Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong answer. The correct answer is "yes, humans and engineers show bone congruency."Next question: do Hs and other apes show that some congruency?
Exactly. Skeletal structure is a fundamental characteristic. If those are similar (or in this case: damn near identical), then I'm guessing there's not much room for differences in the DNA.
Ape vs. Human
A picture is worth a thousand words. Doesn't take a geneticist to simply look at that and tell they are related, but very different creatures. Look at the differences in the cranium and the elongated pelvis, huge mandible, scapulas, humerus, and ribcage of the ape, etc. And if that is accounted for by only 1 or 2 percentage points, then the differences between Human and Engineer DNA are nil. Maybe .0000000000001% difference.. lol
Jeez... what were they thinking. That engineer doesn't look human at all... 🙄
Looks more like an elephant. 😛
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It wasn't your opinion I objected to so much as how you presented yourself. You certainly appeared to be trolling. Maybe try being more eloquent or elaborate if you wish to be taken seriously.
Hmm... okay maybe I should have elaborated more on what I felt about the film. So here it goes, starting with the...
Good:
*The visual scale of the film was very good and in 3D it was actually quite excellent. I especially liked the scenes in iceland that open up the film even though I felt it was unnecessary to see these scenes. I also liked the scenes inside the navigation room and the scenes with the ship falling back to the surface.
*Great cast. Particularly, Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace and even Charlize Theron. Had there been more focus on these characters and less on the extraneous ones it would have served the movie far more better IMO.
*Impressive sets and overall design. I liked the design of the ship itself and its opulent looking interiors. The planet itself was visually interesting even though it was a desolate looking place. I just wished that our characters had explored more of it.
*Ideas about human origins, the muddled role of the Engineers. The role of genetic engineering and such.
Bad:
*Poor use of cast/characters: The geologist's role is to look at rocks. Does he do that at all throughout the movie? No, there is one scene of a giant skull on a mountain. You would think that the ship's leaders would break up into many teams to investigate that and the surrounding environments looking for different things. Instead, the geologist is there to be a redshirt and to be a plot device to move the story along.
There is also a biologist who serves the same role, does he not notice worms on the surface of the temple/pyramid?! Nope, not until the script requires him to have him notice an obviously agressive and potentially dangerous snake-like organism that wasn't there before. He is simply there to look stupid when the creature breaks his arm and Linda Lovelace's his face.
We also have the Charlie Holloway character who is also redshirt number 3. He goes from scientisit to moron in a span of 10 minutes after landing on the planet.
The sudden and unnecessary introduction of another character in the last leg of the film was really off putting to me. There are just too many characters and the large number of them serve only plot contrivances. The ship captain and his loyal crew would make Janeway proud.
Vickers' role was essentially a bitchier Ripley. She did not want to see the planet and she acted in a way that kept the infection off the ship. She did not trust her own father and did not trust David.
On the unstable nature of some of the characters or the ineptitude of their ability. The movie tells us Weyland spent billions on this mission. Viral videos for the film show us that they characters were carefully selected or something to that effect. You would think that Weyland would want things to run as smoothly as possible without having some moron scientist go from excited and eager to learn to dumpy, depressed alcoholic in a span of a few sequences on film.
I also felt that the movie was so many movies glued together. The scene with the zombified geologist character. The weird way in which characters seem to ignore obvious dangers.
How come nobody seemed to notice that Shaw had staples in her belly or the fact that she'd just finished performing a cesarian on herself?
Why did David not try to have her quarantined when she entered Weyland's room?
There is also the convenient way that the people on the ship did not seem to be there and other times it seemed like the ship was full of people.
The heavy handiness of the plot progressions bothered me as well. The ship falling on Vickers and how Shaw conveniently survives. The suspension of disbelief is so massive towards the third and final leg of the film.
Anyway, I expected so much better from Ridley and those who helped him shape this film to what ended up in the theatre. Its as if those who worked or wrote for him did not want to point out the obvious flaws in the script because they were in awe of him. Not wanting to irk him so he wouldn't include them in his new baby.
There is likely going to be a second one. Time will tell if I will be able to put aside my disappointment with this film to even see, let alone enjoy the continuation in the next one.
So there you have it. IMHO
To me the characters' inconsistent actions, behaviours and the massive leaps in logic and script heavy handedness ruined the movie for me.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Hah, why do you guys even play into Mindset's trolling? He lives only to be contrary.
Oh, well that's a relief. I was having trouble believing someone could be that blind.. heh. I enjoyed looking into it, though. So bring on the trolls... at least they make things interesting.
I've made a bunch of wallpapers from trailer stills. If anyone wants 'em, I'll upload 'em one by one. I have to compress them to upload them in full size, but I'd be happy to if anyone is interested. Here is one example...
.
.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Hah, why do you guys even play into Mindset's trolling? He lives only to be contrary.
Have you considered that there are dimensions of convoluted humor beyond the superficial joke? Sometimes, the joke is taking someone's joke statement seriously and then answering it with seriousness (I cannot explain this one any better...it can be considered a prank, I suppose). Then watch as it strings along. Both parties will be entertained liking their humor but only one party can maintain that his/her humor is completely unnoticed and secret. It's the secret humor you share with yourself that makes you laugh the most (like...I find old people smacking all the time to be hilarious...and I keep those thoughts to myself so people don't think I'm a jerk).
Originally posted by dadudemonYou're a strange chap.
Have you considered that there are dimensions of convoluted humor beyond the superficial joke? Sometimes, the joke is taking someone's joke statement seriously and then answering it with seriousness (I cannot explain this one any better...it can be considered a prank, I suppose). Then watch as it strings along. Both parties will be entertained liking their humor but only one party can maintain that his/her humor is completely unnoticed and secret. It's the secret humor you share with yourself that makes you laugh the most (like...I find old people smacking all the time to be hilarious...and I keep those thoughts to myself so people don't think I'm a jerk).
Originally posted by rudester
procraptheus did anyone else think this movie sucked balls?
😠 No, but I think YOU and your POST suck balls. Besides, wouldn't "sucking balls" be a good thing to you?? hmm 😛
Originally posted by Ascendancy
I'm down for some. Would give me something good for the laptop and maybe something to use for my phone screens as well.
Okay, brah. I'll try to add them little by little. (I can only upload one at a time, so I'll have to blow up this thread. Peeps best not b!tch about it.) Another...
.
.
.
.