The Mind Robbers Special – Prometheus

In this special edition episode, Scott and Matt review and discuss the new film PROMETHEUS, from writers Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, and director Ridley Scott. But remember, BEWARE OF SPOILERS!!


3 thoughts on “The Mind Robbers Special – Prometheus

  1. I didn’t hate the movie. I just didn’t love it. Honestly, a lot of it left me as meh. I was surprised to see you two gush so much about it. (Not meanly, you have to right to your own opinion obviously and I respect it) Honestly, where this movie goes downhill for me is when it abruptly changes into a thriller/horror (that follows a lot of the same parallels as the last act of Alien). I was actually enjoying it as a character study of David and Vickers till suddenly Shaw is ripping an alien out of her tummy (that apparently wasn’t attached to a vital organ or anyhting- I always loved the idea of the chestburster as a parasite).

    It wasn’t ‘bad decisions’ I question in these characters. It’s scientists not behaving or thinking like any other scientist I’ve ever met or heard of. You would be hard pressed to find any archeologist who believes in ancient astronauts with so much blind faith and enthusiasm. (And the evidence the trillion dollar expedition was funded on seemed funded on a kind of flakey thesis, IMO) They felt straight out of one of those bad history channel “ancient aliens” ‘documentaries’ rather than respectably published archeologists. A biologist who doesn’t at all get excited over the flora and fauna and biology of a planet he’s never been on before. (When he seemed all gung ho at first) Why hire a geologist who’s only in it for the money of terraforming when the real agenda of the mission was to meet the engineers? The Scottish scientist seemed like she truly cared about the discovery of an alien species but at the end was just really a pawn of Weyland seemed odd.

    Also, I will completely argue with you on the Jesus was an emissary stuff. That was not in the movie. That was a cut scene that Ridley Scott talked about in an interview. A cut scene that actually makes the movie make a ton more sense than it does without it. BUT It does not count. No audience member should have to go to an interview to get vital information to a plot. I’ve always believed if it’s not on camera it is not in the movie. The scene was cut, therefore I do not believe it exists in the movie.

    I also truly believe Ridley Scott wanted to make a movie about ancient astronauts and realized at the end of the day he’d get a little extra cash to make it if he shoe horned it in as a prequel to Alien. No, I didn’t need all the answers and I was hoping for something that wasn’t another in the Alien franchise. The movie wasn’t awful, it just wasn’t great IMO.

    I ain’t no ‘hater’ (I am really sick of that word. No one over 18 should use that word) but I just didn’t love it.

    • In response to your criticisms here’s what I’ll say:

      The only time that I wasn’t crazy about the thriller/horror stuff (and I forgot to bring this up on the podcast) was when Holloway comes back to life as a charred super human mutant thing. That seemed like a studio note saying “something exciting needs to happen here” and so they just went with that. It didn’t feel natural to me at all. Everything else worked for me and worked well. Shaw’s cesarean was some of the most horrific imagery of the film for me, and I think it worked on a variety of levels. Your comment on it miraculously not being connected to any viral organisms would be a problem if it were a chestburster (which I agree is definitely a parasitic organism), but the thing that Shaw “gives birth” to is a version of the facehugger, not a chestburster. She and Holloway conceived the chestburster the night before. She was pregnant with the facehugger, not carrying around a parasite. So being able to pull it out in a cesarean (with a umbilical cord attached no less) works for me. Even in Alien, the facehugger was “birthed” from some sort of organic something or other. Obviously they had evolved by then to not need a womb technically, but the facehuggers were definitely in a cocoon of sorts. So it all makes perfect sense for me.

      You’re 100% right about the archaeologists (Holloway & Shaw) feeling a bit crazy (the History Channel example is definitely apt) but I don’t see this as a problem. Weyland is nuts and would absolutely fund their crazy expedition. He’s obsessed with survival and thinks this may be his only chance. It’s why Vickers immediately puts them in their place after waking up, basically telling them “You’re not real scientists and this is all bullshit, but I’m going along with it bc Weyland wanted this and I can find other more financially viable reasons for being here.” I got the overwhelming feeling in the film that Shaw & Holloway are anything BUT respected scientists. The whole crew thinks they’re crazy (note the scene where the whole crew makes fun of their ancient aliens theory). I don’t find this to be an issue for me. These people exist today, and I’m sure they’ll exist 80 years from now.

      Isn’t the biologist the guy that kept trying to touch the black goo and the one that was the most fascinated with the serpent creature? And what flora and fauna are you referring to on the planet? All I saw were rocks. And geologist struck me as a guy who does a job for a paycheck, and not because he LOVES rocks. That doesn’t seem like a contradiction to me. I know plenty of teachers who hate teaching and only do it because they can’t do anything else. Plus, I’m not entirely convinced that geologists would be jumping up and down to volunteer for a 5+ year expedition in which they will have zero contact with their loved ones on Earth. I think the type of people willing to do that would have to be the kind of person who doesn’t have any loved ones and the geologist definitely fits that bill for me.

      I think the Scottish scientist was genuinely excited to find alien life on another planet, even if she’s a pawn of Weyland she’s still there for the same reason he is: talking to ancient aliens. So I’m not sure why it’s a problem that she ends up working for Weyland.

      I didn’t go to any interview and was completely unaware of a deleted scene when I thought of the Jesus thing. Here’s how I figured it out: They said in the film that the latest “message” (the picture of the Engineer pointing at the star map) they found was over 2000 years old. Then they find the corpse of the Engineer later and date it to being roughly 2000 years old as well. Later we find out that they were making this weapon on LV-223 that they planned on bringing to Earth (as the Space Jockey at the end of the film was leaving to finish this job) but were killed by whatever they created. So something happened 2000 years ago that caused the Engineers to go from being friendly to hating us. Only one major thing happened in Earth history 2000 years ago (assuming you believe it at all but that’s neither here nor there). Hence my thought process on why I thought the film was suggesting that Jesus was an Engineer. They don’t go out of their way to say it, but I’m glad they didn’t because there would be no way of doing which wouldn’t be clunky. But I think it’s definitely there which makes it a legitimate theory IMO. But its cool if you don’t agree. I just think its a neat idea.

      It’s unfortunate that you feel that Ridley Scott is lacking in integrity. I’m pretty sure he made no bones about this being a full-on Alien prequel until Damon Lindelof convinced him to make it something else entirely. The ancient alien stuff seems very Lindelof-y to me, but until we hear word from him exactly what he added to the film, we won’t ever really be sure.

      You’re not a *word retracted for annoying-ness*, I just think you have an opinion which you’re totally allowed to have. I actually think its cool that you put this much thought into your opinion bc lets face it, most people don’t. I hope you’re equally cool with my rebuttal of your rebuttal whether you see my side of things or not. Thanks!

Comments are closed.