|
I think the biggest "WTF" moment in the movie was indeed when the captain shows up and tells Shaw about the site being a military installation. Here's a guy who just flies the ship, has been sitting on his rear end for the entire movie, had sex with Vickers and now suddenly knows more about exo-archaeology than any of the "experts" combined.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 09:49 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 09:42 |
|
|
Ka0 posted:I think the biggest "WTF" moment in the movie was indeed when the captain shows up and tells Shaw about the site being a military installation. Here's a guy who just flies the ship, has been sitting on his rear end for the entire movie, had sex with Vickers and now suddenly knows more about exo-archaeology than any of the "experts" combined. This and Vicker's "FATHER" line are the only two moments that really jarred for me. I don't know whether it was the delivery or writing that was awkward, but both felt like unwarranted exposition expressed poorly. Edit: I don't think Janek knows it's a military installation as such, and I'm taken in by the early suggestion it was actually a religious temple, but it reinforces he's from a military background/mindset when he interprets what he's seen as a WMD cache. McDark fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 10:05 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 10:03 |
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Yes but in the end she refuses to submit to nihilism even after these events have been forced on her. Shaw doesn't have any faith at the end. She just very stubbornly wants to know why the engineers are mad at Earth.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 10:04 |
|
|
Ka0 posted:I think the biggest "WTF" moment in the movie was indeed when the captain shows up and tells Shaw about the site being a military installation. Here's a guy who just flies the ship, has been sitting on his rear end for the entire movie, had sex with Vickers and now suddenly knows more about exo-archaeology than any of the "experts" combined. Is it a military facility?
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 10:06 |
|
|
Ka0 posted:I think the biggest "WTF" moment in the movie was indeed when the captain shows up and tells Shaw about the site being a military installation. Here's a guy who just flies the ship, has been sitting on his rear end for the entire movie, had sex with Vickers and now suddenly knows more about exo-archaeology than any of the "experts" combined. He never said he knew for certain what it was, just that it was dangerous. He said "It's an installation, possibly military" which isn't an unreasonable assumption after watching what was stored there kill and or turn people into monsters.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 10:35 |
|
|
The fact that Shaw just takes his word just made it weirder. But to her credit she'd just had an alien caesarian surgery on some machine and still hurt from her tummy staples so her mind was probably elsewhere.quote:Edit: I don't think Janek knows it's a military installation as such, and I'm taken in by the early suggestion it was actually a religious temple, but it reinforces he's from a military background/mindset when he interprets what he's seen as a WMD cache. My thoughts too.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 10:52 |
|
|
Ka0 posted:I think the biggest "WTF" moment in the movie was indeed when the captain shows up and tells Shaw about the site being a military installation. Here's a guy who just flies the ship, has been sitting on his rear end for the entire movie, had sex with Vickers and now suddenly knows more about exo-archaeology than any of the "experts" combined. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but on my second watch of the movie it's clear that it's not "suddenly." the audiences following Shaw the whole time, and it goes like this - Holloway gets burned - cut to Shaw waking up from an apparently stress induced blackout (who knows how long) - David tells her about her new bundle of joy and drugs her, knocking her out again - she wakes up, busts out (lol) and cuts out her unwanted child. She goes to meet Weyland, bla bla. Then she goes back to suit up, and Janek comes in to deliver sits exposition. It's been a significant amount of time, in film, since we last saw Janek, and he's presumably catching Shaw - and the audience - up on what they've all been debating in the mean time. You could argue that missing that exposition was an oversight and it was needed, but it really just underlines the point that this is Shaw's movie and not Janeks.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 11:29 |
|
|
The Beast posted:First photo of the ELDER ENGINEER Goddamn the prosthetic effects in this are unbelievably gorgeous. The subtle colour textures on the biosuit and the engineer skin are amazing. And I love the implications of the grown-in biosuit. To me, when combined with the change in ship design, it gives me a vibe that the Engineers were constantly trying to re-create themselves, and that was their whole goal. If you consider that we're supposed to be a re-creation of them, it makes this great idea that the act of creation (artistic, biological, so on) is merely the redefinition of the self. To bring something into the world, you have to change to make room for it (not just strictly "sacrifice", though that's an option).
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 12:36 |
|
|
A lot of the complaints about Shaw's faith really come across as baggage people are bringing in with them. The woman literally just wears a cross. The end. She never says a word about Jesus or God or quotes a single line of scripture. She believes in something that is ill-defined, mostly because it was what her father believed. Her dead father. Who gave her the cross she's attached to. If her father had been a Scientologist, she probably would have carried around a locket with L. Ron Hubbard's picture in it instead. Her character's motivation for being attached to it is entirely sentimental and not religious. The Christian imagery is important within the context of the film, but it is not a character flaw unless you're a Dawkins-quoting rear end in a top hat. I wish I could remember the exact dialogue between Shaw and Holloway right before they knock boots, but it's as close as she comes at any point to talking about a defined faith. As others have said, her faith is shattered at the end and she acknowledges that she believes in whatever meaning she's attached to this lump of metal around her neck because she chooses to. It doesn't keep her from being scientifically curious and it doesn't keep her from wanting answers to her questions. She flies off at the end searching for answers, not meaning. It actually came across (hyuk hyuk hyuk) as a fairly healthy attitude towards religion. She acknowledges why it is a comfort to her and doesn't let it get in her way.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 12:50 |
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:
Whoa, I'd skipped this link somehow. Everyone should check this out, definitely, these are some beautiful prosthetics.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 13:08 |
|
|
Geekboy posted:I wish I could remember the exact dialogue between Shaw and Holloway right before they knock boots, but it's as close as she comes at any point to talking about a defined faith. I believe it's right after Shaw shows Holloway the DNA evidence she's all excited about. She's holding/looking at her cross and he says "I guess you can take that off now." "Why?" "Well, because they made us." "Yes, but who made them?" She said it with a quirky smile and in a joking tone. I felt like she delivered it in a mocking way of the standard argument of "what came before that" that some people use in Religious VS Science debates. Pope Mobile fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 14:15 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 14:12 |
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:He is a robot, time has no meaning to piss away. 1: how do you know this? it's not in the film. there's no indication he doesn't have an apparatus for perceiving time. he behaves as though he does. do you build androids in the reality of the film for a living? 3: maybe it's a fake tree. they make those. 4:  um. probably I guess? I mean they know how fast the ship goes and how far the planet is. What a weird question.edit: I'm pretty sure I got wooshed, in retrospect DeimosRising fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 15:29 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 14:21 |
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:It's actually inspired by the Egyptian Goddess Nut: It also draws on Bocklin's Isle of the Dead, which Giger adapted:   
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 14:36 |
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Honestly, most sci-fi movies don't end on cliffhangers. Hell, the kind that this one references usually has a boilerplate monologue about the "moral of the story" (basically, humans aren't god, shouldn't play god, shouldn't overstep our boundaries, etc.). This movie ends on a different note, in that it says it's only human for us to do so, regardless of the consequences. The trick is to not mind it hurts? ghostwritingduck posted:Cliffhangers. Cliffhanger is the wrong word. The ending really isn't different than Alien or Aliens. Shaw and a companion are setting off for parts unknown. It's just like Ripley and her cat or android head. It's a retrospective on those endings. The series doesn't have to continue after either film but it inevitably does. Just like the Enterprise blasts off for another adventure, so too are Shaw and David destined to collide with film again. It's not the kind of ending that actually cuts off with unresolved action. The story itself is self contained and has reached its conclusion, but the possibility remains for future stories to be told.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 15:09 |
|
|
Seriously sometimes the production designers/set decorators are the most talented people on set, and thats not even meant as a crack on Ridley.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 15:19 |
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:Seriously sometimes the production designers/set decorators are the most talented people on set, and thats not even meant as a crack on Ridley. This is one of the reasons I'm so frustrated with people saying not to see it. The imagery is so goddamn beautiful and it's obviously a technical masterpiece. There is value in that alone even if you hated the plot.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 15:33 |
|
|
Geekboy posted:A lot of the complaints about Shaw's faith really come across as baggage people are bringing in with them. The woman literally just wears a cross. The end. And the whole deal with the Engineers and, y'know, plot of the movie? She wants to buttonhole an angel and quiz them about God's plan, that's what the mission is to her and basically the totality of her character, large quantities of dialogue are spent on that point - hell, we look into her dreams and see that's what's driving her. She believes absolutely and in the face of incontrovertible evidence that this is a reasonable thing to do and the Engineers are the divine representatives to start with, there's the film, it's 100% faith-oriented and more in-your-face than a thousand vagina mouths. "It's what I choose to believe" are IIRC the exact words wrapping up the opening exposition; her monologue at the end is a direct callback to that, and a reaffirmation of her original mission. At the outset her character is centered wholly around her a priori conviction that the Engineers have all the answers (and will share them if asked!), and drive to quiz them on essentially the problem of evil, and this never changes. "Why did they abandon us?" becomes "why do they hate us?", an emphatic restatement of the same exact point, and having recieved no answer that fits her needs she shrugs her shoulders and resolves to set off in search of more Engineers to start pestering all over again. And probably the single explicit, clearly-expressed concept in the movie is that her faith is a goddamn joke; no Christ up there on the cross in his darkest hour wailing "Why have you forsaken me?" to a God who won't answer; he's going "God? God? Hey, uh, God? Still, uh, lookin' for some feedback re: that whole forsaking thing, you got a couple minutes we can just go over... Oh you're busy turning worms into blowjob monsters? OK I'll check back in an hour.", spending the remaining hours examining his toenail clippings for the meaning of life. Hell she finds her first genuine holy artifact and the very first thing she does is stab it with space electricity so it makes funny faces and explodes in a shower of stinky goo. Dawkins ain't got poo poo on this. Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 16:45 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 15:50 |
|
|
The whole questioning of 'God' had a bit of resonance with Bladerunner. Like the replicants, our Gods are assholes. The only difference is the humans in Bladerunner had obvious reasons for limiting their creations.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:19 |
|
|
So, the moral of Prometheus is that God is basically the Magic Man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z3ZAIIgAaA
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:31 |
|
|
The moral of Prometheus is that God is real, and he hates you.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:34 |
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:So, the moral of Prometheus is that God is basically the Magic Man. I think that is the moral of the Bible as well.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:38 |
|
|
I saw the movie and I have mixed feelings about it. Was it enjoyable? Sure. Was it better than Moon, which I think is one of the best sci-fi movies to come out in the last decade? Hell no. If anything the movie felt stunted and the editing seemed off. I'd be happy if they released a super-duper-director's cut like Kingdom of Heaven. Not to answer all of the QUESTIONS, but to flesh out the movie a little more. Like I said, the cuts between some of the movie's latter scenes were kind of jarring. On a side note, I've been looking for the Weyland t-shirt that Idris Elba wears in the movie and I can't find a decent one. The official store has a Weyland shirt, but it looks pretty lovely in comparison to those worn in the movie. Has anyone purchased this Weyland-Yutani shirt? http://www.lastexittonowhere.com/sh...nd-yutani-corp/
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:38 |
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:I think that is the moral of the Bible as well. For the Old Testament, no doubt. There's no virtue higher than obedience to God. Everything else is basically a free for all.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:41 |
|
|
HoveringCheesecake posted:I saw the movie and I have mixed feelings about it. Was it enjoyable? Sure. Was it better than Moon, which I think is one of the best sci-fi movies to come out in the last decade? Hell no. If anything the movie felt stunted and the editing seemed off. I'd be happy if they released a super-duper-director's cut like Kingdom of Heaven. Not to answer all of the QUESTIONS, but to flesh out the movie a little more. Like I said, the cuts between some of the movie's latter scenes were kind of jarring. You're talking about the faded logo shirt he was wearing right? Or was it a different one?
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:47 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:For the Old Testament, no doubt. There's no virtue higher than obedience to God. Everything else is basically a free for all. Even the New Testament, or did you forget about Revelations?
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:48 |
|
|
Uba Stij posted:You're talking about the faded logo shirt he was wearing right? Or was it a different one? Yeah he had a couple of t-shirts with the faded Weyland logo. I think one was black with a red faded logo, and the other was grey with a darker grey Weyland logo. I'm fine with the Weyland-Yutani one if I can't find a decent Weyland one. I was just curious if anyone had luck with that particular store before.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 16:51 |
|
|
Snatch Duster posted:Even the New Testament, or did you forget about Revelations? Yeah. Everyone seems to forget that God is a colossal dickhead. Kind of like Kevin Spacey in 'Horrible Bosses'. Edit: sorry for the derail Mach5 fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 17:15 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:07 |
|
|
Mach5 posted:Yeah. Everyone seems to forget that God is a colossal dickhead. Kind of like Kevin Spacey in 'Horrible Bosses'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kU2C6ZRsFw So I guess they learned their lesson after all, that God is a huge jerk.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:15 |
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:Dawkins ain't got poo poo on this. No kidding. What I'm speaking specifically about is this idea that people are annoyed or assume she's stupid because she's wearing a cross, which has come up in this thread. Her faith in her mission (to find our creators and hold them to task) and her supposed faith in a Judeo-Christian God are two different things. They're linked and come from similar places, but in the context of what I was referring to they are separate. I've seen reactions in here as if she was a Bible-thumper when the faith that you have to wonder about is why she has faith in her ability to find answers to her questions.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:26 |
|
|
HoveringCheesecake posted:On a side note, I've been looking for the Weyland t-shirt that Idris Elba wears in the movie and I can't find a decent one. The official store has a Weyland shirt, but it looks pretty lovely in comparison to those worn in the movie. Has anyone purchased this Weyland-Yutani shirt? http://www.lastexittonowhere.com/sh...nd-yutani-corp/ Someone posted this link pages and pages ago: http://www.redbubble.com/people/bad...l&utm_source=RB It's the closest one I've seen. Mine just shipped yesterday... can't wait to see how it is.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:30 |
|
|
In the beginning Shaw claims that she "chooses to believe," but I think SMG's post about religious fundamentalism is important here. She doesn't believe, she knows. She's not just an Ancient Astronaut Theorist, she's also a Creation Scientist. She conflates her "belief" with "knowledge," actual science and empirical knowledge. This is brought up when the biologist point blank tells her that her theory flies in the face of 300 years of Darwinism. 300 years of Darwinism? I've got a handful of roughly similar cave paintings and temple carvings! Hell, she even follows the same backward logic that creationists and ancient astronaut theorists do: start with the premise and look for evidence to support that premise as opposed to starting with the evidence and looking for the meaning behind it. She's already decided that these aliens are the ones that created us and that the star map is an invitation based on the scantest of real evidence that supports her theory. That's why she can treat a Holy Relic like the Engineer's head like it's a science experiment: to her there is no difference. What impresses me most about Shaw, though, is that she's willing to reevaluate her belief once poo poo starts going crazy. She's willing to abandon her long-held beliefs that these monsters invited us there and wanted to talk to us. She is willing to admit she's wrong, that they "were so wrong," but she's still willing to continue on her quest for answers. Contrast that with Holloway, who when he learns that he is wrong, he goes into a fit of depression, or when Weyland learns he is wrong and simply declares, "There is nothing!" Shaw does take something away from this film, and what she learns is that she's only human; she gains "Self-Awareness." She still wants answers, but as she explains to David, she recognizes that it's because she's human. She just now chooses to believe that the answers are out there, as opposed to simply "knowing" that they're out there. The trick, you see, is to not mind that the very real and unpleasant possibilities hurt. It doesn't mean that they don't hurt or don't exist. And I'd like to think Shaw and David will be fine out there. If Shaw ever strays from her path, David will always be there with a sarcastic quip or jab to help her keep everything in perspective. That's at least what I choose to believe. But yeah, this movie takes the piss out of everyone, from the scientists who are overly reliant on technology to the fundamentalists who "know" things are real and look to scientific evidence to support their claims. I just think the point of this movie isn't nihilism but perspective. The most likable character outside of Shaw and David to me is the captain because he gains perspective too. In the beginning of the movie, he's decorating a Christmas tree despite the fact they've just landed on the Forbidden Planet of Terror! He makes fun of the two trapped scientists in the ruins for freaking out despite the fact that he too sees all of these alien corpses, and even leaves them alone so that he can go have sex in the other room. But then he's forced to confront the terrors of this planet himself in the form of the deaths of his crew, and he comes to his own conclusion that this planet was not what they thought it was. And at the end he's willing to sacrifice himself and his ship to make sure that those horrors don't make it back home. He does have a spark of that human self-awareness earlier, though, when he actually convinces Vickers to sleep with him. If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one your with! Mecha Gojira fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 17:46 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:42 |
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:So, the moral of Prometheus is that God is basically the Magic Man. Would have liked to see the Engineer's ship at the end take off and explode into a glittering "EAT IT"
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:44 |
|
|
Geekboy posted:No kidding. I guess I'm trying to sort out what you think the distinction is. What are you interpreting the cross to signify, exactly? Her sentimentality about the cross is not shown (to me) to be something clearly separate from her worldview where everything gets twisted to be about her communing with the divine(/daddy). She recognizes it's simply a comforting idea but that superficial level of self-awareness is meaningless (ironically similarly to that of the movie itself) when it is never ever acted on or put to productive use. Most importantly, she doesn't find answers because she (just like the rest of the human cast) never looks; everything is always exactly as her theological construct demands, the first reaction to a thing becomes the absolute interpretation, and everything can only be seen within that narrow band of thought. Basically the parts were everyone was buggin' about how unscientific the cast acts. The Engineers are benevolent angels, who'd still love us if only man weren't in a state of sin. We've done something wrong, somewhere, and must learn and atone to rejoin the Creator. I guess she doesn't quote scripture at people a lot, she's just a delusional ideologue who gets everyone killed because of her faith. Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 18:03 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 17:54 |
|
|
To me the film would have been far stronger sans the opening scene. Even with it, I don't go so far as to presume the engineers are our true creators, but the characters in the film, and as a result most of the viewers, take it as a matter of course. The story sort of plays out as if Shaw had seen the first scene of the film. edit: on the other hand it was the most beautifully shot scene in the picture so... MANIFEST DESTINY fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 18:11 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:06 |
|
|
By this point it's quite evident a "director's cut" will completely transform the outcome, ala Kingdom of Heaven. The more I think of it the more I want to watch this movie over and over, I just know Scott wanted this thing to be at least 3 hours long.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:16 |
|
|
Tubgirl Cosplay posted:I guess I'm trying to sort out what you think the distinction is. What are you interpreting the cross to signify, exactly? Her sentimentality about the cross is not shown (to me) to be something clearly separate from her worldview where everything gets twisted to be about her communing with the divine(/daddy). She recognizes it's simply a comforting idea but that superficial level of self-awareness is meaningless (ironically similarly to that of the movie itself) when it is never ever acted on or put to productive use. Well, to be fair, it's not her "faith" that gets 17 people killed and an android beheaded. She didn't fund the trillion dollar expedition to an unknown planet based on the flimsiest of evidence. Vickers even points out that Shaw and Holloway are just along for the ride. And I'd argue that she does understand now. She doesn't think the Engineers are Angels or Gods any more than David thinks humans are. Hell, she killed one herself (well, okay, her freakish mutant squid baby did, but she opened the door). And at the end of the film she does take off in search for answers, and what's the best place to look than the Engineers' home planet where she can ask them directly herself? It's just now she's doing it without any delusions about what they are or aren't and without any delusions about whether or not the answers will come. She believes she'll get her answer, but that doesn't mean she KNOWS she'll get the answer. As to what the cross symbolizes, I interpret it as a reminder of her past and her humanity (no matter how shallow it is) as well as her new found "real" faith, and her taking it back from David symbolizes her taking charge of her destiny. I mean, it's taken from her when David basically sums her whole being in a sentence. "This is you. See how small and silly it is?" I mean, you're right, it's a cross; is there any more banal a symbol for faith than that? She comes back for it and goes, "Yeah, I know I'm small and silly. That's who I am. Now I'm going to stuff you in a dufflebag and we're gonna go on space adventures." Mecha Gojira fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 18:23 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
heavy liquid posted:Someone posted this link pages and pages ago: Oooh that one looks pretty damned close. Let me know how it is when you get it.
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:37 |
|
|
Welp, even if the movie wasn't perfect it gave us a lot to discuss and this has been a pretty great thread. Reading over everyone's opinions I feel like the film was a rorschach test for your feelings on religion, myself included. Attitudes vary wildly on the Engineers, Shaw and David... what you get out of the film depends very much on what you bring in. (You can argue that this is true about most films, but I felt it was especially noticeable with Prometheus) Steve Yun fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 18:48 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:42 |
|
|
I don't get how the Engineers are supposed to have "designed" us in their own image or whatever. What about chimps and gorillas and, hell, every other living thing on the planet that shows evidence of a shared lineage with humanity? When one of their sacrifice guys dissolved and started spreading his DNA around the early Earth's water supply, how exactly did that lead to the creation of humans on Earth? Was it a sort of guided evolution thing? Or did humans rise up from the muck fully formed and ready to kick rear end, while every other organism evolved independently and just happened to not only be composed of DNA, but also to be increasingly genetically similar to humans the closer you get to apes on the evolutionary scale? Oh wait, I forgot that it's dumb to ask basic questions about the film's nonsensical central premise because of themes and symbolism and Ridley Scott apparently making a stupid movie on purpose as a brilliant artistic statement about lovely sci-fi tropes. edit: I mean, the Star Wars prequels have clearer and more well-conceived themes in them than Prometheus does, but that alone doesn't make them good movies. Maybe if we pretend George Lucas was actually just trolling us as some sort of postmodern statement about the inability of prequels to live up to their predecessors we can laud them as brilliant cinematic commentaries. Billy Idle fucked around with this message at Jun 15, 2012 around 18:49 |
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:42 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 09:42 |
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I don't get how the Engineers are supposed to have "designed" us in their own image or whatever. What about chimps and gorillas and, hell, every other living thing on the planet that shows evidence of a shared lineage with humanity? When one of their sacrifice guys dissolved and started spreading his DNA around the early Earth's water supply, how exactly did that lead to the creation of humans on Earth? Was it a sort of guided evolution thing? Or did humans rise up from the muck fully formed and ready to kick rear end, while every other organism evolved independently and just happened to not only be composed of DNA, but also to be increasingly genetically similar to humans the closer you get to apes on the evolutionary scale? My read on it was that since they'd obviously been specifically following mankind throughout our evolution (35,000 years ago, ancient civs, etc) was that they had a continuing hand in our "design" as we worked our way up from slime. Either that or the planet in the beginning wasn't Earth and they came in and dumped us into some pre-existing life? It's really a silly premise but who cares. Ancient Aliens man, the Giza pyramid's a microwave gooooot it?
|
| # ? Jun 15, 2012 18:48 |
|
