New Replies (Page 4,843)

@craigamore, Clever question.. I'll go with any rewrite Ridley wants. It seems like with this movie, we are getting back to the real story.. lol.

Thanks for the refresher, craigamore. So no Xenomorph, from the horses mouth. But is that mind games on the part of the director and the studio? Do they want to surprise us? Stir up more interest? - could also backfire if that is the intention. He mentioned that it completely disregards all the later alien films and what I read into that statement is that the life cycle of queen --> egg --> facehugger --> alien. So it could be the case that he reverts back to the original life cycle (as depicted in the Alien deleted scenes) of human/host --> cocoon --> egg --> facehugger --> alien. A certainly more exotic cycle, although I had no problems with Jim Cameron's idea.

First off...glad I bring this article back to light, because I think it does answer a numbe rof questions that we all seem to keep asking on these forums. Second, I'm glad you guys enjoyed it. Third.....I truly am puzzled by Ridley......You read this article, the other tidbits he's dropped, watch the teaser trailers and....I feel like there's something staring us all right in the face that I can't put my finger on. When he said this was not a prequel to 'Alien', I understood that in the traditional sense...meaning he was ignoring the xenomorph as we know it. Thus, it WAS a prequel, just not what most people might expect and the whole "it's not a prequel" thing was meant to keep us as much in the dark as you possibly can with a project like this. And, of course, we then get the MTV article last week confirming that he called it a prequel. So I believe him when he says there won't be any xenomorphs...but that's where this gets interesting...the 'something' staring us in the face. I sense a monster there we just haven't seen yet...a monster that will seem familiar, yet entirely new. I get this sense from a few places...tiny pieces of information infering different things. The leaked trailer, for example has a few shots that don't make it into the trailer officially released just before Christmas. One of which shows what looks like a black hand moving over the outer edge of one of the cryo units; the other being a shot of something moving beneath a white coating or sheet of some sort, again, in a cryo unit. Leaked trailer from Thanksgiving can be found at: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/83539/PROMETHEUS_Leaked_Trailer_Enhanced_De_noised/ These two shots are at :37 and :39 in the leaked trailer with a shot of the SpaceJockey chair in between them at :38. Trust me on this. These shots did not make it into the eventual official release. They are very difficult to see and make out, but they're there and very interesting. There's also the implication that Shaw has something in her abdomine they either are forced to remove or she must give birth to. You have the shot in the teasers for the teaser trailer of the diagnostic image of something in someone's abdomine. Maybe it isn't Shaw. I can't remember, maybe somebody can help me there. I don't know, perhaps I'm reaching...I just have this feeling....he's holding something back...something bizarre that he wants to leave in the shadows until the last possible moment.

Glad I could help guys

IMO, He did not say "No Xenomorph". In fact...he said the exact opposite! "there’s a DNA of the very first alien," Also, I posted all of that already and had many discussions with people here about it and one of the points I still stick to is this one...and with regard to that particular interview.... Who is to say he isn't lying? & by the way, doing so, would be directly in line with his character.

near speed of light travel would ensure that the events of prometheus happened thousands, or millions or years before nostrum finds it...

which would mean that the Prometheus set off thousands/millions of years ago...dont think so

@BellaisanAlien... 4. the atmosphere of LV-426 decomposes the suit to become fossilised/mummified.

The space jockey had a chestburster which killed it in the seat - and perhaps this event caused the crash. Some speculate that that chestburster was a queen which was responsible for the eggs. But to return to the point, I don't believe the space jockey is fossilised - which implies hundreds of thousands of years in isolation. Afterall, what of the eggs then? Or does that blue light preserve eternal youth of the eggs etc. In any case, Sir Ridley has already stated that "that's not a skeleton, it's a suit".

We know that SJ had a chestburster in him as the injuries obviously showed when it was in the chair, which means this - 1. We DO see something very much xenomorph related in Prometheus as, how else would SJ have a a chestburster inside him. or 2. During Prometheus, that SJ goes to another planet where xenomorphs are. Surely it HAS to be one of those scenarios??

I don't think Ridley Scott & his creative team spent too much time thinking about the scientific basis for the Space Jockey. The Space Jockey is designed to look incomprehensible, it is not supposed to make sense, it's alien. I fear if the new movie seeks to jump-start a new franchise, and start explaining the whole Alien Mythology like Richard Attenborough doing his PLANET EARTH series, it will just collapse under its own pretentiousness. Just like LOST the TV Series. ALIEN is a tiny nasty shocker of a movie, with a precise knowledge of horror movie rhythm (start slow, subvert expectations, build suspense, and then "Krreeeeech!!!"). Its minimalism, budget and storytelling, is its strength.

I agree with you Engr101 - I think the things that worked best in the original movie were the things that didn't make sense and were not explained. Finding out that they've decided the Space Jockey's outer appearance was just a suit is a bit of a letdown. Still I'm willing to give the movie a chance.

@Engr101 -"I fear if the new movie seeks to jump-start a new franchise, and start explaining the whole Alien Mythology like Richard Attenborough doing his PLANET EARTH series, it will just collapse under its own pretentiousness" Could you explain this mumbo jumbo please.

If the movie turns into lost it will fail - lost became a mess. It did start out good though. Could be when the suit dies, and the ship for that matter, assuming they are alive, it decomposes fast like a body, or at least the "living" part does. It will be interesting to see how far the living-machine biomechanical stuff is taken. I hope the blue guy is not a mutated person. Seems dorky, but thats only because I don't know all the details. I won't loopse faith.

@Macs I hate it if a movie relies too much on exposition. Have you been to INCEPTION forum where fans complain about too many boring lectures by Leo on how Dream Levels work? Have you seen the last 5 minutes of MISSION TO MARS? It plays like a Children's Guide to Birth of Universe by Assoc. of New Age Teachers. I hope Ridley has a more elegant solution, you know: show more, tell less. Remember how Ridley Scott dislikes the voice over at the start of BLADE RUNNER? I can't imagine him doing the same thing in PROMETHEUS: "In a time before time..."

In the original script there was also an alien fossilized, standing in a corner, that crew don't see.That quote by Dallas "Looks fossilized" was always a nod to the audience to explain the fact that the Jockey had been there for a very long time.I just don't get why else it would be in the script?I mean he doesn't say "Looks fossilized, but it might be this crazy LV426 atmosphere and it probably has only been here a couple of decades."The whole point on him saying "fossilized" was to give the impression it was very,very old - imho of course.

Dallas didn't know what a digit was either though lol.

[quote][b]Dallas didn't know what a digit was either though lol[/b].[/quote] You've lost me?!? But what I was trying to say was it was in the script to give the impression of something ancient.

I understand where your coming from theusprom, I really do. we all believed that the Derelict had been there a long time. but it seems prometheus may say otherwise, in which case the over-analysers will demand an answer, of which there are many (which have been covered here), but at the end of the day it comes down to two things... 1. Dallas was the captain, not the science officer, thus his frame of reference would be limited regards fossilisation. 2. He said it looked fossilised, not that it was fossilised.

@Macs What I am afraid of is that 20th Century Fox, upon seeing the wild success of scifi action movies like AVATAR and the new APES prequel/reboot, saw a commercial opportunity with the ALIEN franchise and decided on a reboot complete with exposition scenes on how Earth was formed by Celestial Beings with soothing New Age voice-over, kinda like these Nature Documentaries I mentioned (I love those BBC Nature shows by the way, nothing against them) . Often times, when a studio enthusiastically backs a tent pole from its conception, the movie either becomes blah or fails completely. It's late, I am on caffeine, so sorry if my thoughts read like mumbo-jumbo.

When Ash and Dallas are discussing what to do about Kane and his facehugger Ash says something like "I am going to try to remove one of the digits..." and Dallas says "You're gonna do what?" A frustrated Ash lashes back "Finger!... I am going to try to get his finger off." Dallas was not chosen to be captain for his smarts he was chosen to be captain because he was controllable and maybe a bit naive.

Ahh, I see lol....but.....That doesn't come across in the movie very well, at least I didn't pick up on it (Dallas being stupid I mean) and I don't think the Jockey scene reinforces it.I've always just thought that scene was the filmakers way of trying to get over the point of it being old.

@Theusprom I agree. I think there's too much over-analysis going on here

The digit thing is definitely not about him being dumb. I always took it as him being surprised Ash would want to try to remove one digit and not that he didn't know what a digit was. Jesus.....even a 9 year old kid knows what a digit is, numerical and biologically. This is again, as stated previously, way too much analysis and thought about nothing.

I feel that the scene is supposed to distinguish the 2 characters from each other. A scientist would use proper technical jargon, "digit" as opposed to simply "fingers." Dallas is more like a typical gung-ho captain/leader character: "That's just a bunch of BS [ ..] I just run the ship!"

No Snorkle,this is a forum about a movie, nothing to take personal here.I think your wrong, you think I'm wrong, no biggie but sometimes your posts come across a bit off, like it's your way and everybody else is wrong.You cannot come out with a statement like -put simply Dallas was wrong - when it is only your opinion and there are several facts (mentioned above) that argue your point.I've just re-watched the scene and he says "looks like it's been dead awhile,fossilized" Now I take that as the filmakers, including Scott and the scriptwriters, trying to get the point across that Jockey is very, very old.Don't you agree?

Dallas vs Ash, a Doer vs a Thinker. Back to the point... Yes Dallas says "It looks fossilized", does this mean it was fossilized, was this a way of inferring to the audience the Jockey had been dead a long time, does it matter... It looked skeletal, fossils are usually skeletons, thus Dallas said "It looks fossilized". But according to Ridley it is a suit, a bio-mechanical suit, an exo-skeletal suit, thus the skeletal elements of the suit are already present, Dallas' frame of reference was the assumption that the Jockey was the endo-skeletal remains of a dead alien, a fossil. Put simply Dallas was wrong.

Comparing the suits/statues in the new image with image from Alien would probably clarify my point... [img]http://www.avpgalaxy.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/prometheus1.jpg[/img] [img]http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/space-jockey-in-ridley-scotts-alien.jpg[/img]

I agree big style with Theusprom - In Alien, Dallas's observations were without a shadow of a doubt re-enforcing the point that this ship had been there for 1000's potentially millions of years. If prometheus doesn't make this fact happen (time travel, whatever) I am sure I will be dissapointed. If its just been down there for 20/30 years - what the fuck? Better be a damn good explanation for this ageing/mutation.

there is, look at my last two posts

With Lindelof involved, I can guarantee you there will be time travel, fast-forwards, fast-backwards, fast-sideways, fast-diagonals,.... I wonder what his smoke monster will be.

the planets environment is probably responsible for Accelerated decay but can also be a natural preservation to some of the suits components . Flesh as we all know is vulnerable to decay but bones in earth's environment can be preserved for millions of years .

[quote]Dallas vs Ash, a Doer vs a Thinker. Back to the point... Yes Dallas says "It looks fossilized", does this mean it was fossilized, was this a way of inferring to the audience the Jockey had been dead a long time, does it matter... It looked skeletal, fossils are usually skeletons, thus Dallas said "It looks fossilized". But according to Ridley it is a suit, a bio-mechanical suit, an exo-skeletal suit, thus the skeletal elements of the suit are already present, Dallas' frame of reference was the assumption that the Jockey was the endo-skeletal remains of a dead alien, a fossil. [b]Put simply Dallas was wrong[/b].[/quote] Lol, Snorkle it makes me giggle a bit that most of your posts are statements and you seem to think you are an authority on any subject matter raised here.You don't even say "in my opinion" which comes across as a tad arrogant.It means jack shit what Dallas' frame of reference was - fossilized is follisized and that wasn't the point of having it in the script - to give the impression of an ancient being.To say Dallas was wrong is to say Scott was wrong.Your theory does not explain the follisized xeno that they don't find, or the fact that when they made Alien It wasn't a suit it was a being and it's only changed lately to give artistic license.

The thing i find fascinating was on discovering this fossilized being in the original film was how it became so easily disregarded due to kane's condition but even in those circumstances the crew would have acknowledged the immense importance of looking into that discovery in much greater detail it seemed to be almost instantly forgot but given the concerns they had its understandable.

[url=http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/alien_shooting.html]original[/url] [b] Dallas gets up. They stand for a moment... Then move away from the rock formation. Fossilized into the other side of the rock is a shape. Fifteen feet tall. Unseen by the members of the party.[/b][u][i][/i][/u]

@ Theusprom... I am not being arrogant in any way shape or form. And in most of my posts i regulary use IMO, but in this case it is obvious... 1. Compare the suits/statues in the new image with Shaw to the SJ in Alien, they are identical in appearance, the only difference is their colour. 2. Dallas, as did we all, assumed the SJ to be an endoskeletal creature, thus seeing its skeletal appearance he assumed it looked fossilized, as did we all. This was most likely the original intention but Ridley has obviously changed it evidenced by the the image that has been released, and the earlier image with the SJ suit on the floor. 3. Dallas was wrong now we can see that the pilot wasn't fossilized, but a skeletal suit, because of Ridleys changes. 4. The fossilized xeno didn't appear in the film thus does not need explaining. 5. What we thought we saw 30 years ago was the skeletal remains of a big flesh and blood Alien, Ridley has changed it, what we now see is a skeletal suit, thus no fossilization. Use your eyes, its not that hard to see.

Maybe in those days seeing a giant fossilized alien dead in a chair was no big deal.

[b]Use your eyes, its not that hard to see.[/b][u][/u] Ok fella, hey you believe what ever you like

@ Theusprom... How are you taking this as a personal attack. When I first posted on this thread I suggested the atmosphere may have helped in fossilization. A long shot but was adding to the pool of ideas... Then I searched for a decent pic of the SJ for my own personal use and then flipped my tab in my browser back here where I had the new image up. I flicked back and forth, noticing they looked the same, then remembering Ridleys comment that the big guy in the chair was a suit, it hit me there is no fossilization, as I have tried to explain to everyone here. But you have assumed I'm seeing something that isn't there... LOOK FOR YOURSELF, the suits and the jockey are the same, there is no fossilization, Ridleys comment changes the game.

At the time and for the past 33 years yes i agree, but ridley has changed everything saying that it was a suit and showing us the suits that are identical to what we saw, we were wrong, the fossilization is wrong because it isnt the fossilized remains but a faded suit