apart, followed quickly by the rest of him. This mess all dissolves into the river, et voilà—the implication is that humans arose because of this. Just five minutes in and my brain is already beginning to push back against this dreck." (No criticism of science, no explanation or break down of how the magic black goop and the superhuman alien makes his perception of what is occurring incorrect, just bitching, a common theme in the sources given because they can't explain why fake science is wrong, not comparable to Armageddon)

  "But if these are the best scientists you could find for an interstellar mission 80 years in the future, then the Earth of 2092 is in real trouble. To illustrate, put yourself in the shoes of Rafe Spall's character. You're a biologist, you're flying off to the stars to find evidence of aliens that have been tinkering with life on Earth, and at the first evidence (the corpse of a giant humanoid alien) what do you do? Marvel at the fact? Scan it and take samples? No, you decide you're going to go back to the spaceship for a nice cup of tea." (Not a criticism of science, bitching about standard film fare progressing the plot and characterisation)

  And that's it. In an article titled "Science gets burned by Prometheus", one criticism which can be loosely claimed to be criticizing science but doesn't actually do so. This is the common thread running through these articles because it isn't possible to actually break down the science, so you get complaining about plot holes, and criticism of the plot is covered by the article. You could maybe add the words "or seemed illogical", but I think that would be putting too much of a POV spin on it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• oppose closure. It seems odd that as the Yes votes to referencing the many sources criticizing the poor science knowledge exhibited by the film increase, that those who happily debated the merits of a reference at length (before and after thr Rfc) and opposed it, now want to hurry to shut the Rfc ....... Do I need to list the references yet again? We have several proposed wordings for referring to these important articles to consider and oodles of well reasoned supporting rationale. The Rfc has at least a week to run and we may then need the assistance of an admin to arrive at a decision based on best WP practice. Reference : [18] What is interesting is the volume and consistently thorough and varied but negative appraisal --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  That's not a source! That's a search that brings up a bunch of blogs by sci-fi nerds! Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  The 262 websites and blogs that Rotten Tomatoes is based on and which we have referenced already in the WP article is largely fanzine personal websites apart from about 50 "Top critics". The reference I gave above includes Time magazine in several articles on science aspects of the movie [19] examining the science premise of the movie--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'll save Betty the time of reading it; the article opens saying "hey, here is where Scott got hte idea for us being created by aliens" and then goes off to explore that theory and discuss history while not mentioning or critiquing the film. Try again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  Article title "Prometheus 101: The Science Behind Ridley Scott’s Vision of Aliens Populating Earth" What is not to understand? Other than the Time Magazine, Forbes and The Economist articles here is another apposite quote ""Prometheus," is a wild tangle of problematic plotting and themes, ranging from bad science to lazy writing to the suggestion of the African Atlantis myth." Examiner-"prometheus-a-revival-of-african-atlantis-myth-and-faux-science"--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  The Time article doesn't comment upon the science of the film at all. It starts off with The best thing about writing fiction is that you get to make stuff up. And when the fiction you’re writing is science fiction, you don’t even have to obey the laws of biology, physics or common sense. The article then proceeds to discuss the notion that life on Earth could be extraterrestrial in origin. The film is just being used as a convenient reason to discuss a scientific hypothesis. Pointing out that current theories don't conform to the plot of the film is not criticism of the science of the film, it is merely pointing out that the film is science fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  I would suggest reading more of the Time article than its title. You've been told numerous times about the Forbes article, I'm not going to say it again, the Economist article was broken down by someone else why it also featured the same minor plot hole complains but no significant criticism of the science. The Examiner was at one time banned from being used on here at all because it publishes volunteer content. Take note that this is the LAST source I will be reading because you are too lazy to detail what they actually say that supports your argument, anything else you add, do it yourself or it'll just be dismissed. It isn't on us to waste our time reading through this stuff for you.

  • "they can't breathe the air, but inside the structures the oxygen level will allow them to breathe without their headgear so they all quickly take them off. Have these scientists not heard of bacteria (Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas found in ancient Egyptian tombs), mold (Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus also found in ancient Egyptian tombs), the curse of the pharaohs or the War of the Worlds?"

  So here we go again, a) Shaw tells them not to take the helmets off, b) their sensors and the intelligent android tell them its perfectly safe (the advanced sensors we don't have), the impulsive guy takes his helmet off, says its good too, and they take their helmets off. So not only does she get the criticism wrong, its bitching again about plot and not science because the sensors and everyone else say, specifically, hey its good, and NOTHING happens to them as a result of taking their helmets off from the atmosphere.

  • "You think an alien head is creepy, but you're going to approach and attempt to pet a snake-like thing that boldly accosts you?"

  Criticism of plot, not science, and his characterisation towards alien animals is established in a deleted scene, its bad editing/stupid people, not science.

  • "What they do discover is that the DNA from the engineer's head is an exact match for human DNA. That means, humans came from the engineers. If you watched "Project Nim" or "Jane's Journey" you might have learned this important DNA fact: The chimpanzee and the human genomes are more than 98 percent identical. If we're 100 percent identical with the engineers, why do the humans look so different from the engineers?"

  Magic black goo and aliens. It cannot be debunked because there is no explanation in the film for it.

  • "If the engineers were so advanced that they could travel from there to our earth, couldn't they have found an easier way (say an atomic bomb or something similar) to do what that black muck can do? Would they think of an antidote?"

  Er...because they don't want dead things they want evolved things? Speaks to motives that aren't established.

  • "Consider that archeologists are the people who will painstakingly use small paint brushes to take layer after layer of dirt, sand or whatever off of an artifact. Shaw and Holloway are like the gonzo glory-greedy archeologists the world of science hates presented as the voice or reason."

  Boilerplate, criticizing characters for not spending 90 minutes dusting bones, might as well criticize Indiana Jones for destroying temples.

  • "strays into the pseudo-science of a white master race that was the true ancestor of humankind."

  Not really relevant but I wanted to highlight it because it's so mind numbingly stupid that the author should never be allowed to write anything ever again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  What is notable is that several mainstream media editors saw the science lacunae of the movie as significant. What is not notable is any editors shifting opinions on the content of the result. Is this really so very hard to comprehend?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support closure per Betty's argument. The votes argue for any number of things unrelated to the original RFC because it was poorly defined. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rfc wording precise specific and clear (how more specific can one get?) Is the poor scientific method practice and knowledge in this movie as criticized at length in The Economist and Forbes magazine articles and elsewhere worthy of inclusion in the article section on the critical reception of the movie?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  This question is just as vague as the last one. In principle the answer is always yes to the question in general terms, but this is a content dispute. If you want to add something specific to the article, then write out the sentence as it would appear in the article, and provide the specific source that it is attributable to. Saying "all the sources" is not something that is verifiable to a reader. As per WP:SYNTHESIS, each and every claim must be explicitly included in the source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  This question is the last one! 5 wordings have been proposed including two of mine --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support closure Lets get a move on, your wording was unclear, its obvious since people replying were responding to different things because it the RFC was unclear. Your RFC should have been do these sources deserve inclusion, because then the thorough tearing down would have ended that RFC right and proper, instead you phrased it as some form of censorship of information in general, which people supported regardless of the tearing down of the worthless sources. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  How many more "Support Closure" votes may we expect from Darkwarriorblake? Most editors or indeed voters elsewhere limit themselves to just one ...--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the 30-day RfC template has expired and we seem to be no closer to a consensus (as I warned was likely to happen when 2 editors dominate a discussion), I've submitted a request for closure to have this formally assessed by an outside party. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusion from Conflating article wording and the purpose of an Rfc

The two additions I proposed are these (already listed but for clarity):

However, the plot drew a mixed response from critics, who criticized plot elements that remained unresolved, were unlikely behaviour for scientists, or were predictable.(This in intro) and

Forbes magazine published a long light-hearted article with contributions from 5 eminent scientists despairing of the poor knowledge of scientific fact and procedure exhibited by both the characters and the action. Mike Brotherton, astrophysicist and SF author also wrote an essay along similar lines (This in critical reception section)

The Rfc was not to seek to slavishly adhere to my attempted wording but to attempt to establish a debate leading to consensus to adhere to well established WP principles re Notability and good sources, and partly in shocked surprise at the ever changing rainbow of spurious reasons thrown up for not doing so. Several other wordings have been proposed by other editors. Scientists on a science vessel on a scientific expedition in a science film might reasonably be expected to practice scientific method or exhibit correct science knowledge. That several editors (Time, Economist,Forbes and elsewhere) thought it noteworthy that the characters or screenplay did not do so is,itself alone , noteworthy.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The same reasons were given for why not and none of them were spurious. Your RFC was too loosely worded that when questioned, some people thought they were voting about censorship of information rather than the inclusion of the specific information you want to include: the reviews complaining about basic plot holes in a film that in no way advertises itself as a scientifically accurate work nor pretends to be such in practice since it uses nothing but technology we do not possess, oh, and not dusting bones for 6 hours, and alien heads not shattering I think was one too. The RFC, even as you intended it, was a joke and has wasted far too many people's time. The info does not belong in the lede in any form, the Forbes article, AS EVER, remains a worthless piece of dreck for all the reasons already outlined. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.