Prometheus/Alien Tie In... Possibly!?

i hope if she does, a cameo is the abolute limit and not as ripley.. so sick of ripley.. time to do something new

I agree completely, I just think there's no way it isn't happening, and that's just me, But I think it will be done just as you said, very short, and very intelligently, just to say afterwards that they did it, I think Scott would consider it a challenge and I think the fact that Weaver has not complained or said one word about it publically speaks volumes about it.

Here is somehting she apparently told some of the press in Hollywood So who knows... I am probabaly wrong.... but that commentarty seems to suggest this entire thing was an idea that grew out of that very discussioin between Scott and Weaver while watching Alien again. There are equal parts of mystery and madness surrounding Ridley Scott's sort of Alien prequel, Prometheus, and finally the star of the franchise (though she's not in the upcoming film) Sigourney Weaver has offered her two cents. “I actually talked to Ridley about this very idea, and I’m delighted he’s doing it,” Weaver tells Hollywood Outbreak. “I feel it’s in good hands. It’s a wonderful franchise, and if they can invigorate the creature, it could have another life.”

well there's one thing i'll say about ridley scott, he's a very smart director and will do it well if it's done at all (please no..) Look at gladiator, watch the commentary and he says there's no historical basis for the part at the beginning of gladiator during the battle where they start firing flamin arrows. I f you watch they light a shallow narrow ditch full of oil that archers ignite their arrows on. It had no historical basis, he just thought it seemed the most sensible way to do it, for a line of archers to get consistent and simultaneous fire away. Some historians later commented on this saying that it seemed like a great idea and couldn't believe no one had thought of it.

@ tecb, So you are part of the grammar police I see. Concievable and Obvious are two different things. IT IS OBVIOUS that Ridley is creating Prometheus as a branch off to the original franchise. IT IS OBVIOUS because... 1. Weyland/Weylan and/or Yutani or Weylan(d)-Yutani are present. 2. The Space Jockey is present. 3. The Derelict is present. 4. The Alien/Xenomorph maybe present (likely in the final 8 minutes). 5. Both Ridley and "the LOST guy" have stated that Prometheus is set within the same universe but goes in a different direction, which is basically what I said.

Obvious infers irrefutable proof, which we have none of, in fact what we have is a bunch of stills people are seeing what they want to see. There are no finished products anywhere, we also have production crew and cast giving conflicting statements about whether this is part of the alien continuity, which it very likely is. But's not obvious by any means. Also the correction of obvious to concievable was due to the direction you claim Ridley is going to take. With the amount of stills, it's also conceivable it could be a direct sequel and the studio and ridley is throwing us curves. The first scenario is way more likely (possibly likely was a better word) but my main issue is with the fact that you write as though you are the oracle on everything prometheus related, with adjectives like obviously, definitive phrases like "plain to see" thrown around with gay abandon. Your opening post on the Weyland-Yutani/weyland/yutani logo thread was pretty much the most amazing display of arrogance (essentially, I'm right, i can't believe you don't agree with me) i've seen in recent times. And i work on the oilrigs. You haven't see arrogance until you meet a drilling rep

Blind, now arrogant = abuse. I could cry, i could whinge, I could complain... Or I could laugh. Are the 5 points I raised not fact? Yes they are. Have we not seen the leaked trailer? Yes we have. I see what I see, you see what you see. The problem is that your opinion differs to mine and instead of an "agree to disagree" position you are trying to pull my strings (which will never work) with both personal comments and an attempt to deconstruct everything I say. This is a forum, a place where people type words. If my words so easily offend you when they are not even directed at you, then it seems you take things way too seriously and view everything as a personal attack, thus you are not cut out for engaging in intelligent conversation with intelligent individuals.

Blind, yeah that was a cheap shot, arrogant? nah.. That's self evident. 1. A "W" is present, could be Weyland, could be something completely different. Could be bait to stir up publicity for the film, hell it might not even be there at all. I cite the Predators trailer where 7 or 8 target markers appear on the main characters chest but in the film only one appears 2. a picture of a biomechanical looking humanid form which could be a statue or former creature is present. In fact whether it is or not is being debated on this forum 3.Haven't seen the pic of the derilict, but based on the architecture it all does look very gigeresque. So did parts of species. 4.The alien "maybe" present? enough said. 5. Set in the same universe. Soldier was set in the bladerunner universe. What you're missing here is there is no agree to disagree between us. You are stating things definitively when my position is (in fact i agree with a lot of points you've made) is that you're probably right, but there's not enough evidence to make any definitive statements on anything. They best can be said is that "it's likely that" or "it points to". Nothing is obvious or clear. Seems to me with the above mentioned word choice in your posts, you're the one taking things too seriously. As for remarks about my intelligence.. well I'm just going laugh loudly, hang on.. yup all done

1. My points exactly, I am open to the ideas of others, just that IMO it looks like a Y with wings. 2. In the leaked trailer we saw the beginnings of a Space Jockey rising out of the disc shaped platform seen in Alien (I am unaware if you caught the leaked trailer). 3. Again in the leaked trailer we saw multiple shots of the Derelict presumably crashing. 4. We agree, although I suspect these theories of David becoming an Alien are far-fetched. IMO we will see the Space Jockey born Alien after the Derelict crashes (this could possibly link to the flamethrower pic we have seen). 5. Was it? You learn something new everyday. I made no remarks to your intelligence. It seems that wires have been crossed and a misunderstanding has ensued, either through the reading or writing of each others posts. Yes I admit I use affirmation words instead of speculation words, but I use them in places were IMO they are justified through the evidence we have seen and heard. Maybe I am wrong to that, either way that seems to be the only contention held. Maybe I should use "IMO" instead. - Extends hand as a sign of peace -

I remember reading something like a yr ago b4 Scott went on the "this is not a prequel and the last 8 minutes contain alien DNA", and the article discussed basically "The Xenos were to be redesigned by Giger, to be larger and more fearsome looking then the Xenos we know" I think thats still what probably the case and that they r probably in the film and Scott is trying to make us forget it being a prequel just to pull a fast one. The fact of them being larger and different looking then the original Xenos, makes me think... SJ Xeno anyone?

Snorklebottom[quote]5. Both Ridley and "the LOST guy" have stated that Prometheus is set within the same universe but goes in a different direction, which is basically what I said.[/quote] LOL "the Lost guy" ya thats totally his name!

I can never remember his name, or how to spell it lol.

Ya I cant either, so from this day on we call him The LOST Guy lol makes putting him on our forum topics easier...

@snorkel Yep, absolutely accepted. I did see the leaked trailor, a few days back it looked like it had been filmed with a handycam from a film screen, maybe the one on here was better quality, and the scene you're refering to, i absolutely can not make out enough detail other than the surrounding area looked like the platfor, on which the jockeys seat was on in alien. but what i got was based on hitting pause and play on a web player very fast. and again i saw a ship getting hit, but could not make out enough detail to decide whether it was the derelict or not. To be honest, that fact Ridley is getting involved in scfi/horror again is enough for me to trust, the Man is my favourite director, and while he doesn't always succeed in every genre he tries or i should say some of the genre's he tries aren't to my taste, he usually does whatever subject he chooses justice.

- Wipes oil of his hands, you could've washed your hands first Tec-B - Hopefully we will see clearer in the forthcoming trailer that will be released... (lol) ...IMO will probably be released on monday the 12th (sure I heard that somewhere).

I heard that as well, and am very much looking forward to it, unfortunately seeing it is going to simulateously drive me crazy as i'm going to have to wait 6 sodding months to see it.. and i'll probably be offshore..

wow... ok this is interesting. I just surfed by here looking for info on Prometheus and I just happen to stumble on a story I know something about... and might be able to contribute a bit of alien lore. I live in Milton Keynes in England. In 1985 or so some stuff was filmed here for the film "aliens" Anyway a friend of my parents who was a local sculptor ended up making some of the eggs for the movie. Philomena Davies. http://lordhicks.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/flying-carpet-sculpture-by-philomena-davies-2/ After filming she kept 2 of the eggs and used them as planters on either side of her garage. Anyway. According to the story she told me, this book reference is talking about an egg. Apparently she got the idea to use them as planters because the eggs were always referred to as urns on the prop sheets. The idea was the original set would be like a cathedral full of burial urns. The design brief everyone got about the eggs ( including Geiger I presume ) is that they should bring to mind urns.

[url]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T1H2HEg4VUU/TlvBDfvVpvI/AAAAAAAACLM/cQwIcRWihXQ/s1600/biomechanic-by-h-r-giger44.jpg[/url]

Wow lupe, good story... Would love to see the planters!

Also, if you keep reading, there's a line a bit later when Kane is in the egg chamber that says that the objects look like the one Dallas saw but closed up instead of open.

If the aliens are analogous to terrestrial insects...which they seem to be, since they go through more than one metamorphosis, a queen could develop from [i]any[/i] egg, based upon environmental changes where it was layed, or pheromones released from other hatched facehuggers, chestbursters, or fully developed "adult" forms. The source of a "queen" alien, isn't necessarily all that mysterious.

i think this is just an odd marketing tactic after watching the leaked trailer that "broke" Tom Rothman's heart a few weeks ago, seeing the Space Jockey's ship ascending vertically into the air, pretty much validated my suspicion that this IS in fact an ALIEN prequel in every sense of the word what is a bit puzzling to me, is why deny that it is...?, much the way Scott seems to have done ever since this film got the green light in any case, i hope this film has a similar impact on me that ALIEN (1979) did, i'm hoping for some truly deep / hardcore sci-fi from Scott and his team, and NOT the same redundant commercial "shoot-em-up" garbage that started from Cameron and all the rest... it's time to make a film that does ALIEN justice, rather than some rip-off that all the films that followed ALIEN seemed to have become