Ridley Scott’s Prometheus and anti-science
I am a big fan of science fiction with a few caveats. Make it fun or horrifying, preferably both, and scientifically plausible. Science fiction by its very nature is fiction and should stretch the bounds of human imagination, but it should, at least, follow the basic principles of physics. For example, many science fiction movies require faster than light (FTL) travel, which is right at the edge of impossibility unless we are able to harness massive amounts of energy, suspend some of our current laws and understandings of physics, and adjustments for substantial time-effect conundrums, where someone traveling faster than light will be much younger than those who do not. But at least the writers of those shows make up terminology and gadgets that deal with it. Warp drives. Subspace communications. They try.
One of the best science fiction shows (though it only lasted half a season) was Firefly, a TV series (and one feature length movie, Serenity that more or less wrapped up the story) that is quite popular with a certain group of SciFi nerds (like me). Joss Whedon, the creator of Firefly, decided to not suspend science; thus, the civilizations that populate the series left Earth long ago and inhabit a new star system. What’s unique is that the story only exists in this one star system that seems to have literally dozens of planets and moons that are inhabitable. That’s plausible. And space ships in that series are messy and beat-up. There are prostitutes, criminals and gunfights with reasonable weapons. It is a set of worlds that humans could have found and colonized.
The highly anticipated movie, Prometheus by renowned science fiction director Ridley Scott, is a prequel of the Alien universe of movies, which range in quality from outstanding to absolute junk (my opinion, of course). The first two movies in the series, Alien and Aliens, were the best, maybe two of the best science fiction movies ever. Alien and Aliens were terrifying movies, but at least were reasonably scientific. The space ships did not travel faster than light (crew members were put into stasis during travel, though constant mistakes were made that confused the issue of how fast the ships were traveling), a fairly human-like android was one of the crew members, and the alien itself was an advanced form of parasite with several life stages: an endoparasite, receiving nourishment from a host, while egg and adult stages were free-living organisms. It’s actually a very credible life form, quite different than your average space alien.
The premise of Prometheus is that humans find encoded pictographs that point to the location of another race of beings. They go to this planet, find the race of space giants (whose fossilized remains were discovered in the early scenes of Alien), then find the alien. I’m not a movie reviewer, so I’m not here to talk about the acting (OK), the quality of special effects (pretty good), plot (below average) or dialogue (about what you expect with a typical science fiction movie). Without giving anything away about the movie, I wanted to critique the science basis of the movie.
The problem with the movie wasn’t so much that it messed up science (most SF movies do), but it seem to actually have an attitude of being anti-science. In some parts of the movie, it tried to be stupid about the basics of science, which is often one of the signs of being anti-science. Given that Ridley Scott did the original Alien, which some consider a masterpiece, it’s hard to understand why he moved so far away from somewhat plausible science.
Here are the most annoying scientific problems with the movie:
- At the beginning of the movie, a humanoid alien (eventually called Engineers by the visitors from Earth) is standing near a waterfall, drinks some water then sort of dissolves into water, presumably seeding the planet with DNA. OK, that’s not bad, except the planet (Earth we are to assume) has trees and plants. Did the writers flunk biology in high school? All organisms on earth share the same DNA and are all descended from the same common ancestor (if you go far enough back). So if there are already plants (land plants at that, which evolved about 450 million years ago, or around 3 billion years after abiogenesis). So, this dumb alien decides to put DNA on a planet that had DNA 3 billion years previously. This is either stupidity of the writers, or, worse yet, they are denying the vast wealth of evidence that supports the fact of common descent. This is no different than creationism or intelligent design that some god (or god-like alien) created organisms.
- But it’s worse than that. According to the movie, the aliens race’s DNA is exactly like human DNA. What? Yes, human and alien DNA is basically the same despite 3 billion years of divergent evolution (or whenever the melting alien showed up on earth). This is ridiculous, and, once again, shows either completely ignorance on the part of the writers, or an intentional decision to be anti-evolution. Now if they only meant the DNA molecule, sure that’s plausible. But that’s not what they were saying.
- Archeologists discover some sort of star pattern scribbled on walls and other stuff in disparate and unconnected human cultures, from which they deduce that it’s a map to a another inhabited planet. It is a rather dubious leap from a bunch of dots on various walls to assuming it’s a map somewhere. Wouldn’t a reasonable archeologist just assume that a bunch of different human cultures would would draw a common constellation? We got no explanation why they leaped to considering it a star map, but maybe the dialogue was unclear.
- Every scientist is shown to be either religious (Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, as the archeologist, who thinks that religion answers all questions) or complete fools. One of the characters, Fifield, is a geologist who seems totally disinterested in the moon on the other side of the universe. In fact, he mostly acts like someone who watched too many movies, by saying “don’t go down that tunnel.” These aren’t real scientists. They show no intense curiosity about anything around them. What kind of scientists are these?
- Milburn, the botanist, seems to be scared of everything he sees. Most biologists who would be lucky enough to end up on another planet with biological organisms, would be fascinated by everything they see. Again, scientists are intensely curious about the natural world. These scientists were like bad actors who hadn’t a clue what a real biologist is like.
- Not so much an overt anti-science issue, but the android David, seemed more advanced than the androids, Ash and Bishop, in Alien and Aliens, respectively. Since Prometheus is supposedly set well before the time of the other movies, then we’d expect a version 1.0, but we seem to have gotten a version 10.0, an improved version. I don’t mind mistakes, but in this case, the writers forget how technology evolves.
I must have been at a movie filled with science geeks and skeptics, because I kept hearing “bullshit” to a lot of plot points. I hadn’t even noticed the plant life when the alien disintegrated, but someone next to me pointed it out. I was flabbergasted by the inattention to real scientific detail.
I hate to be such a skeptic that I can’t enjoy good science fiction, but the fact is there was just too much suspension of reality. With all of the religious undertones, I could only conclude that the writers were pushing a creationist point of view with the Engineers being a proxy for a creator.
The anti-science of the movie drove me crazy. There is no way I could recommend this movie, and I’m going to stick with science fiction that is plausible and well done. Like Firefly.
I like to think the real plot was an elaborate scheme by weyland yutani to get rid of all the worst scientists on earth.
Ive just finished watching Prometheus and the constant influx of seemingly propagated religious tones within this supposed science-fiction film left behind an incredible bad taste. Am relieved to find similar criticism on this point.
While its entirely relevant for the narrative to draw lines within a mysticism context in regards to the notion of ancient angry gods smiting their creations as such, why bring in irrelevant factors such as the constant crusading theme of “fighting” to uphold one’s stoic virtue of faith? To rephrase it simply: Much as church and government should not mix, the same should go (in my opinion) for church and sci-fi. Felt that the initial concept of the story for the film was captivating whilst the blatant religious content brought down the entertainment value thereof.
I didn’t see it as religious so much as “hoo rah” American style Patriotism. Hard to tell which is worse…
But I don’t think there should be any restriction on mixing religion with Sci Fi. Some of the best Sci Fi films of all time deal with religious issues in an intelligent way.
Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and 2001 have strong religious undertones, right the way through.
Stalker and Solaris are basically religious stories of temptation and punishment.
1984, Equilibrium, Hitchhikers Guide use speculative fiction to level criticism at the church.
And most “zero to hero” Sci Fi stories end up being messianic in one way or another: think of The Matrix, Frank Herbert’s Dune, Brazil, Planet of the Apes, Alien ( the messiah being “reborn”), Dark City, Blade Runner and of course… Akira!
Religion, love it or hate it, makes for killer stories of good and evil, and can add a sense of epic, cosmic struggle and authoritarian dictator organisations to any good Sci Fi
I think the real problem with Prometheus is that it was just a total anticlimax.
After years of wondering what that big-ass, HR Giger designed alien-in-the-navigation-chair was in the first Alien movie, and all the other movies posing these really profound questions regarding the Xenomorph’s origins and Ripley’s connection to them, it turns out the answer is:
These big, albino, muscle-bound alien body-builders who never got around to inventing clothes made the Xenomorphs as a weapon of mass destruction. Also, the Albinos are man’s ancestors. FAIL. How horribly, pathetically OBVIOUS to make the Xeno’s “WMD’s” – such a missed opportunity to build in some real, primal cosmic intrigue.
There were so many things wrong with the movie. You just named a few more.
Cornelius, the religious themes bothered me greatly too. Even though I didn’t like the premise that some aliens seeded the earth with life (and messing it up anyways), which would be anti-religious, it then moved completely into a religious motif in the second ⅔ of the movie. What was Ridley Scott trying to convey? I would hope that religion would be irrelevant in a future, but what do I know.
Thanks for your comments.
Haha best line of this artlice is when he said that the ships from Alien and Aliens were not moving faster then the speed of light….hmm he obviously doesn’t know science or has not read anything into these movies. LV-426 is roughly 30 something light years away and the marines in Aliens got there in 3 weeks (according to the script), Also, in the Colonial Marines Technical Manual, it clearly states that the Nostromo and Sulaco use FTL drives and state how fast they go. ughhh he tries to act all smart about science but doesn’t spend anytime actually researching these movies.
Considering he did the first one, you’d think he’d do better. Good catch by the way.
Ive just finished watching Prometheus and the constant influx of seemingly propagated religious tones within this supposed science-fiction film left behind an incredible bad taste. Am relieved to find similar criticism on this point.
While its entirely relevant for the narrative to draw lines within a mysticism context in regards to the notion of ancient angry gods smiting their creations as such, why bring in irrelevant factors such as the constant crusading theme of "fighting" to uphold one's stoic virtue of faith? To rephrase it simply: Much as church and government should not mix, the same should go (in my opinion) for church and sci-fi. Felt that the initial concept of the story for the film was captivating whilst the blatant religious content brought down the entertainment value thereof.
I didn't see it as religious so much as "hoo rah" American style Patriotism. Hard to tell which is worse…
But I don't think there should be any restriction on mixing religion with Sci Fi. Some of the best Sci Fi films of all time deal with religious issues in an intelligent way.
Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and 2001 have strong religious undertones, right the way through.
Stalker and Solaris are basically religious stories of temptation and punishment.
1984, Equilibrium, Hitchhikers Guide use speculative fiction to level criticism at the church.
And most "zero to hero" Sci Fi stories end up being messianic in one way or another: think of The Matrix, Frank Herbert's Dune, Brazil, Planet of the Apes, Alien ( the messiah being "reborn"), Dark City, Blade Runner and of course… Akira!
Religion, love it or hate it, makes for killer stories of good and evil, and can add a sense of epic, cosmic struggle and authoritarian dictator organisations to any good Sci Fi
I think the real problem with Prometheus is that it was just a total anticlimax.
After years of wondering what that big-ass, HR Giger designed alien-in-the-navigation-chair was in the first Alien movie, and all the other movies posing these really profound questions regarding the Xenomorph's origins and Ripley's connection to them, it turns out the answer is:
These big, albino, muscle-bound alien body-builders who never got around to inventing clothes made the Xenomorphs as a weapon of mass destruction. Also, the Albinos are man's ancestors. FAIL. How horribly, pathetically OBVIOUS to make the Xeno's "WMD's" – such a missed opportunity to build in some real, primal cosmic intrigue.
There were so many things wrong with the movie. You just named a few more.
Cornelius, the religious themes bothered me greatly too. Even though I didn't like the premise that some aliens seeded the earth with life (and messing it up anyways), which would be anti-religious, it then moved completely into a religious motif in the second ⅔ of the movie. What was Ridley Scott trying to convey? I would hope that religion would be irrelevant in a future, but what do I know.
Thanks for your comments.
Haha best line of this artlice is when he said that the ships from Alien and Aliens were not moving faster then the speed of light….hmm he obviously doesn't know science or has not read anything into these movies. LV-426 is roughly 30 something light years away and the marines in Aliens got there in 3 weeks (according to the script), Also, in the Colonial Marines Technical Manual, it clearly states that the Nostromo and Sulaco use FTL drives and state how fast they go. ughhh he tries to act all smart about science but doesn't spend anytime actually researching these movies.
Considering he did the first one, you'd think he'd do better. Good catch by the way.
I’m catholic, fan of science, I believe in evolutionism, and I feel no contradiction in all those things. The fact is that the bible speaks of the universe’s beggining by the scientifical knowledge of the time, therefore what is written there isn’t meant to be taken literaly. Some people in church are creationists, but I’m not one of them. Anyway, whatever might be our personal point of view we should tolerate, and thus show respect for others thoughts. I respect what everyone said.
I don’t like to rationalize any sort of movie, or try to figure out what makes sense and what doesn’t, it just takes away the magic and the fun that the piece of art wich is a movie should provide.
One does not “believe in evolutionism.” First, belief is accepting a fact based on faith despite evidence. Evolution (never evolutionism which is a pejorative term used by creationists to imply evolution is a religion) is based on vast amounts of evidence, and is considered a fact.
Belief in a supernatural being is anti-science and cannot be resolved with an acceptance of science. You choose one or the other, there are not grades of what you accept in science or not. There is no evidence of a god or gods, and science can or will explain everything in the natural universe.
I accept that science fiction movies bend the rules of the natural universe. But Prometheus was a religious, creationist movie. I reject that.
Hi mate! When I said ” I believe in evolutionism” it was just an expression, what I meant was that I understand the evidences and the fact that they prove that there has been an evolution of life in the cosmos. For me science and religion coexist because one has got nothing to do with the other, science studies the universe, and religion is a matter of the heart, or faith, for your better understanding. Einstein once said during his studies about the properties of light: “I would like to meet the Author of light.”. Faith is a gift, a person either has it or not, either believes in a Creator behind every science discovery and everything else in the universe, including the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, or not.
I enjoyed meeting you, you are an intelligent person.
My best regards,
João Paulo Correia (Grândola, Portugal)
I'm catholic, fan of science, I believe in evolutionism, and I feel no contradiction in all those things. The fact is that the bible speaks of the universe's beggining by the scientifical knowledge of the time, therefore what is written there isn't meant to be taken literaly. Some people in church are creationists, but I'm not one of them. Anyway, whatever might be our personal point of view we should tolerate, and thus show respect for others thoughts. I respect what everyone said.
I don't like to rationalize any sort of movie, or try to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't, it just takes away the magic and the fun that the piece of art wich is a movie should provide.
One does not "believe in evolutionism." First, belief is accepting a fact based on faith despite evidence. Evolution (never evolutionism which is a pejorative term used by creationists to imply evolution is a religion) is based on vast amounts of evidence, and is considered a fact.
Belief in a supernatural being is anti-science and cannot be resolved with an acceptance of science. You choose one or the other, there are not grades of what you accept in science or not. There is no evidence of a god or gods, and science can or will explain everything in the natural universe.
I accept that science fiction movies bend the rules of the natural universe. But Prometheus was a religious, creationist movie. I reject that.
Hi mate! When I said " I believe in evolutionism" it was just an expression, what I meant was that I understand the evidences and the fact that they prove that there has been an evolution of life in the cosmos. For me science and religion coexist because one has got nothing to do with the other, science studies the universe, and religion is a matter of the heart, or faith, for your better understanding. Einstein once said during his studies about the properties of light: "I would like to meet the Author of light.". Faith is a gift, a person either has it or not, either believes in a Creator behind every science discovery and everything else in the universe, including the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, or not.
I enjoyed meeting you, you are an intelligent person.
My best regards,
João Paulo Correia (Grândola, Portugal)
I’ll bet you hated Battle Star Galactica as well. poor soul.
Too religious, bad science, no campiness. Yeah I disliked it. And there is no such thing as a soul.
Yeah I am as strong an atheist and physicalist as anyone, but I love some mysticism in my fiction. I stick my assessment, you are hindering your own enjoyment.
I enjoy life quite well thank you. Mysticism adds nothing to life’s enjoyment, unless strong science is scary. I enjoy a lot of movies that aren’t anti-science. It is clear that I’m not the only person who thinks that Prometheus was written by intelligent design advocates.
I am sure you enjoy life well enough, that wasn’t what I meant by my comment. I meant enjoy FICTION. Were you mad at the lord of the rings for being anti-science and creationist? Do you want Fantasy that “respects” science. Why should fiction reflect the real world or be confined by the science of it? How boring is that….
I am saying you are letting your commitment to a skepticism and being proponent of scienticism get in the way of enjoying things that are wholly unattached to reality and need not be judged by the same criteria.
Also Prometheus creation involves panspermia, which is a legit if not terribly popular scientific alternative to a-biogenesis , and is not related at all to ID or evolution. There may be some vague creationist under-tones, but it’s a million miles away from being a promo for the discovery institute.
I'll bet you hated Battle Star Galactica as well. poor soul.
Too religious, bad science, no campiness. Yeah I disliked it. And there is no such thing as a soul.
Yeah I am as strong an atheist and physicalist as anyone, but I love some mysticism in my fiction. I stick my assessment, you are hindering your own enjoyment.
I enjoy life quite well thank you. Mysticism adds nothing to life's enjoyment, unless strong science is scary. I enjoy a lot of movies that aren't anti-science. It is clear that I'm not the only person who thinks that Prometheus was written by intelligent design advocates.
I am sure you enjoy life well enough, that wasn't what I meant by my comment. I meant enjoy FICTION. Were you mad at the lord of the rings for being anti-science and creationist? Do you want Fantasy that "respects" science. Why should fiction reflect the real world or be confined by the science of it? How boring is that….
I am saying you are letting your commitment to a skepticism and being proponent of scienticism get in the way of enjoying things that are wholly unattached to reality and need not be judged by the same criteria.
Also Prometheus creation involves panspermia, which is a legit if not terribly popular scientific alternative to a-biogenesis , and is not related at all to ID or evolution. There may be some vague creationist under-tones, but it's a million miles away from being a promo for the discovery institute.
[...] course, I wrote about it too. These are just a selection of complaints about the movie from a scientific point-of-view. Even [...]
[...] than me obviously, observed some other science issues with the Ridley Scott’s Prometheus, a movie I just tore apart a few hours ago. Neil deGrasse Tyson, this generation’s Carl Sagan, send out that tweet just a few hours [...]
[...] http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/ridley-scotts-prometheus-anti-science/ Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
I’ve been pissed off ever since I watched this last night.
Some other items that struck a nerve with me:
1. A character commenting that they’ve traveled “half a billion miles” to their destination.
2. Carbon-14 dating of an alien creature of unknown biology, from an unknown planet of unknown atmospheric composition.
3. An atmosphere that is more or less identical to Earth’s, yet is somehow rendered “toxic” by a mere 3% CO2.
4. Moronic scientists that remove their helmets without concern of biohazards.
5. Scientists that behave, as you’ve mentioned, like disinterested idiots.
I was considering typing in notes while watching the movie, but that might have annoyed everyone around me.
The C14 issue was funny, for the reasons you state. What if this planet had more or less naturally occurring C-14 (which depends on several factors for its occurrence). It’s not an absolute timing device. However, in Prometheus’ world it was.
I am so disappointed in the movie.
[...] http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/ridley-scotts-prometheus-anti-science/ [...]