Prometheus 2

[Kit]

Noomi Rapace says a sequel is in the works.

"They're working on the script. I met Ridley in London a couple of weeks ago. I would love to work with him again and I know that he would like to do another one. It's just like we need to find the right story. I hope we will."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/263...dey-x-men-iron

Maybe this one will make actual sense?

Originally Posted by Kit

Noomi Rapace says a sequel is in the works.



http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/263...dey-x-men-iron

Maybe this one will make actual sense?

Hopefully. I like the idea of and the premise behind Prometheus. If it wsn't for everything else about the film, Prometheus could have been good.

Question now is: can the sequel be good enough to make up for the atrocious first part?

[NutWrench]

Get rid of David Lindelof. I still haven't forgiven him for Lost.

Oh, and this too.

[Kit]

^
he he xD

Very good.

Just read Lindelof penned the next Star Trek film which has put me right off. How can you go from writing Cowboys and Aliens (which is career destroying shite) to working on the Aliens origin story? am I missing something.

Originally Posted by hellchicken

Hopefully. I like the idea of and the premise behind Prometheus. If it wsn't for everything else about the film, Prometheus could have been good.

Question now is: can the sequel be good enough to make up for the atrocious first part?

I thought Prometheus was shot really well. That's about as far as I'll go with the compliments as I disliked the cliche 'aliens seeded earth with life' storyline - stop doing it hollywood it's a crap premise!

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by Kit

... stop doing it hollywood it's a crap premise!

It really isn't. It deals with the only part of the whole from sterile planet to complexe life story of earth that is still relatively problematic to explain scientifically with reasonable certainty.

We know how we get from base chemicals to "higher organic building blocks", and we know how a replicating system can change over time to significantly change all it's functions.

What still is an issue how you escape the entropic trap of chains having a MUCH higher likelihood of braking than getting longer without significant seclusion and catalytic activity. Life has some serious tricks to avoid entropy, and it remains somewhat an issue how that entropy is avoided before there are the macromolecules to facilitate the fight.
Opposed to denying evolution (which is often based on a misunderstanding of either the chemistry or underestimation of time frames) in chemical evolution the base argument is still that time actually works against the process. It's a bit like setting up a domino chain on a vibrating table.

Add to that the thought that of us actually terraforming a planet not with technology but by infesting it with biological matter, and you automatically arrive at the question of whether that has already happened here.

Sure, that just moves the chem evolution issue "off site", but it also expands the range of possible conditions beyond what we assume of our planets range of situations.

[Thief]

Cancer cells have got it made.
They have the special kind of telomeres.

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by Thief

Cancer cells have got it made.
They have the special kind of telomeres.

The whole telomeres situation comes in quite late really.

telomeres are like a function that buffers part of the automatic decay (specifically that part of the decay that comes from default faulty copying, as most copy enzymes never get the last (few) base pair(s)).

The problem is before that. Without any enzymes or nucleotid chains with catalytic activity, the chance of a chain of N length to be stable to get to N+1 before of breaking apart in a watery solution decreases with rising N. Conversely the chance of that chain splitting into random smaller parts rises with N.

The problem is that the chance to reach a high enough N to get ANY catalytic function seems very prohibited. And with it comes a question about sequestration and concentrations (because that's something that the Miller/Urey Experiment can't deal with either).

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Kit

^
(which is career destroying shite)

Cowboys and Aliens was a fine action/sci-fi movie. It was better than Prometheus. It wasn't great, but it was solid.



I vote they call Prometheus 2, "PROMETHEUSES"

[Kit]

Can't believe you're giving the aliens seeded life theory any air, Pansa. Seeded by an asteroid with primitive extremophiles on it seems likely, and I think the terraforming argument has been put to bed. Wouldn't there be a seriously enormous leap in the development of life that would be completely unexplained if the alien theory was plausible?

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Cowboys and Aliens was a fine action/sci-fi movie. It was better than Prometheus. It wasn't great, but it was solid

Not at all. It was shocking. Better than Prometheus? maybe, but it was still poor. Daft Aliens, terrible accents from an odd collection of actors - Daniel Craig as a cowboy? seriously? just more overhyped hollywood drivel.

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by Kit

Can't believe you're giving the aliens seeded life theory any air, Pansa. Seeded by an asteroid with primitive extremophiles on it seems likely, and I think the terraforming argument has been put to bed. Wouldn't there be a seriously enormous leap in the development of life that would be completely unexplained if the alien theory was plausible?

Just to make sure, did you mean "seems unlikely"? up there? Because otherwise it seems a bit contradictory.

And I don't really see the "enormous leap" that would be unexplained, other than that one leap that IS actually pretty unexplained, namely the one between chemical evolution and biological evolution.
The only thing we really have is an estimate from "proper" fossils about timeframes on this planet to be extrapolated to the beginnings of life, and geological data about climate.

I am not saying that willfully seeding is a highly probable theory or anything, just that it is "hypothetical" enough to make it a valid approach to science fiction. My point is that "spontaneous" bio genesis is in itself highly unlikely itself concerning the "happenstance" conditions that would make it plausible, that in comparison accidental seeding is somewhat valid, and with it willfull seeding as well.

I only see a major jump if such a seeding would include a complex mixture of organisms or a huge volume, since that would somewhat screw with our estimated timeline, which is pretty fragile when extended that far back to begin with?

[Altered Reality]

Originally Posted by Kit

Maybe this one will make actual sense?

The first one made sense too. It was At the Mountains of Madness in space.
And BTW, the first Alien vs. Predator movie was At the Mountains of Madness in the present time.

Originally Posted by Pansa

Just to make sure, did you mean "seems unlikely"? up there? Because otherwise it seems a bit contradictory.

It isn't contradictory. He's comparing the hypothesis of Earth being seeded by microbial life that just happened to be present on an asteroid, vs the hypothesis of Earth being intentionally seeded by intelligent aliens (which only pushes back the problem to "how did they evolve in the first place?").

[Pansa]

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

It isn't contradictory. He's comparing the hypothesis of Earth being seeded by microbial life that just happened to be present on an asteroid, vs the hypothesis of Earth being intentionally seeded by intelligent aliens (which only pushes back the problem to "how did they evolve in the first place?").

But that problem is pushed back either way. (And I mentioned it to begin with).
So assuming that somewhere conditions were different than here, as to somehow circumvent the entropic trap, the next step is comparing the chance of that place ejecting an asteroid at a time AFTER biogenesis, which randomly hit earth versus evolution taking its course there and someone targeting earth on purpose.

[I was going to write "after biogenesis but before evolution took its course", but realized that that was too restrictive, since whatever existed on that planet on ejection was irrelevant to what was ON said asteroid in conditions to get here intact]

It's comparing astronomical (no pun intended) chances anyway. My basic point was just that as far as using that line of thought as basis for Sci-Fi seems reasonable either way.

Ps: interestingly nothing about that thought process necessitates anything still being there. Even IF this was a terraforming project doesn't imply the "owners" would come knocking, ever.

[Kit]

My point was, I don't think life was seeded to earth purposely by alien lifeforms. It borders on the unknown, so it can be given leeway, but as a concept for a film I think it's an overused cliched form of story telling; crashed to earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, yeah, I like that premise, actually purposely seeding life to earth I dislike.

Anyway, isn't that what all the scientology nonsense is about?

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

The first one made sense too. It was At the Mountains of Madness in space.
And BTW, the first Alien vs. Predator movie was At the Mountains of Madness in the present time.

Woah, I genuinely enjoyed reading the At the Mountains of Madness story. Really interesting with a few things left to the imagination!

Clear inspiration for The Thing!

Why has there never, ever been a proper film based around the novel?????

I did facepalm when I read Tom Cruises name associated with a possible film.

Guess it won't happen for ages now because Ridley Scott ****** everything up with his shit prequel which rips off the premise...

...

Kind of wish I didn't know about it now.