Prometheus - on Blu-Ray and DVD Oct. 9, 2012

[renegadeleader1]

Not trying to derail the subject, but this thread might be the place to go with this... I was watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and I think the stage hands might have inserted a facehugger prop into the tunnel with all the bugs were Willie Scott freaks out. Its right around the 00:57:38 to 43 mark of the dvd. Its half in shadow crawling up the wall behind her head. I might just be seeing things, but that is one big bug.

[Frogze]

I had a great time while seeing this movie even if I agree it gets a inconsistent at times like mentioned by others here. I'm not sure I really need a second movie thought, just give us the inevitable director's cut edition that will fix everything

[genomcorp]

saw it today in 2D (cant stand 3D) and thought it was thoroughly enjoyable. ending sequence was a bit unnecessary as others have stated, but i guess it helps set up for a possible sequel. speaking of which, can anyone confirm if a sequel is in the works?

[anime52k8]

I saw the movie yesterday. While I enjoyed the movie and liked it...it left me wanting more and, to some degree, somewhat disappointed. If this turns out to be a standalone movie, with no sequels, then I think I will become more disappointed.

I just got back from seeing it (1:30 show), and this just about sums up how I felt about the movie. I had a really good time watching it and I think it was an overall good film, but I feel like there where just too many really big, important plot threads that where left completely unaddressed by the end of the film. My first thought after leaving the theater was that if the film gets a good sequel that develops the background introduced in this film, I'll like it a lot more. If they just leave it as one film or end up producing a sequel that adds nothing to developing the bigger picture, then it'll really sour my long term opinion of Prometheus.

:edit:

and if we're going to get on the subject of parts that didn't make sense:

I want to know how the heck Shaw is able to have a C-section and within a matter of hours get up and start running and jumping and fending off alien monsters.

Edited June 11, 2012 by anime52k8

[chowyunskinny]

A Beautiful looking film, but the pacing of the first half felt a little slow to me and the second half left me with Way too many questions. I can accept that with LOST where it's expected, but for this film it was a bit frustrating. Yes, I'm looking at you Damon Lindeloff.

This made me LOL Do NOT click this if you haven't seen Prometheus yet. *Spoilers Ahead*

http://enchantedmitt...his-series.html

[kaiotheforsaken]

I just got back from seeing it (1:30 show), and this just about sums up how I felt about the movie. I had a really good time watching it and I think it was an overall good film, but I feel like there where just too many really big, important plot threads that where left completely unaddressed by the end of the film. My first thought after leaving the theater was that if the film gets a good sequel that develops the background introduced in this film, I'll like it a lot more. If they just leave it as one film or end up producing a sequel that adds nothing to developing the bigger picture, then it'll really sour my long term opinion of Prometheus.

:edit:

and if we're going to get on the subject of parts that didn't make sense:

I want to know how the heck Shaw is able to have a C-section and within a matter of hours get up and start running and jumping and fending off alien monsters.

A valid question

While the staples were infinitely more cringe worthy than some sort of laser suture. Having that instead would have made the rest of her actions far less...HOW!?

[EXO]

A Beautiful looking film, but the pacing of the first half felt a little slow to me and the second half left me with Way too many questions. I can accept that with LOST where it's expected, but for this film it was a bit frustrating. Yes, I'm looking at you Damon Lindeloff.

This made me LOL Do NOT click this if you haven't seen Prometheus yet. *Spoilers Ahead*

http://enchantedmitt...his-series.html

ROFL!

This one got me...

"All will be revealed in James Cameron's PROMETHEUSES."

[Penguin]

MAJOR SPOILER:

The Space Jockey pilot is sitting and your thinking, so this is the one from the first movie... but it's not, because he leaves his seat to exact revenge on who he decides is the bane of his existence, Dr.Elizabeth Shaw!

BTW... this is the scene just before the jockey finds Elizabeth...

The space jockey is piloting the alien ship towards earth for annhilation of the planet, yet he notices Elizabeth running on the ground towards the eject capsule... wait, how did he even notice the eject capsule in the first place? It's the equivalent of a pilot getting ready to take off in a 747 and noticing that a baggage handler drops a toothbrush out of a suitcase. The ship hurdles uncontrollably towards the 2 living beings on an otherwise barren planet.

After Prometheus rams the jockey's ship and forces it to crash land, the jockey might have been pissed off enough to use whatever remaining tech is on the ship to locate any survivors and finish them off for making such a mess of his pretty little ship. Just outta the garage after a few centuries, and some jerk keys it all up... straight to execution for 'em.

Weirdly enough, it's a lot of the so-called dangling plot threads that made the story work for me. As seen through the eyes of the crew, WTF just happened?

They got no idea what all this stuff is, what it's actually supposed to do, what the engineers want, nothin'. Just a lotta messed up stuff from the moment they landed. We don't know what that black goo is really supposed to do when unleashed as intended, instead of all the weird routes it went through (contact exposure, ingestion, "sharing" of tainted DNA). If they'd found some convenient "dummies guide to apocalyptic bioweapons" lying around that explained everything, it would have seemed phony to me. They're like tribesman from 3000 years ago dropped in a modern hospital. No one speaks the language, they can't make heads or tails of the tech, and you know somethin' bad is gonna happen. The only one who might figure it out is David, and his personality is a string of "I know something you don't know" moments.

[Marzan]

After Prometheus rams the jockey's ship and forces it to crash land, the jockey might have been pissed off enough to use whatever remaining tech is on the ship to locate any survivors and finish them off for making such a mess of his pretty little ship. Just outta the garage after a few centuries, and some jerk keys it all up... straight to execution for 'em.

Weirdly enough, it's a lot of the so-called dangling plot threads that made the story work for me. As seen through the eyes of the crew, WTF just happened?

They got no idea what all this stuff is, what it's actually supposed to do, what the engineers want, nothin'. Just a lotta messed up stuff from the moment they landed. We don't know what that black goo is really supposed to do when unleashed as intended, instead of all the weird routes it went through (contact exposure, ingestion, "sharing" of tainted DNA). If they'd found some convenient "dummies guide to apocalyptic bioweapons" lying around that explained everything, it would have seemed phony to me. They're like tribesman from 3000 years ago dropped in a modern hospital. No one speaks the language, they can't make heads or tails of the tech, and you know somethin' bad is gonna happen. The only one who might figure it out is David, and his personality is a string of "I know something you don't know" moments.

You make a good point there, but didn't you get the feeling that the writing team made the characters a bit too over the top?

I mean, these guys should all be professionals, no matter what the situation. Some are hardened astronauts and some are scientist (you know people who use the scientific method to analyse problems.) And yet many characters feel completely random; like for example the British biologist with the odd haircut acts like a complete ass before they have even landed on the planet, not too mention the accordeon playing captain having some booze while he has 2 men out there in an unknown planet! Dr. Shaws boyfriend also felt miscast as a scientist. I just felt that characters in a Ridley Scott movie should be better cast and more nuanced in how they behave. Having said that, Fassbender is perfect and Pearce and Rapace are pretty solid too.

[anime52k8]

You make a good point there, but didn't you get the feeling that the writing team made the characters a bit too over the top?

I mean, these guys should all be professionals, no matter what the situation. Some are hardened astronauts and some are scientist (you know people who use the scientific method to analyse problems.) And yet many characters feel completely random; like for example the British biologist with the odd haircut acts like a complete ass before they have even landed on the planet, not too mention the accordeon playing captain having some booze while he has 2 men out there in an unknown planet! Dr. Shaws boyfriend also felt miscast as a scientist. I just felt that characters in a Ridley Scott movie should be better cast and more nuanced in how they behave. Having said that, Fassbender is perfect and Pearce and Rapace are pretty solid too.

I didn't really get that with any of the characters. People in the Science field run the gamut of personality types, Some of them can be pretty eccentric and a little out there.

Tatoo guy was a little odd, I would have pinned him as one of the security guys rather than a geologist, but hey, don't judge a book by it's cover as they say.

Sometimes people have grating personalities and huge egos, that's just the way people are. The crew was diverse, and for the most part acted in a consistent manner throughout the film.

the only exception that really stood out to me was the one >EXO< pointed out with the biologist guy going from 'let's get the hell out of here' to 'alien snake creacher, lets poke at it' in all of one scene transition.

As for the captain, I liked him.

I thought his nonchalant demeanor was a good contrast to Theron's ice queen corporate bitch personality.

[PetarB]

At university I was a research assistant, shared between many different faculties, and I met lots of people who were, and would later become, scientists. They ranged from really nice people, to douchebags. I even knew a guy who was physically similar to Fiefield! I must admit though, the biologist's behaviour was poorly written.

[Duke Togo]

I don't get some of the nitpicks I've been reading online about things not being answered. To them I say, "so what?"

BTW, I felt that Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba were all excellent in the film, and if Fassbender isn't nominated for something, it'll be a crime.

[Agent ONE]

At university I was a research assistant, shared between many different faculties, and I met lots of people who were, and would later become, scientists. They ranged from really nice people, to douchebags. I even knew a guy who was physically similar to Fiefield! I must admit though, the biologist's behaviour was poorly written.

Agree, but it didn't hurt the film.

[reddsun1]

ROFL!

This one got me...

"All will be revealed in James Cameron's PROMETHEUSES."

HAH!

"Bill said...

Actually, the whole thing MAY make sense if you consider that the dude at the beginning and the ones on the remote planet are warring factions:

1) the "dude" is the last one of his family or something, so...

2) he spreads hid DNA before dying so that his descendants can avenge him

3) the descendants, us, track down the dude's "enemies", NOT KNOWING that they're enemies because Noomi Rapace and Tom Hardy's clone misinterpreted the message left behind

4) the enemies had been waiting the whole time because they somehow knew the dude would do that (maybe it's a common strategy among that alien race, I don't know...) but they didn't know WHERE he'd do it.

I know it's far-fetched but it's the only way I could make sense of this poor excuse of a plot that Damon Lindelof completely gratuitously insulted the audience with.

Anonymous said...

And we will never know.

I do believe Lindelof wrote under the lingering influence of LOST and deliberately let the audience question everything whilst HE had no real answers in mind to begin with."

[Ghadrack]

I saw it, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel with all the stuff that has already been discussed over and over. I enjoyed the movie, as with any movie with a "horror" element, I think that the behavior some of the characters exhibitted was unrealistic. I thought the character design for the "Engineer" race was awesome, I thought the movie was beuatiful to look at, and I appreciate the broad strokes of the the concepts for the back-ground of the Alien universe.

I liked it and don't really feel the need to over think it beyond that, it may have had some warts but I had a good time.

[Duke Togo]

Ok, I didn't make this connection while watching it (2000 years), and I probably should have. It seems obvious now reading this quote from Ridley Scott:

"But if you look at it as an 'our children are misbehaving down there' scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, 'Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.' Guess what? They crucified him."

Edited June 11, 2012 by Duke Togo

[Dimis]

Wasn't it Weaver's idea to kill off Ripley in the first place because she was tired of the series and being typcast? I also recall the studio giving her choice of director for ressurection to get her to come back to the series and she chose the french surrealist Jeunet(who couldn't speak enlish at the time)?

A bit late to be saying this, But S. Weaver was not unhappy about Alien Resurrection. I remember a special feature of her saying she was happy with it and actually thought it was closer to Alien 1 that the other movies. Her view of course. I don't agree, my dear SIgourney.

[Hoptimus]

I loved the movie. I like movies that leave me with more questions than answers. Yes it is not a direct prequel to ALIEN but it is better for that.

[Agent ONE]

Ok, I didn't make this connection while watching it (2000 years), and I probably should have. It seems obvious now reading this quote from Ridley Scott:

"But if you look at it as an 'our children are misbehaving down there' scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, 'Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.' Guess what? They crucified him."

Now I am confused.

[Duke Togo]

Now I am confused.

Jesus was an Engineer, sent here to put us "back on track." When we nailed him up to that cross and killed him, it led the Engineers to believe we were, as a species, beyond redemption, and it was time to start over. Hence their aborted trip to annihlate all life on Earth.

[wwwmwww]

I saw the movie and enjoyed it for the most part. From a physics stand point 2 things bothered me.

(1) At the end the Prometheus takes off and flys away from Elizabeth to chase down the ship that had just taken off. This ship is taking off like its heading for space so its got to be going very fast and should be putting significant mileage between it and Elizabeth. Yet when it hits the other ship it happens to fall just where Elizabeth is standing. How is that? It should have been many miles away by that point.

(2) Conservation of mass. The squid like thing that is pulled out of Elizabeth appears to be about the size of a football. Its left in the med lab which is still where its at the next time we see it yet then its 100 times bigger. Where did all this extra mass come from? Has it been eating medical equipment? Granted I have the same concern with the first Alien movie. We see this little foot long lizzard like thing pop out of someone's chest and the next time we see it (before its eaten anyone else) its the size of a human. Only thing I can think of is it may be pulling carbon from CO2 in the air.

Carl

[Chewie]

Ok, I didn't make this connection while watching it (2000 years), and I probably should have. It seems obvious now reading this quote from Ridley Scott:

"But if you look at it as an 'our children are misbehaving down there' scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, 'Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it.' Guess what? They crucified him."

That's actually quite brilliant.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Chewie

[Negotiator]

Jesus was an Engineer, sent here to put us "back on track." When we nailed him up to that cross and killed him, it led the Engineers to believe we were, as a species, beyond redemption, and it was time to start over. Hence their aborted trip to annihlate all life on Earth.

Still doesn't really make sense because he's taking a snippet out of the whole story.

Now this is purely prometheus story talk and not a religious anything, but if RS is going to start saying things like this, you cannot just pick and choose which part you need to suspend disbelief in. What about the whole point of Jesus being sacrificed so that we'd be spared god's wrath? or even the next 3 days? In this story's case, do we say jesus didn't come back from the dead because that's BS, but a buff space man created humans and now they will dump black goo on us with very random properties? Honestly, imo this story suffers from 3 different people wanting it to go in 3 different directions, but only 1 has the authoritative voice and the future of this story arc can/may/will change anyway.

[Duke Togo]

That's actually quite brilliant.

Occording to Ridley, this originally was made more clear in the script, but they thought that "it was a little too on the nose."

Still doesn't really make sense because he's taking a snippet out of the whole story.

Now this is purely prometheus story talk and not a religious anything, but if RS is going to start saying things like this, you cannot just pick and choose which part you need to suspend disbelief in. What about the whole point of Jesus being sacrificed so that we'd be spared god's wrath? or even the next 3 days? In this story's case, do we say jesus didn't come back from the dead because that's BS, but a buff space man created humans and now they will dump black goo on us with very random properties? Honestly, imo this story suffers from 3 different people wanting it to go in 3 different directions, but only 1 has the authoritative voice and the future of this story arc can/may/will change anyway.

Negotiator, It doesn't make sense to you because you are confusing human theology with science-fact within that universe.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Duke Togo

[Negotiator]

Occording to Ridley, this originally was made more clear in the script, but they thought that "it was a little too on the nose."

Negotiator, It doesn't make sense to you because you are confusing human theology with science-fact within that universe.

I'm not confused, I follow what you are saying and what RS is saying, I just think he's ignoring a couple things with that story even within this movieverse.

[Penguin]

I'm not confused, I follow what you are saying and what RS is saying, I just think he's ignoring a couple things with that story even within this movieverse.

Not sure why I'm spoilering this:

With regard to Ridley's quote, if that idea about Jesus made it into the story, I think the implication would be that all the details of his story were fictions we made up after the fact. In any case, the idea didn't make it into the final film, so conjecture about how it would have been delivered is moot. Ridley is always throwing out quotes of half-formed ideas... or half-formed quotes about fully formed ideas, for all we know what he's thinking. My opinion, it would be a bad idea to bring in, not because it isn't an interesting notion, but if Ridley's style is any indication it wouldn't likely be brought in as a major plot point, but as a detail meant to intrigue, and the Internet community would go on ad nauseum with buts, hows, whys, what ifs, just as they have already with Prometheus' connection to Alien... and that would just enrage my militant atheist side. None of us wants that.

(1) At the end the Prometheus takes off and flys away from Elizabeth to chase down the ship that had just taken off. This ship is taking off like its heading for space so its got to be going very fast and should be putting significant mileage between it and Elizabeth. Yet when it hits the other ship it happens to fall just where Elizabeth is standing. How is that? It should have been many miles away by that point.

That's not necessarily true. We tend to think of leaving atmosphere as requiring huge speeds due to the limits of our technology having to find a balance between fuel mass and flinging ourselves into space as quick as possible to compensate... and people are always confusing the terrific speed of escape velocity as something necessary to achieve orbit (not that I'm saying you're making that mistake). Whatever mystery sci-fi propulsion moves the engineer's ship might not have those fuel requirements (imaginary as such propulsion may be), so it can drift as leisurely out of the atmosphere as it wants to.

That being said, it is fairly coincidental that it manages to crash back down almost right where it took off. Implausible, but still possible depending on how the crash, explosion, possibly failing engines, or whatever determined its descent path after the crash. I don't remeber if it was flying prow-forward at the time of collision, or still hovering upwards. If the latter, than dropping right back down would make more sense.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Penguin

[JELEINEN]

I saw it on Saturday and thought it was an OK film. Visuals were great and it had some good (if not necessarily novel) ideas, but the pacing, the idiot ball game of catch and the plot holes keep it from being a truly good film. It's Riddley Scott though, so I expect to see a directors cut at some point.

[Ghost Train]

That's not necessarily true. We tend to think of leaving atmosphere as requiring huge speeds due to the limits of our technology having to find a balance between fuel mass and flinging ourselves into space as quick as possible to compensate... and people are always confusing the terrific speed of escape velocity as something necessary to achieve orbit (not that I'm saying you're making that mistake). Whatever mystery sci-fi propulsion moves the engineer's ship might not have those fuel requirements (imaginary as such propulsion may be), so it can drift as leisurely out of the atmosphere as it wants to.

I haven't seen the movie, but leisurely drifting into orbit at a relaxed speed goes contrary to my basic understanding of physics. Escape velocity is basically the point where your ship / rocket's kinetic energy exceeds the potential energy of the planet you're on, which for any decently sized chunk of rock is robust, simply because the radius from the planet's center out to its surface would be in the thousands of kilometers.

So you basically need to go fast, irrespective of how efficient or good your fuel is, there are simply no other variables.

... but yea it's a movie .

[anime52k8]

I haven't seen the movie, but leisurely drifting into orbit at a relaxed speed goes contrary to my basic understanding of physics. Escape velocity is basically the point where your ship / rocket's kinetic energy exceeds the potential energy of the planet you're on, which for any decently sized chunk of rock is robust, simply because the radius from the planet's center out to its surface would be in the thousands of kilometers.

So you basically need to go fast, irrespective of how efficient or good your fuel is, there are simply no other variables.

... but yea it's a movie .

Escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle, such as a rocket, must reach to leave orbit and travel through outer space. The quoted escape velocity is commonly the escape velocity at a planet's surface, but it actually decreases with altitude. It is the speed above which an object will depart on a ballistic trajectory, i.e. in free-fall, and never fall back to the surface nor assume a closed orbit. Such an object is said to "escape" the gravity of the planet.

A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion. If the vehicle's speed is below its current escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, the vehicle will assume a closed orbit or fall back to the surface. If its speed is at or above the escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, it has enough kinetic energy to "escape" and will neither orbit nor fall back to the surface.

So in other words, If I have an rocket with an unlimited amount of fuel, I can just ride it up and up and up as slow as I want to until I'm far enough away from earth that escape velocity equals zero at which point I can shut off my magical rocket motor and drift merrily off into space.

[ron5864]

ROFL!

This one got me...

"All will be revealed in James Cameron's PROMETHEUSES."

Hehe....I thought someone here mentioned the sequel will be Daedalus, a large carrier landing craft ready for attack.

[Kurisama]

In keeping with the mythological imagery - Daedalus (and by extension Icarus) could work

[Ghost Train]

Escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle, such as a rocket, must reach to leave orbit and travel through outer space. The quoted escape velocity is commonly the escape velocity at a planet's surface, but it actually decreases with altitude. It is the speed above which an object will depart on a ballistic trajectory, i.e. in free-fall, and never fall back to the surface nor assume a closed orbit. Such an object is said to "escape" the gravity of the planet.

A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion. If the vehicle's speed is below its current escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, the vehicle will assume a closed orbit or fall back to the surface. If its speed is at or above the escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, it has enough kinetic energy to "escape" and will neither orbit nor fall back to the surface.

So in other words, If I have an rocket with an unlimited amount of fuel, I can just ride it up and up and up as slow as I want to until I'm far enough away from earth that escape velocity equals zero at which point I can shut off my magical rocket motor and drift merrily off into space.

No not really , I think you're misinterpreting what that paragraph states. It never says that you can slowly chug along as slow as you want and eventually get "there". The statement:

If the vehicle's speed is below its current escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, the vehicle will assume a closed orbit or fall back to the surface

is misleading. I'm pretty sure what the author meant is that you need enough velocity (about equal to escape) to get to orbit, and perhaps more to break free assuming we're on the same trajectory. If you're slow-boating the likely scenario is that you'll fall back to the surface.

It is true that the higher you go, the next kilometer will be "easier," because the Gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the radius between the 2 objects (the planet & the rocket), but you need to be able to get to that altitude in the first place. So the PE calculated for an object that is at rest on the planet's surface is the minimum amount of energy that needs to be overcome (which is where escape velocity values are traditionally calculated). The fact that it gets easier at higher altitudes is not relevant, because you need to get there first.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Ghost Train

[Penguin]

Actually, Anime52k8's interpretation is correct. As quoted: A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion. As soon as you can accelerate by more than 1 g, you have overcome gravity's pull. If you have an engine that can constantly exert that much force, you will continue to gain altitude. There's no minimum speed you need to reach. In fact, as long as you have a little burst above 1 g to start and gain a little upwards velocity, then continue with just 1 g to counter gravity slowing you down, you'd continue to travel at a very slow pace until you completely escaped gravity.

Now, in truth Ghost Train, you're partly right too, because you mentioned overcoming energy. That part is correct. It's all about how to accumulate that energy, though. For the concept of escape velocity, you're talking about expending all that energy at once to impart velocity to a mass such that the downward pull of gravity won't slow it down before it reaches a stable orbit. In my example, you'd expend the same energy in total, assuming the same mass, but slowly over the course of the total journey rather than in one burst of speed.

Hope that all made sense.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Penguin

[Ghost Train]

If you're accelerating by more than 1g ( > 9.8 m/s^2), what do you think is happening to your speed? ...

Of course velocity matters, and there is a minimum speed.

ΔKE = PE

(1/2)m(v_final)²= - (gmM) / (r²)

Where:

m = mass of ship

M = mass of planet.

The 'm' cancels, so the only relevant factor here (that you can control) is the end velocity needed to overcome the Gravitational Potential Energy of Earth (or whatever planet). And that velocity is a huge number for any respectable sized planet, in order for the formulas to work out.

Granted I don't think we're disagreeing per say, if there is enough fuel to constantly accelerate yes, you will eventually reach escape velocity, but at the point in time where you do, you'll be traveling fast... because you've been accelerating. And that acceleration had to overcome the planet's PE.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Ghost Train

[EXO]

I can't argue the chances of the ship landing where the 2 ladies stood (it's just another far fetched scene that required suspension of disbelief in movies, much like how she ran around after the self administered C-Section is the same as a hero cop getting shot but still manages to fight a bad guy.) But the fact that the engineer for some reason went after Elizabeth on personal vendetta and that Elizabeth knew that the ship was headed for earth was kinda puzzling. It's like they forgot to edit really important scenes in. This type of stuff happened all the way thru the movie. These aren't mysteries in the script that demanded further conversation, they just weird inconsistencies and plot holes that were expected to be looked over for the sake of the next shiny reveal.