Dan: Once again we have morons going to the movies and obviously NOT paying attention. Since the film’s June 8 release, one stupid question after another has been surfacing and they are some real whoopers. All resulting from the curious ones, CLEARLY not paying attention or are just real cement heads… In no order of importance, here are the ones that appear with too much regularity. Geez, some of these freaks are voting too!
These questions were compiled by Dan Turpin from various sources on the web and responded to by me, Tony. My responses are in yellow below.
1. Why did the android eat and learn impossible languages?
David is curious, and is not unable to sample foods. Ash in Alien also ate. These androids are programmed to mimic, and possibly learn human emotion and traits. He used words like “enjoy” and “want.” This question is pretty stupid. What makes a language impossible? David was learning a language from a computer in the future with his advanced brain so that he could be prepared to help translate what they would find, based on the Sumerian and other ancient world languages that existed at the time the maps in the caves were created.
2. Why was there fire where there wasn’t oxygen?
The planet had oxygen. It was not a vacuum. However, it had higher concentrations of CO2 which caused it to be dangerous to breath for too long of a duration of time.
3. Why after the hibernation they don’t have beard?
For cryogenics to work you have to be able to slow the metabolism of the body to a point that the subject does not age, defecate, urinate, starve, or dehydrate. This would slow the growth of hair to almost nothing as well. This question comes from someone who has never seen a science fiction movie before.
4. What big ideas was the film exploring?
Religion, God, Who created us, Ancient Astronauts, Faith VS Science, Faustian Technology, Sacrifice VS Selfishness
5. Why did they try to pet a clearly hostile alien lifeform? (referring to the Geologists)
One was a Geologist; the other was a Biologist. It wasn’t clearly hostile at first – the biologist approached the hammerpede knowing it wasn’t a snake, but also knowing that most life forms don’t wander up to larger creatures out of curiosity with intent for violence. Snakes do not do this, even poisonous ones. They are apt to hide from predators. Clearly believing in evolution, the scientist felt he understood and was more capable of comprehending animal life forms and their motivations than the rest of the crew. There is a significant subtext here, but I am opting to give you less symbolic answer for your tiny brain.
6. What was with the black goo? It acted differently on each person it touched…
It actually did not react differently, but instead there was more than one type of goo. The engineer at the beginning used the goo as a means to a ritual, sacrificing himself. This goo is genetically programmed to create life. The goo you see the dark engineers use has been programmed to weaponize existing life. It weaponizes the worms, Fifield and Holloway. David is not affected because he is not organic.
7. Why was the first thing they did when they landed on the alien planet is take their helmets off?
The literal reason is that they find the air is breathable and David confirms it. Holloway is something of an “X Games” scientist, interested in the exploration and adventure side of archaeology more than playing it safe, so it stands to reason he would be the one to be gung ho about trying out the new air within the temple. There is symbolism here, because of the shape of the helmets being like a halo, that this is a picture of man leaving God and faith because of science. Of course, the early engineer was a balance of both faith (the ritual) and science (the goo). Man removes his spiritual covering and is cursed…. The opening of the temple with the giant head, exposing the atmosphere within was another picture of this, the temple itself becoming cursed.
8. When a giant, thin, long object is about to fall on top of you, run straight instead of off to one side?
I will ignore the subtext about having a hard heart and not yielding to your creator, but instead there actually was a very good reason why they did not go to the left or right of the falling juggernaut. Flaming chunks of the Prometheus were raining down on either side of the path like flaming bombs, making the shadow of the juggernaut the only path shielded from the debris. They were looking at the giant rocks ahead; trying to get to shelter from what they reasoned would the explosive crash of the juggernaut. What they didn’t expect was how strong it was, simply rolling instead of exploding, obviously another defense mechanism of the Space Jockey’s ship.
9. How anyone could point to the many plot-holes, inconsistencies, poor character development (or none i should say), amateur hour science v. theology debate, illogical actions (from fucking scientists in the field!!!), ill-defined rules (black goo), etc. So many questions and too many dummies these days watching movies…
This was not a question but a pointless rant.
10. Why did the geologists “act” so odd? Why did the younger one pet the alien “snake? Shouldn’t he know better, an alien life form and he pokes at it like a curious child, doesn’t look smart…
Biologists in fact do go out and make contact with life forms all the time, especially putting themselves in danger – whether it be marine biologists who pet sharks, or the jungle variety going after arachnids, herps, and gorillas… The biologist was a little more creeped out by all the runes, atmosphere of the temple, and the alien technology than the “critters” in the temple. Also, he had time to calm down from earlier – the two of them had been their hours with nothing really happening… How do people miss this?
11. The plot is full of holes. Sorry to keep mentioning this, but it is. Why were the engineers running *into* the dangerous room?
The danger was chasing them. The room was a ceremonially sacred and very secure looking room. There was no perceived danger in the room at that time.
12. Why did they leave invitations on Earth to a planet that is just a weapons store?
We don’t know that it was actually an invitation. (“We were wrong! We were so wrong!”) Because of the temple, ceremonial nature of the chambers, it most likely was not “just” a weapons store. In fact, there very likely could have been an uprising or fight of some kind between two factions.
13. It doesn’t matter if there are other films following this one up – every film should make sense within itself. The Lord of the Rings films are all complete units, and the follow-up films were definitely in production when the first one was released.
To say that the plot should work without symbolism or not be vague is to throw away all the movies Kubrik, Truffaut, or Gilliam ever made. Many of their works make no sense on a literal level, and many of them are science fiction films. Examples? 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Farenheit 451, 12 Monkeys, etc. The LOTR films were not all complete units. Part I had no third act. Part II was only a second act, and Part III had far too many endings. These problems are acknowledged by the director himself. They are good movies, but not without their flaws. Many “fans” of LOTR simply like it because they think it makes them seem more intelligent for saying they like it. It’s “the cool thing”. It does have amazing art direction, however. You can have your hobbits, I’ll take my engineers.
14. It’s not reasonable to excuse plot holes because the director “hopes” to make a follow-up film.
I agree with this statement. However, you have not presented any plot holes. Purposeful omissions to leave the audience wondering and wanting more is not a plot hole.
15. I doubt he will, by the way.
This is just trolling. He’s Ridley Scott. Ever heard of him? He will do what he wants. He gave the Alien universe away before, he’s not going to do that again. He’ll produce whatever comes next.
16. The screenplay generally is full of ideas that don’t really go anywhere (eg: the apparent plan to keep Elizabeth for further testing)
If you are talking about them preparing to freeze her for the trip home, it makes perfect sense. Were they supposed to just let it kill her? They didn’t say anything about “keeping” her for experimentation.
17. Contrivances (eg: their spaceship enters the atmosphere just conveniently next to exactly where they want to be,
You are missing the point of the divine in the film, intervening. That’s okay, the characters in the film missed all the God stuff too, that was the point. You were supposed to be thinking “hey, how did they just happen to find that?” Then a key to the fact that the characters keep missing God “God does not build in straight lines”
18. or we suddenly find out that Elizabeth is barren and a load of back story is quickly lumped into the scene before they have sex on the Prometheus). It is the director’s job to make sure these things don’t make it to the shooting stage, or are sorted out in the edit.
It appeared in the film in the correct order at the correct time, and it was appropriately and ingeniously inserted via the “Anyone can create life” scene. It’s a painful point to her, should they have been talking about it on the bridge? Have her looking at pictures of children over breakfast saying “I wish I could have kids. Maybe God will give me an alien baby!” This last comment is from someone who has no clear concept of what a “reveal” is and what a device is in relation to story. Where’s the airlock?
19. Characters actions are often unmotivated or unclear (eg: David infecting Charlie,
It was clear, Weyland asked him to
20. the biologist being unafraid of the cock monster even though he was unwilling to go near the dead engineer).
I explained this above, so I won’t repeat myself
21. And don’t say that these things become clear upon further analysis – it’s the director’s job to make sure the characters and their delivery have motivations and actions that can be clearly understood by the audience WHILE THEY’RE WATCHING IT.
It was painfully obvious to me upon the first watch. In fact, the first point was pounded home by David visiting Weyland in his sleep, Vickers asking David “What did he say”, etc. It was almost placating. Now I know why he had to hammer it. People like you can’t pay attention and are obviously have never watched a scientist on the Discovery channel do something a bit daring and unwise. Steve Irwin was a real herpetologist, but did crazy stuff that got him killed. It happens. Contrary to popular belief, scientists are people with real feelings who make mistakes and have egos.
22. To paraphrase Mark Kermode, there’s too much of people going on about the “big picture” (who are we and where do we come from) in contrast to Alien which was more about the “small picture”.
Apples and oranges. This is not Alien. Mark didn’t know that this movie is trying to be big picture? I loved this about the film. We’ve had enough small picture films. Also, Alien had lots of symbolism as well.
23. Therefore the characters were unbelievable and the film felt tell-not-show.
These were different characters purposefully “looking” for danger and big questions. Why wouldn’t they discuss it?
24. If you want a non-Alien example, look at a film like Cube, where big ideas are dealt with, but not by characters giving big clunky speeches. Actions are motivated by clearly defined characters and the world and the ideas are revealed through those actions and their consequences. Not by people standing up and giving speeches about what they believe and getting all teary-eyed and Roland Emmerich-y about it.
*Snicker* Cube? Really? You mean actions like self sacrifice? Check. David non-verbal on the ship at the beginning. Check. Having characters emote and express themselves without using language, being able to tell what they’re feeling and their motivations by their reactions to what’s going around (awoken engineer)? Check. Do you even know what you’re talking about?
25. There is too much that needs to be extrapolated or interpreted. All of the salient information should be on-screen. This is related to point 1.
The film is a puzzle box. Have you never seen a David Lynch film? A Kubrik film? A Hitchcock film? This is absolutely false. All of the salient information absolutely SHOULD NOT be onscreen, or else you can’t call it a mystery. This is like saying they should have told us what Yoda meant by “there is another” in ESB because you can’t count on another film to tell us. In 2001, we did not get to understand what the monolith was in literal terms. Please know what you are talking about. That they should have said why the birds were attacking Tipi Hedren. It’s obvious you have not studied film whatsoever, so please don’t try to educate us on how the iPhone generation wants their cinema.
26. So many of the characters and their actions are cliche and clunky. The geologist and the biologist are good examples (uneasy relationship develops into friendship).
That’s the point.
27. Charlize Theron’s character too (total bitch representing corporate greed – compare her to, just for example, the Michael Bishop character (played by Lance Henriksen) at the end of Alien3 who, even in a tiny “cameo” part, is infinitely more complex and interesting but equally represents Wayland-Yutani and corporate “facelessness”.
She is supposed to be a bitch, but we do feel for her. She’s never known the love of a father, she obviously still wants it, and she would rather get the crew home safe than have the mission succeed. She is jealous of an Android whom she is forced to treat as a sibling. She may or may not be an android. She strives to prove she isn’t cold by sleeping with Janek. Don’t forget, she’s won best actress for Monster. She’s a master at playing damaged, complex bitches we can sympathize with.
28. The references to the other Alien films really got in the way. For example, the flamethrower,
This make sense on a space faring vessel that this would be the weapon of choice as fire can be depleted from a chamber by choking oxygen, most the surfaces are non-oxidizing, and projectiles would puncture the hull.
29. the “hiding in a cupboard and crawling into a spacesuit” thing,
30. the basketball,
If you are comparing David multitasking to show his efficiency and skill, so what? It’s a 5 second scene. I go into detail on this one again below.
31. the android getting its head knocked off,
Yes, because he’s an android.
32. the “we’ve got the destroy the ship” thing…
This was about sacrifice this time… not self preservation. Also, they used the ship as a torpedo here. I don’t think it was an homage, and it was one of the best sequences of the movie. This is about as lame as complaining about the enterprise constantly getting destroyed.
33. I don’t mind a few carefully chosen references, but this was chock full of them and it felt like they were being used to give the film some kind of validity. By the end of it, I was actually expecting something to be sucked out of an airlock. Or for there to be a cat somewhere. I wish that Ridley Scott had actually done what people keep *saying* he has done, and made a film that was entirely separate from the Alien films except for the space jockey.
Lindelof threw a few bones to the Alien fans, but the film is a much more rich and intelligent science fiction film than any of the Alien sequels. But I agree with you on this one. He shouldn’t have given you people anything Alien related to chew on and instead should have explained less so that you would go away and watch a movie where they take 3 hours to walk to a volcano.
34. Then he could’ve chucked out all the stuff he mishandled (like the next three points). Instead, he has made an Aliens Origin Movie, like all those endless comic book origins films that are around at the moment. Snore.
Yes, go to sleep already. Many of us have been waiting patiently forever for this. This is a matter of likes and dislikes – it’s personal preference. I hate rap music, but that doesn’t mean it really sucks, that’s just my opinion. Art is subjective. I loved that it was an origin movie, and that it opens up the Alien universe to bigger things than a WWE wrestling match between Aliens and Predators.
35. While I accept that all Alien films are kind of survival-horror-scifi films, the way that people got picked off was dull and predictable.
The only true creature kills were Fifield, Milburn, the engineer at the end. Fifield beat to death most the crew in the airlock in a matter of moments, and one crew member was crushed, the engineer killed 4 of them instantly, and 4 crew members sacrificed himself via fire (promethean style).
36. Again, compare Alien, where, OK, everyone gets picked off eventually except for Ripley (and Jones) and even if we knew who was going to buy it next we still cared about them and it felt genuinely shocking when it happened.
Why compare? When Alien came out, everyone complained about the pacing at the beginning, but it was that pacing and the fact that we had never seen that kind of creature before that caused the shock. This time, it’s different. It’s not so much as shocking as it is interesting and intense. Totally different kind of Alien film. Do you compare “The Voyage Home” with “The Wrath of Khan?” Totally different themed episodes.
37. I felt the tone was very uneven. At times it wanted to be an intelligent sci-fi and at others it resorted to really basic horror tropes. (JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL-WOW!)
The film is both. You are no longer asking questions but complaining about what you like and don’t like. The scene where the geologist turns into an impossible-to-kill zombie was really a low point in the film. Again, subjectivity.
38. That’s when I felt I was watching a Paul WS Anderson film. And even though it was an appallingly stupid scene, it was over so quickly you felt they could have just done without it
The scene was necessary to show what the goo would do when it got to earth, weaponizing everyone against each other. Imagine that scene on a planetary scale. Oh wait, you can’t imagine, it has to be told to you. But then they talk too much and don’t show enough… wait, which is it?
39. – another example of point 2. I also feel that this scene really broke the suspension of belief that the audience may (should) have had. In Alien, everything felt possible and real, even though it was fantastical. Then, in Prometheus, we’re suddenly (but only for about 2 minutes) expected to believe that a person infected by a parasite can suddenly leap enormous heights and survive repeated gunshot blasts. It is the cumulative effects of scenes like this that distance me from the film and make me feel it was poorly directed.
This was expensive technology that used nanotech to heal rapidly created 90 years from now. Elizabeth was on pain killers and steroid injections produced in that time period, and showed immense pain. Survival instinct as well as faith took over.
40. Another example is where the geologist is smoking a bong that has been wired into his spacesuit. It reminded me of one of the Scary Movie sequels, where Ghostface smokes a joint and his scary mask starts to look happy. I felt this was the same kind of wink-wink-nudge-nudge, hey any frat-boys watching this, isn’t cannabis fun?! Tee hee!
No, he wanted to relax. Pot is prevalent in Alien too. Brett was always rolling. Right? You think it’s unrealistic that a geologist with a red Mohawk, tattoos, and a clear disdain for everyone around him would be rebellious and get high with a minor drug?
41. The self-surgery scene is overrated. Yeah, it was disgusting, but I just didn’t believe in it. I didn’t care about the character, I felt the lead-up to the scene was contrived, I couldn’t understand why she could operate the machine
The machine did all the work, but Elizabeth showed she had a mastery of medical science when operating on the alien head.
42. why it couldn’t administer anaesthetic
I think she wanted to be awake to face whatever the hell was coming out. I don’t think she expected to cuddle and nurse. Being asleep with that thing in the pod with her is not probably a great idea.
43. or why it could operate on a woman when it categorically said it wasn’t calibrated to do so (bearing in mind that the alien was in her uterus, as stated by David’s character).
Not calibrated to do so according to someone she doesn’t trust. She went with the generic foreign object removal and the pod most likely just dealt with her sexuality on a tissue basis.
44. And I couldn’t understand why she was running away, but no one followed her into the operating room and no one was bothered when she reappeared and she was allowed to wander around the ship again.
A lot was going on, it’s a big ship, and there was a scene cut from the film where Vickers acknowledges they did know about Shaw’s guest. But yes, I will have to give you this one, there were editing errors here that should be addressed. However, it’s not hard to speculate that they knew but thought it was contained or just didn’t care. Their master was waking up, and he’s not here to study critters.
45. You would think that David would have a passing interest in what happened to the alien in her womb, but no! It’s time to wash Mr Wayland’s feet. (And why were we introduced to it in Charlize Theron’s room? If it was hers, why wasn’t it calibrated for women? If it was Mr Wayland’s, why wasn’t it in his room? Why is all the simple stuff so difficult to understand?!)
Her chamber was his chamber, as she was just along for the ride. The life boat was there to protect him, not his daughter. As for David’s interest, he was very interested. These are scientists. They aren’t all freaked out by the goo or what they perceive as a frozen baby squid.
46. The character of David is overrated. (Huh?) As is Michael Fassbender’s performance. True, it steals the show, but not in a good way. I think android characters are interesting, especially in the Alien movies, but I think everything that can be said has been said and there wasn’t enough room in this already-bloated film for all the ideas that were thrown into David’s character. Compare Alien 4s ‘Call’ android – OK, they do the “Oh my goodness, it’s an android!” thing *yet* again, but she does have an interesting character and a limited and well-explored android dilemma. David’s character/android dilemma re-hashes everything from all the former Alien films and the only new thing he brings is the fascination with Lawrence of Arabia, which to be honest I found rather irritating.
On this opinion, you are alone on the planet. Everyone who even hates the movie loves his performance. It’s oscar caliber.
47. I think Noomi Rapace was poorly cast. I think she was cast very much on the basis of audience knowledge of her in the Dragon Tattoo films. People have knowledge of her as a powerful woman, and they bring that expectation to Prometheus (and, as we all know, the Alien films are all about powerful women). That is the fault of the person watching the film. In fact, a combination of the material (screenplay) and her performance lead to a forgettable character in a film of forgettable characters, where people continually cite a marginally interesting supporting role as being the best thing in the film (ie: David). I’m sorry, but a film is poorly directed if I don’t care about the main character, full stop.
What, are you a camera now? The film is poorly directed if no one cares about the main character but it is implied that we are supposed to. You are not alone in your hatred for her. Some can’t deal with her faith or pursuit of purity. I thought she was excellent, and 400 million dollars says I’m not alone. Also, you say it’s forgettable. Why can’t I get it out of my head? Another point I am not alone on. I like characters of high moral fiber. I even know a few.
48. Why don’t they have probes for surveying?
They do, for mapping. Holloway wants to open his presents. He wants to be there. If you meant before the mission began, I think it has to do with time running out for Mr. Weyland. He believes enough that he’s ready to just go, and probably doesn’t have the time left to wait several years for a probe to get there and send message back of its findings. We don’t know that messages from probes could permeate back through space at that distance quickly like on Star Trek (subspace).
49. Why do characters stop in mid thought and ask stupid pretentious questions to try to make the movie not seem dumb?
You will have to give an example of this. You are making a false generalization. Why do you stop in mid thought ans ask stupid pretentious questions to try to make the movie seem dumb?
50. Someone just attacked two crew members, but no-one is alerted? They, instead, go to revive the young guy in the old man make-up?
You must have fallen asleep when Vickers and Janek were sleeping together. Then they go to the temple. Then they come back. Then… oh forget it. You didn’t watch the movie.
51. Why does the “Black Sperm of My Vengeance” make people into Mad Hulk? (Look it up).
It was a reprogrammed genetic material that instead of creating life, weaponizes it. To me this was obvious and the point of the mutated Holloway attack scene and the scene with the worms. There also could be some spiritual significance – it could be their remains or life force. These could be the fallen angels of Lucifer. This is going far above the person who asked the question’s head, so I’ll stop.
52. Why would a super duper surgery chamber be for “dudes only”? Did they only have one floppy drive?
It wasn’t strictly “for dudes” it was just calibrated for male anatomy. It could perform routine operations, such as foreign tissue removal, on both sexes. Elizabeth had to make an adjustment to her request before it could perform the operation.
53. It’s the future and no one has a freakin’ PDA or a portable computer?
Elizabeth did have a portable hand computer. However, most of the computers used were holographic, making images that can be manipulated via hand gestures, taking up a small physical footprint, but allowing the user to maximize visual space. So yes, it’s saying in the future that our technology will advance. This is like complaining that we didn’t see a typewriter in the film.
54. Is the plot of the movie really “let’s go to thing, let’s run away from the thing, let’s go to the thing and then run away from the thing again”?
Is the plot of Return of the King “let’s walk slowly to a volcano and drop this ring in.”?
55. Why does the robot smile at seeing the map that charts the destruction of the “home” he wants to go back to?
He is overwhelmed by their technology, and believes he has found a race that would have more in common with him than his creators he feels alone amongst. This was a religious scene for David. He “wants to become a real boy.” David seems to be lying when he states that he can’t feel emotion. He wants a god who can give him life as well. He never states that he wants to go home, but he does state that he wants his parents dead.
56. Why does the robot take the cross out of the jar and bring it with him? Was it because the script forgot that it was still in the surgery room? Is that the script laying there on the floor?
He is infatuated with it because of what it represents to Elizabeth. He is also infatuated with Elizabeth. When he realized Elizabeth was coming with them, he most likely knew that the meeting could end badly and wanted to make it available to her if she didn’t make it out alive. Yes, the script was on the floor simple because everyone has already read it but you.
57. Why did Roger Ebert give this turd 4 stars?
Because he’s an intelligent film critic, the most renown alive, and he understood how to interpret the film.
58. Are his meds really that good and can I have some?
You can contact him on his journal page and ask him, but he most likely won’t share because it is illegal to do so.
59. Why didn’t the ship detect a freakin alien lifeform? They can detect them in the pyramid, but I guess they turned off the Norton Alien Lifeform Security program to play a pirated video game?
The worms were buried in the soil of an undisturbed chamber of terraformed earth inside a massive stone structure. The worms are tiny and probably were filtered out because microbes and organisms that small would be insignificant and would clutter their search when looking for larger alien life. When the chamber was opened and the worms had become large “snakes” they would occasionally pop up on the ships scanners. The preserved engineer was most likely shielded from detection on purpose. The juggernaut is very strong and impenetrable, and most likely shields itself from our technology, which compared to theirs must surely be antiquated at best.
60. Why was the head from Dark City in the movie?
Inspired from the same source – Easter Island and Ancient Astronaut theory.
61. What’s with all the decapitations and the mouth rape?
62. Is it a “head” theme?
63. Is that “the force”?
No. Wrong franchise.
64. Why do they play scenes from much better movies inside worse movies?
This is a generalization. Are you saying that Prometheus is worse than Lawrence of Arabia? Maybe so, but that’s like saying Star Wars is not Citizen Kane. How can you really compare?
65. Why do they have exposition over communicators? Is it because Obi-Wan had nothing else to do? Oh Shit! This movie did that too?
Because it’s a science fiction movie. I won’t argue that Prometheus has more in common with Star Trek than Alien. That is its strength. It wants to reach higher, much higher than you. You are an idiot.
66. “Lizbeth” only had 30 seconds of oxygen for the last 20 minutes of the movie and for the long buggy ride to another ship?
Actually, she made it to the Life Pod, where there would be more oxygen supplies and helmets. After this, she was fully repaired. Please watch the movie instead of twittering next time.
67. After needing to decontaminate the splodin’ alien head, why do they go back into the ship without helmets on?
There is a difference between an exploding head, and a non-exploding head, just as there is a difference with regards to threat level between two people with the same virus – one sneezing and the other not sneezing. They knew they caused the problem with the medical device they used and most likely were not planning on doing that again. After Holloway becomes ill, before David reveals he had something to do with it, Elizabeth did not trust the air in the temple either.
68. How did they find the dumbest group of scientist and put them all on the same ship? Didn’t they watch Sunshine first?
They did in fact watch Sunshine; one of the crew members from Sunshine was cast in the film. Weyland was not going for the smartest scientists, he was going for personality profiles that would not get in the way of his agenda – people who are in it for the money (Fifield) or who he thinks believe as he does (Elizabeth). He wants expendable people and people he can manipulate or dominate. Just like a real employer or US President.
69. Why wasn’t the geologist at list a little curious about the amazing metallic structures all around him? Did they not teach metal in his “school of rock”?
He was scared. He really was just here for the money and wasn’t here to make friends. I don’t think he even thought of himself as a daring, scientific type like Holloway. He’s the kind of scientist that likes to look at rocks when he wants and get high on the weekends. This type of person exists. With regards to cinema, you are this person.
70. Why do they need treadmills and basketball courts for this mission? The obviously had no time at all to use them or did they just copy-and-paste that room from another Alien movie and include the same “impossible” hoop shot?
They were probably planning on surviving for more than the duration of the movie and had hopes that it would be a longer expedition, possibly with some downtime for some of the crew who would need recreation and exercise since going outside to play would not be an option. Why do they need these things on cruise ships or military vessels? Is this a real question? The hoop shot might have been a reference to Alien 4, but it was perfectly used here in a different way. David is showing signs of routine and being bored. Alien Ripley was using it to blow off her alien rage and strength. Both good scenes with a different purpose, and yes there was a nod here. This is more of a rant than a question.