Plebs weren't ready.

remember that scene in prometeus when they ran away in a straight line? God what a piece of garbage

that's just contrarianism and "popular = bad", although it did start to get quite bad in recent years

The far right and left are both moronic and didn't have parents outside of the internet.

>thread about Alien movies but here's this one word on a meme in one random reply I'm gonna make 50 posts on.
Yep, I'm the brainlet here

>Uhh actually a man sent into space to make first contact would take off his helmet and try to pet a hostile lifeform because..... WE'RE JUST moronic OK.

You first.

>black metal
Grow out of it, bud. It's not good for you.

Make me.

Yes, because posting a diploma with my full name and University on it on Cinemaphile's Cinemaphile board is not very smart, bucko. 🙂

what does that even mean?

Scientists in real life do absolutely stupid shit all the time, and also have some of the dumbest fricking personal beliefs imaginable. T. Biologist and MD.

implies that we're supposed to be fine with watch moron characters because they're morons in real life. Couldn't come up with an actual response, you dumb shit?

Because again.
when you tie it into a existence franchise, people expect it to be another entry in that franchise, not some shitty OC tale LEECHING off a popular film.

Nobody gives a shit about the "universe" of Alien including Scott. See

he created
he flat out retcon shit from Alien, starting with the Engineers themselves, and basically just threw in a bunch of elements form the original, willy-nilly, like window dressing, not giving a shit how any of it connected to anything.

He just wanted to make some pretty film that I guess he thought was deep and used Alien to bait and switch people into being interested

>he flat out retcon shit from Alien, starting with the Engineers
The engineers were a mystery, as was the xenomorph. Both were just expanded on. Obviously, if you have a character that's been established as one thing for years, thanks for "extended material" and other fan-ficiton, or even just people making up their own internal ideas, you'll piss some individuals off.
But the Space Jockey in the original film serves no other function than mystery.

Got any proof it was a skeleton to begin with? It "looks" that way?

Looks like a suit to me dude

Hell, the script was even better. It's like they looked at it and said, "wait this makes too much sense. Frick it up some more"

>like you said yourself, were expecting another Alien film.
I literally said if Prometheus was a GOOD film, nobody would give a shit that it wasn't about Alien

It's not hypothetical. Nobody liked it. Lots of people b***hed about things besides the lack of Alien. YOU just don't want to listen to them a decide YOU know what nobody liked it.

Yep, that's why The stupdio forced the changes on him for the sequel before shitcanning the thing entirely.

you mean people didn't line up to see a sequel to Prometheus? Strange.
and everyone agrees that film is shit too. doesn't mean everyone secretly loved the first one.

Looks like a suit to me dude

We didn't really know anything about it, period. It can be perceived as a skeleton, but it can also be seen as a sarcophagus, suit or a number of other things. The Engineers appearing closer to humans makes more contextual sense.

>actually defending the retkon of iconic imagery
society is collapsing

Giger said:
Physically grown into, or maybe out of, his seat. He's integrated into the function he performs

source:
http://alienexplorations.blogspot.com/2011/01/space-jockey-evolution-from-gigers.html

they absolutely changed to fit the lame narative of these nu aliens movies

PROOOHHH :DDD :DD :---DD

Yeah, I don't really understanding what all these brainlets are ranting and raving about retconning for.
Nothing was changed because nothing existed. They were just there, prometheus is a hey why were they there? Story

He was never an alien in the original draft backstory, but rather a human they took to Paradise to show the Way and sent him back to earth as an emissary to teach the uncultured masses who then crucified him. That was the last straw for the Engineers.

I don't recall any movies doing that, but I fail to see the issue with either him or Mohammad as one, in order to serve as an allegory and aid the story.
Do you really think Joan Osborne singing about "what if god was one of us" is blasphemous and she is directly suggesting that's the "canon" Christian belief?

Jesus being an engineer makes zero sense if you actually read the Bible, even if you're not religious. It's just cringe fedora tipping.

Re-read my post

I don't believe that they made Jesus explicitly an Engineer, just that they had been to Earth around the time of his birth and they had a hand in his creation.
Fully Human, with the knowledge, understanding, and ability to communicate with the Engineers.

I don't believe Jesus was intended to be an Engineer in this universe. Just that they had their hand in his creation. Not an Engineer-Human hybrid, but fully human with communication to them and knowledge beyond anything that the humans of 2000 years ago could comprehend

And this is coming from a Christian who's trying to interpret what the story is in the universe

IIRC, he wasn't actually an engineer in the story, but even if he was, it's not blashphemous unless its directly stating that this is what happened in real life.
And even then, there's actually a lot of theories that tie aliens and religious texts together.

Why?

>Why is this a bad idea?
>Well, you see, because it is
Methinks you're just afraid of the potentially blasphemous implication, but again, it's a movie anon. And Jesus wouldn't have been an Engineer. The negative connotations are more directly tied to David who in some ways mirrors Lucifer.
The real issue is that it would just attract too much unneeded controversy, which is never a worthwhile idea when it comes to movies, at least if they want some chance at the box office. I'm down with the idea but I would never release a film like that.

DO YOU GET IT?
IT'S JESUS IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE.
AND SUPERMAN ASKS IF HE REALLY HAS TO SACRIFICE HIMSELF TO SAVE HUMANITY.
BRAVO SNYDER I CLAPPED.

>metalhead
>midwit
Shocking.

I dunno, if you haven't grown out of your metal phase in your early twenties, you're probably a huge manchild.

Metal is aesthetically repugnant. The only aesthetic metal is more niche stuff like Black Metal, which is practically satanic liturgy and thus also childish.

>black metal
Grow out of it, bud. It's not good for you.

Weren't you complaining about edgy shit earlier or was it the other anon?

Again, your music taste is the least important aspect of you as a person, it can't make you more mature or less. If you're versed in musical history, I guess that *might* make you mature by way of having more knowledge than other people.
But it's down to personal preference. There is an irony of him listening to metal though, it doesn't coincide with his dislike of edge.

It's not, but music is a really hard thing to measure objectively. It's one of those things where you could have a PhD in nuclear astrophysics and listen to LL Cool J.

>Well, you can look at it through a cultural lense. Where a certain kind of music is played, what the subculture is like.
cont.
It's about what function music serves. You have liturgical music, you have folk music and such and now you have all this weird modern stuff that's just all over the place, mainly appealing to mood and (often times confused) aesthetic sensibilities.

Question is what it expresses, no? Is thing good or bad? Does thing help or not? It's chaotic out there. People better watch out.

There's good ways seeking catharsis and bad ones also. A lot of bad ones in fact.

Tempting people is far from a good thing, anon. Temptation shouldn't run freely, if we can prevent it.

Both. Turning the other cheek in the face of evil or (participating in) tempting others are very bad things. And I don't really see this being about tipping someone over the edge. It's small things accumulating also.

You underestimate media. It amplifies bad tendencies like crazy and people do even worship it in a manner (look at the soifacing Star Wars freaks). Ever looked up where Rock'n Roll comes from btw? We're so overwhelmed by the constant media output these days that we fail to understand a lot of its cultural genesis.

You have a very secular way to look at things. I care more about a person's soul than legalities. The kind of stuff you're speaking of sounds akin-ish to those shrinks giving out SSRIs like candy. Fighting symptoms isn't enough.

With the music stuff it's a case by case. And again, it's not so much about tipping you over necessarily but rather just being a bad influence that leads to other bad influences. Beauty matters.

Like I said, there is beauty to be found in many things, and not all of them depict inherently positive things. But universal censorship of art would lead to uglier scenes than you would find in any art, in a tangible way. Humanity has used this outlet for as long as it has existed.
Don't focus on the rare exceptions who are solely interested in causing harm to people.

>I think society got more perverse lacking censorship
There's evidence to the contrary. Like I said, look at Japan's uptight culture and how that resulted in various expressions of otherwise degenerate acts in their art. Or a priest sworn to celibacy raping a child. Mind you, what I'm suggesting here doesn't go against God's teachings, I'm saying that humans are born into sin and naturally need an outlet to express their feelings, including the forbidden knowledge (negative emotions). To deny this and take it away from humans would be to suggest we are God-like and perfect, which we are not. Only through divine salvation can we be, and it is not in this life. That's the religious aspect. The practical one is even more of a no-brainer. You stunt humanity if you impose too much censorship over it. No one is suggesting we should live in total frivolity or be unchecked by any law, but there is a balance to be struck, and for most of human history, we have managed that well enough.

>So that's a bit of a different matter.
Is it really? The Japanese have had a strict sense of morality and honor tied to their culture for centuries. But if you hold too tight of a leash on someone, eventually they will overcompensate. I've seen it with my own eyes, on subjects whose parenting was too strict, so they started overcompensating through negative or destructive ways.
>Big disagree. That's a matter of homosexuality, not celibacy.
It can be both. Prison is another example. Of course, one could argue prison is a way to educate one's self in how to be a productive member of society, but the majority of people are also longing for a return into the real, uncensored or unrestricted (at least compared to prison) world.
>we really need to put some things in order
Some things, yes. But the act of committing a murder is quite different than seeing one be depicted in a fictional setting.
This very conversation and free exchange of ideas we're having right now wouldn't be possible with censorship in place.
The laws have been written in accordance with good conduct, and so far, society has managed to remain relatively stable thanks to said laws. They're not perfect, but there comes a moment where you risk stripping people of their humanity in your pursuit to make them more robot-like, and that can have dangerous consequences.

I know where you're coming from anon, I just don't think art in itself can cause someone to commit something heinous without there being other more potent catalysts. The censorship we do have in place keeps such ideas under a leash, generally, and doesn't promote this behavior in the real world.

Bad people will find a way to inflict harm on others or society regardless of censorship.
On the other hand, extreme censorship won't help create more good people in itself.
Most reasonable humans are simply aware what is and isn't good conduct and they would not be persuaded by fictional depictions.

"Mentioning Jesus" isn't the issue, mongoloid. Almost all the dumb bullshit in this thread is lauding these movies for how they used "religious imagery" when the imagery in general is shallow and idiotic. It's genuinely on the level of Evangelion, which weebs will tell you is genius, but everyone with a brain knows is the work of a schizo.

No I'm saying Evangelion is fun but the "religious imagery" was literally admitted by the creator to be there because he thought it looked cool, meanwhile weebs will write entire fricking NOVELS on how the show was so genius and how Anno was playing 5D chess and the religious imagery is actually super meaningful to the characters, because I found some obscure passage that Anno never read that I can quote out of context. The series itself is not trying to make a point about religion or Christianity at all despite all the crosses and references to bizarre Hebrew mystical bullshit.

Who suggested it's deep in itself? That would depend entirely on the final script and direction. As an idea, it makes sense in that context why such a historical figure would be chosen as a tie-in.
It would even make sense for Mohammad to be used as well, but it's obvious that in the Western world, Jesus is the dominant religious messiah.
>for its absolute brainlet approach
We never saw what Ridley's approach would've been either way, so it's hard to tell how it could've turned out.

Because it's fricking dumb. It's trying desperately to liken B-grade capeshit to high art just because both often concern religious subtext. Except in Man of Steel, it's not subtext. It's Snyder going: DUDE DO YOU GET IT? HE'S FRICKING JESUS DUDE.

Shit I meant "he's LIKE fricking Jesus dude" but cool be pedantic, midwit.
>Scene right before final battle.
>Goes into church and is framed right next to Jesus.
>Specifically Jesus in his agony, in the Garden of Gethsemane.
>Literally says: "Should I sacrifice myself to save them, Father?" to the Priest.

Dude no, I'm the moron. I concede. I didn't get it.

Superman has been Christianized since forever. George Reeves and Christopher Reeve were both Christians. Though sadly Reeve believed in some bullshit Unitarianism at the end.

>It's trying desperately to liken B-grade capeshit to high art
no it's not, many children are (or used to be) familiar with who jesus is, and the bible, and all that

Name 1 Dark Horse Alien comic that wasn't just edgy schlock.

Aliens Labyrinth. Would've been a better sequel than Joss Whedon's flick in any case.

Snoopy would be appropriate then I guess. Not something Alien related.

>What is he most known for writing, that would cause you to get interested?
Gaunt's Ghosts. Warhammer 40k book series.

I specifically said it would be better than Whedon's trash, not that it was a god tier story.

It's always going to be edgy, whether it's shlock or not depends on whether you think it's a waste of time, I didn't.
I've seen it cited by other people as well over the years.

They're edgy by virtue of being horror, but I see what you mean about the bleakness. I didn't mind it so I can't comment on whether it's tasteful or not without bias.
I don't care for Resurrection though, it would be better off as its own thing with a different set of creatures.

>Americans literally cannot function properly if a given story doesn't have a happy ending

It means that appreciating happy endings is a patrician trait. There's a reason why edge is associated with children.

Ah, I thought you were generally talking about Dark Horse.

Poor wording on my part, I meant Aliens as in the franchise. Not necessarily another grandiose action movie.

>I see it as pandering without being innovative.
It most likely will be, I just think that it's possible for there to be more good Alien media that doesn't need to tie-in with anything and can bring something new to the table. I'll give the new show a hopeful pirate.

Modern movies and TV suck but every once in a while we get a The Terror, so I still have some hope left.

>Shame the second season was such a let down
Yeah I don't know what the frick were thinking with that one.