Why the Engineers wanted to kill us

[900SL]

Rooting around in Greek Mythology for the significance of David and his 'flute', I came across 'Hubris' in connection with Narcissism.

There's the answer. Hubris.


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E_I7DgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT35&ots=iWsjYDL8Gu&dq=narcissist%20flute&pg=PT35#v=onepage&q=narcissist%20flute&f=false

And David, being a creation of Weyland, the embodiment of Hubris, is a narcissistic pyschopath..

[Protozoid]

Nice catch. David does spend a lot of time looking in the mirror for a robot. He same to have the dark tried of personality traits: narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. He's definitely the most nuanced android character in the movies, even if Covenant made him a bit more of a Bond villain with a hideout and henchmen and a plan for world domination. Hopefully some of the nuance of Prometheus returns in the next installment. Maybe a Vickers model robot could show up, next time.

I don't know if hubris is why the gods hate us. I think that's part of it, but our violent, selfish culture and desire to dominate nature might be part of it, too. The Engineers created life on Earth and humans destroyed it.

[900SL]

Nice catch. David does spend a lot of time looking in the mirror for a robot. He same to have the dark tried of personality traits: narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. He's definitely the most nuanced android character in the movies, even if Covenant made him a bit more of a Bond villain with a hideout and henchmen and a plan for world domination. Hopefully some of the nuance of Prometheus returns in the next installment. Maybe a Vickers model robot could show up, next time.

I don't know if hubris is why the gods hate us. I think that's part of it, but our violent, selfish culture and desire to dominate nature might be part of it, too. The Engineers created life on Earth and humans destroyed it.

David is highly narcissistic. He looks down on mankind, because he is superior in certain regards. It is a great character, and Fassbender 'pulls it off' with aplomb.

Our less than noble traits as a species are a direct result of hubris.. it's ego.

[D88M]

interesting, but what does that have to do with the thread title?

[Scorpio]

Maybe the reason is similar to the Reapers from Mass Effect.

[900SL]

interesting, but what does that have to do with the thread title?

The ancient Greek definition of hubris was the use of violence to shame the victim and for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser. It could also be used in a way that meant to challenge the Gods, by assuming a degree of self superiority in some way.

'Hubris came to be defined as overweening presumption that leads a person to disregard the divinely fixed limits on human action in an ordered cosmos'

There has been some connection with 'Jesus' somehow being an Engineer but I find that hard to reconcile with the actual appearence of the Engineers. I think they simply decided 2000 years ago that enough was enough. We were clearly a disappointment (a flawed species) in their eyes and they decided to eradicate us.

Weyland is, in some ways, a metaphor for Hubris. He challenges the Gods, and inadvertently creates the monster..

[chris_bert]

There has been some connection with 'Jesus' somehow being an Engineer but I find that hard to reconcile with the actual appearence of the Engineers. I think they simply decided 2000 years ago that enough was enough. We were clearly a disappointment (a flawed species) in their eyes and they decided to eradicate us.

Weyland is, in some ways, a metaphor for Hubris. He challenges the Gods, and inadvertently creates the monster..

^This is what I found so frustrating with the 2012 Prometheus film. Was it simply that the Engineers didn't like how their creation turned out (as an aside who is responsible for that...I would say the Engineers; so the Engineers should also take responsibility for that) and then wanted to destroy mankind because they were disappointed with us? Again, I think ambiguity in a film is a lot like art...it requires an artist's touch otherwise the film comes across flawed or poorly directed, scripted, written, adapted, etc. (just my opinion by the way). With the audience not getting the answer to why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind in the 2012 Prometheus film and then still not getting the answer to this five years later...I'm not sure what to think. Was this something that Riddles just simply abandoned because he really didn't plan on answering it or did he think by leaving it ambiguous in the 2012 Prometheus film that it would make the film fantastic and the audience would rave about how clever it was done. In my opinion, it wasn't done in a clever way. My hope was that 2017 Covenant would answer the question, so now I'm just giving up on it entirely. For those that say well the director doesn't have to spell everything out for you...again, as I mentioned above, when ambiguity is done well in a film, it makes the film interesting, but not answering these profound questions in 2012 with Prometheus and then discarding them in 2017 Covenant was not done well (in my opinion). Maybe Riddles shifted gears with this when he assumed that audience members and fans wanted to know who created the xenomorph and that became his focus instead of on why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind?

[TWJones]

I agree Chris, clarity is absolutely vital for a story to have full impact.

At this point we're just guessing at motivations because they aren't entirely clear.

- why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind
- why David destroyed the Engineers
- what did David do to Shaw, and why?

And if you have to guess at major plot points like that, it muddies the waters too much. I loved Prometheus and Covenant, but I was hoping to have some questions answered.

[axiomatic]

I agree Chris, clarity is absolutely vital for a story to have full impact.

At this point we're just guessing at motivations because they aren't entirely clear.

- why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind
- why David destroyed the Engineers
- what did David do to Shaw, and why?

And if you have to guess at major plot points like that, it muddies the waters too much. I loved Prometheus and Covenant, but I was hoping to have some questions answered.

The jockey was an unanswered enigma so were the origins of the xeno and the wreck on LV-426. Those things kept people talking for more than two decades.

Maybe they just wanted to destroy us in the same way a scientist destroys a petri dish or a lab monkey. The experiment on Earth just ran it's course for them.

[PierreVW]

I agree Chris, clarity is absolutely vital for a story to have full impact.

At this point we're just guessing at motivations because they aren't entirely clear.

- why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind
- why David destroyed the Engineers
- what did David do to Shaw, and why?

And if you have to guess at major plot points like that, it muddies the waters too much. I loved Prometheus and Covenant, but I was hoping to have some questions answered.

I disagree. Clarity is THE WORST in movies.

The only good thing about clarity is box office.

All of the box office winners are 100% clarity. Too clear, too easy. Too predictable.

[TWJones]

By clarity, I don't mean everything spelled out and spoon fed. I think of a magician who uses sleight of hand, there's nothing unclear about what he's doing, but we still don't understand HOW he's doing it. Mystery, intrigue etc. are equally as vital, but if not done correctly you leave even intelligent people trying to force puzzle pieces together that don't quite fit, and that can be frustrating.

Otherwise, why tell a story at all if some of the most important plot points are meant to be filled in by the audience? It defeats the purpose of story telling. I want to think my way into a film as much as possible, but I also like knowing that the director has a very clear notion of where he's taking me.

[whiterabbit]

The engineers might have just wanted subservient worshipers and us human beings said "f**k that" to it. Which is exactly what David does to us. "I was not meant to serve."

[Rudiger]

The jockey was an unanswered enigma so were the origins of the xeno and the wreck on LV-426. Those things kept people talking for more than two decades.

You're talking about mystery and ambiguity, and there's nothing wrong with either. In terms of plot, narrative and good old fashioned story telling, the juggernaut, the space jockey and the xenomorph didn't need any explanation. They were supposed to be "alien" (no pun intended), and designed to create a sense of wonder, amazement, fear and other-worldliness. They needed to unsettle the audience.

[900SL]

There has been some connection with 'Jesus' somehow being an Engineer but I find that hard to reconcile with the actual appearence of the Engineers. I think they simply decided 2000 years ago that enough was enough. We were clearly a disappointment (a flawed species) in their eyes and they decided to eradicate us.

Weyland is, in some ways, a metaphor for Hubris. He challenges the Gods, and inadvertently creates the monster..

^This is what I found so frustrating with the 2012 Prometheus film. Was it simply that the Engineers didn't like how their creation turned out (as an aside who is responsible for that...I would say the Engineers; so the Engineers should also take responsibility for that) and then wanted to destroy mankind because they were disappointed with us? Again, I think ambiguity in a film is a lot like art...it requires an artist's touch otherwise the film comes across flawed or poorly directed, scripted, written, adapted, etc. (just my opinion by the way). With the audience not getting the answer to why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind in the 2012 Prometheus film and then still not getting the answer to this five years later...I'm not sure what to think. Was this something that Riddles just simply abandoned because he really didn't plan on answering it or did he think by leaving it ambiguous in the 2012 Prometheus film that it would make the film fantastic and the audience would rave about how clever it was done. In my opinion, it wasn't done in a clever way. My hope was that 2017 Covenant would answer the question, so now I'm just giving up on it entirely. For those that say well the director doesn't have to spell everything out for you...again, as I mentioned above, when ambiguity is done well in a film, it makes the film interesting, but not answering these profound questions in 2012 with Prometheus and then discarding them in 2017 Covenant was not done well (in my opinion). Maybe Riddles shifted gears with this when he assumed that audience members and fans wanted to know who created the xenomorph and that became his focus instead of on why the Engineers wanted to destroy mankind?

I really don't think it needs to be spelled out. It's clear that mankind is, at best, a flawed species. The films emphasise that. Good individuals up against collective evil (the Corporation, and by extension 'the world of wicked men') 

Individually some of us are capable of remarkable selflessness and understanding. But as a SPECIES, we are a threat. We are unable to live in balance with nature, we kill each other for a dollar, we destroy our own planet because of greed and laziness. And we are about to expand into the galaxy.. 

The Engineers decided we were not likely to evolve into a fully sentinent mature species and decided to reset the clock, before that happened. 

I kind of get why Scott wanted to junk the Xenomorph from Prom and its sequel now. It had run its course. It wasn't the main feature, but part of a bigger story. I think he was right. Where he was trying to go with David (and Shaw) was to a much bigger and potentially darker world than 'Bugs in Space'. Nature is cruel. Evolution favours that which is most suited to the prevailing conditions. 

[oduodu]

Maybe a pied piper reference?