Question i keep coming back to

I agree, Mark, and I do believe we are seeing incredibly small snippets of the whole set in the ads released so far. No one knows what the entire inside will look like. Great input, though!

Necrofan said it first and best

I don't really mind the differences in design. I suppose if the ship were alive, it could become infected during the course of Prometheus just like anything else, and so end up Giger-esque like the derelict in Alien. Maybe there's some regulated process on the ship where biological entities are created, and the crew somehow corrupts that process. They're not merely taking an urn or some kind of technology, they're breaking the entire ship.

I've believed in the two ship theory as soon as I saw a picture of the chairs from the two films side by side. If this were any other director, I would just write it off as a design inconsistency that was let slide or not noticed at all. But this is Ridley Scott we're talking about, THE visual master in film right now. He's meticulous, and would not let such a thing slide imo. I also don't believe in all the ideas of things morphing into other things, not to the degree that a ship could change its appearance.

I could see it going both ways--same ship or two different ships, but I'd prefer it be two different ships. The single ship theory [i]could[/i] be the anchor between Prometheus and Alien, but I'd rather see them go in a different direction. It just seems too easy to have the "DNA of the film Alien" be a spaceship (the 800-pound gorilla in the room), and I'd like to think RS and Damon Lindelof are more creative than that.

That's been on my mind too Mark ... where is the bone like structures? ... did they come from the Xeno? or are they part of the SJ's? ... We are definitely missing a sh!t load of info ... I don't think they'll release another trailer for a while ... wish they would ...

No worries guys...I'll think we'll be getting all of our answers soon..just look at these qoutes from Ridley...he's know where he wants to go with it all: Filmophobia: "Yeah, so there you have that. I was always amazed that, I mean, I’ve only done two science-fictions, but I was always amazed that no one asked who the hell the Space Jockey was. He wasn’t even called the Space Jockey. During the film they started to call it the Space Jockey. I don’t know who started that one off. I always thought it was amazing that no one ever asked who he was, and why was he there? What was all that about? I sat thinking about this for a while and thought, well, there’s a story! And the other four [films] missed it! So, here it is....I think one of the reasons why I’ve never gone back to science-fiction, even though I’ve often noodled around, thought about it, looked for story, looked for material, is that there’s a nice purity to the original Alien. It’s fairly pure. And this one does actually raise all kinds of other questions, because if someone could, a being, could be as monstrously clever to create something like we experienced in the very first one – I always figured it’s a weapon, and I always figured that [the ship in the first Alien] was a carrier of weapons. Therefore, who is that, inside that suit? That wasn’t a skeleton, that was a suit. And if you open up the suit, what do you get inside it? And why were they going, where were they going?" EMPIRE: "[I've wanted to revisit it for] years! Years, years, years," he stresses, of Alien's space traveller subplot. "I always wondered when they did [Aliens] 2,3 and 4 why they hadn't touched upon that, instead of evolving into some other fantastic story. They missed the biggest question of them all: who's the big guy? And where were they going? And with what? Why that cargo? There's all kinds of questions."

Hay ,,Mr Ridley Scott going back to the Zeta Reticuli System , Works for me just fine

"Prometheus, are you getting this?" (And what does Shaw say next?) ...something about change? Hmmm.

Well the lay out looks different a little. A few reasons could be.... 1) Maybe each Ship may have a slight different lay out, this happens in other films for example look at Klingon Bird of Prey from Movie to Movie the Outside looks simular but the cockpit/bridge lay out and size varies a lot from Movie to Movie from TV Series to Series etc. It could just be a different interior design, like not every Airbus A380 will have same seating and layouts inside? The differences are not fastly different, we are not talking like comparing a SUV to a Sports Car here. This could show that mearly the Derelict in this movie is not the same craft that crashed/landed on LV 426 in Alien. See other thread about what looks like 5 different Silos/Hangers for these Ships. Each ship could be slightly different internally. Also the Space Jockey and Chair/Cannon design is near enough simular. 2) The difference in how new this movie is means the makers can have more detail and things may change a little but are suposed to be the same. For Example the Battle Star Gallactica 80's Vipers compared to the newer ones they are not 100% the same but are a update and not a complete re-design not like the Cylon Fighters and Centurians. Look at the King Kong from the 80s movie, its not the same as the latest one they did. My Point being the aim is just to revamp add more life realism into the Jockey, the Chair/Cannon as Technology and Money is better now than what budget and restrictions they had to work with back in the days. Another way of what i am getting at is Dr Who and the Daleks the 70's and 80's look a little different than the newer ones made in last 6 seasons because the Special Effects etc of this era can add more detail than was available back in the 70's

with regards to the bonelike Structures. They are simular and in many places in Premetheus. The difference in colour tone and how in Alien they look a more lighter bone colour compared to black could be that as they are Bio Mechanical and thus Organic, its a case of them getting Mummfied or Rotting. i.e drying out or dying. Like how say a Snake would look alive but then one that Mummifies changes colour. Like how a Tree would look a certain colour and have a more fleshy, organic feel to it when its alive. but then look at a dead tree or a Log thats been out in open for years and years, it would apear to be off colour and withered away. Thats just my take.

From some of the stills I've seen theirs two distinct areas inside the dome, one has a rock-like quality and the other has a Giger'ish 'pristine metal' appearance. Although the metal one maybe inside the bone craft.