Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Fair enough. And this brings back the point that Damon Houx made about the casting of a star like Theron for the role. I'm sure I had higher expectations of her character based on her casting.
Ponies? Really? Could we go back to talking about Armond White?
Anyway, Vicker's character would have felt like a waste even without Theron's casting. She's the leader of the expedition, and Weyland's daughter, but nothing comes of her at all.
Also, why did she have to eject in a pod separately from the life boat? What's the point of a lifeboat you can't escape in?
Ponies? Really? Could we go back to talking about Armond White?
Anyway, Vicker's character would have felt like a waste even without Theron's casting. She's the leader of the expedition, and Weyland's daughter, but nothing comes of her at all.
Also, why did she have to eject in a pod separately from the life boat? What's the point of a lifeboat you can't escape in?
The pod was in the lifeboat.
The pod was in the lifeboat.
It was? That... makes even less sense.
It was? That... makes even less sense.
Wait, no, you were right... I wasn't remembering correctly.
The escape pod was most definitely NOT in the lifeboat. It's why Vickers was killed, essentially; instead of just getting out with the lifeboat, she jettisoned herself separately and then was trying to get to it, and was squished after failing to execute an apparently extremely difficult left pivot.
the first bit of goo was "Goo-Classic", the later goo was "New-Goo" ("Diet-Goo" never caught on and was discontinued)
BUT there could be "Goo Zero"...and.... ;)
The escape pod was most definitely NOT in the lifeboat. It's why Vickers was killed, essentially; instead of just getting out with the lifeboat, she jettisoned herself separately and then was trying to get to it, and was squished after failing to execute an apparently extremely difficult left pivot.
Because Janek jettisoned the lifeboat....and then it crashed and I didn't see any way that thing would be functional after. I remember what Vickers was saying it was and why it existed, but that "landing" made it look so flimsy. Anyways, if someone was needed to direct the lifeboat (aka, Vickers), then why wasn't she allowed the time to get there and then fly down to the surface, herself?
So she still needed an escape pod? To get down to the lifeboat. I found that odd while watching the movie and find that even more odd now.
And of course, the inability to pivot to the left. Odd.
The pod was in the lifeboat.
I think he was referring to the fact that Janek ejected the lifeboat suite of mass comfort, but Theron had to eject from Prometheus in an individual escape pod, then run to the lifeboat. Which, given that it's an emergency function, seems like a poorly thought out extra step if the object is to survive.
Read another breakdown of the movie earlier that referred to giant squid baby as a "facesnuggler" because it wraps around your whole body like a blanket. That scene has just been rendered adorable.
A friend posted on Facebook, that he calls the movie: "Prometheus: The Private Sector Excelling In Space."
I agree.
A friend posted on Facebook, that he calls the movie: "Prometheus: The Private Sector Excelling In Space."
I agree.
I totally agree:
Step 1: File $2 trillion insurance claim.
Step 2: Buy Yutani corporation
Step 3: Profit!
Like those facehugger kid pillows I've seen online (below), I fully hope to see woolen or fleece FACESNUGGIES on the market for the coming winter. Who wouldn't wanna cuddle onto the couch for some Ridley Scott DVD viewing in a 40 pound Promethean comforter complete with tentacles, multiple vaginal pockets for one's many remote controls and optional throat hose extension for enjoying a nice coffee or tea by the fireplace? Don't let me down, Wal-Mart.
There was an all-but-confirmed rumor directly from Ridley that there were actually 2 androids in the movie. I've kinda wondered if it was supposed to be Vickers.
That still could be the case. If there's a sequel, it could already be planned (or retconned) that the real Vickers secretly had an android duplicate of herself made and sent on the mission. That would make sense, a two years out and another two years back mission, that's an eternity in corporate time to be away from the company. Who knows what other people could get up to while you're away?
After all, a much easier way to get control of the company if she was ruthless enough would have been to simply have remained on Earth and to have had Prometheus sabotaged so that it never returned (after all, if Weyland could have smuggled himself onboard, I'm sure Vickers could have had systems sabotaged or even just a large explosive device designed to go off once everyone was in deep space where the evidence would never be found).
But if she wasn't quite so mercenary (or amoral), a good hedge to cover herself would be to secretly get a duplicate made to send on the mission (even though she was clearly skeptical, assuming the duplicate reflects the original) to report on any discoveries just in case something came of the whole thing.
One of the aspects of this flick that really let me down was the whole space jockey thing.
When we saw them in 'Alien', not only was it this massive WHATTHEFUCKISTHAT?! thing calcified to a chair, but it was surrounded by this entire other species of alien, and it suggested just how small we were in the grand scheme of the universe. That crashed ship had absolutely nothing to do with mankind, and who in the world knows where it was off to, and what its evil intentions with those eggs were.
To devolve that entire concept down to 'We're their DNA! They made humankind!' and to have mankind be so connected to that unimaginable species sucked all the scary out of the infiniteness of it's intentions.
Just got back from watching it again. The running from the falling ship seemed more crazy than I remembered it. There was actually a moment that they did both cut to the right (their right), but running around jagged spires and falling debris just set them running the direction they were going. And yes Shaw was saved by a freakin rock when the ship fell down after the roll.
The oxygen totally sets off the black goo. When the Engineer opens the container in the beginning, once the air hits it, whatever is inside looks like it melts into the goo.
Still trying to figure out the eggs in the containers. Are they created from something extracted from a Xenomorph? The end of the chamber with the Xeno painting over the green stone sure seemed to indicate it was a tomb, and was pretty much stated by Holloway.
I'm sure the air in the dome (pyramid) was contaminated. Right after David made the comment about "Don't we all want to kill our parents?" or something to that effect, they are wandering the dome and they ask David if the air is safe to breathe. As he says yes, he is giving Shaw a knowing look. That shit was contaminated! And there is no way he told the Engineer what Weyland told him to. And the look the Engineer gave David as he was feeling his face. "We didn't create you. What the hell are you?" Rips head off. Kills humans. "Who are you to create artificial life?"
I can't believe I didn't notice the first time that the top of all the domes had a statue of a Xeno head.
Engineer at the beginning appeared to be different than killer engineer. At first I thought the killer Engineer was wearing an outfit, but upon closer examination it definitely looked like it was all a part of his skin, whereas the Engineer at the beginning just looked like a ripped, naked man.
Still wondering about the decapitated Engineer head, what the cells were changing into, and why the electric pulse made the head explode.
The problems were still there, but I'm glad I went again. After reading page upon page focusing on the same problems repeatedly, I forgot about the things I liked about the film. I think there is a lot of purposely ambiguous things about it that I think can click the more I think about it. I know a lot of people don't like that kind of thing in a movie, and think it belongs on TV. I didn't need this movie to be a stand alone film. I like that this was obviously the first of two or three films. Now I only hope they do make a second or third one. If they don't, they don't.
One of the aspects of this flick that really let me down was the whole space jockey thing.
When we saw them in 'Alien', not only was it this massive WHATTHEFUCKISTHAT?! thing calcified to a chair, but it was surrounded by this entire other species of alien, and it suggested just how small we were in the grand scheme of the universe. That crashed ship had absolutely nothing to do with mankind, and who in the world knows where it was off to, and what its evil intentions with those eggs were.
To devolve that entire concept down to 'We're their DNA! They made humankind!' and to have mankind be so connected to that unimaginable species sucked all the scary out of the infiniteness of it's intentions.
And after rambling on and on in my last post about loving this movie, I completely agree with this statement.
Were they egg things in the canisters? I just thought they were ampoules of goop.
Maybe the Alien was a previous attempt at a bioweapon that got waaaaaaay out of hand, back in the day, and the SpaceJockey from Alien heroically took the cargo off, because it was already infected, and deliberately crashed it.
So the new weapons are trying to achieve something different, but still DNA based. In that regard the Alien Fresco in the biggianthead room could be a warning "lest we forget how much we fucked up in the past" type thing.
So, why was none of this level of evocative music featured in the film?
I mean, it even makes Ponymetheus look fairly scary
I found that funny and interesting. Though I'm not quite so ready to hand my nuts in and actually watch that show.
The linked ALIENS trailer using the Prometheus music and beats was interesting too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YzE0AyX8tVQ
Oh Hudson.
This is some great filling in the holes, and in fact some of it may actually be true. Even if it's from someone named StoneDude. Like I said late last night, it is fun to debate stuff like this, and not everything has to be crystal clear. Unfortunately too much wasn't explained, but that's belaboring the point.
LOL. Glad someone picked that up. That's exactly how a few of my stoner friends get when they get on a roll. They're the complete opposite of the classic surfer-dude stoner. Everything becomes The Matrix. Many many logical/creative leaps.
This is awesome.
Read another breakdown of the movie earlier that referred to giant squid baby as a "facesnuggler" because it wraps around your whole body like a blanket. That scene has just been rendered adorable.
I guess if you're gonna get taken out by an alien, facesnuggler is the way to go. At least you won't be lonely.
I can't believe I didn't notice the first time that the top of all the domes had a statue of a Xeno head.
I believe that Ridley 'borrowed' one of Giger's 'Dune' designs for the engineer structure.
concept artwork-
screen cap from movie (??)
Giger's Dune concept
I believe that Ridley 'borrowed' one of Giger's 'Dune' designs for the engineer structure.
concept artwork-
screen cap from movie (??)
Giger's Dune concept
Oh shit, what the hell is the New Born doing in Dune? lol
I've often wondered how pop culture would be different if Jodorowsky had made that thing. It would have come out before Star Wars, right? I mean, it could have essentially taken Star Wars' place in pop culture. How messed up would that be?
Sorry, complete tangent.
I've often wondered how pop culture would be different if Jodorowsky had made that thing. It would have come out before Star Wars, right? I mean, it could have essentially taken Star Wars' place in pop culture. How messed up would that be?
Sorry, complete tangent.
A Jodorowsky Dune would in no realistic way become as big Star Wars.
But in some ideal universe where that would happen, pop culture would be approximately 267% more awesome.
So was I foolish to expect a mild hard sci-fi movie? Not 2001, but something that uses science to make the fiction a little cooler. Example: the "half a billion miles from Earth" line would have been more impressive if Vickers had actually said the real distance of 200 trillion miles. Instead I get a movie that gets every single fact wrong.
And I've seen slasher movies where I didn't think the cast deserved to die as much as this one- at least in slasher movies the characters don't often know they're in danger until the third act, and screwing and smoking pot aren't really capital offenses. Instead we have a main character whose conception of God and religion seemingly hasn't grown since childhood, a male scientist who doesn't understand the idea of airborne contagion, a biologist who is shitting himself at the thought of encountering any form of alien life until he encounters a clearly hostile space cobra, and so on.
I agree with Ambler. I think one of the biggest reasons I can't let the flaws go is because everything we're hearing from Scott & Lindelof tout how much they've thought about this, and how "big" they think this story and its ideas are.....and there is a huge, huge disconnect between the movie they're talking about and the one that's on the screen.
Again, I think the SUCKER PUNCH analogy is quite apt here: Snyder repeatedly said his film was deeper than most people were getting, all the cheese and bad elements were "on purpose" and had a point, and that movie was some kind of metacommentary on the Male Gaze. While the film had a few defenders, it was rightly critiqued and shown to be lacking in ideas, clear cinematic syntax, and deeper substance. PROMETHEUS, I have to say, seems to be very similar, and is thus experiencing similarly passionate critiques. This isn't just a B-movie about space monsters, and that's certainly not what Scott & Co have been saying for years.
It's one thing to embrace the cheese and dumb stuff going on in DEEP RISING. It's another when a film by Sir Ridley Scott, after decades of telling visual stories, does things as dumb as killing a character because she's too stupid to run perpendicular to a massive falling spaceship.
]http://www.npr.org/2012/06/07/154163335/damon-lindelof-risks-the-wrath-of-loyal-fans-again
[quote="Screenwriter Damon Lindelof"]"So the idea behind Prometheus was: If we as human beings in the future got a clue or an indication of our origins ... and then we had coordinates, we actually had directions to go and basically meet our makers, what kind of people would go there? What would they hope to achieve? And then, of course, what happens when we get there? [b]Because science fiction is really just the cautionary tale writ large. The fundamental law of nature is to not know too much about yourself. So God forbid we fly too close to that flame — we are going to get burned."[/b][/quote]
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ridley-scott-michael-fassbender-noomi-206321
[quote="Director Ridley Scott"]"The (space) journey, metaphorically, is about a challenge to the gods," Scott said. But Scott's ambitions with Prometheus go far beyond simply restarting a hit franchise. [b]The British director said the film's storyline, and script by David Lindelof, was partially inspired by the writings of legendary Swiss sci-fi writer Eric van Daniken.
Van Daniken, author of 1968 bestseller Chariot of the Gods, is best known as the first proponent of the so-called ancient astronaut theory, which holds that aliens kick-started civilization on earth. "NASA and the Vatican agree that is almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are today without there being a little help along the way," Scott said. "That's what we're looking at (in the film), at some of Eric van Daniken's ideas of how did we humans come about."[/b][/quote]
The problem is that only imbeciles believe there's any merit to the "big questions" of this film, so it does not resonate to anyone with half a brain. I really hate the idea of movies preaching that scientific curiosity is largely a dangerous thing, considering that got us out of a hunter gatherer state to where we are today. And to believe there's any merit to anything any ancient astronaut proponent preaches betrays a clear lack of critical thinking at the very least.
The ancient astonaut idea is a fascinating one, though. It just ends up being completely undercut when the only god they meet is Smashy McPuncherson.
You know, this may be valid.
I'm an atheist but I can still immensely enjoy The Last Temptation Of Christ. I don't believe in spirits but I still love The Exorcist. Even the Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff Dan Brown copied I find cute more than infuriating. It's just something about Von Daniken's bullshit that causes me to have an allergic reaction.
RED LETTER MEDIA Talks about the film.
Seeing the PRINCE OF DARKNESS thread pop up in the feed has me thinking....maybe SUCKER PUNCH isn't a good analogy or parallel. Maybe it's Carpenter's PRINCE OF DARKNESS. Both films...
...feature accomplished directors, both (to varying degrees) known for helming landmark horror films.
...tackle, head on, some of the "big questions" of human existence.
...start out strong, and set up interesting scenarios with a sizable cast of characters - some likable, some not.
...feature good performances despite inconsistent or paper-thin characterizations in the script.
...involve alien substances using human hosts as gestation pods for something far more horrible.
...essentially devolve into slasher films, with characters making dumb, unintelligent decisions simply to service the plot.
...directly or obliquely reinterpret Christ (his mission and identity).
...treat humans as pawns by higher powers
Those are just the parallels I could come up with on the top of my head. Assuming agreement with this idea, I'm wondering why POD gets a pass (as it does from me) and PROMETHEUS does not. (I'm not sure if I saw POD for the first time today that I'd give it a pass, to be honest. I first saw it at age 19, and I'm almost certain that nostalgia and sentimentality help paper over its faults.) Is it because POD blatantly goes for the A-movie quality and fails, while POD is firmly and comfortably a B-movie in tone and character? Is it merely my own preferences and the age difference between when I first saw POD and PROMETHEUS?
I don't know. I haven't watched POD all the way through in some time, so I'm now curious if it would hold my attention and carry me over the rough spots better than PROMETHEUS.
I've often wondered how pop culture would be different if Jodorowsky had made that thing. It would have come out before Star Wars, right? I mean, it could have essentially taken Star Wars' place in pop culture. How messed up would that be?
Sorry, complete tangent.
I think having Salvador Dali as the Emperor of the Universe was just too much for a single reality to handle.
There's some fascinating ground to cover with the idea of maintaining faith in the face of absolute evidence that everything your faith told you was wrong. Would you completely reject it? Adapt the new information to fit your beliefs? Ignore the evidence? Of course, this would probably be more interesting to explore on a societal level. But then you might as well just adapt Childhood's End and be done with it (and why has no one done THAT yet?)/
Hell, there are tons of fascinating ideas in this. They just never go past the idea stage.
There's some fascinating ground to cover with the idea of maintaining faith in the face of absolute evidence that everything your faith told you was wrong. Would you completely reject it? Adapt the new information to fit your beliefs? Ignore the evidence? Of course, this would probably be more interesting to explore on a societal level. But then you might as well just adapt Childhood's End and be done with it (and why has no one done THAT yet?)/
Hell, there are tons of fascinating ideas in this. They just never go past the idea stage.
Read "The greatest sci-fi movoes never made", it has a full chapter on why "Childhood's End" never made it.
There's some fascinating ground to cover with the idea of maintaining faith in the face of absolute evidence that everything your faith told you was wrong. Would you completely reject it? Adapt the new information to fit your beliefs? Ignore the evidence? Of course, this would probably be more interesting to explore on a societal level. But then you might as well just adapt Childhood's End and be done with it (and why has no one done THAT yet?)/
Hell, there are tons of fascinating ideas in this. They just never go past the idea stage.
At least they didn't have Jesus be an Engineer, 'cos then Shaw stubbornly holding on to her cross would've been weird as all hell.
At least they didn't have Jesus be an Engineer, 'cos then Shaw stubbornly holding on to her cross would've been weird as all hell.
You know the earlier drafts of the film did, though? And I'm thinking the film means to imply it - the Christmas references seem to imply it, helping to explain why 2000 years ago the Engineers tried to wipe out the planet.
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
Adapt the new information to fit your beliefs? Ignore the evidence?
...or adapt your beliefs to fit the new information.
But of course, ignoring the evidence has proved to be more than adequate.
As far as the Prince of Darkness comparison....interesting.
The difference as I see it is that POD seemed to be a horror movie first and pseudo philosophical examination second whereas Prometheus seemingly started with the "big questions" and tried to mold a story around them.
?
"NASA and the Vatican agree that is almost mathematically impossible that we can be where we are today without there being a little help along the way," Scott said.
I would be prepared to bet something substantial that this is patent balderdash.
I also choose to believe that last Big Mac was good for me.
]http://www.npr.org/2012/06/07/154163335/damon-lindelof-risks-the-wrath-of-loyal-fans-again
[quote="Screenwriter Damon Lindelof"]"So the idea behind Prometheus was: If we as human beings in the future got a clue or an indication of our origins ... and then we had coordinates, we actually had directions to go and basically meet our makers, what kind of people would go there? What would they hope to achieve? And then, of course, what happens when we get there? [b]Because science fiction is really just the cautionary tale writ large. The fundamental law of nature is to not know too much about yourself. So God forbid we fly too close to that flame — we are going to get burned."[/b][/quote]
to me, this quote from the NPR transcript points out that Lindelof's father is to blame when it comes to Damon's (lack of) ability to write a satisfactory ending.
On the origin of his passion for writing
"When I was a kid there were these books called the Encyclopedia Brown Mysteries. Essentially it was a boy detective who worked out of his garage, and the boys in the neighborhood would come and say, 'Hey, my bike got stolen, my piggy bank got broken into, will you solve the case, Encyclopedia Brown?' It would be about a five- or six-page story, and there would be some sort of clue in there that gave away the answer. And then you would flip to the back of the book and see if you were right. I would read the story and immediately flip to the back of the book even if I hadn't guessed it, and my dad saw me doing this and he ripped out the answers on all my Encyclopedia Brown books. So I would go to him and I'd say, 'OK, I solved the case, I think that I know what it is now.' And he'd go, 'Oh I threw those away.' ... I guess I could've walked into any bookstore and just pulled another copy off the shelf, but that was less interesting to me than basically sitting with my own theory."
Originally Posted by Agent Z
Let's drop a giant spaceship from the sky in your direction and see how clear and decisive you are with it coming down on top of you....
Maybe you need to see the film again, but the sequence happens like this:
The ship hits the ground and teeters for a bit...Vickers and Shaw are watching it teeter and just standing there...
Then the ship starts to roll toward them IN A STRAIGHT LINE...they both see it coming in a straight line and it's extremely and unbearably obvious that a simple sprint to the left or right would allow them to evade the path of the crashing ship.
But instead, they simply run in a straight line, along the path of the crashing ship, which they'd already seen coming toward them.
The way the film depicts the scene, there is very little confusion, and Vickers and Shaw are both clearly aware of where the ship is headed, yet they choose to run along that exact path.
So it wasn't like the ship came down quickly and they had no time to think.
FWIW
Lindelof get's interviewed on Kevin Smith's HULU show...
You know the earlier drafts of the film did, though? And I'm thinking the film means to imply it - the Christmas references seem to imply it, helping to explain why 2000 years ago the Engineers tried to wipe out the planet.
Not to mention the Engineer at the beginning died so that we may live.
Before you can create, first you must destroy.
Just got back from watching it again. The running from the falling ship seemed more crazy than I remembered it. There was actually a moment that they did both cut to the right (their right), but running around jagged spires and falling debris just set them running the direction they were going.
They didn't cut to the right, they zig zagged along the path of the ship...if they'd truly cut to the right (hard right) and kept going in that direction, they could've EASILY avoided the ship. They even stand there and see the ship coming in a single path toward them moments before...yet they ran in the exact same line as the ship. Even the dumbest hillbilly would've survived it.
This leg of the discussion is forcing me to re-evaluate any and all cinematic sequences that feature people getting crushed by giant things.
Remember those chumps in the water in Titanic? Just swim away from the boat, you idiots!
(Sorry, fuzzy... I couldn't help but hear your comment in John C. Reilly's voice in my head.) :)
"We also checked with Genzyme, the Cub Scouts and the Ghost of Carl Sagan. You know, just to cover all the bases. In hindsight, maybe we should've been polishing the script, instead."
Maybe you need to see the film again, but the sequence happens like this:
The ship hits the ground and teeters for a bit...Vickers and Shaw are watching it teeter and just standing there...
Then the ship starts to roll toward them IN A STRAIGHT LINE...they both see it coming in a straight line and it's extremely and unbearably obvious that a simple sprint to the left or right would allow them to evade the path of the crashing ship.
But instead, they simply run in a straight line, along the path of the crashing ship, which they'd already seen coming toward them.
The way the film depicts the scene, there is very little confusion, and Vickers and Shaw are both clearly aware of where the ship is headed, yet they choose to run along that exact path.
So it wasn't like the ship came down quickly and they had no time to think.
By the time the movie had gotten to this part I had given up and was sitting in my seat immobile, letting the absurdity wash over me, waiting for it to end. Two things popped into my mind as the ship roll was happening.
First thought was this sequence was a silly but much less entertaining tribute to the water wheel fight in Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Being a big fan of DMC, I was saddened that my brain made the connection that the higher ambitioned Prometheus was giving a shout out to lower ambitioned DMC.
My second thought was the spaceship roll was a variation on the famous Buster Keaton gag where the side of a house falls on Buster, but he's saved because he's oblivously standing right where one of the window openings falls around him. The rolling sequence in Prometheus does not work because I can't buy that the ship would roll like a tire (straight and true nonetheless) without crushing under it's own weight.
But cerebrally, I can buy that Shaw and Vickers look up and are trying to calculate how far they have to run to make it to the break in the loop in order to survive. And I can buy that, in trying to solve the more complicated problem, their brains might lock in on that and fail to see the more obvious, simple solution to run laterally. Shaw figures it out, Vickers doesn't.
But as it's presented in the movie it is a ridiculous, heightened bit of action nonsense. And the movie can't just let Shaw escape being crushed by running left. Instead she must just fall short of safety, only to be saved from being crushed by the ship's tip by a rock outcropping. Oh so much more exciting! All the while I'm wondering how she can sprint after having major abdonmial surgery a few hours earlier. Blah...
That still could be the case. If there's a sequel, it could already be planned (or retconned) that the real Vickers secretly had an android duplicate of herself made and sent on the mission. That would make sense, a two years out and another two years back mission, that's an eternity in corporate time to be away from the company. Who knows what other people could get up to while you're away?
After all, a much easier way to get control of the company if she was ruthless enough would have been to simply have remained on Earth and to have had Prometheus sabotaged so that it never returned (after all, if Weyland could have smuggled himself onboard, I'm sure Vickers could have had systems sabotaged or even just a large explosive device designed to go off once everyone was in deep space where the evidence would never be found).
Sabotage the mission? By crewing the ship with Idiots doomed to make illogical and down right stupid decisions, like say forget how to read your own maps, or try to pet the obviously dangerous worm-snake-penis-cobra, or take off your helmet without checking to make sure there aren't any alien pathogens or microbes in the air? I think this theory makes the most sense of anything I've heard yet. Vickers is a clever and shrewd business woman indeed.
But cerebrally, I can buy that Shaw and Vickers look up and are trying to calculate how far they have to run to make it to the break in the loop in order to survive. And I can buy that, in trying to solve the more complicated problem, their brains might lock in on that and fail to see the more obvious, simple solution to run laterally. Shaw figures it out, Vickers doesn't.
Shaw doesn't figure it out...they both stay on the same path, it's just that Shaw trips and falls and is saved by some miraculous gap in the rocks or some shit. And the brain may lock when in danger, but people often are not using their brain when in those situations, it's all instinct and having seen a fairly narrow ship falling toward you, the instinct would be the run out of its path, not directly in it's path. There's no defending this stupidity.
Turns out she's just as dumb as everyone else though in her final scene.
