Since every Android we’ve seen until Bishop has had some villainous role, is Weyland-Yutani Corp putting alterior motives into the Android during Production, or is this a result of the Android’s learning/evolving process?
It has nothing to do with pain and everything to do with the fact that the woman’s abdomen–muscles and all–was sawn through and pulled apart. There’s a reason why women who get caesarian sections don’t sit up immediately after: they can’t. Muscles do not work that way.
And before anybody demands that I assume an explanation that excuses the film, the scene was deliberately staged to make the surgery look haphazard, quick, and painful. Why would I assume that some unseen Dr. McCoy technology healed the muscles? When did it happen? Before or after her midsection was literally stapled back together?
I’m saying I don’t buy that Charlie himself wouldn’t have told somebody. Why would they send an astronaut on a trillion dollar, years-long mission who would make such a terrible error in judgment? Do they not have the same screening processes in the late 21st centuries that they started doing in the 1950s?
I also dug that they were drinking Ace of Spades champagne.
lol nice edit of the bit about David I was referencing
However it had nothing to do about Charlie. When would he have told anyone? When he collapsed and they were dragging him back to the ship?
He’s not an “astronaut.” He was one of the two people searching for and discovering these ancient paintings. And it was said that they were wanted on the ship because Weyland was “superstitious” and wanted believers on board for the mission.
Again, there’s no clue as to what’s in the “pain killer,” there’s no clue as to what are the advancements of the laser used to do the surgery, or the topical anesthetic itself, which somehow makes internal organs feel nothing.
I said it already, I’ll say it again - I had a hernia fixed, a couple of years back.
The incision was much smaller.
I had trouble getting out of bed for several days.
I was NOT doing parkuor-esque jumps for well over a year after that.
That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking about ever since I’ve saw the movie!
Spoiler
The proto-xenomorph featured at the end of the film beared a resemblance, but was clearly “underdeveloped” compared to the xenomorphs we have come to know. Also, it made its appearance in quite a familiar fashion, so perhaps it was in it’s larval stage like a chestburster, meaning that it would eventually molt and reach adulthood. My theory is that it probably takes several generations/hosts before they become achieve their perfect forms.
I’m not much for creating theories about this movie, mostly because others here have already taken the best ones so that’s the best I can do.
I’d just chalk it up to his search for knowledge and overall curious nature. Some of the things he said could have somewhat devious underlying meanings, however, there’s no real evidence that he’s a villain.
As soon as he noticed something was wrong. Failing that, as soon as he was asked by someone else if something was wrong, which was well before the shit hit the fan.
Either he would have been trained as such for a mission that costs a trillion dollars, takes a handful of people lightyears away from Earth, and (understating this) is a big fucking deal, or everybody who had a hand in organizing his presence on the mission is a giant moron who shouldn’t be trusted to send pizza out into the next neighborhood. Your pick. Either way, it’s sloppiness.
There is no clue that there is some kind of quick-fix muscle-regrowing formula in the surgical pod that uses staples to hold a human body together; therefore there is no obligation on the part of the viewer to assume that there is one. The kind of technology presented in the pod is futuristic, but not that futuristic. Going strictly by the evidence presented in the movie, this is a blunder.
I caution you against reading into this as an argument that movies should spoonfeed every little detail, because of course they shouldn’t. But there is a difference between developing theories based on evidence in the movie and developing theories based on evidence we’ve provided ourselves.
The former is a matter of the film giving the viewer an opportunity to participate in the story. The latter is a matter of the film asking the viewer to look the other way when there’s something wrong.
The movie does nothing to indicate that the anesthetic is anything other than just that. It does nothing to indicate that the pod has the ability to heal muscles instantaneously. It does do something to indicate that it can’t heal instantaneously, by using staples to suture the wound.
If anything in the pod has the power to instantly mend human muscle, then why wouldn’t it close the wound just as instantly, seamlessly, and cleanly?
(The best answer to that question is that it’s more cinematic to make the surgery as ugly and painful-looking as possible, but the movie still has an obligation to maintain internal consistency with the level of technology present. If the filmmakers want to handwave the fact that she would be bedridden after such a procedure, then fine, but that merely proves that they’d rather live with the sloppiness so they could get both the nasty surgery in one scene and the action-packed leaping about in the next.)
IF THERE WAS MUSCLE GROWING GLUE IN THE POD, WHY STAPLES???
It’s more grody that way. Nemesis says what up
WHY INDEED? WHY THE FUCK INDEED?
I half expected to see commercials on T.V. with that scene, cutting away to a storefront, with the announcement “Staples - we got that.”
lawl
in-your-face advertising
because it was a movie. That’s why
So was Freddie Got Fingered. What’s your point?
Maybe, if you don’t know the difference between an adjective and a noun. You see what you want to see I guess. :wtf:
Spoiler
I didn’t have a problem with the tech at all. In my limited purview of this fictional future, a robotic surgery that has the ability to operate on its own should certainly be able to detect and remove an obviously “foreign body”, which I believe was the wording used - although I admit they might have done better by forcing Shaw to click “Ignore” when the machine didn’t find the puncture wound she said was there. :lol:
Spoiler
I thought it was pretty darn evident to Shaw - did you by chance miss the scene in which they go back inside the alien ship with Weyland, David states flat-out that the infection wasn’t from breathing the air, Shaw asks him how he knows that, and they stand there looking at each other stand-offishly for a while?
Considering that the adjective usage of the term “balls” directly references the [original] noun usage, not really.
damn son, fuck you got me there. The point is, like you pointed out. That it was done to make the scene much more grotesque for the viewer. But, it’s Hollywood, and that’s the magic of small little containers with fluid in them. It can be jesus juice for all we know.
We don’t know the content’s, but we know that its a pain killer. What’s to say that they hadn’t developed drugs that not only numbed pain, but also had enzyme’s which started rebuilding muscle’s on the spot. After all, she did inject the “sedatives” next to her stomach.
A lot more has been made of the issue than I ever intended, but the reason I brought it up in the first place is that out of all genres, science fiction has a unique facility for extrapolating existing technologies in plausible ways. It doesn’t always predict correctly, but it is a measure of quality in science fiction that the level of advancement is consistent throughout the work. As sci-fi, Prometheus dropped the ball. As a horror movie, it departs from consistency for the sake of drama, though I have to wonder if there was a better way to handle it that would have been just as dramatic and not left such an ugly seam in its logic.
You see what I did there?
I completely understand, im just saying it’s hollywood.