Everyone seems to forget that the two "hey, let's play with the alien" guys were high at the time. They were smoking some form of space dope. Remember? ;^)
One guy was. It was unclear if he shared it.
It was heavily implied that they shared, especially considering how much the biologist was giggling when he was messing with the alien (he'd been nervous and twitchy before).
I thought I saw them actually sharing at some point - or maybe the dialogue said so.
I've already commented on things like David's likely motivations. As for not running away properly - she panicked. People don't think clearly in a state of panic. And actually, there wasn't a safe direction to run - Shaw was saved by a miracle.
As for running around after surgery, she was hopped up on space painkillers. And everyone else didn't notice because they didn't care - she was a tool to get them there.
I don't think it's perfect or amazing. I think it's pretty damn good and it makes a good point. What baffles me are the complaints being directed at it - most of them are answered by paying attention to details in the movie, or separating "doesn't make sense" and "irrational."
Also, I'm reacting to hordes of Internet pseudo-intellectual armchair investigators talking about the way science works or should work. That and the fact that nobody seems to have read Frankenstein.
I think the movie should've just gone straight-up arthouse. Aliens should be literally unfathomable. End of Evangelion kind of shit.
I'm with TheWhaleShark pretty-much all the way on this one.
The specific criticisms I see most often against Prometheus are basically the same as the ones similar people levy against Evangelion. Not to generalize, but they seem to have their root in a lack of understanding or attention of or to the source material.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made against both, but those aren't the criticisms most people are making.
I actually want to see Prometheus in 3D specifically for the scene with David in the control room, with the giant map.
Every scene with HUDs or displays was beautiful in 3D.
I'll just point out at this juncture that those of us who routinely employ the scientific method - y'know, scientists - haven't had an issue with their application of the scientific method.
That's kind of presumptuous. I've only read 3 comments on the film from people who say they have some kind of connection to scientific research and 2 were negative.
I'll just point out at this juncture that those of us who routinely employ the scientific method - y'know, scientists - haven't had an issue with their application of the scientific method.
That's kind of presumptuous. I've only read 3 comments on the film from people who say they have some kind of connection to scientific research and 2 were negative.
Are you excluding the comments from three scientists in this thread on that topic?
I've looked at a lot of reviews on metacritic and rotten tomatoes that reflect a lack of understanding at the way we actually do science. A biologist poking an unknown lifeform is literally the archetypical scientist. I know dozens of those guys. Shit, I AM that guy. Arrogance and all.
I'm with TheWhaleShark pretty-much all the way on this one.
The specific criticisms I see most often against Prometheus are basically the same as the ones similar people levy against Evangelion. Not to generalize, but they seem to have their root in a lack of understanding or attention of or to the source material.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made against both, but those aren't the criticisms most people are making.
I actually want to see Prometheus in 3D specifically for the scene with David in the control room, with the giant map.
Every scene with HUDs or displays was beautiful in 3D.
The main criticsms of Evangelion is that the characters are unlikable and that it's impossible to understand what's going on. Those aren't the main criticisms that people are making of Promoetheus.
I'm with TheWhaleShark pretty-much all the way on this one.
The specific criticisms I see most often against Prometheus are basically the same as the ones similar people levy against Evangelion. Not to generalize, but they seem to have their root in a lack of understanding or attention of or to the source material.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made against both, but those aren't the criticisms most people are making.
I actually want to see Prometheus in 3D specifically for the scene with David in the control room, with the giant map.
Every scene with HUDs or displays was beautiful in 3D.
The main criticsms of Evangelion is that the characters are unlikable and that it's impossible to understand what's going on. Those aren't the main criticisms that people are making of Promoetheus.
So wait. "The plot is a mess, it doesn't make sense, the characters are stupid, and they do things that don't make sense" is different than "I don't like the characters and the plot doesn't make sense?"
I'm lost. Not every movie is character-driven. Not every movie is about likable characters. Not every movie should be.
I'm with TheWhaleShark pretty-much all the way on this one.
The specific criticisms I see most often against Prometheus are basically the same as the ones similar people levy against Evangelion. Not to generalize, but they seem to have their root in a lack of understanding or attention of or to the source material.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made against both, but those aren't the criticisms most people are making.
I actually want to see Prometheus in 3D specifically for the scene with David in the control room, with the giant map.
Every scene with HUDs or displays was beautiful in 3D.
The main criticsms of Evangelion is that the characters are unlikable and that it's impossible to understand what's going on. Those aren't the main criticisms that people are making of Promoetheus.
I have seen many posts in this thread with people saying that the characters in Prometheus are unlikeable, and that they can't understand what is going on.
I agree that the characters in Prometheus are unlikeable. Only most of the characters in Evangelion are. I like Misato, Pen Pen, Kaji, and Toji. Either way, I've never had a problem liking a thing even if I don't like the characters. The only thing that bothers me is when there is a character that is painful to even see or hear. For example, John Goodman's character in the Big Lebowski, or that annoying girl who harassed the nerdy guy in that old movie I watched with Rymily. The point is, just because a story is a story about a bunch of people that you don't like, has no bearing on whether it is good or bad in and of itself.
As for understanding what is going on. I perfectly understood what was going on in Prometheus, but other people have claimed they did not. I also perfectly understand what is happening in Evangelion, but a very large number of other people do not.
I've looked at a lot of reviews on metacritic and rotten tomatoes that reflect a lack of understanding at the way we actually do science. A biologist poking an unknown lifeform is literally the archetypical scientist. I know dozens of those guys. Shit, I AM that guy. Arrogance and all.
The issue's not the poking. The issue's that he ran away from the corpses that have been dead for 2000 years but he's not scared of the space cobra. The problem with that scene is just the incoherant character reactions. For me the scientific problem isn't around biology (although I did find the way biology was discussed in Alien more convincingly). For me the issue is the archeology. Cave Paintings=Aliens/Aliens created mankind/Aliens want us to come and find them/black balls are a star map. It's just bad writing. The thing is you probably could have come up with a somewhat similar story that wasn't shit. Lindelof didn't do that though, either because he doesn't have the intelligence, or because he thought that anything more complex wouldn't be accessible to the mainstream audience. And let's be honest here, this is aimed at the mainstream audience. You have people on youtube reviewing this who are clearly not deep thinkers saying this is "Asking Big Questions" or is "Intelligent Sci-Fi". That's another reason you can't compare this with Evangelion. Evangelion is largely inaccessible to a mainstream audience. You don't have people casually claiming that Eva deals with big ideas. Either they get deep into it, or they don't. I understand it's not entirely fair to compare them because of length difference but even so they're really not in the same universe at all from my POV.
So basically what it comes down to is: those of us that didn't like the movie or had some gripe for whatever reason, we're stupid? We are just stupid because we didn't get it? We are stupid and didn't understand what was going on? Wow. I know you guys didn't state it that way, but I feel that's whats being implied here in this thread.
Well I'm not stupid. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an almighty all-knowing god like Scott, but I do consider myself smarter than the average person that most blockbuster movies are made for these days. The movie had several things that didn't make sense to many people. Everyone I've talked to (other than this forum) agrees with me, very smart people, so I know I'm not just really stupid. I UNDERSTOOD what was going on the movie, I watched it and processed everything that happened like a non-stupid person. Doesn't mean that it MADE SENSE, or that it was RATIONAL. Things happened, and I understood that they happened, but it didn't make sense according to the real world, so it threw me off. I doubt I'm the only person that feels this way.
There are many movies I love that don't explain everything and you have to guess this or that. Prometheus is not one of those movies for me. There were too many irrational things for me to focus on the other good things in the movie, so it left an overall not-good experience for me. Its a shame, I'm not saying this precious movie was bad.
Gees you guys got me all mad. I just really hate being called (or implied) stupid.
I'm with TheWhaleShark pretty-much all the way on this one.
The specific criticisms I see most often against Prometheus are basically the same as the ones similar people levy against Evangelion. Not to generalize, but they seem to have their root in a lack of understanding or attention of or to the source material.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made against both, but those aren't the criticisms most people are making.
I actually want to see Prometheus in 3D specifically for the scene with David in the control room, with the giant map.
Every scene with HUDs or displays was beautiful in 3D.
The main criticsms of Evangelion is that the characters are unlikable and that it's impossible to understand what's going on. Those aren't the main criticisms that people are making of Promoetheus.
So wait. "The plot is a mess, it doesn't make sense, the characters are stupid, and they do things that don't make sense" is different than "I don't like the characters and the plot doesn't make sense?"
I'm lost. Not every movie is character-driven. Not every movie is about likable characters. Not every movie should be.
One dimensional and badly written is totally different from unlikable. Likewise, overly complex is different from non-sensical.
So basically what it comes down to is: those of us that didn't like the movie or had some gripe for whatever reason, we're stupid? We are just stupid because we didn't get it? We are stupid and didn't understand what was going on? Wow. I know you guys didn't state it that way, but I feel that's whats being implied here in this thread.
Well I'm not stupid. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an almighty all-knowing god like Scott, but I do consider myself smarter than the average person that most blockbuster movies are made for these days. The movie had several things that didn't make sense to many people. Everyone I've talked to (other than this forum) agrees with me, very smart people, so I know I'm not just really stupid. I UNDERSTOOD what was going on the movie, I watched it and processed everything that happened like a non-stupid person. Doesn't mean that it MADE SENSE, or that it was RATIONAL. Things happened, and I understood that they happened, but it didn't make sense according to the real world, so it threw me off. I doubt I'm the only person that feels this way.
There are many movies I love that don't explain everything and you have to guess this or that. Prometheus is not one of those movies for me. There were too many irrational things for me to focus on the other good things in the movie, so it left an overall not-good experience for me. Its a shame, I'm not saying this precious movie was bad.
Gees you guys got me all mad. I just really hate being called (or implied) stupid.
Stupid? I wouldn't go that far - but as I read criticisms of the movie, I get the feeling that the wrong standard of analysis is being applied here. Like I said, "irrational" and "doesn't make sense" are different concepts. A character may hold an irrational belief, but if it's a sort of belief that people hold, it "makes sense" for the character to hold it - we can understand it.
Increasingly I think the biggest complaint I'm seeing is related to unlikable or thin characters. The issue is that the movie isn't intended to be character-driven - they're just vectors for conflict. But most people want a character-driven story in this type of movie - you want to feel immersed in the horror aspect so having characters you can connect to is important.
The movie is an essay on film that presented itself as a sci-fi/horror film. Mismatched expectations caused some poor reception. So I don't think it's about being stupid or not - it's a matter of not getting the movie you wanted. That's a very valid criticism.
Saying "this character's actions don't make sense," though, is a statement of fact which can be analyzed. I believe most people making that criticism are conflating that with "I didn't like this character's decision."
Oh wait, I "get" the whole movie now. The reason the aliens want to kill off the humans was because they are all freaking idiots. They don't want idiots representing them as their creation, because it makes the creators look like idiots. Makes perfect sense now, great movie. The directors were genius.
Alright, I'm gonna stop posting here before I turn into that little table flipping guy and get attacked by the forum. -_-
Edit: Couldn't resist. Twilight is a great work of art, too. The non-believable idiotic characters were on purpose. Stephanie Meyer was on to something there, you guys should just deal with it. Ok, I'm done ^_~
Edit: Couldn't resist. Twilight is a great work of art, too. The non-believable idiotic characters were on purpose. Stephanie Meyer was on to something there, you guys should just deal with it. Ok, I'm done ^_~
Sure, I expect that there are people like Bella out there. The thing is, Twilight seems to celebrate her character and relish in this stupidity. I doubt that that's the case in Prometheus.
Twilight is a wonderful treatise discussing why most women are miserable and undatable. It's also an excellent display of the pervasiveness of a male-dominated society and the passive acceptance of rape culture.
My main problem with Evangelion is that it's basically everyone just shitting on the one person who can possibly save them all, and all of them know that he is the one.
The issue's that he ran away from the corpses that have been dead for 2000 years but he's not scared of the space cobra. The problem with that scene is just the incoherant character reactions. For me the scientific problem isn't around biology (although I did find the way biology was discussed in Alien more convincingly). For me the issue is the archeology. Cave Paintings=Aliens/Aliens created mankind/Aliens want us to come and find them/black balls are a star map. It's just bad writing.
I've already touched on all of this, but I'll retread.
1)"Inconsistent" reaction from the biologist: So, it makes no sense that someone might freak out at the discovery that this batshit crazy mission was right, and then get over it and fall back into their comfort zone - poking at foreign life? Really? Because that's what happened, and it's a perfectly human and understandable response. Freaking out at a monumental discovery, and then collecting yourself and returning to normal is a completely typical pattern of behavior. Add in the getting stoned on space weed, and it makes even more sense - he used some drugs to calm down, and felt a sense of complacency in an otherwise bizarre and jarring world.
2) The archaeology isn't presented as robust science. The biologist basically says they're crazy, Vickers outright says "Look, I think you're wrong and nuts, but my dad pumped a shitload of money into this operation, so I'm going to see it through," and the whole head of the mission picked them because they were "true believers" - not because they were rational or well-researched.
And how about David's quip: "If your thesis is indeed correct...that's why they call it a 'thesis.'" It means "proposition" in the original Greek, and it's important to remember that a thesis in academia is just a paper documenting your research and findings - it has not necessarily been defended. In the US, we typically call a paper that must be defended a "dissertation."
David was reminding bro-husband that he is not necessarily correct - that his position must still be defended. Bro-husband arrogantly dismissed it.
So your archaeologists were always portrayed as being out there. Yes, they leapt to conclusions, and people called them crazy.
---------------------------------------
This whole meta-discussion is related to the bias blind spot finding that cheese posted about:
I suspect that a lot of what's happening here is that we are presented with characters displaying irrational or otherwise undesirable behavior - acting "stupidly" - and then we criticize those characters from our own perspective, believing their behavior to be nonsensical. In order to make such a criticism, we overlook our own irrational behaviors for the sake of convenience. This is exacerbated because the characters aren't written deeply enough to form a connection - they are essentially a lecture, not a character, so when we dig in we only find things we don't like.
In other words, it's the blind spot kicking in. We point out other character's failings while ignoring our own very similar or even identical failings.
Even if you don't have a bias blind spot, the paper there posits that you are not immune to the effects of bias.
People are irrational at times. "People" means "everyone." That means you and me. That means Scott Rubin. We want to believe that we're more rational than our neighbor, but the truth is we're probably not. You don't have superpowers - neither do I.
To say that displaying irrational or even inconsistent behavior doesn't make sense is either poor phrasing or a self-delusion. You may not like it, but it certainly makes sense - it's a thing that happens and that we can observe in others and ourselves.
I'm afraid of spiders, but not all the time. Sometimes it bothers me. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a spider-shaped thing creeps me out, sometimes it doesn't. There is probably an explanation there somewhere, but at a functional level, I display an inconsistent and irrational response to the presence of spiders.
Almost all other people display similar inconsistent behaviors in other areas. Why? Because we're complex things with complex responses that we don't completely understand.
But none of that means that an irrational behavior doesn't make sense. It might mean that you don't like it, but those are different things.
I'll just point out at this juncture that those of us who routinely employ the scientific method - y'know, scientists - haven't had an issue with their application of the scientific method.
I always thought while science is all about the "let's see what happens" poking, it ought to be done carefully and methodically, not impulsively. Ask Lisa what she thinks of this movie and the fact that they are carrying strange infected heads around with nothing more than a little face mask on, dressed like a dentist! You are getting way too defensive for this movie. Like I said, I thought it was good, I saw the Frankenstein parallels, but I still think the characters in the movie were frustrating. I would be more of a "slowly and quietly" type of explorer.
You'd be amazed at the ways I've seen people handle things. "That has TB in it! Holy shit man!" And then I keep a messy kitchen. Complacency is a huge problem in experienced scientists, and it's one of the reasons that labwork is such a ridiculously hazardous job.
Again, I'm not strictly defending the movie. Opinions are opinions. Whatever. Space Jesus is the dumbest thing I've ever heard - he should have left it without that little addition. There are flaws to be sure - but the vast majority of complaints I'm reading are things that I saw very differently, and fall into the realm of glossing-over.
I am interested in the reasoning used to support said opinions and - when it appears inconsistent - I point out the inconsistencies.
I found the characters frustrating too - but they were trying to frustrate me as part of the telling of the story.
I agree. A body is just meat. But the fact of the matter is that something which looks human and is mutilated is inherently a lot more frightening to most average Joes than the sight of a weird animal. Burn victims are freakier than snakes and spiders almost all the time.
Holy crap I go to one doctor visit and this explodes with science stuff. That said I liked Prometheus, I loved the amount of world building that went on and all of the potential it introduced and all the unanswered questions.
Pete, and others, brought up a good point that there aren't any well defined scientists on this mission. The most science oriented people there are David and Weyland. The archeologists aren't going to be well versed in astrobiology or anything else they expected to encounter, the other woman (Ford?) we never find out where her expertise is, and Millburn is just a generic biologist. Was he a zoologist/botanist/molecular biologist? Who the hell knows because he never shows any amount of sciencific understanding at all. Hell, he could have been a desk biologist for all we know and was hired specifically to be a red shirt for Weyland on this mission.
In fact, I would bet that Weyland wouldn't want any super rigorous scientists on this mission because they'd stop him from getting what he expects out of the engineers with years of red tape/testing/protocols/etc. This mission could be the discovery of the lifetime, I mean how many papers and awards would be given from discovering someone who had the technology to form the human race? If this mission went public and with the amount of money Weyland had at his disposal, he could've had the best of the best scientists at his disposal. But, those scientists would want to document everything, adhere to protocols, make sure that they did everything to milk this mission of every possible paper they could write. By filling his mission with red shirts, in the unlikely event that they actually found evidence of the engineers, Weyland brought his own lab rats with him and David is his lab tech. David, without all those pesky ethical IRB members every other institution has to deal with, would get shit done and within a reasonable amount of time before Weyland would die.
Now did I cringe at some of the scientists' behavior? Oh yeah. The geologist had the right idea running away (and why did he suddenly not have access to his maps when the pups directed them to the ooze room?) but the biologist? I would've expected him to stick around and look at the head, maybe if he had they would've stuck to more strict protocols. Wearing surgical masks that are NOT N95 respirators when opening a helmet and exposing a head that you are attempting to reanimate? FUCK THAT SHIT! HOWEVER, none of them are virologists/microbiologists/doctors and have any idea of what a foreign pathogen can really do to a person. Vickers is the only one with any sense of self preservation compared to the scientists. Unfortunately, she is infected with their stupid and unable to turn when it matters most.
And as for scientists having no common sense and doing stupid shit. HOLY CRAP. I've seen people chewing gum when they're supposed to be masked up measuring out chemicals that are easily inhaled (SDS), people get ethidium bromide all over equipment and door handles because taking a glove off is too much of a hassle for them, someone mouth pipetted an unknown bacteria sample that was being grown for genome sequencing because they couldn't find a pipette bulb to do it, and people worked with my flu virus except they didn't suit up properly or threw all of the trash in the wrong containers without sterilizing it!
The one that takes the cake however was a guy had a newly made HIV virus that had a really common receptor on it instead of the T-cell receptors, which meant it could get into any kind of cell, and wore his gloves from the hood (where he handled it!!!) to the communal microscope where he kept his gloves on and possibly contaminated the entire department's equipment with easy infection HIV. Even scientists in their field are stupid, not just the ones in the movies.
I once saw a girl in her junior year (meaning she'd gone through at least three lab courses) lift up an EtBr polyacrylamide gel with her bare fucking hands. Like Dr. Z said: scientists aren't necessarily smart.
The one that takes the cake however was a guy had a newly made HIV virus that had a really common receptor on it instead of the T-cell receptors, which meant it could get into any kind of cell, and wore his gloves from the hood (where he handled it!!!) to the communal microscope where he kept his gloves on and possibly contaminated the entire department's equipment with easy infection HIV.
If you read any amount of Science history you will find tons of cases of brilliant people getting themselves Darwined by not understanding some aspect of what they were doing or being careless. Odd, why do these inhalation specialists keep dying of throat cancer.
1)"Inconsistent" reaction from the biologist: So, it makes no sense that someone might freak out at the discovery that this batshit crazy mission was right,
How did the corpses prove that the mission was right? They didn't prove that Humanity or Life on earth (I'm still not sure which it's supposed to be) was created by aliens. I don't think the characters ever actually found anything that verified that.
and then get over it and fall back into their comfort zone - poking at foreign life? Really? Because that's what happened, and it's a perfectly human and understandable response. Freaking out at a monumental discovery, and then collecting yourself and returning to normal is a completely typical pattern of behavior.
2000 year old corpses=Runs away scarred.
(Hours later) Life form detected at the other end of structure=Runs away scarred.
Space Cobra=Tries to pet.
It's just bad B-Movie level writing. There's no sophisticated character psychology going on.
Add in the getting stoned on space weed, and it makes even more sense - he used some drugs to calm down, and felt a sense of complacency in an otherwise bizarre and jarring world.
I don't remember the biologist having the tobbaco in his helmet but assuming he did, that's just more writing that you'd expect to find in a B-Movie, "The Blonde lab assistant chick gets stoned and lets the space worm fuck her because she thinks it's her boyfriend who's now been eaten."
2) The archaeology isn't presented as robust science. The biologist basically says they're crazy, Vickers outright says "Look, I think you're wrong and nuts, but my dad pumped a shitload of money into this operation, so I'm going to see it through," and the whole head of the mission picked them because they were "true believers" - not because they were rational or well-researched.
"True Believers" in what? The whole "Faith" angle to this film doesn't make any sense unless its' goal is to promote Scientology and Shaw was meant to be a Scientologist. Then it would kind of make sense and arguably be a brave film. Shaw wears a cross but nothing she says or does suggests she's a Christian. What is it she actually has faith in? Her Faith is more just a character label, than an aspect of her character that's actually explored. She's the "faith" character in the same way that Idris Elba is the "cool" character. It's one dimensional.
Comments
I've already commented on things like David's likely motivations. As for not running away properly - she panicked. People don't think clearly in a state of panic. And actually, there wasn't a safe direction to run - Shaw was saved by a miracle.
As for running around after surgery, she was hopped up on space painkillers. And everyone else didn't notice because they didn't care - she was a tool to get them there.
I don't think it's perfect or amazing. I think it's pretty damn good and it makes a good point. What baffles me are the complaints being directed at it - most of them are answered by paying attention to details in the movie, or separating "doesn't make sense" and "irrational."
Also, I'm reacting to hordes of Internet pseudo-intellectual armchair investigators talking about the way science works or should work. That and the fact that nobody seems to have read Frankenstein.
I think the movie should've just gone straight-up arthouse. Aliens should be literally unfathomable. End of Evangelion kind of shit.
I actually want to see Prometheus in 3D specifically for the scene with David in the control room, with the giant map.
The specific criticisms I see most often against Prometheus are basically the same as the ones similar people levy against Evangelion. Not to generalize, but they seem to have their root in a lack of understanding or attention of or to the source material.
There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made against both, but those aren't the criticisms most people are making. Every scene with HUDs or displays was beautiful in 3D.
I've looked at a lot of reviews on metacritic and rotten tomatoes that reflect a lack of understanding at the way we actually do science. A biologist poking an unknown lifeform is literally the archetypical scientist. I know dozens of those guys. Shit, I AM that guy. Arrogance and all.
The main criticsms of Evangelion is that the characters are unlikable and that it's impossible to understand what's going on. Those aren't the main criticisms that people are making of Promoetheus.
So wait. "The plot is a mess, it doesn't make sense, the characters are stupid, and they do things that don't make sense" is different than "I don't like the characters and the plot doesn't make sense?"
I'm lost. Not every movie is character-driven. Not every movie is about likable characters. Not every movie should be.
I have seen many posts in this thread with people saying that the characters in Prometheus are unlikeable, and that they can't understand what is going on.
I agree that the characters in Prometheus are unlikeable. Only most of the characters in Evangelion are. I like Misato, Pen Pen, Kaji, and Toji. Either way, I've never had a problem liking a thing even if I don't like the characters. The only thing that bothers me is when there is a character that is painful to even see or hear. For example, John Goodman's character in the Big Lebowski, or that annoying girl who harassed the nerdy guy in that old movie I watched with Rymily. The point is, just because a story is a story about a bunch of people that you don't like, has no bearing on whether it is good or bad in and of itself.
As for understanding what is going on. I perfectly understood what was going on in Prometheus, but other people have claimed they did not. I also perfectly understand what is happening in Evangelion, but a very large number of other people do not.
Well I'm not stupid. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an almighty all-knowing god like Scott, but I do consider myself smarter than the average person that most blockbuster movies are made for these days. The movie had several things that didn't make sense to many people. Everyone I've talked to (other than this forum) agrees with me, very smart people, so I know I'm not just really stupid. I UNDERSTOOD what was going on the movie, I watched it and processed everything that happened like a non-stupid person. Doesn't mean that it MADE SENSE, or that it was RATIONAL. Things happened, and I understood that they happened, but it didn't make sense according to the real world, so it threw me off. I doubt I'm the only person that feels this way.
There are many movies I love that don't explain everything and you have to guess this or that. Prometheus is not one of those movies for me. There were too many irrational things for me to focus on the other good things in the movie, so it left an overall not-good experience for me. Its a shame, I'm not saying this precious movie was bad.
Gees you guys got me all mad. I just really hate being called (or implied) stupid.
I'm lost. Not every movie is character-driven. Not every movie is about likable characters. Not every movie should be.
One dimensional and badly written is totally different from unlikable. Likewise, overly complex is different from non-sensical.
Increasingly I think the biggest complaint I'm seeing is related to unlikable or thin characters. The issue is that the movie isn't intended to be character-driven - they're just vectors for conflict. But most people want a character-driven story in this type of movie - you want to feel immersed in the horror aspect so having characters you can connect to is important.
The movie is an essay on film that presented itself as a sci-fi/horror film. Mismatched expectations caused some poor reception. So I don't think it's about being stupid or not - it's a matter of not getting the movie you wanted. That's a very valid criticism.
Saying "this character's actions don't make sense," though, is a statement of fact which can be analyzed. I believe most people making that criticism are conflating that with "I didn't like this character's decision."
In short:
People are quite often irrational, and movie characters can be as well. Deal with it.
Alright, I'm gonna stop posting here before I turn into that little table flipping guy and get attacked by the forum. -_-
Edit: Couldn't resist. Twilight is a great work of art, too. The non-believable idiotic characters were on purpose. Stephanie Meyer was on to something there, you guys should just deal with it. Ok, I'm done ^_~
1)"Inconsistent" reaction from the biologist: So, it makes no sense that someone might freak out at the discovery that this batshit crazy mission was right, and then get over it and fall back into their comfort zone - poking at foreign life? Really? Because that's what happened, and it's a perfectly human and understandable response. Freaking out at a monumental discovery, and then collecting yourself and returning to normal is a completely typical pattern of behavior. Add in the getting stoned on space weed, and it makes even more sense - he used some drugs to calm down, and felt a sense of complacency in an otherwise bizarre and jarring world.
2) The archaeology isn't presented as robust science. The biologist basically says they're crazy, Vickers outright says "Look, I think you're wrong and nuts, but my dad pumped a shitload of money into this operation, so I'm going to see it through," and the whole head of the mission picked them because they were "true believers" - not because they were rational or well-researched.
And how about David's quip: "If your thesis is indeed correct...that's why they call it a 'thesis.'" It means "proposition" in the original Greek, and it's important to remember that a thesis in academia is just a paper documenting your research and findings - it has not necessarily been defended. In the US, we typically call a paper that must be defended a "dissertation."
David was reminding bro-husband that he is not necessarily correct - that his position must still be defended. Bro-husband arrogantly dismissed it.
So your archaeologists were always portrayed as being out there. Yes, they leapt to conclusions, and people called them crazy.
---------------------------------------
This whole meta-discussion is related to the bias blind spot finding that cheese posted about:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5317066/2012-west.pdf
I suspect that a lot of what's happening here is that we are presented with characters displaying irrational or otherwise undesirable behavior - acting "stupidly" - and then we criticize those characters from our own perspective, believing their behavior to be nonsensical. In order to make such a criticism, we overlook our own irrational behaviors for the sake of convenience. This is exacerbated because the characters aren't written deeply enough to form a connection - they are essentially a lecture, not a character, so when we dig in we only find things we don't like.
In other words, it's the blind spot kicking in. We point out other character's failings while ignoring our own very similar or even identical failings.
Even if you don't have a bias blind spot, the paper there posits that you are not immune to the effects of bias.
People are irrational at times. "People" means "everyone." That means you and me. That means Scott Rubin. We want to believe that we're more rational than our neighbor, but the truth is we're probably not. You don't have superpowers - neither do I.
To say that displaying irrational or even inconsistent behavior doesn't make sense is either poor phrasing or a self-delusion. You may not like it, but it certainly makes sense - it's a thing that happens and that we can observe in others and ourselves.
I'm afraid of spiders, but not all the time. Sometimes it bothers me. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a spider-shaped thing creeps me out, sometimes it doesn't. There is probably an explanation there somewhere, but at a functional level, I display an inconsistent and irrational response to the presence of spiders.
Almost all other people display similar inconsistent behaviors in other areas. Why? Because we're complex things with complex responses that we don't completely understand.
But none of that means that an irrational behavior doesn't make sense. It might mean that you don't like it, but those are different things.
You are getting way too defensive for this movie. Like I said, I thought it was good, I saw the Frankenstein parallels, but I still think the characters in the movie were frustrating. I would be more of a "slowly and quietly" type of explorer.
Again, I'm not strictly defending the movie. Opinions are opinions. Whatever. Space Jesus is the dumbest thing I've ever heard - he should have left it without that little addition. There are flaws to be sure - but the vast majority of complaints I'm reading are things that I saw very differently, and fall into the realm of glossing-over.
I am interested in the reasoning used to support said opinions and - when it appears inconsistent - I point out the inconsistencies.
I found the characters frustrating too - but they were trying to frustrate me as part of the telling of the story.
Pete, and others, brought up a good point that there aren't any well defined scientists on this mission. The most science oriented people there are David and Weyland. The archeologists aren't going to be well versed in astrobiology or anything else they expected to encounter, the other woman (Ford?) we never find out where her expertise is, and Millburn is just a generic biologist. Was he a zoologist/botanist/molecular biologist? Who the hell knows because he never shows any amount of sciencific understanding at all. Hell, he could have been a desk biologist for all we know and was hired specifically to be a red shirt for Weyland on this mission.
In fact, I would bet that Weyland wouldn't want any super rigorous scientists on this mission because they'd stop him from getting what he expects out of the engineers with years of red tape/testing/protocols/etc. This mission could be the discovery of the lifetime, I mean how many papers and awards would be given from discovering someone who had the technology to form the human race? If this mission went public and with the amount of money Weyland had at his disposal, he could've had the best of the best scientists at his disposal. But, those scientists would want to document everything, adhere to protocols, make sure that they did everything to milk this mission of every possible paper they could write. By filling his mission with red shirts, in the unlikely event that they actually found evidence of the engineers, Weyland brought his own lab rats with him and David is his lab tech. David, without all those pesky ethical IRB members every other institution has to deal with, would get shit done and within a reasonable amount of time before Weyland would die.
Now did I cringe at some of the scientists' behavior? Oh yeah. The geologist had the right idea running away (and why did he suddenly not have access to his maps when the pups directed them to the ooze room?) but the biologist? I would've expected him to stick around and look at the head, maybe if he had they would've stuck to more strict protocols. Wearing surgical masks that are NOT N95 respirators when opening a helmet and exposing a head that you are attempting to reanimate? FUCK THAT SHIT! HOWEVER, none of them are virologists/microbiologists/doctors and have any idea of what a foreign pathogen can really do to a person. Vickers is the only one with any sense of self preservation compared to the scientists. Unfortunately, she is infected with their stupid and unable to turn when it matters most.
And as for scientists having no common sense and doing stupid shit. HOLY CRAP. I've seen people chewing gum when they're supposed to be masked up measuring out chemicals that are easily inhaled (SDS), people get ethidium bromide all over equipment and door handles because taking a glove off is too much of a hassle for them, someone mouth pipetted an unknown bacteria sample that was being grown for genome sequencing because they couldn't find a pipette bulb to do it, and people worked with my flu virus except they didn't suit up properly or threw all of the trash in the wrong containers without sterilizing it!
The one that takes the cake however was a guy had a newly made HIV virus that had a really common receptor on it instead of the T-cell receptors, which meant it could get into any kind of cell, and wore his gloves from the hood (where he handled it!!!) to the communal microscope where he kept his gloves on and possibly contaminated the entire department's equipment with easy infection HIV. Even scientists in their field are stupid, not just the ones in the movies.
(Hours later) Life form detected at the other end of structure=Runs away scarred.
Space Cobra=Tries to pet.
It's just bad B-Movie level writing. There's no sophisticated character psychology going on. I don't remember the biologist having the tobbaco in his helmet but assuming he did, that's just more writing that you'd expect to find in a B-Movie, "The Blonde lab assistant chick gets stoned and lets the space worm fuck her because she thinks it's her boyfriend who's now been eaten." "True Believers" in what? The whole "Faith" angle to this film doesn't make any sense unless its' goal is to promote Scientology and Shaw was meant to be a Scientologist. Then it would kind of make sense and arguably be a brave film. Shaw wears a cross but nothing she says or does suggests she's a Christian. What is it she actually has faith in? Her Faith is more just a character label, than an aspect of her character that's actually explored. She's the "faith" character in the same way that Idris Elba is the "cool" character. It's one dimensional.