And in Alien, the ship's captain violates quarantine procedures and brings an alien life form on board despite explicit regulations prohibiting doing so (and against the advice of the ship's warrant officer). That was a pretty dumb move, but nobody b+$*!es about that.
The reason that no one complains about that is because that's NOT what happens. AT ALL.
** spoiler omitted **
That IS what happens.
** spoiler omitted **
Culpable for his actions? At that point he has no power TO ACT.
Ultimately he gets on the Nostromo because of Ash's own set of ulterior motives. But in the scene? Dallas is NOT ultimately responsible for the alien getting on the ship. ASH IS.
If Dallas had found a way to circumvent the lock on the outside hatch and get everyone in? You'd be absolutely, 100% correct here. But youre laying the actions that someone else took firmly on the shoulders of another character and that doesnt seem right at all.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
And in Alien, the ship's captain violates quarantine procedures and brings an alien life form on board despite explicit regulations prohibiting doing so (and against the advice of the ship's warrant officer). That was a pretty dumb move, but nobody b+$*!es about that.
The reason that no one complains about that is because that's NOT what happens. AT ALL.
** spoiler omitted **
That IS what happens.
** spoiler omitted **
Culpable for his actions? At that point he has no power TO ACT.
** spoiler omitted **
Dallas could have made the call to abide by quarantine protocols and keep Kane off the ship. He'd have had a fight with Ash and Lambert to do so, but it was still a choice he could have made, and he would be blameless in that circumstance.
To use an analogy, imagine this hypothetical situation:
Dallas has a gun pointed at Lambert's head. He pulls the trigger.
CLICK--No bullets.
Dallas has no power to shoot Lambert. Ah, but Ash comes along, and says "Here Dallas, I see you're trying to shoot Lambert, these bullets should help," and gives him some ammo.
Dallas loads the gun and BLAM blows a hole in Lambert's head.
Who is responsible for the murder? Ash supplied the bullets, but Dallas pulled the trigger. I say both are responsible.
Same for the hatch situation. Both are responsible. Dallas for sympathetic reasons, Ash for sinister ones.
He's curious, plus working for Wayland."curious" is not anywhere near an acceptable justification for something like that.You don't need an acceptable justification if you don't place any value whatsoever on human life.
It's funny how most of the criticisms here are of the humans not acting like totally emotionless robots, with the exception of this one, which is aimed at a totally emotionless robot for not caring who it hurts.
Yes, but is it logical to put the crew at risk before you've found out what you can without doing so?
I mean, assume that everything had been fine until the poisoning. You've just put the expedition at risk by introducing an unknown chemical/biological whatever to the crew in an uncontrolled environment. Even if as a robot you're confident you're immune to whatever it is in the event it's a communicable disease or the like, it's going to be a pretty boring existence stranded on an uninhabited planet until your power source runs out.
Heck, ask for volunteers. I doubt this bunch of screwups have the average brainpower for them all to realize it's a dumb idea to take this stuff. At least a controlled experiment might yield scientifically useful results.
They only show us the one hallway and a couple chambers because sets are expensive. You really want them to build a whole separate tunnel set just to film a 2 second shot that sets up two redshirts getting killed?
Three things:
1) The redshirts being killed is the basis of MULTIPLE SCENES, so yes, it is actually important. Without it you don't have about 3-4 other scenes, and about 40-50 lines of dialogue in several other scenes that deal with multiple topics.
2) They show the map on the screen for like 2 seconds. Part of this issue could have been solved by the captain pointing at it and saying "That's them... that's the unknown blip".
3) Have you ever met an engineer/scientist who designed a really cool toy? They will try to convince you that it can solve world hunger, global warming and provide enough energy to get us to Mars, even if it's just a new type of pen. The idea that Fifield would fall back on anything other than his pride and joy in both his professional and personal life (remember, other than his appearance this is the only thing we know about him) is pretty ridiculous. The character is initially introduced for one purpose: so that the movie could have neato 3-D mapping of the structure. That the character then forgets this purpose is preposterous, because as the audience, it is literally the only thing we know about him.
4-5 lines earlier in the movie when they were waking out of cryo would have been enough. Have someone be forgetful, then David says "Forgetfulness is a common side-effect for a few days, it'll pass". Bam! problem solved. Now we as the audience know WHY it happens: Space Amnesia. Captain references it on the bridge during that night watch and everything is neatly tied up.
As it is, it's not tied up. No matter how much you want to bend over backwards to convince me it is. The fact that you HAVE to do so is proof that it was badly written.
Anyways, it doesn't really matter. You think the script is tight and without holes. I disagree. To me they are so glaringly obvious, you're not going to convince me.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
As it is, it's not tied up. No matter how much you want to bend over backwards to convince me it is. The fact that you HAVE to do so is proof that it was badly written.
The fact that you refuse to accept my arguments is proof that they're wrong? Man, I didn't realize it was that easy! I'll have to try that next time.
Anyways, it doesn't really matter. You think the script is tight and without holes. I disagree. To me they are so glaringly obvious, you're not going to convince me.
Pretty sure I've said the opposite multiple times in this thread.
My argument is and has always been that the script has flaws, but people are blowing those flaws out of proportion.
Probably, as someone previously mentioned, this is because the movie had a lot of hype. It didn't live up to the hype, so now it's hip to hate on the movie. Tale as old as time.
Anyway, I guess we should just agree to disagree?
|
He's curious, plus working for Wayland."curious" is not anywhere near an acceptable justification for something like that.You don't need an acceptable justification if you don't place any value whatsoever on human life.
It's funny how most of the criticisms here are of the humans not acting like totally emotionless robots, with the exception of this one, which is aimed at a totally emotionless robot for not caring who it hurts.
Yes, but is it logical to put the crew at risk before you've found out what you can without doing so?
I mean, assume that everything had been fine until the poisoning. You've just put the expedition at risk by introducing an unknown chemical/biological whatever to the crew in an uncontrolled environment. Even if as a robot you're confident you're immune to whatever it is in the event it's a communicable disease or the like, it's going to be a pretty boring existence stranded on an uninhabited planet until your power source runs out.
Heck, ask for volunteers. I doubt this bunch of screwups have the average brainpower for them all to realize it's a dumb idea to take this stuff. At least a controlled experiment might yield scientifically useful results.
This, just about. Even if you don't put a high value on human life, you are introducing an insanely dangerous unknown to the equation that there is no reason to assume you could stay on top of. Even ignoring for a moment that those robots are programmed to not hurt people, what he does has nothing to do with sense.
Ask yourself this - whatever the robot's goals were, was infecting his crew members with the black goo the best way to achieve them? If not, why did he do it?
Ask yourself this - whatever the robot's goals were, was infecting his crew members with the black goo the best way to achieve them? If not, why did he do it?
Because Charlie was being a complete jerk to him half a second before. David probably shouldn't be able to hold a grudge, but that's totally the motivation I got from him.
It's actually one of the few scenes of the movie I don't have much issue with.
I have a lot more issues with how Holloway is being all moody and whiny over the spectacular failure the mission has already been, what with them only finding evidence of alien civilization, recovered an actual alien body (that his girlfriend the Super Scientist set fire to, admittedly) and all sorts of amazing alien technology, all within a few hours of landing on a moon in a distant part of the universe.
Clearly this is the worst expedition ever.
|
David is not programmed that. Even his promotional video says so.
He is testing the black goo because he wants to see how it will work on humans. Because he is curious, and because Wayland told him so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, thinking about it... the cast of characters was perfect. I was overjoyed when each and every one of them died due to their own stupidity and hubris.
Needed some Oompa-loompas to sing them out though. That would have improved the movie tremendously.
|
|
Ask yourself this - whatever the robot's goals were, was infecting his crew members with the black goo the best way to achieve them? If not, why did he do it?Because Charlie was being a complete jerk to him half a second before. David probably shouldn't be able to hold a grudge, but that's totally the motivation I got from him.
See thing is, if you are so pissed at someone you are willing to kill him, there are better ways of doing that than infecting him with an unknown alien substance. Like clubbing him in the head or something. Why risk yourself and everyone else if all you want to do is hurt a single person? When there are much simpler and more mundane alternatives to using a weapon you do not understand?
He is testing the black goo because
1) he wants to see how it will work on humans.
2) Because he is curious,
3)and because Wayland told him so.
1) Nothing preventing him from taking a sample of the black goo back with him to Earth to be studied more seriously. Or, if bringing it back to Earth is an issue, stowing it and waiting until all the humans are in stasis on the journey back, then select a victim and infect him/her, setting up a much more controllable environment to conduct your study.
2) Machines are indeed well known for their lack of patience and impulsive behavior. Surely a curious robots will not take any obvious precautions before acting upon it's curiosity.
3) Which doesn't make more sense than anything else in the movie. I don't recall Wayland waiting to see the results of that experiment before heading off to talk with the Engineers. He, too, must realize he's playing with fire by using a completely unknown alien substance like that. Doesn't Wayland wish to maximize his chances of survival? shouldn't he be avoiding unnecessary risks? Is infecting a crew member and letting him loose among the other crew members truly the most reasonable way to test the alien substance?
Look, guys... anyway you look at it, a justification for doing something as potentially dangerous and unpredictable as David did has to be pretty darn good. There have to be no better alternatives. That is absolutely NOT the case in this movie. By having this discussion we are thinking things more deeply than the scriptwriters. It's evident in every aspect of the movie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But David aside, I must say that a lot of the character took hold of the idiot ball and didn't let go. Like that biologist dude.
He freaking went to pet a hissing snake/whatever thing that showed obvious aggression. YOU'RE A BIOLOGIST FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
You also forgot to mention how his snake petting came right after him getting so freaked out by some mummified remains that he ran away. Maybe he's the opposite half of Indiana Jones.
|
|
The justifications here for why the movie wasn't really that bad are much more flattering to the fans who've posted them (who show some real intelligence and ingenuity in attempting to justify the essentially unjustifiable) than they are to the script writer(s). Nice work, ladies and gentlemen ... much nicer, in fact, than the material you're defending.
Does the film have a few redeeming characteristics? Yeah. Few big-budget extravaganzas don't. Does it have enough to be reasonably called a great, good or even passable film? No, it does not. When plot and characterization both strike out, swinging and on a called third, respectively, the discussion may not be over (because discussions never end on the internet), but the argument should be.
It's a bad film.
To be fair, in a world of Transformer movies and terrible CGI, the movie does shine with some amazing , convincing and well thought out visuals. That's the best thing I can say about it, but unlike the script the visuals do seem like an effort of love made by people who care, and the results are incredible, so now that I think about it it seems unfair not to mention that.
As it is, it's not tied up. No matter how much you want to bend over backwards to convince me it is. The fact that you HAVE to do so is proof that it was badly written.The fact that you refuse to accept my arguments is proof that they're wrong? Man, I didn't realize it was that easy! I'll have to try that next time.
Anyways, it doesn't really matter. You think the script is tight and without holes. I disagree. To me they are so glaringly obvious, you're not going to convince me.Pretty sure I've said the opposite multiple times in this thread.
My argument is and has always been that the script has flaws, but people are blowing those flaws out of proportion.
Probably, as someone previously mentioned, this is because the movie had a lot of hype. It didn't live up to the hype, so now it's hip to hate on the movie. Tale as old as time.
Anyway, I guess we should just agree to disagree?
Because your "explanations" don't matter.
If the script is flawed and doesn't explain things, there are holes.
Here's my explanation for all movies ever: magic.
Boom! I have now sufficiently explained all "plot holes" ever by your logic, because I have though of a "possible" reason for why things happen, that means plot holes now no longer exist. The mere concept is purely a hypothetical. Why? Because magic.
A movie needs to provide sufficient explanation for the things that happen within it. This movie did not.
Also, you must be confusing me with other people. I really didn't pay attention to the hype. I'm not an Alien fanboy. I probably haven't seen the movie in nearly 20 years. I don't think I even saw Resurrection.
I watched this movie and judged it on it's own merits. Even after this thread, I don't think I could tell you how it's linked (or not linked) to the other movies.
Here's my explanation for all movies ever: magic.Boom! I have now sufficiently explained all "plot holes" ever by your logic, because I have though of a "possible" reason for why things happen, that means plot holes now no longer exist. The mere concept is purely a hypothetical. Why? Because magic.
But they established earlier in *insert fantasy film of your choice* that magic doesn't work that way on...
oh yeah, magic. I'll shut up now.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because your "explanations" don't matter.
If the script is flawed and doesn't explain things, there are holes.
Here's my explanation for all movies ever: magic.
Boom! I have now sufficiently explained all "plot holes" ever by your logic, because I have though of a "possible" reason for why things happen, that means plot holes now no longer exist. The mere concept is purely a hypothetical. Why? Because magic.
A movie needs to provide sufficient explanation for the things that happen within it. This movie did not.
Also, you must be confusing me with other people. I really didn't pay attention to the hype. I'm not an Alien fanboy. I probably haven't seen the movie in nearly 20 years. I don't think I even saw Resurrection.
I watched this movie and judged it on it's own merits. Even after this thread, I don't think I could tell you how it's linked (or not linked) to the other movies.
Let's be clear on something. There are two arguments at hand here. Whether or not it is possible for Fifield to get lost, and whether or not it is believable for Fifield to get lost.
I gave possible explanations for how Fifield got lost because people were saying it would be impossible for him to get lost. You yourself recently said it would be impossible for him to get lost because the inside of the pyramid was "just a giant spiral". You were wrong.
That is the relevance of my explanations. You don't like explanations, quit making arguments about what is possible.
There is an entirely separate argument at hand over whether or not it is believable for Fifield to get lost. I've outlined my reasons why I think it is believable (Fifield's attitude and emotional state, yada yada, we've been over that). You disagree. And that's fine.
Just don't misrepresent my arguments ("You think the script is tight and without holes....") and don't presume some nonexistent high-ground (accusing me of bending over backwards), and we'll be golden. We have different opinions about a movie. It's OK. It happens.
As to the latter part of my post, I apologize for not being clear. My comments about hype were not meant to be directed specifically at you, but rather more generally at the people who I believe are blowing the film's flaws out of proportion. Maybe you aren't representative of that group. Fair enough.
PS - Since we're not dropping it after all, Fifield never claimed to have invented or designed the pups. He says "my pups," and later gives a little howl, that's it. That could mean they're his pet project, or it could simply mean he owns and likes them. I own and like my car, but that doesn't mean I use it at every available opportunity. If it's a short trip, I may walk or take my bike. If it's a short walk out, I may not pull up the 3D map I'm in the process of generating, especially if I trust my sense of direction.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Not having the omniscient viewpoint of the movie viewer, can you really say that you'd do any different than Dallas would if it was one of your friends on the line?. Keep in mind that these characters are the equivalent of merchant marine, not Starfleet officers.
I honestly don't know.
Even without knowing in advance what happens, I feel pretty confident saying that NOT bringing the alien on board is the smart choice. Even it costs Kane his life, the risk to the crew posed by the unknown organism is too great. I have to balance the life of my friend against the lives of the half-dozen other people that have been placed in my care (including my other friends).
That said, that's my perspective from my comfy chair on Earth. If you actually put me in that situation, I might not choose any differently from Dallas. I sympathize with Dallas, honestly I do. Like I've been saying all along, stress and fear have an effect on the choices we make.
However, if I choose to let the alien on board (or if I sacrifice Kane, for that matter), I also believe I have to own that decision. Whatever happens next is on me.
Ask yourself this - whatever the robot's goals were, was infecting his crew members with the black goo the best way to achieve them? If not, why did he do it?Because Charlie was being a complete jerk to him half a second before. David probably shouldn't be able to hold a grudge, but that's totally the motivation I got from him.
It's actually one of the few scenes of the movie I don't have much issue with.
I have a lot more issues with how Holloway is being all moody and whiny over the spectacular failure the mission has already been, what with them only finding evidence of alien civilization, recovered an actual alien body (that his girlfriend the Super Scientist set fire to, admittedly) and all sorts of amazing alien technology, all within a few hours of landing on a moon in a distant part of the universe.
Clearly this is the worst expedition ever.
this is where I have the Biggest problem in the movie.
The guys getting lost, not much of a problem with that. Explorers and mapmakers for the New World got lost all the time...and they were experts at map making...similar situation...but on a bigger scale.
However, giving someone that stuff just because...
Doesn't make sense...
Especially if one is scientifically minded. There are TONS of things you would do before human trials...
Even Weyland would be smarter than that or should be...since if it becomes a super contagious disease that is contracted by humans...giving to another would eventually kill him too...
You would try it on cells in a microscope or other thing with observation first, then small life forms and gradually move up, observing and creating the most likely scenario of what would happen next.
And I'm one that actually really likes Prometheus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The geologist getting lost is one of those issues where, if that was the sole problem of the movie, no one would care. But it's just another flaw piled on top of a whole pile of other problems in the movie, ranging from characterization to plot, that ruin the movie for me and other viewers.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The guys getting lost, not much of a problem with that. Explorers and mapmakers for the New World got lost all the time...and they were experts at map making...similar situation...but on a bigger scale.
Except for how the technology the crew of the Prometheus had is about a billion times more advanced than the one explorers had hundreds of years ago. They have instant communication across long distances, 3d maps, portable computers... I mean, come on.
The thing is - compare Prometheus to Aliens. The marines in Aliens didn't fare much better than the crew of the Prometheus. In fact, almost all the marines were wiped out in their vary first encounter with the aliens, despite being very well equipped to face danger. Some of the mistakes the marines made in Alien (leaving the door to your carrier open when there might be predatory monsters on the loose? really?) were just incredibly stupid.
Then why do people hate Prometheus and love Aliens?
Because Aliens is a well made movie. The fact that the marines are unprepared to face the Aliens is a theme that the movie sets up well almost immediately when we encounter the marines. We experience their arrogance, we see that their commander is not very good at his job, and we know from the first movie just how dangerous even a single Alien can be, let alone a swarm of them. So when the marines stumble into their grisly fate, due in large part to their own incompetence, we (the audience) understand what's going on. We understand why the mistakes they made happened, and we understand how a seemingly well trained group of soldiers massed up the way they did. The movie is aware of the stupidity of some of the characters, and makes it clear to the audience that we should see the actions of the marines as stupid. Also, importantly, there is a core group of sensible characters, a few of which even make it all the way through due to their competence.
Prometheus is another story. ALL the characters are stupid, there is no good reason for them all to be so bad at their jobs, and the movie doesn't seem to think that the characters are stupid. That's three strikes, and for me that's too much.
|
The only thing I was confused about was why the Engineers wanted to kill everyone, but that was also purposefully an unanswered question of the movie.
Response to an old post. I thought the movie could have been much better, but my take on this:
Two factions or groups of engineers. The first could have been seeding life throughout the universe to create the perfect race while the second (reformed) group already had created the perfect race, worshipped their perfect creation (as they designed temples depicting them) and sought to clean up the mistakes of the other renegade engineers.
or something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I first saw the movie, I made a guess that the Engineer on Earth was some rogue 'martyr' who decided to create life on his own, unauthorized. (So, when the other engineers found out, they got upset and wanted to 'get rid' of the potential(?) problem.)
Now... I don't care. I decided the movie wasn't good enough for me, personally, to analyze any further.
|
|
It's possible. Engineer visits stopped about in the middle of the 1st century. It is possible that Romans crucified an engineer and that dude became the basis for jesus. Also, the engineers who were planning to kill off earth did that 2000 years ago. Very well could be in vengeance.
I think that the movie strongly hints at that.
What also pisses me off beyond measure is that the Rapace character chooses to believe stuff. Belief is pointless unless applied to facts. Which every scientist worth their salt knows. And she seems to be the best in her field.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to be obtuse, here, but ... I didn't get that at all watching the film—not for an instant.
I didn't get that from the movie either, but I did see interviews with Ridley Scott that suggested that the Engineers being mad about Jesus was the point.
From the actual movie, it doesn't make much sense. But then again, neither does Shaw's conclusion that they stopped communicating with earth 2000 years ago. Unless, of course, it's reasonable to assume that she can know with 100% certainty that no other references than the cave paintings she has already found can exist on Earth.
Personally, I think it's pretty wacko to conclude that "hey, we've found five cave paintings now. Yeep, that's all of them."
The Engineers could literally still be on Earth (and, of course, considering that they have the same DNA as humans, they are), and Shaw would have no idea.
(And don't get me started on how a scientist can take the realization that "hey, they have the same DNA as humans!" and reach the conclusion "...so they must have created us" instead of "so they are us.")
But of course, Shaw turns out to be completely right in every baseless theory she comes up with, it's like she read the script or something!
Someone mentioned them all being crackpots,
isn't that seriously part of the plot though?
I mean, I'd have to watch it again, but I thought these scientists, or the main ones, didn't get anyone to really believe their screwed up theories or back them at all until the big mega corp guy that was going to die got desperate...at which point they got funded to do this entire space job...
If that's the story with them, it couldn't be that different for the others that got on board with the project.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's possible. Engineer visits stopped about in the middle of the 1st century. It is possible that Romans crucified an engineer and that dude became the basis for jesus. Also, the engineers who were planning to kill off earth did that 2000 years ago. Very well could be in vengeance.
I so, so hope this doesn't turn out to be the case. About the only thing the movie can do to make it even dumber is get tangled in some absurd Jesus conspiracy (I mean, replacing evolution with ALIENS is not enough, now you have to replace Jesus too?).
I mean how stupid is this notion? The one alien that ever happened to be murdered by humans was ALSO the one who started a new (obviously false, given the knowledge that engineers had) religion?! That just happened to be based on an existing (and also false) religion?
And if it's not a fluke that the Jesus Engineer was starting the religion, that is spreading the religion was part of the plan...
I mean let's concentrate on just how dumb the engineers have to be to come up with such a plan and this way of implementing it. If they wanted to spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the world, why send a single emissary to a small, inconsequential corner of a single human empire? Why weren't there other engineers in Rome, in China, in America, in Africa, in northern Asia and Europe...
Seriously. Connecting the Engineers to Jesus might just be the best way to make the Prometheus mythology even more nonsensical than it already is.
|
|
It's possible. Engineer visits stopped about in the middle of the 1st century. It is possible that Romans crucified an engineer and that dude became the basis for jesus.
....
What also pisses me off beyond measure is that the Rapace character chooses to believe stuff. Belief is pointless unless applied to facts.
irony
I actually enjoyed the film, but as my friends who run a radioshow about cinema constantly lament, I'm notoriously forgiving of what I watch so long as it's at least entertaining.
That said, this cracked article seems relevant and has some info on what Prometheus was originally going to be:
|
|
It's possible. Engineer visits stopped about in the middle of the 1st century. It is possible that Romans crucified an engineer and that dude became the basis for jesus. Also, the engineers who were planning to kill off earth did that 2000 years ago. Very well could be in vengeance.
I so, so hope this doesn't turn out to be the case. About the only thing the movie can do to make it even dumber is get tangled in some absurd Jesus conspiracy (I mean, replacing evolution with ALIENS is not enough, now you have to replace Jesus too?).
I mean how stupid is this notion? The one alien that ever happened to be murdered by humans was ALSO the one who started a new (obviously false, given the knowledge that engineers had) religion?! That just happened to be based on an existing (and also false) religion?
And if it's not a fluke that the Jesus Engineer was starting the religion, that is spreading the religion was part of the plan...
I mean let's concentrate on just how dumb the engineers have to be to come up with such a plan and this way of implementing it. If they wanted to spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the world, why send a single emissary to a small, inconsequential corner of a single human empire? Why weren't there other engineers in Rome, in China, in America, in Africa, in northern Asia and Europe...Seriously. Connecting the Engineers to Jesus might just be the best way to make the Prometheus mythology even more nonsensical than it already is.
I'm more along the lines that he walked around telling people to be good to each other and "performed miracles" by feeding people. And as usual, someone turned it into a religion over time.
|
|
I'm more along the lines that he walked around telling people to be good to each other and "performed miracles" by feeding people. And as usual, someone turned it into a religion over time.It's possible. Engineer visits stopped about in the middle of the 1st century. It is possible that Romans crucified an engineer and that dude became the basis for jesus. Also, the engineers who were planning to kill off earth did that 2000 years ago. Very well could be in vengeance.
I so, so hope this doesn't turn out to be the case. About the only thing the movie can do to make it even dumber is get tangled in some absurd Jesus conspiracy (I mean, replacing evolution with ALIENS is not enough, now you have to replace Jesus too?).
I mean how stupid is this notion? The one alien that ever happened to be murdered by humans was ALSO the one who started a new (obviously false, given the knowledge that engineers had) religion?! That just happened to be based on an existing (and also false) religion?
And if it's not a fluke that the Jesus Engineer was starting the religion, that is spreading the religion was part of the plan...
I mean let's concentrate on just how dumb the engineers have to be to come up with such a plan and this way of implementing it. If they wanted to spread the teachings of Jesus throughout the world, why send a single emissary to a small, inconsequential corner of a single human empire? Why weren't there other engineers in Rome, in China, in America, in Africa, in northern Asia and Europe...Seriously. Connecting the Engineers to Jesus might just be the best way to make the Prometheus mythology even more nonsensical than it already is.
Which contradicts known facts from recorded history.
|
|
I've yet to find a reliable historical document that mentions Jesus in any big way.
In antiquities of the Jews, a work by a Jewish historian who has proven himself reliable on many other subject matters, mentions Jesus as a wise teacher. Remember that Jesus was not a "christian", he was a Jew who had a host of new teachings. According to Jospehus Flavius, there indeed was a prominent figure with a name somewhat like Jesus (a Hebrew name, so translations get fuzzy).
This is not nearly enough to determine that Jesus was anything like he was portrayed in Christianity, but it's a good indication that there was someone with a similar name who was a spiritualist.
That's as close as we'll get to have historic evidence on the subject, but scholars who devote their life to researching this have broadly agreed that it seems genuine so I'm inclined to believe them there's a good chance it's true.