Jump to content

Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Paradise Lost

Can we please remove the William Blake illustration that has just been added to the "themes" section? It's nice, but it's really not suitable or appropriate to the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It really doesn't seem to illustrate any specific point in the text. There's a reference to Paradise Lost, but not to that particular scene or anything specifically depicted in the image. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you need to ask permission to remove an image. I get what the editor was going for and its handy for a look at an Engineer-type but in the current context its being used for illustration only and not for elaboration of the text which in this case just mentions references to the poem by Milton, so the pic can go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for anyone's "permission", per se. I just thought it might be helpful to discuss matters beforehand. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it makes sense in the context (it sits right beside a quote specifically mentioning Blake, as well as the earlier Milton mention) and is clearly ornamental (it's free so that's fine). I don't mind seeing it stay or go, but if it stays maybe the caption should explicitly state the connection rather than explain the image contents. GRAPPLE X 21:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It does sit next to a quote mentioning Blake, but the Blake quote doesn't refer to that particular drawing. It's dispensable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What is a world?

A user is edit warring to try to change "world" to "moon" in the lead, on the grounds that a world cannot be a moon. Since this user invited me to check a dictionary, I did just that. I have the 12th edition of The Chambers Dictionary in front of me as I type this. The relevant definition reads, in part, "the earth; the earth and its inhabitants; the universe; the system of things; the present state of existence; any analogous state; any planet or heavenly body..." A moon is a heavenly body. Enough said. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You know darn well who it is; don't hide behind calling them "a user". Tumadoireacht is conflating "world" with "planet". The relevant definition of "world" is "a celestial body (as a planet)". A moon is a satellite of a planet, but both are celestial bodies. LV-223 is as much a "world" as Yavin 4 or the forest moon of Endor, for example. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The WP article on the film "Prometheus"refers elsewhere to the moon as a moon and even gives its celestial reference number. The characters call it a moon. A moon circles a planet which circles a sun. Is it important that we use the 7th meaning of "world" (per the dictionary quoted) as a term when we mean a moon in the article - perhaps I am missing some arcane subtle reason here so far unelucidated  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
You were just plain wrong in claiming that a moon cannot count as a world. You told me to check a dictionary. I did. It contradicted you. Why not admit you were mistaken? The change you want to make is unnecessary, and the rationale given for it incorrect. The lead read fine before you started trying to change it, since it's not crucial to understanding the plot of this film that the world it takes place on happens to be a moon. And to IllaZilla, I would simply say that attempting to pit one dictionary against another dictionary is a pointless tactic. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not pitting one dictionary against another; I'm agreeing with you. A moon is a heavenly/celestial body, hence it is a world. When one talks about mankind one day "traveling other worlds", we don't just mean planets, we mean moons as well. In the context of Prometheus it makes no difference whatsoever whether the place is a planet or moon; the point is that it's another world many light years from Earth. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't quite clear from your initial comment what you meant. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The use of "world" is entirely correct by the dictionary definition. No need to change it based on "reason" offered. GRAPPLE X 01:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that my edit has sparked an issue. I'm sorry about that. I was the one who changed the word "the planet" to "earth," and then to "the ground" here: "The Engineer's disabled spacecraft crashes onto the planet; its wreckage crushes Vickers," and added the reason saying that LV-223 is a moon. But I have a feeling that Tumadoireacht misinterpreted my reason.

I did it because a moon like LV-223 has its respective planet which it orbits around, so it could mean that the Engineer Ship flew off LV-223 but crash on that planet and not LV-223. This could cause some confusion to casual readers. And I believe that most editors at the time agreed with me. At first, I changed it to "crashed onto earth", but earth usually means solid mass of Earth, which is incorrect here, so I went for "the ground". I wasn't nitpicking if a moon can't be a world, but I did it to prevent confusion between LV-223, its respective planet, and Earth, all of which are mentioned as celestial bodies. In this "world" case though, the usage of the word world is correct, as world can be our universe of interest, like "the world of the homeless", "assassins' world", or "World of Warcraft", all of which don't mean planet at all. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I had not noticed your edits Anthony. By some definitions world ought to include the possibility of being inhabited but I am happy to accept consensus as it is a small matter
Your text on the "universe of interest" is quite misguided.
As the article refers elsewhere to the globe of action as a moon and as "world" is used again at the end of the article to, wrongly, in my opinion refer to the engineers point of origin I thought the consistent use of moon as elsewhere in the article would be most elegant. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but how was I misguided? Universe can mean "a particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience", or "a province or sphere of thought or activity". I also can't see why "referring elsewhere to the globe of action as a moon" can prevent us from using the word universe here, as long as that moon is "a province of our thought or activity", in other words "point of interest". Same goes for world, which means "a sphere of human activity or interest". But nvm, we already have a consensus. Forgive me for the necromancy. Anthonydraco (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We've also distinguished between our world and the Engineer's homeworld in the plot section. Anthonydraco (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Universe" in the definition selected above is a metaphorical meaning not a physical locus. The moon sentence in my last entry was unrelated to the point about misusing the term universe. Also we know nothing of where the engineers come from. To speak of their "homeworld" is, therefore IMO wrong.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as a point of etiquette and logic -improving one's entry after someone has replied to it undermines both the flow of the discussion and one's credibility.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not edit anything I said after you reply. And if you're talking about adding the colons in front of your reply, my reply was placed farthest to the left, and yours was too. Adding colons in front of your reply was done so others reading this can distinguish at a glance where my words ended and where yours started. It neither improved nor decrease the credibility of your talk, and obviously did not interrupt the flow of the conversation because you practically reply a day after me, even in a different year. Also, the etiquette was there to prevent confusion and to prevent others from editing your words to say what you had no intention to, and cause misunderstanding, and even argument. I did not alter a letter of your comment. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not referring to your contributions Anthony.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As in, you weren't talking about me editing my own contribution, but you were talking about me adding colon before your comment? Or you weren't talking about me in general? Which is it? Anthonydraco (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Relax ! you are blameless - nothing to do with you ! Sorry if I confused you by including it in the same entry.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A moon is a world yes, but since in the film they don't call it a world and call it a moon shouldn't the article also call it a moon? Just to add my opinion into the matter but really I don't see why it makes much of a difference to the article, whether it's a planet or a moon doesn't actually make much difference to the film, if it had been a planet they'd landed on, it wouldn't have changed the film at all. Pick a word and stick with it, it doesn't matter and you're arguing over something futile. RockHazard (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ovipositor

Darkwarriorblake - Instead of constant reverts driven by an inability to distinguish between basic biological structures - Try reading the relevant wikipedia articles.

  • 1. Tentacles are external limb-like structures. They are not internal structures that can be extended from an orifice as seen in the film.
  • 2. An Ovipositor is not a 'made up term from fan fiction' as you implied when AGAIN reverting the change. It's a biological structure used for depositing (like a butterfly) or implanting (like a wasp) eggs inside a host.
  • 3. This article clearly states (with references) that the trilobite is a female creature that implants the engineer. Tentacles DO NOT implant anything. They are limbs. It's ovipositors that do that.
  • 4. Please feel free to try and find the word "tentacle" used once in the shooting script. It's on line here.
  • 5. The shooting script describes it as a "GLISTENING, WET PINK PINGPONG BALL". Doesn't sound much like a tentacle. Sounds awfully like the end of an organ like an ovipositor.

As much as you'd like to 'own' this article, you could try remembering that wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that some other contributors have a better grasp on biology than you yourself appear to have. I see from your talk page that I'm not the first user to encounter you "acting like a self-declared pro, you could add some value by taking part in a discussion". Your multiple reverts without doing so is not just plain rude, it's also in breach of the ["three reverts rule"].

I'll give it 24 hours for you to make a good case for it being a tentacle. Failing that I will change it back to an ovipositor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.88.53 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

the reason is WP:OR (along with the fact that you are relying on Wikipedia which is not a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Where is the Original Research? Making an assessment of the biological appendage presented on screen? how is my assertion based upon this any different from Darkwarriorblake's assertion that it's a tentacle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.88.53 (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Making an assessment is original research. Tentacle is a basic description, a flexible organ, it ascribes no function to it, it simply describes it in its most basic term so the reader can understand what it looks like if they have not seen the film. An ovipositor is a completely made up term in this context because it assigns a function to that appendage which you have absolutely no possible way of knowing, an ovipositor is exclusively for depositing some form of egg, so calling it that is wrong, which is why each time you did it I said OR or Original Research and when you continued to do it, and only when you continued to do it, did you get warnings, because being disruptive is a form of vandalism. That we are having this discussion and your evidence is your own assessment of what the thing the fictional alien in the fictional sci-fi god-finding story is using to face-love the Engineer is the embodiment of Original Research. If you aren't happy with the use of tentacle, think of a better term that does not give it a function you 'think' it has, but that is the more accurate and informative description over Ovipositor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Right. So you're saying that making an assessment of the events presented on screen is original research and forbidden. Fair enough. Let's go through the current plot of Prometheus (film) as presented on wikipedia and apply that, shall we? Oh dear. Problems on line 1...
  • "As a hovering spacecraft departs an Earth-like world"
Hovering spacecraft? Spacecraft? I see an object in the sky that rises above the clouds. I see no evidence it's a spacecraft. I don't see it in space. I don't hear anyone describe it as a spacecraft. I don't even see any evidence that it's a vehicle. I don't even know if it's hovering. It could be moving very slowly for all I know. And as for departing? It just rises above the clouds.
  • "His DNA triggers a biogenetic reaction"
A biogenetic reaction? Based on what? I see dna apparently breakdown, I see dna apparently combine, I see a few cells floating around. It's a large leap of the imagination to come to a conclusion like biognetic reaction. And that's OR.
  • "The ship's crew travels in stasis while the android David monitors their voyage"
I didn't see him monitoring the voyage. I saw him eating breakfast and studying languages. Watching Lawrence of Arabia and applying 'something' to his hair. I saw him picking up fluff and playing basketball and watching Shaw's dreams. I never saw him monitoring anyone's voyage. The only time I saw him even power up the bridge was after they'd reached their destination.
  • "The Prometheus lands near a large artificial structure"
Artificial? The only discussion of the structure I heard was Holloway asking Fifield if it was artificial and Fifield responding that he didn't know, but that it was hollow.
  • "Inside they find numerous stone cylinders"
Stone? No evidence that they were stone. They could be any sort of stone-looking alien material.
  • "a large, monolithic statue of a humanoid head"
Statue? For all I know it's a vehicle. You could climb in the ear to drive it. You're ASSUMING it's a statue because it LOOKS like a statue.
  • "while the remaining ones begin leaking a dark liquid"
Leaking? How do you know they're leaking? They could be designed to pump the liquid out in response to atmospheric changes.
  • "He then intentionally taints a drink with the substance and gives it to an unsuspecting Holloway"
How do you know if Holloway suspects or not? His action in excepting the drink is not explained, nor are his motivations. Applying the fact that no-one in their right mind would drink it if they knew is OR.
  • "Inside the structure, a snake-like creature kills Millburn"
How did you establish he was killed by it? it went down his throat and he collapsed. Who knows what killed him.
  • "Later, a medical scan reveals that Shaw, despite being sterile, is pregnant"
Two problems with this. The first is the assumption that it's a medical scanner. It could be designed to examine luggage for all we know. You're jumping to the conclusion that it's a medical scanner because of the context in which it's being used. That's interpretation and falls foul of OR. Second, who said Shaw was sterile? When Holloway suggest that anyone can create life Shaw indicates that she can't and gets upset. That's not a clear indication of sterility. She could just be finding conception is taking longer than she would like. Again you're interpreting what is happening.
  • "Fearing the worst, she uses an automated surgery table to extract a squid-like creature from her abdomen"
Again you're interpreting a characters motivations. For all we know she may have just decided that a pregnancy during a lengthy space voyage would be inconvenient.
  • "Shaw then discovers that Weyland has been in stasis aboard Prometheus"
Again interpretation. She finds him aboard Prometheus and verbally concludes he's been aboard the whole time. If she's figured out that he's been in stasis was never made clear.
  • "As Weyland prepares to leave for the structure"
He could have been preparing for anything. Perhaps he needs that support frame to go to the toilet. You're concluding that he's preparing to leave for the structure because shortly after his preparations he leaves for the structure, but what he's preparing for is never made explicitly clear.
  • "A mutated Fifield attacks the Prometheus's hangar bay"
Hangar bay? Garage? who knows.
  • "and kills several crew members before he is killed" We never find out the medical status of any of the victims or of Fifield. They just go down and stop moving.
  • "David wakes the Engineer from stasis and speaks to him in an attempt to explain what Weyland wants"
Does he? Speak alien now, do you? Weyland instructs David on what he'd like him to say, but what David actually said only David and the Engineer will ever know.
  • "The Engineer's disabled spacecraft crashes onto the ground"
How do you know it crashes? That might be how they land. Just because he stops leaving doesn't mean that the Prometheus forced it down. You're interpreting that again.
  • "its wreckage crushes Vickers"
We don't know it's a wreck and we don't know she's crushed. We hear her screaming and she's obscured from our view. For all we know that alien spaceship weighs less than would be required to crush anyone. It could just pin her down for the rest of the film.
  • "The Engineer forces open the lifeboat's airlock and attacks Shaw"
Does he? We see him forcing his way through a small door while a warning announcing an airlock breach is playing in the background. Why are you concluding he forced his way through the airlock? We have no evidence that that is in airlock door (in fact it isn't, the re-cut of that sequence makes it appear as such but the original cut it was just an internal door but that's irrelevant here), nor do we know that the warnings were caused by anything the engineer did.
  • "it thrusts a tentacle down the Engineer's throat, subduing him"
Well, you already know my opinion on "tentacle", but what about throat? You're pointing out that ovipositor is an interpretation of alien biology, well so it throat. Who knows what structures are inside an Engineers kneck. And as for subduing him, who knows why he goes limp. It could just be nap time.
  • "Shaw recovers David's remains, and with his help, launches another Engineer spacecraft"
I didn't see him help. He says he believes he can fly one, but equally Shaw could have figured it out for herself. It all occurs off-screen. OR again?
Now I KNOW that all my points are being deliberately pedantic. I KNOW that the description in the plot is well reasoned and informative. However you can't get to that point without a certain degree of interpretation. Obviously it's a spaceship. Obviously crew members are killed. Obviously the Engineer is subdued, but that breaches Darkwarriorblades assertion that interpretation is OR and NOT ALLOWED. I interpret an organ of implantation as an ovipositor in much the same way as the object in the sky is interpreted as a spacecraft and that the Engineer is interpreted to have a throat. We interpret these things in the context of the events surrounding them, and have to apply a modicum of OR to write a plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.88.53 (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting into a drawn out debate with another person who can't let something simple go, there is not a comparison between seeing a flying craft on screen that then flies away, and assigning a biological function to a fleshy tube. Even the Facehugger's is not called an ovipositor on here, it's called a proboscis. There is no justification for calling it an ovipositor or sources that back up that, I'm not going to explain a third time that you are giving the thing a function you cannot know it has. That is not an assessment, it's original research based on information that does not exist in or out of the film. Your 'points' are not pedantic, they are just wrong. I'm not going through each one because it is a waste of my time, but I'll go with the last one. DAvid can operate a ship, she asks if he can fly one, she takes him with her. These are things that happen on screen. Nonsense theory that she 'may' have figured it out herself and just asked David because she was mocking him because he has no hands is not pedantic, it's baseless arguing, and you've possibly wasted a great deal of time creating reasons for why the factual events of the film are equal to coming up with a biological function neither mentioned or shown on screen or off it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
And again you've missed the point. There is a direct comparison between seeing a flying craft and calling it a spaceship, and seeing a fleshy tube on screen that implants the engineer and calling it an ovipositor. You have no more knowledge of the function of the flying object than I have of the tube. You've drawn a conclusion based upon the context in which you've seen it used, as I have I. You seem to have interpreted the points above as me offering serious alternatives to the events described in the plot. I'm not. I'm using them to highlight the fact that you have repeatedly used interpretation, and therefore by your own argument OR. Unless we reduce the plot section to a direct copy of a studio issued plot summary (i.e. three lines of blurb from the back of a DVD box) we HAVE to use interpretation.
However none of that is what interests me about your last post. It's the fact that you've held up the Facehugger article to defend your position that has really grabbed my attention. You've made a direct parallel between the form and function of the facehugger with the creature the Prometheus film crew referred to as the trilobite. Namely a multi-limbed alien that jumps on passers by, ramming a "name disputed" organ down their throat before later falling off and leaving then to be burst open by a subsequent alien creature. A clear analogue and I can see why you went there. So lets examine that.
Firstly, the use of proboscis sounds inaccurate. Merriam-Webster defines proboscis in this context as "any of various elongated or extensible tubular processes (as the sucking organ of a butterfly) of the oral region of an invertebrate". There's no evidence that it comes from the oral region, or that that facehugger has an oral region. There is never any suggestion it is able to eat or vocalise. I'll also point out that as TheRedPenOfDoom pointed out - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (Incidentally TRPOD - was that due to me referencing the Prometheus article stating that the 'Trilobite' implants the engineer? If so that section of the page is a lift from "The Art of Prometheus" Page 186 and is now attributable to a printed resource with a forward by the director. If it was my referencing the Ovipositor and Tentacle articles, let me know and I'll find some reliable, referencable online resoureces). However let's continue to run with the analogue of the facehugger introduced by Darkwarriorblake:
  • Alien - Theatrical cut from the Quadriliogy box set - Commentary track during the scene in which Kane descends into the egg chamber. I'm paraphrasing Ridley Scott, but if necessary I can transcript the section: "The production team had been shown footage of an insect that could sense grubs beneath the bark of a tree. It used a needle like organ to penetrate the bark and plant its seed into the grub so it could parasatise it. We decided to go with that as the basic design idea for the alien." This activity is described on the Ovipositor page.
  • Alien - Theatrical cut from the Quadriliogy box set - The scene in which Ash and Dallas put Kane with the Facehugger attached into a scanner. Dallas: "What's it got down his throat?" - Just wanted to make damn sure we've established that the Facehugger also puts something down a victims throat.
  • Aliens - Theatrical cut from the Quadriliogy box set - The scene in which Ripley briefs the assembled marines on the fate that befell the crew of the Nostromo. Ripley: "It must have laid something inside his throat". Laid. Not placed, deposited, inserted, dropped, etc, but laid. As in "laid an egg".
...but of course all of those can be argued with, which is why I saved the best one until last...
  • "Gigers Alien" ISBN 1 85286 219 X Originally by Big O Publishing, but this was from the 1989 Titan reprint first edition. It's on Amazon here. It's H.R Gigers photo diary of the making of Alien. Page 10 Plate "E" - A photo-reproduction of a typewritten sheet titled "ALIEN - LIST OF ELEMENTS TO BE DESIGNED". The key describes the plate as "363e Extract of letter from Dan O'Bannon" (that's Dan O'Bannon co-writer of Alien):
THE ALIEN, FIRST PHASE. This is a small, possibly octopoidal creature which waits inside the Spore Pod for a victim to approach. When someone touches the Spore Pod, the lid flies off, and the small Alien (First Phase), leaps out and attaches itself to the face of the victim.
THE ALIEN, SECOND PHASE. Once the Alien (First Phase) has attached itself to the face of the victim , it lays eggs in the victim's stomach, and the egg grows into the Alien (Second Phase). This is a small creature which bites its way out of the victim's body.
Amazon make that page available through the "look inside" feature. 88.104.88.53 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and better yet. The Prometheus Blu-Ray extra "Body Mechanics: Trilobite" (reproduced on YouTube). Conceptual Artist Neville Page describes the organ as an ovipositor. That's traceable to the creatures designer. Is that good enough for you? Are you done arguing now? 88.104.88.53 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything that happens in Alien has nothing to do with this film or that creature since it isn't in that film. The designer can describe it anyway he wants, if you can't back it up with a source saying that is what it does in the final film and what Scott and/or the writers intend it to actually be, it doesn't matter. And you can drop the attitude, acting as if I'm the bad guy because I didn't let you drop random research into the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
You intoduced the Facehugger to the debate to strengthen your argument, not I. However that is irrelevant in light of the Blu Ray documentary. I am not attempting to find further references to please you, nor am I required to. The designer of the Trilobite states that it is an ovipositor on the Blu Ray special features, and that's good enough for me to call it an ovipositor in a plot summary of a fictional work talking about a fictional monsters fictional organ and unless anyone else produces a serious objection I will change it to ovipositor in the article tomorrow. If you can find references to the organ being something else, please go ahead. Otherwise drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. 88.104.88.53 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned the facehugger because its the closest comparison, not to strengthen my argument because I'm not arguing, I'm debating a child. Commentary by the concept artist, does not reflect what it is in the final film, stop being a little bitch over it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake this debate effectively ended at 12:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC) when I found the creatures designer stating that the organ in question is an ovipositor. Your pointless attempts to drag this out are spamming this page. Your attempts at bullying and intimidation are unwelcome and I will not be dragged into this further by your name calling. I reiterate: "The designer of the Trilobite states that it is an ovipositor on the Blu Ray special features, and that's good enough for me to call it an ovipositor in a plot summary of a fictional work talking about a fictional monsters fictional organ and unless anyone else produces a serious objection I will change it to ovipositor in the article tomorrow". If you disagree find some sources to prove the designer of the creature wrong instead of just rubbishing him.88.104.88.53 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have to find sources saying what it isn't, you've yet to find one that says it is that in the film. Same reason we haven't said that the opening scene takes place on Earth, though it clearly does, because Scott has said that it is meant to be anywhere. Since you clearly have reading difficulties I'll say it one final time, the concept artist saying how he designed it does not speak for what it is in the film or what Scott intended it to be, the one who actually has any say in it. It's like citing a deleted scene, Fifield was meant to be a half-xenomorph, that was concept art too. That didn't end up being what he was either. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said - this debate effectively ended at 12:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC). I will stand my creature designers documented statement that the organ is an ovipositor against your opinion that the purpose of the same organ thrust down the throat of the Engineer to implant him is not clear. I will make the changes tomorrow unless someone comes up with a reasonable reason not to. If you feel you have to revert, then that is what you must do - but I would suggest you have more to go on than your personal opinion that the creatures designer is not a good enough source as I will report you for vandalism if you break the 3 revert rule. Now, unless you bring something new to this discussion I won't be engaging with you further, as it appears to be futile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.88.53 (talk)
Ah, threatening me with the 3RR rule? Try signing up with an account before citing things at me. I've given you the best reason of all, he's a f**king concept artist. Giger's Facehugger concept's didn't make it into the film as they were originally designed either, your change removes an ambiguity presented in the film with a certain biological function. You're being an idiot and a pain in my ass by having to draw me back to the conversation over and over, claiming that reality isn't fair to your point of view. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Just going to wade in here while I read all these before asking my question in case it's answered. Yet I see another pointless debate. In biology a tentacle which is what this is going into his through, is just the appendage. The organ which desposits the egg (I can reference a lot of things to show this is an egg being deposited, but I'm not going to because I work and don't have the time) would be correctly described as ovipositor which you only need from its latin of egg placer/inserter, describes the function perfectly. This debate is simply solved. What is mentioned in the article, the tentacle going down his through or the ovipositer laying the egg in his through which is in or on the tentacle itself, the tentacle itself isn't an ovipositer, as this describes the egg laying organ itself, so the stinger of the wasp is not an ovipositor, the stinger is what is used to transport the egg from the ovipositer. In hind sight both of you have too much time on your hands. RockHazard (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Hello, I would like to know why in the "Country", says the UK if the film is produced by Brandywine Productions "america" in association with 20th Century Fox "america", and director Ridley Scott. The film must be "American" British or American. To determine if the film is of a country, no matter who directs, or where it was filmed, matter who company produces and distributes. MervinVillarreal (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Took me a while to piece together a sentence from that, something about hating people from other countries or something like that. Anyway, the point of discussion is to discuss, not edit war which you are doing now and doing in ignorance since you're just deciding its an American film with no information to back it up, the worst kind of ignorant. The BFi says it is a British and American production (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/50c3089dd264a), which if you'd bothered to research/ask/discuss could have been resolved. And Ridley Scott isn't American. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Scott Free Productions is a UK company. Ridley Scott is English. The film was shot mostly in the UK (and Iceland/Spain, no US shooting at all). The cast is multi-national, but the principal stars are South African, Irish, Australian and Swedish. Aside from additional production work done by Brandywine (the level of which I'm admittedly unsure of), the film has little claim to being an American one, so removing the UK and replacing it wholly with "American" is worse than your original complaint. GRAPPLE X 22:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, I never said that Ridley Scott was American, but his small production company works in the United States, although they say that is British. my sources are: [1] [2]
production companies:
  • Scott Free Productions-GB
  • Brandywine Productions-USA.
  • Dune Entertainment-USA
  • Twentieth Century Fox, USA
IMDB says that is American / British, FilmAffinity says that is American. I agree with FilmAffinity, since only a single producer working on it, and 3 Americans make the movie. We must also include Fox, besides that produces, distributes well, I would like to open a consensus to change nationality to American, or American-British MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Fox is just the distributor though; if a Spanish bookshop were to sell a copy of Murphy it certainly wouldn't make Beckett a Spaniard. I've already detailed above the nationalities involved in the production, which you've seemingly glossed without a thought. GRAPPLE X 23:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Made in British studios, british director, european locations, international cast- ergo not really american. Ok american scriptwriters, funding and distribution. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I repeat again, no matter where you record the movie, or the actor in the movie, what matters is that the company produces and distributes, an example is the movie 2012, was recorded mostly in Canada, most of its cast is Canadian / American, and the movie is American. An example is also titanic, 80% of the actors are British, was recorded in Canada, Mexico, United States, and American remains, just because is distributed for a U.S. company, and also produced. James Cameron directed, and is Canadian, for that, the movie no is canadian.
Also, what's your source made in British studies?
laboratory:
  • ompany 3, Los Angeles (CA), USA (digital intermediate)
  • DeLuxe, Hollywood (CA), United States
  • Fluent Image, London, UK (digital negative management)
MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
let's start a consensus? MervinVillarreal (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
What's the source on British studios? Let's quote the actual article. "Filming began at Shepperton Studios and Pinewood Studios in England". This is immediately followed by two citations to reliable sources (not IMDB or similar dross). As for consensus, one already exists, you're simply seeking to challenge it. GRAPPLE X 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL, then, what are your sources? Your? The film was filmed in throughout the UK is true, (that does not matter to determining nationality in a film) like I said dude, no matter where you filmed the movie, what matters is who produces and who distributes, such as movies recorded in other countries and are americans:
  • 2012 (filming in Canada)
  • All Pirates of the Caribbean saga (was filmed in the UK a 70% all the movies)
  • Star Wars (was filmed in the UK, and U.S. and other countries) and many more films.
An example like this movie is All the Harry Potter (100% recorded in the UK, and is American-British) simply because it is distributed by Warner (American) and also co-produced for British producers, and other American companies. I recommend you see this consensus, where they are doing the same as we discussed, but with another movie. [3] MervinVillarreal (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll bite! If the British Film Institute are saying its a UK/US co-production why aren't we? This isn't an unusual practice after all, since we have the Harry Potter films and the most recent James Bond films down as UK/US co-productions. These days we don't try to analyze nationality ourselves because of the conflicting criteria; where there is a dispute we source it through the BFI or AFI or some other reputable source (i.e. not IMDB). Betty Logan (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Everyone here knows that it is impossible for a British film can have a production as prometheus, even James Bond is co-produced and distributed by American company, when they say they are proud to be 100% British, there is no country that compares to the U.S. productions, the BFI says it is a British / American, i agree. so we need put as a British / American Film. may use this

Prometheus /ˈproʊmɪθiːʌs/ is a 2012 British/American science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott, and written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof. The film stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green, and Charlize Theron. The story is set in the late 21st century and centers on the crew of the spaceship Prometheus as they follow a star map discovered among the artifacts of several ancient Earth cultures. The crew, seeking the origins of humanity, arrive on a distant world and discover a threat that could cause the extinction of the human race.

MervinVillarreal (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Eurgh, compound nationalities are just plain hideous. If we're going to mirror BFI I'd suggest we just drop the thing instead (futuremen on some distant moon aren't exactly a stellar example of a film with strong national ties like Ruma Maida or Birth of a Nation). Losing it, rather than overcomplicating it, would probably be the cleanest way about it—we all know that whatever order they're put in is going to be repeatedly swapped by jingoists on both sides anyway. GRAPPLE X 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

the nationality should be changed, it is not a 100% British film, and that makes me annoying, because people who inquire about this movie, the 90% of them see the information on Wikipedia, and they will see that the movie is British, no, is not, you have to put the actual information. The movie is not British, is British and American, is all.MervinVillarreal (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
any answer? 201.242.42.24 (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I think not. MervinVillarreal (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
the consensus ends, Because It put the U.S. in "country" with the UKMervinVillarreal (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
No, because now you're trying to put US first for no reason, certainly not for alphabetical reasons. You're pushing an agenda, and I'm tired of seeing it. United States has been added, continue to edit war over it and I'll just keep adding the warnings. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Shut up please, this consensus is over. MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you act like this in real life? Oddball. 217.41.43.35 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what the word consensus means. GRAPPLE X 02:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
....... MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I see MervinVillarreal has been here too. Can anything be done about this editor? MisterShiney ✉ 22:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! He could be taught some English. It's obvious that he badly needs it. --AVM (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary, as is, is over 700 words. Inside the plot summary itself, there is even a warning of the relevant guideline. Would it not be wise to prune this summary down to under 700 words? In the FAC, Darkwarrior has argued that the plot summary can not be streamlined any further, which I considered something of a challenge, given that I think 700 words is a bit excessive for most films. I got it down to around 650 words, just by removing a few irrelevant details. I also corrected several grammatical errors. My changes were reverted, which I think to be a bit hasty. I'll agree that my changes did, in fact, remove one detail that the FAC recommended, but, honestly, I don't see any reason to include useless facts about the terrain of the moon. If that's the only real objection, it'd be easy to add that back in.

I'm not going to engage in some stupid edit war over this, but I think my changes improved the article. Anyone agree or disagree? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In case he is not aware of this conversation I invite Darkwarriorblake to take part. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The plot limit is 700 words which can be exceeded when necessary and justified, in this case it's a sci-fi movie and some parts require elaboration to create understanding; for example a brief description of the moon they land on was requested in the FAC, and ultimately it makes sense because not everyone reading the article has seen the film, so we create a context for the reader. In this case it is 707 words, so despite the more descriptive text, it is barely over the limit. Other changes made the plot less understandable, such as changing "David investigates the cylinder and the dark liquid inside. He intentionally taints a drink with the liquid and gives it to an unsuspecting Holloway" to "David investigates the cylinder, intentionally tainting a drink and giving it to an unsuspecting Holloway,". I'm not sure the second part is even grammatically correct. What does he taint it with? We mention early that some cylinders are leaking dark liquid, but that doesn't connect with him investigating the cylinder and then suddenly tainting an unrelated drink. Equally "She intends to reach the Engineers' homeworld in an attempt to understand why they wanted to destroy humanity" to "Shaw recovers David's remains, and, with his help, launches another Engineer spacecraft, seeking answers on the Engineers' homeworld." The latter reads like she actually reaches the Engineer's homeworld and misses out on why she wants the answers in the first place.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's grammatically correct. If you truly believe that what I wrote is too vague, then I'll defer to your views. I could be misremembering, but I thought there was more like 730 words. I would, however, request that someone view my grammar fixes, because there are several commas missing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Theme Section Clarification by Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley

Request for Theme Section Clarification by Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley


Previous editor has requested clarification of previously made edit comments to be retyped on talk page before examining them or looking at them.

Admin oversight has been requested for previously flagged 3RR violation by previous editor (Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley)

The three previous edits suggested for improving the Theme section of the film Prometheus, with edit comments included, were all given during the last month and instantly rejected. Each option presented was to flag and make note of an erroneous misquote from a cited interview with Ridley Scott used in the opening sentence of the Theme section. Previous editor infers that Ridley Scott supports his/her claim concerning “The central theme” of the film, which Scott does not do in the cited interview. Previous editor (Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley) has refused to read or comment on the three previous edit comments and options presented. The previous editor has applied an instantaneous undo to each of three options presented for correcting the misquote. This instant rejection is made evident by the time stamp associated with the sequence of repeated instant undo operations. Admin has been alerted regarding 3RR violation issue by (Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley). The short history is as follows;

(1) Previous editor has apparently recognized a problem with the wording of the Theme section when a separate previous edit pointed out the ambiguous use of the phrases “central theme” and “prominent theme” in a previous version which appeared to be conflicting. This was acknowledged by the previous editor by dropping the word “prominent” in order to avoid the conflicting references, which has been retained in the current version.

(2) Once the word “prominent” was dropped by the previous editor, the text claiming the phrase “central theme” became more apparent and questionable. The footnote provided by the previous editor (Darkwarrior=MisterSmiley) gave a Ridley Scott interview which quoted Scott as referring to a “central metaphor.” Previous editor appears to have no editing experience with identifying the difference between the terms “central Theme”, “central Allegory,” and “central Metaphor.” The “central Theme” is not the “central Allegory”, which is not the “central Metaphor.” Previous editor erroneously applied these terms as synonyms and misused the quote from Ridley Scott. Each of the literary terms “Theme”, “Allegory”, and “Metaphor” are linked to wiki pages which show that they are not synonymous with each other and represent significant literary differences. The simple edit of changing this mistaken reference to “central metaphor” was rejected by the previous editor by an instantaneous undo of the suggested edit which would have corrected the misused quotation of Ridley Scott.

(3) A second option to correct the misused quote of Ridley Scott was to change the previous editor’s asserted claim to have discovered “The central theme” of Prometheus. It was suggested that the misused quote could be fixed by changing the use of the definite article “The central theme” to read as “A central theme” and using the indefinite article. Previous editor appeared to have no experience in understanding the difference between the use of the indefinite article and the use of the definite article in “The central theme,” which Ridley Scott never claims, and which erroneously exaggerates the claim which Ridley Scott does put forward. The simple change of the phrase “The central theme” to “A central theme” was rejected by the previous editor by applying an instant undo as shown by time stamp, without allowing any time for checking his/her own footnote or providing any explanation.

(4) Use of obscenity/vulgar language by previous editor has been unhelpful. Admin note that 3RR violation by previous editor (Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley) has been flagged, and applying instant undo with no explanation in all instances has been unconstructive for wiki community.

(5) Of the three options which have already been offered for correcting the erroneous use of the Ridley Scott footnote, the most complete correction edit was presented as less than four hundred bytes (on or about 29 May, 343 bytes), and involves the use of the technical term ‘’Myth of Origins’’ (wiki page link) possibly exceeding the capacity of the previous editor. The simplest correction edit would involve the simple change of the phrase “The central theme” to “A central theme” which has been refused by previous editor (Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley). Previous editor shows history of applying instant undo without allowing time to even check his/her own actual sources. The Ridley Scott quote is being erroneously used by the previous editor (Darkwarriorblake=MisterSmiley).

66.99.1.137 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you implying that myself and Mister Smiley are the same person? I can't tell what you're doing with the "=". People not responding to your discussion does not mean they agree with you, no one wants to engage with you on it. The section discusses themes. THe source is not being used to back up that it is a theme, it is a section stating that it is a theme because a theme is what the story is about, the actual theme itself then being sourced. I was tired of explaining to you weeks ago so I ignored your discussion here, that is not an endorsement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are saying that Darkwarriorblake are the same person then I would urge you to head over to the Administrators' Noticeboard and report us there for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry violations. Because that would be in breach of policies. If you could provide a link for to the so called edits you are referring to that would be great. I myself revert quite a bit of content and with your single edit (on this talk page) it is quite difficult to know what edits you are referring too. I would also urge that if you have an account (am I right in assuming you are User:AVM?), then please long in and use it. Thanks. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is all taking place for a one word edit and it seems that no reason has ever been posted against it. The edit may be reposted at user discretion. If MisterSmiley is be used in order to avoid or obviate 3RR wiki policy then this should be re-examined. See wiki page for "Gaming the System." 12.168.46.153 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, first off, Its MisterSHINEY and not Smiley. Secondly, Please assume good faith in your interactions with other editors, just because other editors disagree with you it does not mean that they are the same editor. It is preposterous that you consider us one and the same. You only need to look at our user pages and edit history to see quite clearly that we are different people. If you continue to disagree then head over to the relevant admin board. Otherwise stop throwing out preposterous accusations without evidence. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

IP who keeps reverting and not discussing, there is no policy that an edit may stand for a day, you have been told 4 times now that your edit contains bad grammar, and the link has been deemed unnecessary. It contains nothing but a statement that Prometheus stole fire, which is stated in this article, and the Titan Prometheus article. There is no benefit to sending someone elsewhere to read the same line of text. Stop your disruptive editing now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You may responde here with your objections to the grammar on the titan Prometheus page. You have been invited to place your objection on the relevant titan Prometheus page and they can responde to your accusation of "Hideous" grammar. Neither of you have done this. Neither of you have offered a constructive solution, or explained why the use of the preferred phrase "theft of fire" is being blocked by your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.140 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I already responded, your ignorance of that is not an excuse to continue edit warring over the content that two users have rejected. We do not care what the Titan Prometheus or Theft of Fire say, the grammar you added was poor and the article Theft of Fire says and adds nothing that is not stated here or in the Titan Prometheus article, it is unnecessary and useless. I've explained these things, again, your ignorance is not an excuse. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It quite frankly is an edit that makes little sense and is grammatically awful. I am sorry, but it is the sort of thing that goes on a Wikia article and certainly not a Featured Article, which are articles that are held to a much higher standard. -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your answers do not explain why you are not taking seriously the importance of interWiki links between related wiki pages, especially when they are using the same names. You appear to have missed the issue that interwiki link are one of the most important features on wiki, and you are serially blocking them. Your 24/7 oversight of this wiki page suggests that you are the authors of this text. Suggest an option. Suggest one which preserves wiki links which you cite as being of utmost imporatance in this theme section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.140 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links are not one of the most important features of Wikipedia, they are not to be used JUST because an article exists, and there is no blocking going on. There was no blocking before when there was a link (now I understand what it is you were saying then), just a different wording leading to the same article. Having read the respective article it offers NOTHING that is not either in this article or in the article on the Titan, it literally is a list of people who have stolen fire in mythology. It is not necessary or useful to link to it. I have given you the option, you just don't like it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Extremely Skewed Edit History of this Wiki Page for Prometheus

In looking at the list of contributors for this Wiki page, the following list of contributors was listed on 21 July 2013 as follows and showed an severely skewed history for one editor (1296 edits as opposed to next closest) over the other editors by a factor of almost ten to one. If you have seen similar examples on Wiki you can list them below. General Wiki approach seems to be to use a Community of editors to increase usefulness of all pages. This page looks very skewed to one editor by a factor of almost ten to one:

Number of Edits (21 July 2013)

1296 (975/321) Darkwarriorblake 2011-12-18 21:51 2013-07-21 09:58

143 (69/74) Kronnang Dunn 2011-01-25 05:55 2012-07-23 07:35

132 (97/35) IllaZilla 2011-01-23 21:55 2012-12-17 11:25

78 (77/1) Baffle gab1978 2012-08-14 03:57 2012-08-21 02:40

67 (61/6) Polisher of Cobwebs 2011-05-22 21:26 2012-12-26 00:13

59 (40/19) Flax5 2012-04-12 16:43 2013-07-21 14:00


72.68.10.194 (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Keri (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Per WP:RS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable[...] "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control[...]Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Keri (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This cannot be a matter of reliable sourcing because this refers to this at WhatCulture, to which there is another reference in this Wikipedia article. If we are to exclude content, we should articulate other reasons why. Perhaps after 72.68.10.194 is unblocked, we can continue discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Is WhatCulture (a user generated site) considered a reliable source? Keri (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The website's company is Obsessed With Film Ltd., so it does not seem self-published like the WordPress reference would be. I think it is a matter of if the article by Taylor and the article by Howland at WhatCulture are authoritative enough to warrant referencing for purposes of commentary. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of who the company is, the site still consists of user generated articles: anyone can apply online to become a contributor. Besides, I see a difference between Taylor and Howland: Howland is used as one of four sources to support the assertion: "However the plot drew a mixed response from critics, who criticized plot elements that remained unresolved or were predictable, tempered by appreciation for the action and horror set-pieces." Taylor, on the other hand, is presenting a complete cultural and thematic analysis of Ridley Scott's work: "Key Literary and Mythological Motifs." I would like to see verifiable evidence that Taylor "is an established expert whose work in the field [of analysis of Literary and Mythological Motifs in modern cinema] has been published by reliable third-party publications." Keri (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Even if the source is considered reliable, the user's edit consists of adding a list of perceived themes, at least 4 of which are already covered in the article in a superior form. And then complaining about users who have never had anything to do with each other colluding against him and adding a section on here to claim that making a significant number of edits means you're picking on him. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

connection to Alien and location of LV223

There seems to be some problem with how to describe Prometheus in the intro. It is inaccurate to refer to it as "not directly connected with the Alien franchise" because it is. We see the space jockey race, their spaceships, and even variations of the Alien itself. It is true that Prometheus does not lead directly into the first Alien film, but then The Phantom Menace does not lead directly into Star Wars but it is still directly connected with it. Additionally, Fox have put Prometheus in a boxed set with the Alien films called "The Evolution" which further highlights the connection. The best way to word this in the intro would therefore be "In late 2010, Lindelof joined the project to rewrite Spaihts's script, and he and Scott developed a story that still precedes the story of Alien but does not lead directly into the events seen in the original film." That way it remains factually accurate and we avoid the messy issue of if it is or isn't connected to Alien or to what degree.

On a semi-related note, it is relevant to the plot section to mention that that LV-223 is in the same region of space as LV-426. In Alien, the location of the LV-426 planetoid is confirmed by Lambert. Additionally, in the menu screens of the Blu-ray releases of Alien, Aliens and Prometheus, it shows the star maps where LV-426 and LV-223 are found in the Zeta Reticuli binary star system. Ridley Scott himself has also confirmed the crew in Prometheus travel to the Zeta2 Reticuli system in the International Featurette here. While LV-223 and LV-426 are clearly not the same planet, they are quite clearly in the same vicinity, which is a relevant issue when making the connection between Alien and Prometheus. 94.14.100.120 (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem, except for yourself, it is not directly connected to Alien, the Space Jockey is a minor mystery at the start of a series containg about 6 films, the Phantom Menace is a direct prequel telling the story of a major character and other major characters, teh two are not even remotely comparable. Nowhere in the film do they say they are going to Zeta II REticuli and the plot section is not for commentary about fan boy connections or DVD Menu information, and nothing in this film leads or connects to Alien, Aliens, Alien3, Alien Vs Predator, or Alien Vs Predator 2, it is merely set in the same universe and so trying to raise a connection is both incorrect and unnecessary. There is no evidence, anywhere again, that they created the Aliens, or that the Aliens did not exist well before them considering they have a cathedral dedicated to them so it is all original research on your end, the wording has stood and been understood by people for a long time. I invite you to read WP: BRD, WP: OR, and WP: 3RR. Do not edit the content back in. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
There is clearly a problem when we have people like you edit warring and constantly trying to show "ownership" of an article, which is exactly what you have done here. Whether you want to accept it or not, Prometheus is connected to Alien, even though it doesn't lead up to the events in the first Alien film. But the space jockey race, their spacecraft, the Zeta 2 Reticuli system, the Weyland Corporation, even the alien creatures themselves (in a variant form) all appear. Ridley Scott himself confirmed that the Prometheus crew travel to the Zeta 2 Reticuli system in the source that I added in my last post. I noticed you conveniently chose to ignore it because it doesn't support your position. It is therefore not original research because a source exists (and you can't get a higher source than Ridley Scott himself). Incidentally, you are now at 3RR so stop edit warring and try to discuss and learn to compromise without being snide, childish or territorial. 94.14.100.120 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The article has been worked on by several people, so it is childish to cry about ownership when the issue is accuracy, policy, and quality. The article is also a Featured Article, it has gone through a vigorous review process. None of the content here has been an issue for anyone else. Nowhere in the film is Zeta II Reticuli mentioned and so it doesn't belong in the plot, neither does commentary that any other film happened there, the opening section clearly states it takes place within the same fictional universe, but nothing in the film has anything to do with anything in any of the Alien films. Ridley Scott can say it took place on Apokolips, it still wouldn't be in the plot section because it isn't in the film, and it isn't this article's purpose to make loose connections to other films when the entire article is about how it started as a prequel to/takes place within the same universe as Alien. And the content was restored to the standard version, you don't edit and then disputed content sits around while it is discussed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
From this very talk page it has already been pointed out that you have made far more edits to this article than anybody else and your issues with ownership have already been noted by other editors. You do not own this article and you do not say what goes in it. The community at large decides, and if a pertinent fact is adequately sourced (such as Scott's quote that this takes place in the Zeta II Reticuli system) then it belongs in there. If not in the plot section, the detail could still be added to another part of the article because it is relevant and forms part of the film's connection to Alien. As a film, Prometheus' whole reason for being is its connection to Alien and so trying to downplay this is disingenuous. An article being a featured article does not mean it cannot be improved upon, nor does it necessarily mean it is completely accurate. And I will warn you again about your attitude towards other editors as per WP:CIVIL. Please either conduct yourself in a less confrontational and less territorial manner or please don't edit at all. 94.14.100.120 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Editors who don't get their way that accuse someone of ownership is pretty common on here, as seen by the person who you are now quoting while complaining about ownership because you're not getting your way. So stop complaining. Nothing about my comments are uncivil either, I've provided guidelines and facts, you've responded by claiming I am snide, childish, territorial and own the article, your comments are entirely uncivil and always the first resort of editors who don't instantly get their way. The information about Zeta II Reticuli was once in the article in a section, and it was removed. It is not a pertinent fact, it's a piece of in-universe trivia, nowhere in the article is the connection between the films downplayed, neither is it necessary to explicitly highlight connections because we are not IMDB and don't have a Trivia or Goofs section. And considering you take Scott's word as gospel, the line about it not being directly related is from Scott, as is the line afterwards.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have never seen a blatant case of article ownership than this one. We'll let the community decide, not you. 94.14.100.120 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
No one's denying that the film takes place in the same universe as Alien. This idea is specifically brought up in the lead, and its evolution is explored in detail in the "Writing" section. I don't see why you'd have a problem with the "not directly connected" line, since the link between the two films is a deliberately vague one which invites audience participation. No shared characters, similar but distinct settings, similar but distinct creatures – the weight given to any of these elements is really down to the audience, and "not directly connected" seems like a succinct and accessible way to sum it up.
As for Zeta 2 Reticuli, it can't be mentioned in the plot section, which strictly describes what happens on-screen. Unless the context of Scott's statement makes the system relevant to the themes, writing or production, I don't see anywhere it really fits. —Flax5 00:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Flax5 and Darkwarriorblake. The anon IP is well-meaning, but his rationale is original-research synthesis. I think Darkwarriorblake stated the case well in his first comment on this thread. And it is true that the article and this talk page have both involved many, many editors detailing and discussing this specific issue, and I believe the article's extant wording is appropriate.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus portal village pump

What portals, if any, are appropriate at Prometheus (2012 film)? There are four opinions I have found in the archives that pertain to this film, so they can be thought of as four proposals: 5 portals, no (0) portals, no more than the number of relevant portals belonging to three WikiProjects, and 5 portals (with one being different than the first).

  • Proposal A: I had included the following portals see diff:
  • 2010s - Decade that the film was released
  • Film - General portal on film (I had mistakenly added this portal twice in the diff)
  • Film in the United States - Since some production companies are from the United States
  • United Kingdom - Since other production companies are British
  • Science fiction - Genre
  • Proposal D: User:Nihonjoe argued (See diff): "Apparently at least one person thought that was excessive. I added the Alien portal to the Alien footer template on that page (which is where it belongs). I think the 2010s portal might have been a little excessive, but the others seemed fine. It isn't unusual for some articles to contain multiple portal links. Certainly, Film in the United States, Science fiction (which actually redirects to the science fiction section of the Speculative fiction portal), and (what should have been, if it actually existed) Film in the United Kingdom are not just tangentially related, as Darkwarriorblake implied with his removal of the portals." - What "that" means is the number of portals I mentioned in the first "proposal"

So what portals are appropriate for this article? Which proposal should be selected? Or should another one be used?

In light of an ongoing dispute over this particular article, distinct from a general view on portals, I started a village pump on portals related to this article here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#What_portals_are_appropriate_at_Prometheus_.282012_film.29.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I didn't know about the use of RFC tags, but since I know of them now, I will belatedly put one on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment For any editors reading, this is now either the 5th or 6th discussion WhisperToMe has opened because discussion has not gone in his favour elsewhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The idea of an RfC, I thought, was to pass the decision making process on to uninvolved editors. Constantly butting into that process in order to repeat oneself is disruptive, and is likely to make other editors think twice about getting involved. Wearing people down in this way (perhaps even impinging on their will to live) and then invoking silent consensus makes a mockery of the system. Moreover, this RfC and its proposals read much more like a 'he said, she said' attempt to score points that to genuinely work towards consensus. It would have been far more sensible to simply list the options and walk away. Since I don't have endless energy to follow every twist and turn of these issues I will say this; Darkwarriorblake strikes me as the kind of editor that makes Wikipedia good. WhisperToMe seems to have become far more too involved with this article, and perhaps needs a holiday. That's my 2 cents. I couldn't give a toss about portals at this point. No reply to this comment is required. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Greetings Editors I was randomly selected by the RFC 'bot. One thing that has been noted here by other editors is that the RFC is not stated clearly, and it looks like the RFC tag was applied late, after-the-fact to solicit Third Party comment.
There are three very minor problems. (1) The RFC usually states a clear issue of contention and suggests possible resolutions and asks Third Parties what they think. (2) The subject material is a bit esoteric so you may not get many people knowledgeable enough to comment well. (3) The editors suggesting different variants of the 5 listed versions might not be ameniable to RFC comments suggesting that one of the 5 proposed versions be adopted unless the RFC is stated a bit more clearly, complete with a brief description of what a "portal" is and how it is applied in Wikipedia.
If possible, would someone update the RFC so that it better conforms to the traditional way in which RFCs are solicited? Other editors asked by the 'bot to comment might be better able to offer opinions if they are afforded clearly-stated requests for what they think after being given a brief description of what a "portal" is and how it affects the issue being discussed. Damotclese (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

A trivia section would be nice. Rock climbers would notice that Dr Shaw uses an actual "Petzl I'D S" self-braking descender (retailing for about US$180) to lower David's decapitated body, near the end of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a possible small error in the film. Towards the end of the film, Weyland's team makes the final trip to talk to the Engineer who is in stasis (inside the alien spacecraft in the underground structure). In the latter scene, Weyland's team comprises Weyland, David, Shaw, the medic woman (Kate Dickie) and only one mercenary (the one with the rifle), but the Engineer kills everyone in the team except Shaw who manages to escape. After this event, when Shaw convinces Captain Janek to stop the Engineer's spacecraft from reaching Earth, it is implied in the film that the only surviving members of the original crew that are in Janek's ship are: Vickers, Janek, Chance and Ravel (the two pilots). We can be sure that the film implies that the latter 4 people are the only ones who are still alive in the ship before Janek collides his ship with the Engineer's spacecraft, because if there were more members of the crew in the ship, just as Janek offered to his two pilots the possibility to join Vickers to use escape pods to go to the life boat that is ejected, he would also have offered the same opportunity to any other crew member in the ship. But besides the mercenary (the one with the rifle) that was killed by the Engineer in the underground structure, there was also another mercenary who was alive in Janek's ship when Weyland was being prepared for the trip to speak to the Engineer. Before Weyland's trip to the underground structure, the mercenary (the one with the rifle) who is killed by the Engineer was initially in Weyland's room in the ship, helping Weyland to recover from the stasis that he had just woken up, but there was also an additional mercenary who was at the door, waiting outside Weyland's room. This second mercenary must have been in Janek's ship when Janek decided to destroy the Engineer's spacecraft, but he is forgotten by the director, since it was implied that Vickers, Janek, Chance and Ravel were the only people remaining in the ship before the collision with the Engineer's spacecraft. Accurate-spelling-enforcer (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Themes

There is something wrong with a sentence of the chapter "Themes" :

Shaw is directly responsible for the events of the plot because she wants her religious beliefs affirmed,[1] and believes she is entitled to answers from God; her questions remain unanswered and she is punished for her hubris.[2][3]

If you check the sources, the writer says :

I think it was important for Shaw to be directly responsible for everything that happens in this movie.

and

First off, God might not necessarily be interested in answering you, but even worse than that, you might just set him off just for the act of trying.

So, the sentence (as it is on the article) is misleading, it's written as a true fact but in fact it is an interpretation/fusion of two citations. The two citations should be noted as citations, and/or the interpretation rephrased. YolanCh (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a proposition which is only a slight adjustement :
"The main character is involved in the events of the plot because she wants her religious beliefs affirmed,[1] and believes she is entitled to answers from God; her questions remain unanswered and she is punished for her hubris.[2][3]"
Here is another one :
"The main character can be held responsible for everything that happens, she wants etc."
And an other :
"The writer holds Shaw as directly responsible for the events of the plot because she wants etc."
YolanCh (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the difference is, both sources appear to be saying the same thing by the two major creative inputs behind the film. Seems like a legitimate reading to me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I see a difference between "she is responsible" and "she is responsible because XXX". I also see a difference between "if you ask God, you may be punished" and "she asked God, so she is punished" YolanCh (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This talk page explains more about the agendas of the so-called editors of this article than the topic itself!

I just watched this film. Pity really, as I want my 2hrs of my life back. So I came here, as Wikipedia's articles (well those that are not the preserve of the anally retentive) usually have good explanations of what it's all about.

Sad to say: disappointed. The plot concerning this film is written in the manner of a 12-year-old. It just states the bleeding obvious summarising what is happening on the screen, (hardly an explanatory narrative), without giving any context to what it all means!!

As for the rest of the dull article, it's just copypasta from press releases and new reports. And yet it's called a good article! Sheesh when will you high and mighties wake up and realise what most people might call a good article. I mean who really wants to read all about the boring production crap or how it was made. Particularity as the film is shit sci-fi. Why not try and give it merit by explaining the film and not just fawning over it and ignoring the fact that Scott produced such crap.!!86.160.191.46 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with you. Seeing this film for the first time recently, I am left with the feeling that it is a triumph of marketing over product quality. I understand that the fans will welcome anything from the 'Alien' stable will open arms and ill disguised glee, but shorn of the hype the plot is poor, the progress of the story in cinematic terms is best described as uncertain and some of the acting simply unbelievable. Whilst not expecting the science of a film like this to be cast iron (even Sagan in 'Contact' couldn't quite manage that), Ridley Scott might take a course in Physics 101 and an introduction to relativity to get his feet back on the ground. Take a tip from Roddenbury, only use non-science plot devices when faced with no other sensible option.

Alien and Aliens were truly an experience. This is a waste of time. One is left wondering what the devil the focus groups were thinking of, and how thise film would have fared without the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of hype. C-. Not up to the expected standard.Drg40 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur w/ the both posters above (the film was crap). Amazing the WP article gives so much ink to it, suggesting as it does that the film is significant/monumental. The article s/b cut down to a more appropriate size. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll do my best to respond to your concerns. First of all, a plot summary is supposed to be a straightforward description of a primary source. Interpretative material is covered elsewhere in the article body. Secondly, Wikipedia includes content that is verified as being published elsewhere in reliable sources, so it does not add its own content. If the article does not cover an aspect of the film, it could be that coverage does not exist elsewhere, or it does exist but is not included here. Wikipedia caters to a variety of readers, so while you may not find the film's production interesting to read, others do. Can you say what aspect of the film should be more covered here? Does the "Themes" section not help explain the film? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It's actually now a Featured Article, though it hasn't been updated yet, so it's an even higher class of article for you to complain about. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems some people are looking for a deeper meaning, but it should be understood that as Wikipedia is based on encyclopedic research, it's simply not a place for speculative or interpretive ideas. If it's not from a known source, it's not wiki worthy. However, I would point out that there is a separate, lore-based wikia for the Alien and Prometheus universe. It is more extended, but also suffers from statements of the obvious. I'm a screenwriter by trade and training - unpublished on a large scale, still early in my career - but I have a feature on simplyscripts, one entry into the LA wildsounds contest, and three shorts; one that earned multiple awards in the Tampa film festival. I also edit screenplays, and have gotten to work with larger names more suitable to Imdb posting than myself, currently, through that means of work. I wish I could share all the whos and whats, but that would be against professionalism. Still, when I watched this film, I came from that perspective. I wish I could include more from that point of view on this wiki, as well, but am having trouble putting together the appropriate source material. It may not even exist, publicly. I'm including this here in the hopes that it may expand/defend the general concepts of the movie as simply something beyond the average person's education level, but also on the off chance that someone may be inspired to explore these possibilities in a way relevant to this film's database record. The main issue, of course, beyond fan nitpicking of general lore, is that when something contains so much potential hidden meaning and backdrop for moral interpretation, such analysis becomes as difficult to verify as it is to discern in the first place. You can never know the full story about such a thing unless you are personally the writer/director, yourself, but many take their deepest secrets to the grave.
I can't express enough how much influence can go into a piece of art when it's a labor of love, and personal. Most things of that nature are unverifiable by intent, or just a byproduct of the creative process. Also, certain concepts will always be left to interpretation, never even spoken of in commentary or interview - sometimes purposefully dodged and misdirected - and this is to see if a flame is born from a spark. That's a typical hope for creative writers. For example, I know this film is connected to the works of Friedrich Nietzsche in a direct fashion. It's much more connected to that than the Promethean mythos, in fact, especially considering a title tends to be an afterthought to the concept. A title is like a punctuation mark, not a definitive encompassing. I've tried and tried and tried to come up with an argument to include notes about the Nietzsche connection in this article, even before doing this (because I don't wish to enter into banter or topic discussion as a point, actually having at one time a topic of my own to include in the article, as stated) but I'll be damned if certain proof is easy to find. It's like playing six degrees to Nietzsche. Really, from Scott to Lovecraft to Nietzsche. If you've read his works, such as "The Will to Power" or "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," what I'm talking about should immediately stand out to you and you'd see which characters relate to what parts of those books. I mean, right down to the selection of their appearance, where Micheal could be one powerful, selfish. amoral self-creating man's conception of the overman, or ubermensch, including the very facial expressions chosen to portray him - his aspect described from the conceived possibilities listed in numerous accounts of Nietzsche's works, but in the historical and fascist interpretation - and the Engineers are modeled in some ways to represent the actual meaning of the overman as originally intended by Nietzsche (also note Vickers' relationship to a clear aryan bloodline, a classic association with overman philosophy in history, but her still being put aside, because Nietzsche deplored all things feminine, seeing it as weak - furthermore, since Wayland fancies himself the final sapien man and creator of the perfect man, the setter of the stage, he would never be succeeded by a woman if he is a proponent of "The Will to Power"). I could go on and on about the parallels. In other areas, I could make an even more clear case for at least holding this a matter of side-interest, but here are just a few more to perhaps strengthen the clarity for the above user suffering confusion about story, even if old news.
The idea in many interviews with Scott that there is some allegory relating to God or gods is an interesting one, but only easily digestible imagery used in the same way Nietzsche used it, where no one has bothered to define the term "God" in this case. Does it touch on the theological? Yes, and it's there to take from if you carry a religious view of life, fair and open to all, but only insofar as past philosophers have dealt with it. Nietzsche's philosophy is one where man is creative, or capable of being a creator, and the terms relating to god in that sense are simply to mean, "a thing that creates." That's the general, basic sense. We can only imply from there. We can only deduce that with Scott's love of Science and new discovery, he is well aware that the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states how nothing can be created or destroyed. In mathematical terms, physical terms, we cannot create in this reality, only move it around a little bit. What we call creative, when a thing of the mind comes into the world for another mind to experience, is an act of communication. We can suspect that Shaw's struggle with the notion of religion parallels all our struggle with creation, her journey through pain and loss, and overcoming of nihilism to find her own path of discovery - the three steps of Nietzsche from "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." She is a representation of a new philosophy, where the creative spirit is a thing of our dreams, only, but life's purpose since the first electron showed spooky action with its partner anti-particle across light years of distance has been one of a communicative spirit. Does passing on DNA recreate the self, or communicate the self? Does raising a child recreate your values into a new generation, or communicate them? Any philosophy of communication demands Empathy as its centerpiece, and Shaw is the embodiment of that by the end, overcoming extreme pains without a loss of her sense of simply "being," her sense of "I am," and replacement with the need to seek control over the outside world around her (could Scott have chosen a prophet of empathy for his Jesus/engineer backstory implication, as listed in this wiki, for a reason?). She fearlessly continues her journey of exploration. She even loves, and shows love to her enemies when possibly granted the chance to do so. Each antagonist and side character shows no empathy, in contrast. The different forms of overman concept - machine, progenitor, xenos, and a$$hole power-hungry guy alike: machine a sidestep to the biological; Engineers exemplary of the potential for biological mastery; xenos pure evolutionary strength without love; and the ceo a historical focus for the fascist conception of it - all except some factions of Engineer sharing no empathy. Compared to their concepts, and Ridley's to Nietzsche's, Shaw is the over overman. Beyond the beyond man. The next next step with potential in the here and now, for all people. For you and me. For all life, beyond.
But to prove this I would have to point you to such strange connections as the Alien Universe's inspiration from H.P. Lovecraft. Giger has been known to flat-out say it, and Scott as a true auteur had a definite hand in developing that to a next level for the film versions. Scott loves sci-fi and fantasy - that's well known - and Lovecraft is the grandaddy of his chosen genre of cosmic horror. Also well known. What's probably not well known is that Lovecraft quoted Nietzsche word for word in almost every single one of his major stories in at least one instance, per. H.P. Lovecraft quoted him directly, repeatedly, as a hidden motif. It stands to reason Scott would pay just as equal a hidden homage and tribute, as well, a third coming of philosophical interpretation on the subject matter. That's why it's hard to prove, and even harder to understand when watching. These far-off seeming and distant connections are the hallmark of genius, where "there is no such thing as an original idea," but we do the best we can to scrabble together so many ideas under a new light that they appear to be original over the passage of time, and people's forgetfulness. For this, you would have to read both Nietzsche and Lovecraft, then listen to Scott anew. The average person knows little or nothing about Friedrich Nietzsche or his impact on history, which was major and even embedded in our very language, today, but I can almost guarantee this film was Scott's personal message against proponents of that philosophy or anything similar to it in modern form. Prometheus is only related to what is listed in this themes section in the most bare, crude, and cursory ways, proposing the seeds of a new philosophy for the future. I just can't yet prove it in a way to make it worthy of encyclopedic entry, though I welcome anyone to try a hand at it, and hope this proposition didn't waste too much of anyone's time. In this film, perhaps embodied in the scene where the Engineer rips Micheal's head off and strikes Wayland, is Scott's personal message to all people who would fancy themselves creators and seek control of things in the world to feel powerful, and the characterization is such that it stands as a direct nod to the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche, a challenge to the power elite, and a story of the human condition through the test of finding our true selves. WillJonassen (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:WALLOFTEXT. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We need some input for the AvP template

Head on over to the discussion at the template's talk page. We need some input to decide how prominent Prometheus should be while accounting for the franchise. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks shows that several links in this article could use improvement.

Some redirect to other locations, some take longer to load than others, etc.

Would be a good idea to go through the article and archive links with archiveurl= and archivedate= wherever possible.

If not, it's likely the article will continue to suffer from further linkrot.

— Cirt (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural reference

At the beginning of the movie, an b/w film is shown with several men in uniforms, among them Peter O´Toole (?). It is nowhere mentioned but I guess it's there on purpose. Could somebody please make an addendum? Thanks, --Hodsha (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"B/w"? That film happens to be Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and that was shot in glorious 70mm Technicolor. As for some OR on why it's there, it's there as a reference to pride, conceit, and megalomania on an epic scale, where Lawrence's sinful pride corresponds to either that of Shaw and her husband to probe into the spiritual origins of mankind, or that of the Constructors that they seemingly only made us for the breeding of xenomorph aliens. Scott pretty much says they're messing with God, nature, or the universe, and that's why they're falling in the end. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Multiple announcements for sequel of production progress and release dates for Prometheus 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus, and probably redundant soon if not already. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There have been many internet announcements for the production progress for Prometheus 2 in Nov and Dec 2014, the sequel film to Prometheus, with multiple release dates published for Prometheus 2 in multiple countries including Sweden, Brazil, and USA. Another editor has opposed the inclusion of this production update information and multiply published release dates. The publication of multiple release dates usually is sufficient to justify including further information for Prometheus 2. Support if the one line summary below of production and release date updates should be included in the sequel section of this article for Prometheus, Oppose if you believe it should be excluded from this article. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The one sentence edit with citations (limited to 4 in this case): "A release date of March 4, 2016 has been announced for the sequel in the United States and Sweden, and March 10, 2016 for Brazil."[4][5][6][7]

Support-Oppose section

  • Support as start of discussion; The release dates and production updates are multiply sourced and multiply published. The information may be verified by multiple hits on google search. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Darkwarriorblake and lack of definitive information. One of your sources is IMDb, which is unreliable. The one mentioned by Blake outright says there's no release date. The Screenrant source says it will "(allegedly)" be released in March 2016, which is entirely based on assumption. And finally, the first source doesn't state where it got its information. Nothing solid enough to include this yet. Sock (tock talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Multiple sources outweigh a single source which you seem to quote with some zeal. If you have more sources from after Nov 2014 and Dec 2014 then lets see them. Even if you have only 2-3. Otherwise the multiple sources are announcing the release of Prometheus 2 in multiple countries on the date being published from multiple sources for March 4, 2016. This is Scott's own recent update [8]. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You're making stuff up based on him knowing plot elements. Nothing in that source says anything about the film's production, he states plot elements. Knowing a plot doesn't mean the film is in production and the sequel section already covers that a script has been developed/is in development.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This Source which you have provided and which was submitted recently confirms there is no date for it as there isn't even a finalised script. Instead of reading that you've chosen to re-link the source here as evidence of something which it does not support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That's far from the case. I also added a fourth citation from Nov 2014, and the cite you mention merely states concern that Ridley Scott did not grant an interview. The article only speaks of likelihood and probability of what the release date might be after it updates the production plans for the sequel titled Prometheus 2. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This is where the info was previously removed and this is why. The film set for March was The Martian. Discussion over. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is fully open. The Martian film is due out Nov 25, 2015 then followed by Prometheus 2 in March 2016 which has multiple announcements published. Your dates appear to be confused. You appear to be relying on one cite from August 2014, if that. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh for god's sake.
Stop wasting everyone's time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Could you possibly at least stick to what Scott is saying about his own film [9]. Your misdirection appears based only on your personal preferences against updating the production and progress on the sequel Prometheus 2 which has multiple cites from 2015 as well from multiple sources. You might stop posturing and do the google search to read these production updates on Prometheus 2 which everyone else can confirm directly. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You're clearly just googling and copying links, because that's the second source you've posted that doesn't say anything about a release date, yet claimed it does. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That link was directly on target for Ridley Scott comments on production and release dates being alive and well for the sequel Prometheus 2. Would you like to add Scott's own comments on the progress of the production made for Prometheus 2 to this article's Sequel section, including his own comments in the link you just saw [10]. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
...are you sure you're reading the article you're linking? The only quote made by Scott in that article is "Once that head goes back on, [David] is really dangerous, but he’s also very seductive. So maybe he’ll persuade [Shaw] to help him put the head back." No mention is made of production time tables. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In the other cites, the release dates are plainly stated. In this Scott quote he indicates progress on production of Prometheus 2. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2015 (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.

Plot opening

Darkwarriorblake it would be polite to give an explanation when making edits such as this. I stand by the reason I gave for removing that material. The scene in question is not a meaningful part of the plot. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant to the plot of the film and is mentioned within the real world portions of the article as well. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
With absolutely no context to explain why that scene matters, it is not relevant to the plot of the film. There is no reason why the plot section should mention every scene that someone commented upon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
How is there no context? The following scene shows they are finding evidence of their "gods" and later information says this is a scene of creating life. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that's interpretation of the film. It's an assumption the viewer can make; there is nothing in the film that clearly shows it to be true. By the way, if you don't respond to me, I might conclude that you have changed your mind on this issue and simply make the edit again, so I recommend a response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No response isn't an endorsement, it means I have nothing else to say to you. The content belongs, we disagree, so the WP:STATUSQUO remains. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
How very rude, Darkwarriorblake. You seem to have forgotten that the two of us aren't the only editors on Wikipedia; there's plenty of room for a larger discussion. I could ask for a third opinion, and you might then have to make a further response, so it's silly to say you have nothing more to say to me. The opening scene is quite irrelevant to the rest of the plot, and certainly ought to be removed. I should note that I performed an equivalent edit here at the article on the first Predator film, and no one saw fit to object. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm simply making a logical argument, Darkwarriorblake; it may not convince you, but I do think it makes sense. The opening scene in Predator is no more relevant to a proper description of the plot of that film than the opening scene of this film, and if the one can be removed so too can the other. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not logical, you're suggesting that because you edited a plot on one article and noone reverted you, that this was due to them agreeing with your edit rather than them either not noticing it or not caring. And that somehow that means you are entitled to both remove the opening paragraph from plot sections and then cite Predator as backing for such actions with impunity. It's even more jarring in that in the now current Predator plot section, the Predator is referred to as creature, entity, killer, stalker, non-human hunter, predator, and then in the second-to-last sentence as alien. Because you've removed that first sentence there is no explanation for where the Predator comes from, it just is, and as a result it's referred to as seven different terms where it could just be called alien. So again, just because you did something on another article, that does not make it a policy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just consider it, Darkwarriorblake. Here is Predator before my recent edits. The first sentence of the plot summary reads, "Many years in the past, an alien spacecraft approaches Earth and deploys a small pod to the surface." Anyone familiar with the film should know perfectly well that nothing in the film indicates that the scene takes place "many years in the past", so that part had to be removed. That, however, reduces the opening sentence to, "an alien spacecraft approaches Earth and deploys a small pod to the surface". It is illogical to place that sentence before the remainder of the plot summary, because there is absolutely nothing that explains how it is related to the rest of the plot, which takes place in 1987. So the sentence had to be removed altogether. The situation with this article is exactly the same, in my opinion. The plot summary gives a context-free description of some humanoid alien drinking a liquid and then disintegrating. There's absolutely nothing in that scene that indicates when it happens (past, present, future?) or what relation it has to the rest of the plot. It is illogical to jump from an undated scene to 2089, so the opening scene should simply be removed, in my opinion. IllaZilla, do you have any comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:
I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator; the addition from Darkwarriorblake feels as though that element of the plot is being narrated. I wouldn't be against rewording it in a more encyclopedic tone, however. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Erpert. It would be more helpful, however, if you could give at least a rough idea of the kind of rewording you have in mind. In the absence of further suggestions, I have made an attempt here. Note that I removed the statement that the scene takes place on an "earth-like world"; that wording implies that the planet definitely is not Earth, which it could be, for all that anyone knows. I also removed the reference to a "biogenetic reaction", as that too is not clearly established by the scene. In response to this edit by Sock, I must say that I see no advantage to saying that the alien "starts to disintegrate" over simply saying that it disintegrates. The latter is clearer. The "starts to disintegrate" wording would make sense only if the alien did not completely disintegrate in the scene, which it does. Since the alien in fact completely disintegrates, "starts to disintegrate" leaves readers with the incorrect impression that it only begins the process of disintegration. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That seems fine. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator on the deletion of this beginning section, however I think it should be removed completely (as it was in the old revision). As it is now, it still reads more like a narration than a summary. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be novelizations of the film. - talk 16:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Genre

Can this movie be called Sci-Fi adventure instead of plain Science fiction? --C E (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd call it sci-fi epic. All entries in the series are very different from each other. The original 1979 one was almost exclusively horror and much closer to Halloween (1978) than to Planet of the Apes (1968) (to me, the 1979 film with its perversely pornographic Giger body horror feels much more like Cronenberg than Scott, actually). Aliens (1984) was sci-fi action with little horror. Alien 3 added a little more horror back in, making sci-fi horror, while definitely lacking the sense of wonder and dark abyss that the original had had (most likely not least of all because of it originally being a Jodorowsky/Moebius project before they left and the studio turned to Scott), but adding a different flavor of whimsical weirdness by calling upon the director who had made Dune, another project abandoned by Jodorowsky/Moebius. Alien Resurrection was pretty much a horror action-satirical fantasy hybrid, very much reminiscent of Jeunet's earlier films Delicatessen and The City of Lost Children.
Now, Scott has put another change of tone to the series and originally developed Prometheus (along with its sequels) as an epic background prequel exploring the Alien universe making for sci-fi epic, and already the themes and clues to them sprinkled across the plot give heavy nods towards epicness, grandeur, megalomania, hubris, and/or pretentiousness, depending on your POV. Examples include the references to Lawrence of Arabia, science vs. religion, origins of humanity, original languages (such as the PIE learnt by David where we see him practicing with Schleicher's fable in the beginning, and he uses the language to communicate with the Engineer), Urheimat (that is, original homegrounds), and the hubris behind genetic engineering, be it on behalf of the Engineers or Weyland and David, and especially the hubrical attempt to tap into one's origins in several ways, be it by searching for one's creators, by opening the can of worms that comes with the science vs. religion debate, or by genetic engineering. So far, it seems that Scott is pointing towards a resolve at least in the regard that science and religion don't necessarily need to conflict with each other, and it seems that that's his main point he's trying to drive home with his Prometheus trilogy. --80.187.101.8 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"THE LIQUID"

There are possible BIG errors in the article's Plot section. A few stubborn editors have consistently clobbered my attempts at correcting said errors, so I'm asking for HELP here. HELP!
Perhaps a Biology course would aid said stubborn editors.
First, "David secretly takes a cylinder from the structure, while the remaining cylinders begin leaking a dark liquid." --No problem yet.
Then comes the sentence "David investigates the cylinder and the liquid inside." This sentence fails to mention that David actually opens the cylinder he has secretly stolen by turning its screw closure counter-clockwise, revealing two translucent "vases" inside which he forces out, revealing transparent walls resembling a greenish algae-like tissue, vases that are full of a clear liquid, completely different from the "dark liquid" that had begun to ooze from the majority of the unopened cyllinders stocked in the vast room just penetrated by humans.
Then the article's problem gets worse with the absurd sentence "He intentionally taints a drink with the liquid and gives it to an unsuspecting Holloway..."(etc.) That sentence is utterly wrong: First, it fails to mention that David breaks open one of the vases he detached from the cylinder, and then grabs a diminute organism he finds perched inside, close to the top, and takes a close look at it while it rests on his index finger (which has the Weyland logo design as part of its papillary ridges). The organism, most certainly a multi-cellular "pupa" having a half-moon shape and measuring at most two millimeters, is regarded with awe by David, who utters: "Big things...have small beginnings". David then goes to Holloway and asks how far would he go to get what he came all this way for, what is he willing to do? to which Holloway replies, "Anything and everything", to which David says, "That's worth drinking to, I'd imagine" and then offers Holloway a toast, while sticking out his index finger where the organism is adhered to, not "the liquid". He dips his finger into the glass that he offers to Holloway who then drinks. David, though being a robot, even is sarcastic enough to wish him "Good Health".
Then the article gets still worse with "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." That is utterly FALSE and involves an editor's personal opinion, for Janek never mentions "the liquid". Also, not only FALSE but ludicrous is the sentence stating "Shaw flees and warns Janek that the Engineer is planning to release the liquid on Earth".
Question: Where in space did the writer(s) of those texts get the idea that the biological weapon was "the dark liquid"? The true significance, or function, of "the dark liquid" was far beyond comprehension for all the characters in the movie, as is also exactly the case with the article's culprit editors for that matter, who blissfully wrote such simple, personal interpretations and let them rest untouched and zealously protected, as if their text was sacred. Most probably, "the dark liquid" was part of a mechanism designed to preserve the real biological weapon alive (and active) for very long periods, possibly up to several millennia, together with the cylinders themselves and the vases they contained, full of another kind of liquid having a different purpose.
In sum, some of the editors have wrongly and blissfully:
1) Omitted important details (as the plot's line depends on their being correctly understood);
2) Misinterpreted objects and their names; and
3) Assumed some elements' nature and function without providing any proof or reliable source.
4) Stubbornly defended those absurd phrases against any corrections from more knowledgeable editors.
Any attempt on my part (and perhaps others', too) to correct this situation has been immediately (and very rudely) reverted.
So, again: HELP! --AVM (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing lead sentence

We should have a sentence at the end of the lead that reads "A sequel, Alien: Covenant, is scheduled to be released on October 6, 2017". Could we discuss why this isn't there and perhaps look at implementing it? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind; solved! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal vendetta

It appears that User:Darkwarriorblake is on a personal vendetta to keep vandalizing every mention of press and studio releases and cast and crew interviews about the projected production and release date of Prometheus 2, as if he hated part 1 so much that he just doesn't want a sequel to come out. This issue with him has cropped up before in an earlier section here on the talkpage, where he was proven wrong with a number of sources several times in his constant denial about the sequel's ongoing development where he was plainly denying in his own account or failing to acknowledge what the sources said. In the prior discussion above, he took the mere fact that The Martian originally had the same projected release date of March, 2016 and then was re-scheduled to November, 2015, to make the demonstrably false claim that all sources talking about the release date of Prometheus 2 would really be talking about The Martian.

Now that he can't deny anymore that they're really talking about Prometheus 2, he's made up a new lie in his recent edit summary of his latest case of vandalism by claiming that "no complete script" would exist, when all we know is that Michael Green was given the scrip to finalize it more than two years ago, and claims that the sources where he priorly claimed they wouldn't be about Prometheus 2 would now be "outdated" and that "You can't make a film in 9 months!" Neither is for him to personally decide via his personal OR, all we have to do is report what the most recent of plenty of sources are saying, and plenty of them keep saying production will begin in fall, 2015, and the film will be released in March, 2016. It's not for us to decide whether they're right or wrong, we're only here to report what the most recent sources are saying. The most recent sources we have so far date from December, 2014, and they're saying, production in fall, release in March. This article is not a personal toy of User:Darkwarriorblake's for him to vandalize just because he seems to have hated Prometheus so much that he wishes Prometheus 2 will never materialize and so he's riding roughshod over all Wiki rules regarding reliable sources and personal OR by saying that only he's right and all sources must be wrong, or by even plainly denying he's even reading the same dates in the very same sources. --80.187.108.120 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's an even newer source dating March, 2015: [11] and it says a.) the final script has been approved by Scott and 20th Century Fox, b.) filming will begin in August, 2015, and c.) release will be in March, 2016. It also openly says that some shady websites have knowingly and deliberately started the false rumor that there still wouldn't be any approved script ever since they got Green to put his hands to it in 2013, while these websites know fully well that it's wrong and Scott and Fox do have a final script. --80.187.108.120 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
idiot, who do you think got the article to featured status? Your "newer" ref claims that the film will.begim filming, do all the cgi and marketing and release in 7 months now, that's even worse. They struggled to do fast and furious 6 in 12 months. Your source then says it doesn't know if that's true, so assuming you're the same editor as last time, your sources continue to not actually be accurate or admit they're completely guessing. Or they don't say whay you think they do which was also the problem last time. And may e check who has worked on the article before accusing them of blocking inforation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The IP may be provoking you, Darkwarriorblake, but please remember WP:NPA. You just aren't allowed to make insults like that against other users, inclusive of IPs. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)+
Agreed. Those two "jewels", User:Darkwarriorblake and User:MisterShiney are the two rogue editors mentioned above (see "THE LIQUID" section), who have teamed up in order to sustain their version of the article's plot section. They are not only ignorant, stubborn, rude and disdainful; in addition they behave as if they owned the place. Shame on them! --AVM (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you need to take a step back and show a little respect to an editor who's credentials far outweigh yours. For a starters, I haven't done any serious editing in months and therefore your accusation of being a "rogue editor" is mute. If you have any complaints go and report it to the relevant admin boards. If not, then stop throwing your toys out of the pram because your edits are not seen as better than the ones that got the article to a featured status. God Bless and Good Day. MisterShiney ✉ 23:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Most probably, the article was awarded the 'featured' status despite your and User:Darkwarriorblake's edits. --AVM (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Prometheus (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Prometheus (2012 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Writing23 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Theme1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Theme2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prometheus_(2012_film)/Archive_4&oldid=1137100874"