How SJ becomes Fossilised??

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

we don't know what fossilization refers to in the near future. it may very well encompass what snorkelbottom describes, or it may not. but if the theory that the derelict discovered by nostromo is the one that came crashing down in the trailer(and there is a strong case to be made for that), then one either must admit that retconning has taken place or that there are other possibilities. one which i just described. true fossilization, the current definition has no account for being freeze dried in the vacuum of space, but it's possible that in the future when humanity becomes a space faring race, such a definition would be considered.

I believe SJ IS fossilized and millennia old in Alien for the following reasons: -Details in Prometheus show a more slick, smoother and metallic "bio-mechanical" interior of the derelict, implying that it has "grown" ancient from millions of years in the movie Alien. -The textures on the walls have grown more pronounced in Alien, from metallic and smooth, into rigid boney biological forms. Nails continue to grow post mortem in human corpses- similar here. -LV-426 shows atmosphere and plant life where it crashes in Prometheus trailer, which could be an SJ terraforming project gone awry, because in Alien it is a baron, lifeless, desolate planet. -There will be time travel in this movie to make the fossilization theory work. These creatures are ancient and technologically superior, so I say time travel is possible. Could be wrong but it makes sense from what I've seen! Any takers?

I believe SJ IS fossilized and millennia old in Alien for the following reasons: -Details in Prometheus show a more slick, smoother and metallic "bio-mechanical" interior of the derelict, implying that it has "grown" ancient from millions of years in the movie Alien. -The textures on the walls have grown more pronounced in Alien, from metallic and smooth, into rigid boney biological forms. Nails continue to grow post mortem in human corpses- similar here, the ship was "alive". The overall shape looks organic and mechanical. -LV-426 shows atmosphere and plant life where it crashes in Prometheus trailer, which could be an SJ terraforming project gone awry, because in Alien it is a baron, lifeless, desolate planet. -There will be time travel in this movie to make the fossilization theory work. These creatures are ancient and technologically superior, so I say time travel is possible. Could be wrong but it makes sense from what I've seen! Any takers?

..fossilized.. Dallas didn't seem like a scientist,,and may have used the word..'fossilized'..as I might have on the first viewing. But what other word would describe the SJ's situation..in the chair?...and could that give an explanation that wouldn't involve millions of years? Thanks for the link..

What about the fact in Prometheus, the head of an engineer is reanimated after appearing fossilized? The eggs in alien seem almost stone, then reanimate, ultimately giving John Hurt a bad case of indigestion. Could the fossilization, just be a way of freezing by the technology of the engineers? Then Kane, Dallas and co, wouldn't know any different. They aren't scientists on a mission like prometheus, just regular guys thrown into an unusual situation. Just my opinion......