The reason for SJs hating humans?

I do agree. This is why I expect a) a big, sweet twist in the history or b) some very bad idealised motivation.

I think the Engineers created the race of Space Jockeys. The Space Jockeys came to meet their creators, the Engineers, and decided to wipe them out because they are just plain bad asses. Some "children" are born normal and nice but grow up to be evil. They evolved into an intelligent species but evil at the same time. And they want to wipe us out because, they are just bad asses and need to expand their territory. After they have knocked us off, they have a ready made planet with all kinds of "new" technology already. And I head they have a weakness for Orange Crush.

Well a lot would depend on if the Space Jockeys know about us Prior to us landing on their door step, and by that i mean what ever Jockeys are left and not maybe ones who was around from thousands of years ago. As far as overkill well thats the common theme with Gods and the Wrath they unleash in most of our civilisations. Maybe the Space Jockeys years ago was a race who had factions, maybe some of them was exiled by the rest of them and these exileded Space Jockeys seeded Earth, without the others permision or knowledge. My hunch is as we become advanced and discover where to find the Jockeys, maybe something we do alerts the Jockeys that our Race has become one that thinks they are Gods or one that would want to be as powerfull as Gods, they find out the Greed of some of the crew. Maybe because we tamper with their secrets we find or try and steal them. The Jockeys could go and wipe out all Prometheus Crew but then back home, potentially we could send out a rescue mission to find out what happened? Maybe the Prometheus has sent back a message of what they discovered. End of the day the Space Jockeys know we can travel space and that there would be other missions we would send out and the Jockeys realise that Mankind would pose a threat to them and maybe other Worlds in the Galaxy and decide to pull the plug.

Maybe it's not about wiping us out. They might have some other problem on a scale they'd actually care about, and humans are a convenient element of the solution. We just need a little...modification to get the job done.

I get what you're saying TheNextLV426, but to me, as a way to look at things, what you're saying - it's a bit too human......This alien race we refer to as the SpaceJockies is just that, alien...there is no way to conceive how another sentient race would relate to our species or any for that matter. The horror of the truly alien in this universe is what ultimately makes possible alien contact truly terrifying and I mean that implicitely... Would they understand empathy? Would they tolerate attempts at communication? Would they even give us the chance to say anything? Or would they be merciless, cold, indifferent beings regarding our species as little more than hairless ape-like ants that've grown far too big and self-important for our britches? Even if they did 'create' us...what makes us little more than the overly rambuncious children of experiments that went a hell of a lot farther than even they anticipated. Our technilogical aptitude in landing on their planet could be enough to make them go..okay...let's fix our mistake. No one...NO ONE can think to look into the eyes of a being as alien to us as we are to microbes and honestly contemplate what if any significance we would have to them.... Lastly, look at this way, if we were, to the SpaceJockies, little more than hairless ape-like ants...and they suddenly discovered us running around their home, getting into things we have no business getting into, taking what isn't ours the way ants scavenge food from a kitchen, would they not step on us as quickly as we do ants? And would they not step out into their intergalctic backyard, searching for our place of origin, our ant hill in the grass, our little blue marble we call home...that we call Earth? Would they not try to wipe us out at that source the way any of us would destroy that ant hill sending dozens of explorers to invade and discover the wonders of our home; then, perhaps, sending hundreds more to reap the rewards of what they've discovered?

the theroy of leaving invites or messages behind on planets that have been seeded is not a new one star trek the next gen had this as a two part story line but it did not end up with the older /original race trying to kill us all off !

I havnt seen any evidence that the SJs hate us... I have a feeling that the painted messages were probably made by early man and perhaps were misinterpreted them. I reckon that after finding them we meddle with things which we shouldnt and it all goes south. Cant wait to find out.

@craigamore Your last paragraph is like what i was saying, if they SJ find out we know where they are and how to get there and they realise upon seeing how we turned out that we cant be trusted to come across their secret. They know we would send out others in future. In 5 years we could send out a Probe to Moon Europa in Search of Life, if that mission fails and we lose contact with the Probe is that it? Would we never bother again? No at some point we would send out more Probes and thus the Space Jockeys would know that Prometheus would not be the last mission Earth does to its planet and if they dont want us getting our hands on the secrets of life then only way to stop us is to wipe us out at the source. @Slowboat You gave me a idea, if its a trap. Maybe mankind is a Host for something they need us for, and they need a large number of us for us to be of use. So they will know that by the time we can travel the Stars to find them, then our population would have grown to Billions and then the Space Jockeys have enough Human Matter on Earth for some task or use they have for us. They would then know Earth has Billions of Hosts.

Do they want to “wipe us out” in that punitive sense? Or, to put it another way: this seems an assumption, from a particularly human perspective. Yes, it appears that they represent a threat to us, from our perspective - but on what basis? If we adopt the position of a literal-ish interpretation Prometheus, the legend - coupled with a thought that is based on humans stealing something, the storyline would almost seems too simplistic to stand up properly: They created us, left us their address and then get upset when we move what they left lying around like the children we are? That doesn’t make sense - what do they care what we meddle with? If they are as God’s would be to us, with one wave of their hand, they simply un-meddle it? If they are as God’s would be to us, they must have anticipated our curiosity and imagination, as well as our jealousy and greed, if we have evolved to a stage where we are able to accept their invitation: so, why be quite so angry and surprised when that is exactly what we display? And, if they are as God’s would be to us, they will already know that we couldn’t possibly have one idea what might and might not anger them?.. Ultimately, if they don’t want the guests in their house, with all the risk of disruption that the invitation entails - why invite the guests? The only thing I can come up with is that the basis for the threat to us, is not so simple as retribution for a misdemeanour. It must be more complex than that and the clue would have to be in the initial conceit: yes, they invited us - but for what purpose? I’m guessing, NOT necessarily because they are generous and kind and wish to, at last, know their creation and for their creation to know them?….. It could be that accepting their “invitation” only serves to let them know that we are ready, somehow, in some sense, to be harvested. @BigDave I just saw your comment we think on similar lines, except there will have been "billions of humans" for a very, very long time before we are finally able to travel interstellar?... I'd say it cannot just be about biological matter (or mass)? There must also be something about "intelligence" and it's relationship to "technology" that must be in play for this to stand - if it was just about bio-mass, they may as well have come and got that themselves. If they are as God’s would be to us, this is no difficulty – they know where we are; and they will have been able to calculated for population development under certain conditions and variants of conditions, over a certain period of time because even we can do that. What they may not have been able to predict is exactly when, and IF at all, a species breaches a certain technological barrier… They need [i]us[/i], to go, (and to be [i]able[/i] to go), to [i]them?[/i]

Well, if they set humanity in motion, we certainly became fruitful and multiplied.......The thing is, our notion of time and urgency might be completely irrelevant to beings which live for thousands of years....or perhaps, even longer. Instead of regularly flitting hither and yon, perhaps they spend eons in stasis, just waiting for their experimental results to show up and ring the dinner bell. In any event, I certainly don't think we'd have anything to offer any highly advanced race, in terms of technology.

@artyoh Time and urgency? And I kinda hope it doesn't boil down like that? If it does, I'll be pretty disappointed: the whole deal is that they are asleep and also lazy, so they set this whole thing up so that when we call, they set off to basically consume us? Please, no... My reference wasn't to technology, per se? It was in terms of reaching a specific level technological advancement - less the artifact, more the artifice: an industrialized species is technological, but they are not sufficiently intellectually advanced to travel between stars - that is a step-change. I was only wondering if, for example, we were regarded less as simply a food for something and more as component [i]within[/i] something, or perhaps as the starting basis of something [i]else[/i] notice of such a step-change in intellectual and technological capacity mightn't be useful... The month of June has never seemed so far away.

@artyoh Time and urgency? And I kinda hope it doesn't boil down like that? If it does, I'll be pretty disappointed: the whole deal is that they are asleep and also lazy, so they set this whole thing up so that when we call, they set off to basically consume us? Please, no... My reference wasn't to technology, per se? It was in terms of reaching a specific level technological advancement - less the artifact, more the artifice: an industrialized species is technological, but they are not sufficiently intellectually advanced to travel between stars - that is a step-change. I was only wondering if, for example, we were regarded less as simply a food for something and more as component [i]within[/i] something, or perhaps as the starting basis of something [i]else[/i] notice of such a step-change in intellectual and technological capacity mightn't be useful... The month of June has never seemed so far away.

I don't think the Space Jockeys hate us, but being as we're their creation, they probably don't have to take us seriously and as such they can do whatever they want with us. Why would they have our interests in plan or heart if their intelligence is far greater than ours, either? Sir Ridley mentions also "The cast find an establishment which is not what they expected it to be, it’s a civilization but what we find in it is [i]very uncivilized behaviour[/i]." At first that makes it sound like we get to see a complete Space Jockey civilization, but the trailers say otherwise. The idea of "uncivilized behavior" makes you think, too, even if it's subjective. Maybe they're just "uncivilized" towards us. In this case, "uncivilized" could point out hostility, such as violence, and perhaps even rape. I know I keep talking a lot about rape in this movie, but something like that should be expected in something like this. If an undertone for Alien was "interspecies rape" or the alien being "an intergalatic rapist", I'm sure rape will have some involvement in this movie.....the idea of "Space Jockeys raping humans" touches upon one's theory that they made us, the humans, as sex slaves.

@ allinamberclad Heh, my "dinner bell" reference wasn't meant to be taken literally. Presumably, they'd have a more interesting purpose than simply eating us, however, they [i]could[/i] have any number of sick and twisted uses for our [i]bodies[/i]. I actually kinda like the idea of them lying in wait tens of thousands of years for some poor naive sods -who's ancestors they messed with so long ago- to finally show up. I dunno....I think an angrily capricious: "all your base are belong to us!" decision to wipe us out for stealing their tech seems rather childishly petulant, vs. We're very patient: "it's all part of a very dark, long term plan to harvest the fruits of our past labors." Anyway, if we assume there's no way around relativity effects of FTL travel, there isn't all that much of a meaningful difference between lying in hypersleep for a several years or lying in stasis for several thousand. Neither would work too well for friends and family left behind.

I don't think the Space Jockeys created us. The Engineers created us. The Engineers also created the Space Jockeys. The Engineers created or helped the other species they invited to this particular planet/star system. The Space Jockeys murdered the engineers and stole their technology. The Space Jockeys also want our technology and our home planet. They may have already murdered other "invited" species that showed up with their invitation. And if you see piles of other alien bodies laying about in the pyramids that show up on the trailer, you can bet your last space dollar that their species have been wiped out on their home planet already. The Space Jockeys do want to kill us, but its not personal. Its only business. They want to find out where we live, go there, and wipe out their competition. Once we are dead, they have a turn-key planet complete with our technology already in place, not to mention prime real estate that they can rent/lease out to other members of their ruthless race. The universe is a large place but there are only so many habitable planets. The Engineers seeded a few of these habitable planets but now the Space Jockeys want to become the new Kings. I reserve the right to amend my theory after June 8.

So, no "God was a monster" theme in Prometheus?.......cuz that one works for me, better than: "friendly, benign ancients made us along with some other kids, and one of the other kids was vary bad and stole all the other kids' real estate after killing them." One thing I absolutely know from practical experience. There are far worse things than death.

Okay; this is some new shit to me. The Space Jockeys and the Engineers are two separate entities? They're not the same? Who are the Engineers then? Are the Engineers some divine, god-like entity, thus making the Space Jockeys physical, mortal beings? Ugh this gets deeper and deeper...

@ CrazyDave55811 Exactly. I’d expect neither hate, nor any other emotion at all to be in play as far as humans are concerned – which brings us to the first,“Why?” That, to me, is the most troubling and frustrating aspect of this beautiful premise: that very first, “Why?” If there are to us as God’s might be, it’s hard to imagine why they would care, either way. And yet, they do – at least, enough to leave us a trail of breadcrumbs? Fine: if they’re benevolent, it’s touching - but, if not: it suggests, “ambush”. Yet, if not benevolent, the why go through all this process to create Life? What, (in a God’s name) manner of Being is this, who, being to us what God’s might be, would create Life, only to wish it harm? It seems, literally, Hellish... In that scenario, we do seem to have some value – but value as what: and in what regard?... On rape: well…I know what you mean, but it can’t be denied: the literal, biological, rape of other species - this is a cornerstone of the Alien premise and life-cycle, which itself is an extraction of some of the darkest pre-occupations of Giger, on whom this whole, Tower of Gomorrah has been stacked – so, yes: perhaps we should expect it. It may be a tricky dance in terms of not causing unnecessary offence, but I don’t see how you can discuss this Universe in adult terms, without acknowledging it and at least referencing these things – as sensitively as possible.

@HastaLaVista In my World, we call that “an elegant solution”. It addresses my intense frustration in trying to rationalize the motivation: in your premise, it does not seem rational that Beings who are to us, as God’s might be, would “ambush” us – and they do not: while, [i]other[/i] Beings, who would [i]seek[/i] to be to us as, God’s might be….well….yes: [i]they[/i] - they might… Interesting. [i]However[/i], even in this elegant scenario - and following the underlying theme of Greek mythology – the suffering of Hubris will be Nemesis….room enough, here, for a savage turn in fortunes.

@allinamberclad If you can accept the premise that the Engineers are the creators and that they not only created the Space Jockey race but also the human race and "other" races that were all invited to this one place, then, in my theory everything falls in place. The Engineers share some of their knowledge with the first species to arrive (the Space Jockeys). The Space Jockeys kill their creator and steal what ever other technology that wasn't shared with them. The Space Jockeys know that there may be other species coming to this planet in the future to meet their creator (the Engineers who are already gone). The Space Jockeys need only to wait for the next species to arrive to steal their technology as well, One thing that the Engineers will not share with any of the other invitees is the location of each others home world. Why? Because with that information, the other species home world is vulnerable for their extinction. I believe the star maps displayed so prominently in the trailers are generated only if the species are there in person standing on that platform. The Human Star map was blue and showed Earth's solar system with one of the Prometheus crew standing on the platform. The Space Jockey standing on the platform created a green minature star map. I believe that star map was of the Space Jockeys Solar system. Anyway, I don't think the Space Jockeys knew where the human solar system was until a human stepped on that pilot platform. I believe that platform can create a minature star map that can be plugged into the derelect spaceship navigation system for travel to that homeworld. Of course, this is just a theory. My original theory came after consuming a "bad burrito" and a warm beer.

@ allinamberclad If you accept the premise that the Engineers are the creators, then everything in my theory falls into place. The Engineers created the Space Jockeys, the humans, and a few other species that they invited to come to this planet. Not all species will evolve to a point where they will come and meet these Engineers. The Space Jockeys did. They probably arrived first. The Engineers shared some of their technology with the Space Jockeys but not all. One thing that the Engineers did not share with the Space Jockeys is the location of the homeworlds of the other invitees. Why? Because, once one species knows where the other speces and homeworlds are located, that race is vulnerable for colonization and elimination. I think the Engineers are a dying race, few in number. The Space Jockeys kill the Engineers and steal their technology. They know that all they have to do is wait for the other species to arrive to be able to do the same to them. How do the Space Jockeys find the location of the other species Homeworld? I think that the starmaps displayed prominently in the trailers are generated only when a representative of that race is physically standing on that platform. When one of the Prometheus crew stands on that platform, a blue star map is created that appears to show all the planets of the earths solar system. I noticed that when one of the blue space jockeys is standing on the platform, a small minature green star map is produced. I believe that green starmap is of the space jockey's solar system. The minature star maps can be plugged into the derelict ship's navigation sytem to navigate to that solar system. Of course this is just a theory. This theory came to me after eating a "bad" burrito and a glass of warm beer.

..

What I was trying to get at is that no matter how much we rationalize the why...there is no answer to be had.....Human beings have this need to know...we want to understand things, the why of everything, but there is no understanding to be had with that to which we cannot relate....oil and water will never mix.....trying to fathom the nature of what would be truly alien to human conception is like asking an ant to try understanding the flippance with which we regard them.....we step on them as easily as we breathe with no regard for the breadth of the ant's experience, its life and the horror of its death..Why? It's no skin off our backs....WE DON'T CARE.....Why would anyone expect the SpaceJockies to? ..because we're human? ..because we think? I think therefore I am......the real question is... If and when they did come to wipe us out..would the why really matter? Wouldn't survival be ALL that matters? Ants don't argue with people......they run.. And regarding those Jockies, they are us and we, the ants...go ahead, try and reason with the shoe about to step on you....

@ craigamore ? Yes, all that stands in Actual Life – and it’s a long-standing fact of Actual Life that we, as Higher Beings, rarely consider the feelings or cares of the Lower – while the Lower are quite unlikely to even be able to properly comprehend us. As far as Actual Life is concerned, this is just stating the manifestly apparent – but here, in terms of this movie, we are not discussing Actual Life - we are discussing [i]Fiction.[/i] [i]Fiction[/i] can certainly convey ideas that are directly pertinent to Actual Life and that help us understand Actual Life, but nevertheless Fiction does require several elements in order to successfully and better do that. Fiction does require a Story. A Story is defined by Narrative. Narrative - at least to some degree, or other, necessitates a Plot. Plot, is predetermined upon Motivation and Character; Protagonist and Antagonist... Your position is as if we were in the Universe of the Story – however, [i]we[/i] are not. In order for the Story to be intelligible and enjoyable for us, as an Audience - and for it to succeed as Fiction - we have to be given some understanding of some of these basic elements, as best befits to the medium - in this case, A Movie. In that respect, it is perfectly reasonable for us to speculate and imagine the nature and basis of every single one of these considerations, in advance of those considerations actually being answered – because that's what Human's do and it is part of what defines us: we are programmed for the creative manipulation of abstract concepts, in abstraction, apparently like no other creature on this Earth and, as far as we know, anywhere else. It is also reasonable to do this because, 1] that is, in fact, the purpose of A Movie - to answer these considerations in pursuance of A Plot, and because, 2] that is, largely, exactly what we [i]hope[/i] will happen when sit down to watch the movie and part of what makes that process, (and the process of speculation and imagining beforehand), quite so enjoyable: the fact that these considerations [i]are[/i] "answered" ,to one degree or another, in pursuance of A Story. “Answered”, such that, by the end of a Story arc of 3 Acts, we [i]are[/i] able to rationalize – and, furthermore, feel that we have [i]“understood”[/i] something.

I think the SJ's want us to find them & it is the engineers that are the villains. There is a purpose for the SJ's wanting us there, not a clue what it is. Here are a few things that I beleive will happen:- 1.It's the humans that fuck it all up 2.LV426 will feature, but will not be the main planet in this story (the final 8 mins will most likely involve LV426 & the derelict not making it's intended destination).

"Your position is as if we were in the Universe of the Story – however, we are not. In order for the Story to be intelligible and enjoyable for us, as an Audience - and for it to succeed as Fiction - we have to be given some understanding of some of these basic elements, as best befits to the medium - in this case, A Movie." I understand where you're coming from and to an extent agree.... Regarding this business of "we have to be given some understanding of some of these basic elements"....you don't HAVE to be given anything. Since when is it the audience's place to demand details in a given story? A writer details to the reader the dictates of the story he or she is meant to know....and the apparently indifferent psychology or modus operandi of an alien race, that by definition is foreign to human understanding, does not HAVE to be known...particularly given the notion that the not knowing, the inability to understand or reconcile that indeiffrence is more frightening and to the point of a horror film....which, by all accounts this is. And...in the case of 'Prometheus', pursuant to the notion that realism - particularly in science fiction - bolsters a film's credibility, it is likely that not knowing this particular aspect is the most realistic component of any human/alien contact. In our daily lives, we experience any number of moments or the universal results of an infinite number of cascading events in countless lives beyond our own, never knowing or NEEDING to know the truth behind what led to what's happening now in this moment....and yet, life goes on......we somehow manage to function without knowing why this person did this to us or why they did that to someone we care about.....why does anything happen? We may want to know...we don't have to know, not to enjoy this filmic experience, not to process the evnts as they unfold or, more importantly, the response and the choices made by the people involved.......isn't that always the most interesting, valuable and pertinent aspect of any story? Look, I understand the wanting to know...I want to know......What I am ultimately saying is that not knowing may be part of the point....

@craigamore Interesting. I believe you have quite fundamentally and comprehensively misinterpreted the general point I was making? I'll try and re-phrase by way of the following: While you de-contextualise and raise issue with the notion of "having to know", what you actually go on to describe are the components of Plot, as a basis for that issue. However, I do not say that we have to know "all" components of Plot, nor "most" components of Plot, nor the components of Plot that "we" choose, or demand, or hold that we "deserve"? I am very simply saying that, for successful Plot, we do have to be given [i]some[/i] components of Plot - as without [i]some,[/i] components of Plot, there can be no larger element of Plot at all: and I say that in the context of the other basic elements of Story, that share similar terms. I do [i]not[/i] and have not said that it is us for demand or determine what the individual components are - of course, that would be absurd - I am simply saying that most of the elements must exist, to one degree or another, in order for there to be a successful Story in the first case - because that is how Fiction works. You continue to draw reference with Actual Life, but Fiction is, I thought it apparent, is something [i]other[/i] than Actual Life. [i]Fiction[/i], is composed of essential elements that allow it to achieve the objective of communicating an idea - if your objective was to walk up some stairs, use of your legs is an essential element in achieving that objective: and that is just the way things work, if you would enjoy to climb stairs, at all. You may test the theory by trying to develop a Story; where nothing happens, to nobody, for no reason, nowhere - and at no point in time. Then you may try to communicate that Story to somebody, or develop it into a Screenplay or Novel. That will not succeed. The components I describe are essential, and it those components that we must "have", or what we will have - is nothing. [i]Most[/i] people appreciate, either consciously or intuitively that, this is the way Story and Fiction works - and they know that that the elements I describe will be present in a Story, as they [i]must[/i] be present in a Story, as that is how a Story is constructed - and, without that construction, there can be no Story. With that, some of those people will take pleasure in considering and imagining, without prejudice and as part of their overall enjoyment of Fiction, how the Author will have to chosen or attempted to address, or[i] answer[/i], those requirements. Of course not knowing is part of the point - that is stating the obvious. All I say is that, in terms of [i]Fiction[/i], the desire to know how it has been constructed and the attempt to rationalize it in advance of consuming it are completely natural behaviours that we are programmed for, with good reason - and that it is actually a definitively intelligent and creative activity of ours: almost as much our ability and desire to create Fiction, in the first place. You seem to be parlaying that notion into some kind of commentary on Mankind's attempt to rationalize Existence which is confused as, although it may be related, that is a completely different discussion, to do with Actual Life - and it is nothing at all to do with what I said: I was not discussing Existentialism. I was discussing [i]Fiction[/i].

I think we're getting our wires crossed allinamberclad......I don't disagree with anything you just said, well, with a small exception.....my references to actual life are meant only in relation to the idea that realism in storytelling is often most often given creedence by certain details being deliberately left out of stories for effect or purposes that the author reserves for his or her self...in the case of 'Prometheus' the natural state of man's likely inability to relate to something alien makes the particular detail of motive we are discussing logically unknowable in a story like this...and there's nothing wrong with that.. One of my favorite short-short stories is by Raymond Carver entitled 'The Lie'...it's a story about a couple returning home from a party, arguing over a supposed lie told by a friend of the couple about the girlfriend. The entire story concerns this argument in which the reader NEVER learns what the lie is, only that it wasn't a lie and she is guilty of what the friend accuses.....The story is about their relationship, not the supposed lie at all....while the lie [b]IS[/b] a detail central to the story, it is entirely outside the plot elements necessary to understand the point and purpose of the story..... That's all I'm getting at with my argument about the SpaceJockey's motive......I personally don't believe THAT is a detail we'll have to know to dechiper this film's plot or its core purpose. There is absolutely nothing wrong with us debating it, speculating or asking the questions you and other members, even myself, have been asking.....I'm sorry if I got too hot about it...I just think we misunderstood each other...my larger arguments about realism and reality were meant about specific points, not overall plot structures....sorry about the miscommunication

@craigamore Another interesting position. Please let me say this: the “small exception” you hold, is absolutely crucial? If I agree with you, (which I do), that detail that is withheld is what can contribute to making Story interesting - one might even call that device the basis of Story. The withholding of detail, is often one of the driving forces of a Narrative – often driving toward that detail being revealed at some point: that little tease being the reason you turn the page; or the reason you sit through until the end of the film – or the reason you pick up the book, or buy your theater ticket in the first place, for that matter. If I also agree with you, (which I do), that, at least equally often, detail is withheld that is [i]never[/i] revealed - one might surmise that is because the Narrative is successfully driven forward by, other, details, devices or elements of Story. Where our mutual understanding appears to be critically broken, is in this: in either case I have just put – and however the Author has decided to utilize his “details”, or elements of the Story - the [i]way[/i] those “details”, (and what you have just described), are being used - is called [i]Plot[/i]: and [i]Plot[/i] - in entity, general, rather than detail, specific - is the thing I am saying a Story, (and the Audience), must “have”. [i]How[/i] we are supplied with our Plot, is, of course, the creative choice of the Author – (and I hope you can now see that the lie in the story you describe is, in fact, part of the plot - by it’s [i]absence.[/i] It sounds interesting, by the way). That said, I am also saying it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on what the Authors Plot may be and how, exactly, he has chosen to construct it – as that is part of the enjoyment so to do, as we are a quite unusual type of Beings who are programmed to “guess”; and, furthermore, I am saying that is perfectly within the whole conceit of Fiction, to do so. But saying [i]that[/i], is [i]not[/i] to say that we [i]need[/i] to, nor [i]have[/i] to, know specific elements (or “details”) of his Plot – of course, we don’t. Nor is it to say that what we guess, or imagine the elements of his Plot may be, somehow means they "should", or "need", to be the elements [i]he[/i] chooses – of course, they needn’t. I do not say, nor have I yet said, that we need to know the Space Jockey’s motives, for any reason at all – let alone in order to understand a film no-one has seen? *laughs* How on Earth could anyone make that declaration? I know nothing of how the Authors will eventually reveal those things, if they do at all... You [i]may[/i] have made an assumption, or misinterpreted me. What, and all, I have done, for the purpose of my own, personal, creative-rationalist involvement in, and enjoyment of, the conceit of Fiction, (and in advance of excitedly consuming the product that will be put before me, like everyone else: and without prejudice, nor expectation), is to dream, guess, wonder and speculate - what those motives might possibly be. Perhaps as closing, then: I thank you for your intelligent and considered replies.

allinamberclad....I think we're on the same page here... "That said, I am also saying it is perfectly reasonable to speculate on what the Authors Plot may be and how, exactly, he has chosen to construct it – as that is part of the enjoyment so to do, as we are a quite unusual type of Beings who are programmed to “guess”; and, furthermore, I am saying that is perfectly within the whole conceit of Fiction, to do so." I have no problem with speculation either my friend....and I totally agree with this... "What, and all, I have done, for the purpose of my own, personal, creative-rationalist involvement in, and enjoyment of, the conceit of Fiction, (and in advance of excitedly consuming the product that will be put before me, like everyone else: and without prejudice, nor expectation), is to dream, guess, wonder and speculate - what those motives might possibly be." It's kind of funny...I almost feel like we've been arguing the same point fron two different angles...I love this site man...You gotta love that.... Anyway, I also "thank you for your intelligent and considered replies."