QUOTE(stormlcc @ Jun 27 2012, 07:30 PM)
errr.....source and answer?
I'm repeating myself, but will take this chance to add a bit ...
__________________________________________________________________________
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...20&p=52249035&#One aspect/'weakness' of the film I'm glad that have been discussed elsewhere:-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/board/nest/200425162?p=1Is it possible that the crew were intended to be stupid and incompetent?QUOTE
by peterw5 2 days ago (Wed Jun 13 2012 17:12:36)
UPDATED Wed Jun 13 2012 17:19:28
When I came out of the theater for "Prometheus" I was disappointed for a lot of the same reasons that many have already pointed out, mostly involving the whole crew (minus perhaps David) behaving like complete morons (i.e. waltzing into an alien spaceship blind with no weapons; taking off their helmets in a foreign atmosphere; taking potentially dangerous and contagious alien heads and goo back onto the ship; lost crew trying to pet alien penis snakes; Having the crew mostly consist of hired hand who are only there for the money and are not inormed what the mission is until they get there; etc.) Shaw and Holloway (and Weyland) seem to have this incredibly naive idea that they're just going to go meet their alien creators and be friends and there won't be any complications. The mission is very poorly planned and is being conducted by incompetent morons.
At first I thought that all the above problems were just really bad writing and characterization. But now that I think about it more, I'm wondering if it was Scott's intent for the crew to be such naive morons? I do think there are some indicators in the film that could support this theory.
1. The mission is not an official scientific mission conducted by reputable people, but a privately funded crusade to "get answers" and perhaps find the fountain of youth by the extremely wealthy and dying Peter Weyland.
2. Peter Weyland is clearly very fond of his cybernetic robot David, which means that David probably had a hand in planning the mission with Weyland.
3. David actually hates his father and the human race and secretly wants to sabotage the mission. What better way to sabotage the mission than to influence Weyland to hire a bunch of incompetent morons and then destroy the mission from within when you get there (which David does by infecting Holloway and by saying something to the Engineer to make it angry and turn it against the humans).
What are people's thoughts on this theory?
QUOTE
by tombo677 (Wed Jun 13 2012 17:21:37)
While I think it's probably just a case of poor storytelling choices, I've also asked myself "what kind of scientists would go on a top secret, 2 year trip across space with no info, no oversight and only the promise of loads of cash when they returned?"
Weyland probably went to all the top scientists and they all looked at him like he had loads of prosthetic makeup on.
QUOTE
by peterw5 (Wed Jun 13 2012 22:13:28)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I agree. I don't think many reputable scientists would agree to sign up for something as shady as a multiple year long mission funded by a mysterious corporation without even being told what the mission is up front. You'd have to be either desperate or stupid or both to sign up for that.
QUOTE
by bwgood77 (Wed Jun 13 2012 17:27:30)
Of course. That's the point. Nobody really liked the fact that they were there. Most were only doing it for the money. Most highly competent people wouldn't leave the earth for 4 years. They demonstrated this early in the film.
Also with the pilot not caring...they showed in multiple ways how he didn't care (whether it was the pile of bodies those guys found, the sign of life in the area, wanting to get laid rather than watch out for them.) Even Shaw at the end of the film asks him "What DO you care about? There has to be something!?!"
Weyland was overcocky. Vickers even said she hadn't met everyone there before the trip. She wasn't taking it seriously and probably just hired whoever. She wanted them to be wrong and come back home. She probably purposely hired incompetent people (outside of the pilot.)
It's part of the underlying tone of the film....Weyland felt he could do anything, and he went about it the wrong way....trusting the wrong people.
QUOTE
by gf2002 (Wed Jun 13 2012 23:29:48)
I agree. It also makes me think about when I used to work in restaurants. Most people try to get a job at a good restaurant that's been around for a long time because the steady flow of repeat customers makes your income consistent. But if you can't get a job at such a place (because the turnover is low), most try getting a job at the newest restaurants since they'll be busy at least until its reputation (good or bad) is built.
I used to think that when a restaurant opens up a new location, they would send their best people there to help open it up and train others. Over time, I found out this always isn't the case. Some people that want to move to a new city do so because they're carrying baggage and want to leave things behind. They have problems such as drug addiction, gambling problems, self-identity issues, and of course, alcoholism. Part of the motivation for the trip away is to get their life onto a different and hopefully better track.
I pretty much felt that this is the kind of people that made up the Prometheus' crew. There's the smoking in the suit (drugs), Holloway's drinking (alcoholism), Vickers' daddy issues (self-identity issues) and the co-pilots betting (gambling). These are all the same issues and problems I used to see back when working in the restaurant biz with people who took the chance to leave wherever they were from.
QUOTE
by fliphop 1 day ago (Wed Jun 13 2012 17:28:36)
peterw5: i admire that you were able to change your own perspective over time. i myself 'stick to my guns' too often and overlook things i may have missed.
and i do completely buy your theory number 1. if you look at the history of scientific exploration, from the Europeans coming to the Americas, to the first explorations of space, there is behavior found that would be considered, from an outside perspective, 'stupid' or 'reckless'. the spanish conquistadors in particular were searching for 'fountains of eternal youth', or gold, or mythical cities, and were frequently accompanied by ignorant and foolish crews who died in spades. but it is hard to get 'normal' people to risk their lives sailing across an unknown space for years on end without paying them a huge amount of money.
and even the smartest people can make mistakes --- mistakes of logic and reason at times. some of the science-motivated antarctic expeditions in the 20th century for example (ponies vs dogs for example).
QUOTE
by stopbeinweird (Thu Jun 14 2012 02:46:10)
I don't think you could apply current economic employment conditions to a period 80 years into the future. We've no idea what the demand is for highly skilled workers at that time, what the wages are, quality of life etc.
The question is, if someone offered you 300k a year to spend at least 4 years of your life asleep on a spaceship(another 2 for the return) with no information on what you'd be doing or where you'd be going, would you jump at the chance? I mean if you already have a well paid job on earth, why would you take such a huge risk and give up such a large portion of your life with family and friends for something that could turn out to be an elaborate plan to steal your kidneys for all you know.
As far as I'm concerned it may not be that easy to fill such a position. You'd end up requiring the type of person that would gladly put money ahead of everything, including knowledge of what they were risking. In other words the scientific equivalent of a mercenary. Which from what I could see is what they got.
I'd also add that just because a person is intelligent does not mean they were gifted with an over abundance of common sense. There are many different types of clever people. Add to that that people often act very strangely when terrified and under serious stress.
So, while the discussions / theories put forth in that imdb forum seems apologetic and defensive of one among Prometheus' weaknesses, they do seem logical and acceptable to me; my then complaining mind has been put at ease and has since then moved on to other aspects / unanswered questions / analysis of the movie.
Ya, I guess based on common sense, most of what the 'expert' crews were doing seem stupid and incompetent; but like what quoted above, some were too eager, some didn't really care, some were in it just for money, some were just following orders, etc.
The mission was a privately funded one; while Weyland had the money, maybe he couldn't afford to spend more time searching for better scientists to come along; he was dying. So, in the two relatively short years (when the dates of the cave discovery and the arrival of Prometheus were shown, I was thinking why the hurry, don't they want to take time to plan carefully the mission?), Weyland got more mercenaries on board instead of NASA-like approved scientists. Hence, the bunch of idiots.
As for the most important discovery of mankind; similar to the plots of Contact (1997), for all we know, Shaw & Co. might've gone to the government but got rejected, no agency could justify the cost of the expedition just to satisfy the curiosity of an 'invitation', without further long-term study. But Weyland got the means to sponsor, plus his own personal agenda to rush it, and of course, most probably there was non-disclosure agreements; whatever Shaw had further analyzed since, remained as company property and not to be shared with the public (Shaw wouldn't have minded, she was blinded by her faith & eagerness, and Holloway was weak) ... so, it's more like the most secret not-so-urgent important discovery for mankind.
Jun 24 2012, 10:02 PM
Quote
0.0250sec
0.68
6 queries
GZIP Disabled