New Replies (Page 4,900)

From the modern oracle called Wikipedia: "Like sequels, prequels may or may not concern the same plot as the work from which they are derived. Often, they explain the background which led to the events in the original, but sometimes the connections are not as explicit". According to this, Prometheus could qualify as a prequel, right?

Wikipedia, lol, you sir are banned for your blasphemy. Ergh, Wikipedia, I feel sick now.

Lindelof said "If there were a sequel to Prometheus, it would not be Alien." so prometheus should not be alien prequel ( even if i think it will be )

According to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See: Snorkelbottom's indigestion. Actually, the Wikipedia explanation you posted is the type of colloquial distillation I've been trying to combat, here. The way things like films and games are marketed today has caused the term to be generalized, and thus, invalidated. I stand by the dictionary on this one. Also, because 'prequel' and 'sequel' are specific words to denote, or flag, especially connected works in the same universe. Within a universe, 2 or 3 books/movies may be actual sequels - the beginning and conclusion of a plot, and the growth of the characters there-in. The other fluff in the same universe will not directly influence this arc, and should not be called prequels or sequels, if just for the sake of confusion. /IRONY

@Snorkelbottom Wikipedia or not, do you agree with the definition of prequels? And please, try not to be so dramatic, it´s a community not a drag show..ehmm...sir?

;-)

I agree with the definition of a prequel as stated in the dictionary, not the abombination that is Wik, wik, wiki (funny taste at the back of my throat). But we don't know if it applies to Prometheus or not in regard to Alien.

What dictionary are you looking at, snorkelbottom?

Well its like a book, with pages. Starts at A ends at Z. Don't know who the author is though, doesn't read like Stephen King, not much of a plot.

@visualizer - The definition I used, being the one I felt was the easiest to understand, was the version from the Reference foundation's dictionary.com. Pretty much all dictionary sources will agree - in so many words - that a prequel or sequel continues a story arc established in another work; beginning it, continuing it, or concluding it. Alien's core plot is self contained, and thus Prometheus cannot function as a prequel in this way. Aliens functions as a sequel because it directly continues the struggle of the character Ripley with the antagonist of the series.

That is to say, if we assume that nobody from ALIEN is in Prometheus.

If Prometheus, or Magellan is in the same star system as Archeron then they would detect the same radio signals that Nostromo did. Especially if the derelict seen in the trailer is not the same one we've all seen since witnessing Alien. As for it's indestructable nature, I don't think it hit the ground. It landed. They stood there in environmental suits just looking at it in an upright position. At some later point it falls from this position onto it's side. No doubt something the members of the expedition did resulted in this.

@Manndroid - so you are basing your conception of a prequel on this definition: "a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age" Right?

Right. Though with the proviso that it involves a story arc introduced in the previous works, as added by the Webster variant.

Just to get back to the basis of this thread - In my opinion a prequel is a story/movie devoted or dedicated to it's sequel. This, according to all those directly associated with it is not devoted to Alien but a side show answering some questions relating to Alien and dedicated to the possible origins of mankind.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What matters is what something is, not what it is called. It's a companion piece. "A companion piece is a creative work that is produced as a complementary work to another stand-alone project, but storywise has nothing to do with its predecessor. While a companion piece does not necessarily need to take place within the same "universe" as the predecessor, it must follow-up on specific themes and ideas introduced in the original work. It must also be intentionally meant by its creator to be viewed alongside or within the same context as the earlier work".

guys, I am sorry to chime in here but I couldn't take it any longer... Here is EXACTLY what Ridley Scott has to say on all of this....or rather, what he has made perfectly clear to all of us already, and a long time ago at that... It was just a matter of time before we'd get some details about the Prometheus presentation at the CineEurope expo in Amsterdam today, as The Hollywood Reporter gives us the details. First of all, Ridley Scott confirmed that Prometheus will be about the mysterious Space Jockey as seen in the derelict ship in Alien: Scott acknowledged that Prometheus, while not a direct prequel to Alien, occupies the same general universe, saying the picture was inspired by a desire to explore the mystery of the "space jockey" the giant fossilized creature with the burst-open chest seen in the first Alien movie but never explained. Scott also confirmed, as we've previously only speculated, that Prometheus is the name of the ship in the movie and that the ship is sent out into space by a large company much like the "company" (Weyland Yutani) we know from the Alien franchise. Also, back in March we speculated that the movie might be somewhat inspired by Swiss sci-fi writer Eric van Dankien, who claimed that humans are not indigenous to Earth. It seems we were right again: "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. 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."

@Spartacus - Interesting stuff!

yes, and I just wanted it out there because I am sure a lot of people would want to know what he did in fact say about all this. Edit: and in no way what so ever was it intended to undermine your post, I like the post, it has exposed many many falsehoods!

No man its totally cool. This is what this forum is for. Read new theories and articles, learn from them and lets hope everyone enjoys the film for what it will be. My own opinion, when i look at the teaser trailer again after lots of discussions, i still have a feeling no matter what Ridley throws at us its gonna be great. I remember reading a good while back Ridley quoted he wants to make it - "Nasty" That's enough for me lol.

@Spartacus Ha ha only after realising maybe that post wasn't for me. Sorry man.

hahahahaha yea me too I can't wait to read what Frantz tells us all a few days before the rest of us see it !!! He is going to be in the envious position of telling us which theories were close, which were dead bang on, which were completely off course, and whether it all works or not. June is going to be a very interesting and quite cathartic month I think for all of us !!!

I've never looked at this discussion board so much in my life in the past month. Sometimes you read someone Idea and you think shite that's brilliant and then you wait, sure that might not even be it. Aww my head is done in!!!! Grrrr what are the SPACE JOCKEYS??? lol

me too man we're all "Junkies" now !

it's a fuckin' prequel. anyone who says otherwise has bought Fox's transparent marketing campaign, hook-line-and sinker. just sayin'.....

It's kinda a prequel but in a way such as: "Patriot Games" is to "Hunt for Red October" or "Casino Royal" is to "Thunderball"

Why does FTL travel mean time travel?

Faster Than Light

Well, if you travel FTL you can by definition "look back" from your destination into events that happened before you left. Therefore, you are able to witness your own past. In that sense, it is time travel. Ender (btw I loved "Ender's game"), easy answer: genetics.

@ Ender - I know what it stands for, thats not what I asked. @ Baldas - Really, says who. FTL is just a velocity, until we actually attempt to breach that speed we have no idea what will occur, regardless of what scientists say. Also take into account that 100 years ago scientists claimed it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound. Now we have fighter jets capable of Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound).

IF an american research vessel is attacked by a Iranian warship ... warship will win easily and without a scratch ...that wont mean that Iranians are stronger ... In my view is the exact contrary ... that "gods" are not so invulnerable ... and probably one of their best starships is crippled by the little prometeus/magellan/Snoopy/addrandonname human ship .....hooray !! an a little swedish girl will kick their asses ...hooray !! and they will be owned by a washmachine named david ....hooray !!

[quote]@ Ender - I know what it stands for, thats not what I asked. @ Snorkle - Really, says who. FTL is just a velocity, until we actually attempt to breach that speed we have no idea what will occur, regardless of what scientists say. Also take into account that 100 years ago scientists claimed it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound. Now we have fighter jets capable of Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound).[/quote] No, it's not the same as it disproves Einstein's theory or relativity, and everything in the universe is a lie.That's not the same as going faster than the speed of sound because that doesn't break the physics associated with it.Nothing, absolutely nothing should be able to travel FTL although the chaps here [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15471118]speedy[/url] might argue that point. I really hope we don't see this in Prometheus

Snorklebottom I dont know if you're familar with Special Relativity (I am) but the general concensus in the scitntific community is FTL means time travel. I was really more interested in peoples thoughts on The Engineers technology! Baldas Enders Game is Epic! - whats the deal with your profile pic?

Here's a possibility... what if Einstein was wrong, he was human after all. Also there are two theories of relativity that he devised - General and Special, and they both contradict each other. For example... Fact - Light travels at the speed of light (obviously - can't be bothered to look up the actual speed). Do you agree? Fact - Nothing, not even light can escape the gravitational force of a black hole. Do you agree? Fact - A black hole is, put simply, a hole in space (maybe time, no-one knows) created by the "implosion" of a strong gravitational source (say a dead star), thus it is in essence pure gravity. Do you agree? Thus, if light cannot escape from a black hole it is affected by gravity, therefore logic dictates that a strong enough gravitational source could both slow down and speed up light (or more technically Photons, which are particles of light).

@ ender - not according to Hawking, he believes wormholes are linked to time travel.

Is your point that you still think that FTL is just a velocity?, or that light cannot escape from a black hole?How can you say FACT about a black hole, then say no one knows?Nobody knows anything about black holes really, it's all conjecture and opinions. And your not being serious about Einstein(and the whole scientific community) are you? There's a reason it's called science fiction.(worm holes)

Its science fiction. Who really cares what theories are sound and what we actually know or dont know because we havent witnessed it yet. its very plausible for FTL to be in the movie, but i wouldnt think so. In all the shots we saw of the ship its using thrusters and traveling to each planet without warp speed.

Okay... The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second. For something to exceed this speed, would be to travel FTL. Therefore FTL is a velocity. Black Holes exist, they have been identified many times over, especially in the center of galaxies. There is probably one man alive that knows more about them than anyone, his name is Professor Stephen Hawking. Professor Stephen Hawking is probably the most eminent member of the scientific community alive today. And yes I'm being serious about Professor Albert Einstein. Yes he may have been a genius, but that doesn't make him flawless, infallible and incapable of error, and his two best known theories contradict each other, as I already stated. The facts are as I laid them out, are they not? Thus the logic in my statement about FTL being theoretically possible stands.

The words black holes and fact should not really be mentioned in the same sentence. Black holes like everything else that have not been proven by experiment.. are theoritical. Theusprom - what do you make of this new Dredd movie? couldnt be any worse than the old one? Used to be a huge 2000 AD nut - havent picked it up in years.

Black Holes have been proven by observation (by astronomers and NASA). Proving them by experiment, I don't think anyone with half a brain cell should even attempt it.