I'm Not Sure About Shaw

We are talking of Sir Ridley Scott ...... Giger have done a mural ...the squid removed from the belly of shaw is the "embarassing" thing ... dont worry there will not be any tentacle hentai sex scene , that things are only in crap'adolla style movies .

@Prom ... Oh God no ... not at all ... that would be cinema suicide on this movie ... no ... just tryin' to throw ideas out that 'may' expand on the theories that we all have here ... ;) ...

BUT in the same respect though ... and even weirder ... hold ya breathe ... that's not a MALE on the table is it? ... those legs look a bit 'muscley' don't they? ... what's to say they are not trying to use both sexes (for experiements) ... in other words may not be just ONE person on the MedLab tables ... we only see one in the trailers ... Also ... are we're not really going down the route ... 'And God (Male) Made Man' ? ... I tryin to get into Giger's mind here ... don't want to go any further really ... lol ...

@Darwin Nice theory about the organism growing outside her belly. But the leaked trailer footage of Shaw's belly rapidly expanding leads me to believe it grows inside her. Either way it would be interesting. @Prom_queen Have you seen the American version of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? If so, do you feel that the violent rape scene was in bad taste or made the film worse? (Just curious at a woman's perspective...not trying to argue or prove any points.)

Whoa ... nice one Darwin ... that's close enough for me lol ... but as Draekus has just reminded me about the belly ... Not that I'm taking ANYTHING seriously on this forum but you got to love the theories/ideas ... wicked ...

Hey, I'm all for the weird Giger stuff, don't get me wrong. But from a mainstream or business point of view, Fox nor Ridley would never go for the really out-there stuff. Like you said, suicide. Darwin, Got to be honest, I haven't seen it! Rape in film is typically used as a major part of the plot and the character's motivation, but it all depends on execution. I know "tasteful rape scene" sounds unnatural, but a good director can do it in a way that makes it clear to the audience what's going on, even so far as showing the actors' faces during the act, without trying to sadistically shove it in our faces. It is such a sensitive issue (I know this has been discussed on here before, so I apologize), that it really takes a good director to handle it in a way that is powerful and leaves a lasting impression on the audience without being vulgar. That being said, impregnating an anesthetized Shaw on a medical table would be a more clinical medical procedure and so less violent, but obviously "she ain't sleepin" during that scene. But like I said, I don't have a clue as to what that scene's all about. I think it is probably a removal and not an insertion, though.

I don't pretend to know what seeing a rape scene feels like from a woman's perspective, but I do think that part of the reason men often don't seem to understand how horrible it is for women (ie: jokes about rape) is because it's not depicted realistically in many forms of entertainment and they never have it "shoved in their face." I almost think it's doing society a disservice when it's "softened" to make it more palatable for audiences, while at the same time I think making every movie that includes an element of rape unwatchable for most women also does them a disservice. I don't know what the solution is, but I disagree that it should always be depicted in a non-vulgar way because, for me at least, the more disturbing a scene like that is, the more I am disgusted by and hate the character I'm supposed to hate. It's a tool to move a character further over on the evil spectrum. That being said, if you think Ridley Scott is not capable of dreaming up a situation in which a female is impregnated via the traditional orifice by the mechanical pod she is in, or by a creature on it's own, I'd have to disagree. Having someone impregnated orally and have the fetus eat it's way through the abdomen was pretty out there in 1979. People were throwing up in theatres. I wouldn't put it past him, although I think he would be selective about what was shown on the screen.

Before this whole thing gets derailed everyone calm down... There is NOT going to be ANY depiction of a graphic rape. This is not XXX pornography.... But the suggestion that something vile happening is what is going to happen.

I totally agree with you, whiskuz. I wish so many films wouldn't rely on female rape for shock value and to get male asses in seats, because that just seems wrong. But that's the way it is oftentimes. Sex sells, even the violent kind (maybe even more so). I get what you're saying, though. The more disturbing the rape (or whatever violent event), the more we are invested in the character's/victim's plight to succeed or overcome the enemy in the movie. Also, I know Ridley and Giger and the rest of them would love to push the boundaries as far as possible (that's why I like them). I am all for pushing boundaries. And this is not really about Alien or Ridley, but some other directors/writers seem to feel that boundary-pushing only involves violating a woman. I don't want Prometheus to go that route, and I really don't think it will.

Sorry guys! I'm not trying to be a Debbie-Downer. Carry on!

Something else I just noticed, in trailer number 2 (the one with the more industrial sounding music), has a short clip, right after you see the hologram of the SJ running, in which you see the inside of the pod from what looks like Shaw's perspective and you can see the empty pincer moving down towards her abdomen. I'm guessing this would be before the operation because everything is clean. Just thought it was interesting.

Prom_queen, You're not Debbie-Downer at all! I think it's great to have a female perspective in here. Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think they're going to do anything we won't all like.

Has everyone forgotten LAMBERT from 79 ?? That was pretty freaking creepy was it not? Without seeing anything?

@ Prom_Queen Its not a downer. You're just expressing you're opinion. Its not a problem! I was curious to get your opinion on the topic. @Whiskuz Yes, that image is likely before the operation. Something about that scene is just weird (yeah it doesn't get much weirder than a squid thing being extracted from her belly), but I'm talking about the whole sequence... Shouldn't Shaw be incapacitated or at least tied down for such an intense procedure? Could it be that there's no one around so she has to tell/program the on-board computer to perform the operation on her without the aid of a human operator (hence no one to tie her down or provide the anesthesia)?

@Prom ... It's alright I think we're (I'm) all weirded out at the moment ... I cannot think of anything else ... thank God ... @Draekus ... That's what I sorta was getting at ... not strapped down ... not drugged out ... nothing ... Love to see a new trailer though ...

Thanks, guys! I promise I'm not a ball-buster. Yes, CanadaPhil, I'll confess, I did forget about Lambert. That was freaky.

Yes, surely the absence of any restraint has to be absolutely significant in interpreting this clip? It looks to me like she's practically hysterical at the sight of the thing, thrashing, likely in pain, probably in horrified recoil, as best she can (given the small amount of space and the fact, I think, that the umbilical is still attached), which would reasonable under the circumstances: which are, I'm going to speculate, that this woman has just, deliberately, knowingly and in presumably in desperation it's hard to imagine; operated - on herself.

Well all we know for sure is that Shaw has some Organism removed from her, but how it got there is another matter. We have that scene where that Tenticle seems to be chassing her, if this scene is after the operating table scene then it could be the Squid thing that maybe escapes. If this is before that scene then it could be this Organism is what gets her Pregnant. Now although one of Gigers works shows sexual scenes of Eel like creatures, thats not to say thats how it would happen. If its the case i bet like in Alien it would be a case of what you dont see. So you will know that the Organism gets to her but will not see what happens. And who is to say that the Organism implants a Embrio into her Throat? Another posibility is Holloway he has some kind of leach type organism in his eye. Maybe when they have a scene where they are kissing, they make love (off screen) and some how either Holloways Genes are infected or that actual Organism gets into her Womb and Merges with one of her Eggs and thus she becomes Pregnant that what with a Hybrid Organism. As far as what the creature could look like, Gigers Artwork formed the basis for the Face Hugger, Chest Burster, Derelict and its architecture and the actual Xeno. In the Alien Cycle Artwork you see what looks simular to the Space Jockeys in this movie and not the Alien one. So again maybe this Movie will take a lot or even direct inspiration from some of Gigers works.

Ok ya all convinced me it's Shaw on the table ... not Vickers, no? ... KIDDING ... :) ... Ok makes sense not having the restraints on and she is doing some self-operating procedure ... that makes perfect sense ... maybe with lasers, as knives, cutting the body don't hurt as much, etc ... a la Logan's Run ...

@Dave ... I don't think that tentacle is chasing her ... I think she's still on the Table with the tentacles in front of her, as in thats AFTER it's been removed ... maybe? ... If you're on about the corridor chase I think she's probably legging it from the 'Medics' leading upto the operation ... because she hasn't been operated on yet ...

My money is on Shaw being artificially inseminated by Weyland's henchmen, and I believe it happens during this scene: [URL=http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/vibrator1/Shaw3.jpg][IMG]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e85/vibrator1/th_Shaw3.jpg[/IMG][/URL]