MovieChat Forums > Alien: Covenant (2017) Discussion > I can't believe how selfish they were.

I can't believe how selfish they were.


The second the landing party realized that two members of their team had already been struck down by some kind of deadly infectious agent on the planet, they should have told Tennessee to leave with the colonists and not attempt to retrieve them. They knowingly endangered over 2,000+ lives just to save their own skins.

By the third act, when Daniels and Tennessee were fighting to get back to the colony ship KNOWING that there was a xenomorph on board their vessel, and that either Daniels or the guy with the hole in his face (I forget his name) might be infected, I was really shaking my head.

And it was immediately obvious that [spoiler]David had disguised himself as Walter[/spoiler], so the "big reveal" at the end fell flat and I spent the entire climax just disgusted with our "hero" Daniels for not even considering the possibility that this had happened.

reply

it was great... i loved it... seeing the team all break down out of their ignorance, blind trust in technology, hubris and self-centered decision making...

it was truly dark knowing the kind of death and mutation that awaits the 2,000 embryos...

reply

It was dog ****, and tropey as ****.

reply

A little negative but I'd have to agree. I watched it twice just to make sure. It's dog 5hit

reply

You would me more willing to forgive them if you understood a bit about human psychology.

People have a deep deep evolutionary based desire for self-preservation and preservation of kin or immediate family i.e. spouse, offspring etc. You don't even have to take my word for it. Think about this in your life.

If you were told to kill your daughter to save 2000 anonymous strangers in North Korea, you might be tempted to say that you would make the rational moral decision in this hypothetical unreal scenario, that is: kill your daughter and save the 2000 people. But, in the real world I guarantee that the decision would be much much more difficult and you might end up making the morally irrational decision.

People show an incredibly strong and deep genetic preference for kin. This preference is morally irrational, but evolutionarily rational, those 2000 strangers don't carry your genes or those 2000 might not be the future bearer of your offspring.

Both the pilots on board the Covenant had spouses on the planet. The people on the planet were driven by self-preservation.

reply

The average joe, yeah you're right in everything you say. However, in this situation it wouldnt be average joes. It would be people trained and drilled in to the ground that the mission comes first. This was nothing but charctaers written to be fodder. They served no other purpose. The average joe that you describe would have noped out of just about every scenario they found themselves in before being killed. Go with creepy android you just met after weird interaction with an alien that killed your friend? "Sounds good lead the way", I don't think so! So the self preservation argument goes right out the window there. These people were only slightly more evolved than lemmings.

reply

It would help if their spouses weren't among the active crew. The spouses should have been in hypersleep while the crew should have had no ties. That way someone else other than Faris will die, and Tennessee won't risk sending Covenant down to be possibly struck by a dangerous storm. I know they're colonists, but seriously, in missions like this, you need a crew that has no physical or emotional ties to one another. That's how the first Alien movie happened as well, because most of the crew had an emotional tie to Kane for being their friend.

reply

I think you've over subscribed to evolution by ignoring the strong social altruistic that humanity has learned. For one north korea is not a friendly nation to us by any means but the colonmists on the ship were apart of the same mission. And the scenario isn't usually down to Kill to save others. The scenario which most likely will result in altruistic tendencies is to allow some one to die (Through inaction rather then outright killing them). This behavior exists because history has shown it exists.

reply

Responding to both you and FordFairlane: I'm not advocating "evolutionary rationality". I'm not advocating anything, I'm simply posing a possible explanation of why events took place in the way that they did. Human brains are wired in an evolutionary way, yes, but we can use our intellect and not rely on human nature. We can use intelligence to make better and more rational decisions.

Altruism is an evolved trait in humanity. Usually with altruism there is an implicitly expected payback. Or, sometimes the mere increase in social standing within the group (and thereby higher preference by the opposite sex) justifies the altruistic behavior.

It's much more difficult to show altruism towards the "out-group" thanks to group bias. It's much more difficult to show altruism towards someone in China or North Korea or the middle east.

That being said, I'm not saying that evolutionary nature cannot be overcome. Some people give charity to Africa and never publicize or broadcast the charity-giving (they don't gain social status from it). This is a completely intelligence based decision and a completely evolutionarily irrational decision. Ofcourse, people who show this type of behavior are an extreme minority.

To FordFairlane's argument regarding how these weren't average joes: Do not underestimate intelligent knowlegeable people's capacity for irrationality. People behave in irrational ways regardless of how intelligent and knowledgeable they are. Just look at The Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment. Look at any of the large number of fallacies and biases that humans fall for on a regular basis. Humans are not perfect by any means, regardless of position.

I know about intelligent, decently reputable University professors who not only fail to discourage tribalism and conflict based on group differences and power acquisition, but they actively encourage tribalism and group bias. This is just an example.

reply

I know about intelligent, decently reputable University professors who not only fail to discourage tribalism and conflict based on group differences and power acquisition, but they actively encourage tribalism and group bias.


I take it you are talking about professors of the Humanities.

I'd hardly say they were intelligent then.

Particularly if they are working in the US.

As for the movie's themes and nuances - have you ever considered that it is just shoddy writing playing to the cheap seats?

reply

I think the carelessness of the crew is more attributed to bad story telling and that the writer/writers have a darker view of humanity.

Compare this with the recent movie Life(2017) were both sides of humanity are explored as well as the sacerfise the crew made in Promethus by crashing into the derelict. (Although I doubt people would be all happy "Hands Up" about it.)

reply

Yup, the ending is predictable and nearly every crew member on board the Covenant is pretty much a moron. This movie was mediocre.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/fyYgj2Fpur0

reply

I don't know why they took off their helmets. By the time Alien (1979) the science division has a quarantine where you have to wait 24 hours for decontamination if you crack your helmet or take it off. yet this is two movies in a row where helmets go off immeditly no fear of microbes or germs.

reply

Alien (1979) is set in the future... maybe by then they had leant their lesson ;)

reply

I keep retconning it like that in my head. But I have to assume what ever happens to the prometheus/covenant/other2movies gets lost forever as every movies after these prequals implies lvv-426 was our first encounter with the space jokeys and alien.

reply