Prometheus Part-Two: The Plot Holes

So, I had intended to cover both the good and the bad in one post, but got so wrapped up in the Ripley/Shaw debate that I forgot about all the unanswered questions and seemingly illogical plot devices in Prometheus. And so, here is Prometheus Part Two, my nit-picky piece.

As I stated in my previous post, Scott weaves the evolution of the Alien species wonderfully, using details that all but die-hard fans may have forgotten. (Especially those of us who only discovered the series two years ago :P). But there are some details in Prometheus that does not seem to connect to the characters or story and the motivations throughout. I'm not sure I can remember all of the little loose threads that nagged at me while I watched, but there are a few main ones that have stuck.

Spoilers will now follow from here on out. As I'm going further in-depth in this review, I will not be blocking out any of the text. Consider yourself warned.


The first and most prominent loose thread that comes to mind for me is David's exposing Charlie to the Alien substance. When this event occurs, we are already aware there is some unknown ulterior agenda held by Vickars and, likely, David, so it feels safe to assume that David is merely furthering that agenda. However, by the end of the film, it becomes very evident that there is no rational explanation for it. The further agenda was clearly for Mr. Weyland to meet the 'Engineers' and discover if they can prevent him from dying, but Charlie's poisoning does nothing to further this goal that we can reasonably see. They already planned on returning to the dig site, so it wasn't to give himself more time to find these 'Engineers'. It's possible he thought perhaps the substance could be the cure itself, but after seeing what happens to the head they found, I find that doubtful. In an interview with Time, Damon Lindelof, the screenwriter for Prometheus, states that "He’s a strange robot that has a curious crush on a human being,...". So, it is possible that David's motive for poisoning Charlie is one of jealousy, but in the movie alone, I find that a difficult conclusion to draw.

Not so much a prominent thread as a nagging inconsistency; the vessels containing Alien DNA quickly begin to deteriorate and spread all that nasty Alien juice around, leading to the evolution of the species as we know it. Whether this is from being exposed to air or light, or some other factor introduced by the humans, we can't be certain. But something changed in that cavern to begin the process. Something new that only occurred once the humans open/entered it. So why, then, does the same not happen in the Engineer ship seen later in the film? Why are those vessels as solid as ever, when they (theoretically) should have been introduced to the same element that caused the first ones to activate?

And finally, in the opening sequence of the film, we see an Engineer drink a writhing, dark liquid and disintegrate rapidly, not unlike what happens to the dead head the team finds and Charlie when he is poisoned. We have no context for this scene, where he is, or why he's doing it, and those questions never get answered.

There is one positive note I'd like to write about in this post, that I touched on, but hadn't covered in my last one. The scene with Shaw aborting her Alien fetus was an extremely powerful one that kept the viewer tense all throughout, and I was astounded at how realistic it was in terms of her difficulty in running while in so much pain. She was very clearly running on little more than determination and adrenaline. So few films these days are willing to portray their heroes struggling in their grueling, physical pursuits, instead opting to have them perform, difficult, exhausting and impossible feats as though they were taking a stroll around the block. Scott also had to deal with pressure from the ratings system to remove the scene entirely if he wanted to get a PG-13 rating vs an R in the United States (it is 14A here in Canada). Despite the fact that an R rating would result is some loss of money/theater goers, Scott felt the scene was far too important to remove. A director that puts the story ahead of the money? I can get behind that kind of director.