Prometheus is a prequel..please dont argue otherwise

Ah... But they have the same enemies, magics etc. Yet each own is unrelated in terms of story, despite this, which is contradictory.

Prequel or not, I really hope we don´t see any Xenomorphs in Prometheus. Like Scott told MTV "The alien in a sense, as a shape, is worn out". It would be such a step back in terms of innovation - like a singer performing his earlier tracks to satisfy the audience, even though they mean nothing to him anymore. Gigers Alien design was truly groundbreaking and genius, but this movie is going in a different direction.

I think the best, BEST example are the Indiana Jones Films. Do you consider them sequels/prequels? Because they are serials. The plot of one does not feed into the next, despite utilizing the same character(s). This is where the 'seq' in sequel comes from; sequence. Time itself is a sequence of events. Thus, sequel implies [i]direct[/i], or dependent, sequence - you need to see the next movie to know how the plot established in the first is concluded. You could see a single Indy film, and it works on its own. This goes along with my Conan story analogy. "But Manndroid," you say, "Prometheus' events explain the initial circumstances in Alien!" - and yes, you might be correct, but the sequence of events has been broken because of one, key connective tissue - main characters. As for Final Fantasy - like I said, it's a like a volume convention. Things in the same world or style will have common things, such as - in this case - magic, enemies, naming conventions, etc. However, it's a different world, with different characters, and a different story. You could say that every Final Fantasy after the first game is a spin-off, ad nauseum.

I need to sit down.

Have some coffee. Take mine. I've had [i]way[/i] too much.

I think we all have.

How about we call it a pre-off, or spin-quel.

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