PROMETHEUS' BIGGEST QUESTIONS ANSWERED

In my review of PROMETHEUS (which you can find here: imdb.com/review/rw4087662/ ) I didn't dive into the two biggest questions the film deliberately leaves unanswered; on the one hand because I didn't want the review to get even longer than it already was, but I also never felt the film should have been less ambiguous and spelled things out in more detail. Plus there already is a ton of stuff on the internet focusing on those aspects of the film, and I was always more interested in the film's darkly funny explorations of artificial intelligence and the creator/creation/creature dynamic than I was in its main premise or figuring out its mysteries.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the main idea PROMETHEUS toys with: "What if the reason most religions and mythologies bear such striking similarities were that they are all based on the fact that the gods are real physical beings - oh, and btw, they also think we evolved into a pest and need to be exterminated (well, conisdering the story of the Great Flood in the Bible, they certainly have that in common with the God of the Old Testament ;-). But while this is a neat little idea to base the plot of a smarter-than-average sci-fi/mystery/monster movie on, I have a hard time taking it seriously for more than a second.

What elevates PROMETHEUS in my mind above average tentpole entertainment (apart from its gorgeous visuals) is not the old "chariot of the gods" hypothesis pseudo-scientists like Erich von Daeniken love so much: it's how much fun the film has riffing on and exploring everything from Greek mythology to classic sci-fi tropes (and even Scott's own BLADE RUNNER) along the way. Nevertheless, since whoever reads this might like to get at least the two biggest questions answered, here we go:

WHY DO THE ENGINEERS WANT TO WIPE OUT HUMANITY?

The exact reason why the gods/Engineers wanted to destroy the whole of humanity 2000 years ago is left unexplained in the film, but you can make an educated guess. That point in time marked the height of the Roman Empire, and it seems safe to assume that our creators were not impressed by brutal conquests through warfare on a near global scale. By that time, the Engineers had already witnessed the rise and fall of several human empires who had constantly waged war, and when the Romans came along our creators must have decided they had seen enough: there simply was no REAL progress to be had with our species.

Now, if an educated guess is not enough for you, and you really want to know what reasons the filmmakers originally had in mind that could have inspired a genocidal urge in our creators, those answers do exist - but beware: you might end up not liking them very much (continue at your own risk):

What we know from interviews with Ridley Scott is that the original idea in the script was to imply a very specific event as the reason for the gods' wrath: 2000 years ago, when the Engineers sent one of theirs to Earth to teach and help the humans evolve (which, as we know from the cave drawings and stone tablets, they had a habit of doing over millenia), something very bad happened to that particular "messenger from the gods". Our species murdered him: by nailing him to a cross (hey, I warned you you might not like the answers ;-)

Scott claims they abandoned that idea for being "too much on the nose", but yep: I can see how crucifying a "son" of theirs would have been a big "no-no" for the gods. Anyhow, as per Scott, they settled with the idea of the Engineers being upset with "a general tendency in humanity towards becoming more and more violent 2000 years ago", which I guess is as good a reason to murder an entire species as any.

WHAT IS PLANET LV223

The gods having decided to murder us because of our inextinguishable instincts to murder each other brings me to planet LV223, where the events of PROMETHEUS for the most part take place. The Engineers on that planet are not quite like the "monks" from the beginning of the film who bring life to planets through self-sacrifice. They wear different clothes, and they have different ships. As Janek, the captain of the Prometheus, suspects, they appear to serve some sort of "military function". Presumably, it's their task to monitor the planets "seeded" by the "monks".

So LV223 is basically a military surveillence facility, fully armed and designed for "divine intervention" whenever one of the Engineers' creations doesn't turn out as intended and they decide to end it. This would also explain why there is a skull shape on the huge stone structures above the "death-ships" on LV223: Those ships are designed to destroy those whom the Engineers deem unworthy.

But their weapons of mass destuction - the pathogen (or "black goo") - don't just destroy: they basically re-set the evolution of life on that planet. And because the Engineers hold the act of creation-through-destruction and life-through-death sacred (which, as we learn at the beginning of the film, is essentially one and the same to them), it makes sense that we find some of the urns containing this powerful weapon in a sort of altar room below a mural which seems to depict a crucified xenomorph-like creature as well as stations of its life-cycle, again symbolising life coming from death; creation coming from destruction.

Not surprisingly given the themes it explores, PROMETHEUS is full of religious subtext, and the planet's name is another pretty straight forward clue we're being given by the filmmakers. LV223 as in: LeViticus 22.3. And what the Bible tells us there is this:

"Say to them: 'For the generations to come, if any of your descendants is ceremonially unclean and yet comes near the sacred offerings that the Israelites consecrate to the LORD, that person must be cut off from my presence. I am the LORD."

It makes perfect sense to lure any creation that evolves far enough (and becomes bold enough to want to meet its makers) to LV223 by means of that "star-map" we see on the cave paintings and stone tablets. It's basically designed as a fail-safe - as well as a quest/path their creation is supposed to follow once it's evolved far enough to be ready: if the creation reveals itself to be worthy and "clean", the Engineers can decide how to proceed (maybe they'll even offer it a seat at the divine table). If the creation is unworthy and "unclean", it has come to the right place where it can be dealt with - without tainting paradise/heaven/olympus where "the gods" reside.

So there you have it, that's the film's two biggest qustions answered (well, at least to the best of my nerd knowledge ;-)

Now since we're at it, there's another thing I would like to address, and that is the frequent criticism PROMETHEUS has to endure because of its portrayal of scientists, namely biologist Millburn and geologist Fifield. This is something that always irks me: Why is it that people think EVERY scientist in fiction has to be portrayed as smart and immune to making stupid decisions? I personally LOVE the idea of stupid scientists, because you so rarely get to see them in films - and also because I personally KNOW a whole bunch of them. Believe it or not, not all scientists act intelligently, let alone all the time; scientists are just people, degree or not, and even graduating from Harvard or Yale doesn't automatically make you a genius.

Also, being a bit of a moron doesn't mean you can't be an expert in your particular field. I'm sure biologist Millburn could talk with great expertise about all kinds of slimy creatures, because he adores them. The same goes for geologist Fifield when it comes to rocks. But that doesn't mean that they can't have a tendency for irrational or reckless behavior on a personal level. Actually, now that I think about it, accidents DO happen pretty regularly to scientists in the field (especially biologists and vulcanologists): because quite a few of them tend to be so in love with their subjects that they become reckless; after a while they forget the danger, and then they get too close to the bears, the lions, the snakes or the vulcano that's about to errupt.

So scientists not exactly behaving like the smartest cookies is NOT illogical in the context of the film. Bad or inconsistent writing would have been to introduce Fifield and Millburn as very restrained, intelligent and rationally functioning individuals who suddenly completely change character from one scene to the next. But they are introduced right from the start as Mr Dopey and Mr Eccentric, so it doesn't really seem fair to hold that against the film. It's perfectly fine not to LIKE them as characters, but the way they behave is actually very consistent.

What people also tend to overlook is that we're told from the beginning that the scientists who agreed to work for Weyland are not exactly future Nobel Prize hopefuls: what they are is basically mercenaries with a science degree who are willing to do less than prestigious (or even down-right dirty) "scientific" work for big corporations. That's also the reason Vickers (who we know didn't believe in this mission at all and certainly didn't go out of her way to find the best of the best) was able to recruit them in the first place. Remember, they all didn't even have any idea what "this corporate run" - which would take them away from Earth for many years - was about, yet they were desperate enough to still take that gig. Sure, they DO love their respective fields (after all, they did choose to study them once) but they're only in this for the money, and this is emphasized clearly in the scene after they wake up from cryosleep.

But the most obvious reason why the filmmakers chose to portray the scientists in PROMETHEUS in a less than flattering way is this: the critique of science (well, at least certain aspects of it) is one of Prometheus' core themes. The film is about "creators" (be it the engineers, the humans or the android David) who have all this groundbreaking technology at their disposal but end up using it out of greed, reckless ambition, aggression or blind curiosity to create things they can't control - and that will ultimately destroy them. Lindelof and Scott use their spin on the Greek Prometheus saga to focus on the ignorant, reckless side of science (and scientists), and the film very consciously screws with the old film cliché of the "smart scientists who always act professionally and know what they're doing". With the exception of Shaw - who is portrayed as a woman of faith who is basically on a search for God - EVERY scientist in the film is portrayed in a negative way. This is in stark contrast to the depiction of the "blue collar" crew of the ship who even heroically sacrifice themselves to save humankind at the end.

So, please give Fifield and Millburn a break. As I previously mentioned in my review, the film DOES have more than a few flaws, but the depiction of scientists is not one of them (sorry, just needed to get that out of my system ;-)