How SJ becomes Fossilised??

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]