prometheus era tech earlier AND better

@ pol lll: You're not starting any arguments at all. Your curiosity of the change in the look is the same for many of us. Most of us had already done the best we could to figure it out too, and Ridley's remarks came for me at least as a disappointment. That was why my post was short, not because you asked the wrong question. While I love eye candy, I also think there should be some continuity with the technology. Of course, if they used 1979 tech for Prometheus, it would look alot like the Mutant Chronicles... I wouldn't pay to go see that one.

If you go out, today, and see a Prius hybrid driving the same street as a 1965 Ford, as you are perfectly likely to be able to do, will you consider the "obvious gap in technology" something it necessary to consider and address? Or will you simply have, long ago, accepted that is in the natural course of things that historic technology shares history with current and new technology - and that they overlap in the Present?

It already was addressed, by Ridley Scott himself. He said he changed to the "new" look because he invented grundge, and was tired of it. In other words, the look is cleaner and higher tech simply because he wanted it to be that way. Lindlehoff also made the point of the Nostromo being a mining vessel, so it was dirty, and older technology. A science vessel would have the latest and greatest.

Really you're going to compare cars to space craft, since when are space craft built for style? It's unrealistic for both crafts to be so far apart in technology and arguing this is pointless because at the end of the day it wasn't about being realistic but rather about style (referring to the movie).

Fantastic., I figured as much. Thanks a lot. Yeah, I was just thinking when all these DOS type operating systems are gonna phase out.... They just hang around, ya know?

I wasn't trying to start an argument or critique the movie in any way, actually. Was just curious. I know Ridley Scott is a great director. He does sci-fi well, which is saying something. To do that, you have to be sensitive to these issues, which is why I had figured he had addressed it. Anyway, can't wait for the movie!

I always believe our movies, our musics and our fashions (shown by big brands) really limiting our progression.

@goodkat I assume this is response to me? I thought it would be obvious that I was not "comparing" cars to spacecraft? I was using cars as [i]an example[/i] by which to describe the actual fact of life, which is that, for a whole host of reasons: technology endures. New technology does not simply erase all previous technology as if it never existed. The principle, is the fact - one that you can probably prove by looking around your home or going into the street, or even emptying your bag - that Old technology shares the Present with new technology. It's very simple and it has nothing at all to do with "style". I don't know what you're saying.

@pol III: It has. Watch the several Q&A and other interviews outthere. Scott and Lindelof have said many times that the Nostromo in the first Alien was a just towing-refinery-mining ship. The Prometheus is a top-of-the-line prototype luxury ship. Need I say more?

She's referring to the stylistic choices made by the filmmakers to make a prior era have more advanced technology than the era in which the Alien film takes place. So, since new technology and old technology can be used in both films in their respective times, nobody should question whether or not the director has addressed the issue? Well, the director did address the issue, as I had expected.

@aintnozeno Exactly. I can understand your disappointment, but I sort of appreciate the way RS addressed it in a no-nonsense way. But perhaps the VR style manipulation of comp applications ala minority report was a little much. Certainly not a deal-breaker though. Can you imagine that being the issue that stopped the film from getting made? No, I'll accept a 2012 movie as a 2012 movie, and suspend disbelief for the sake of this very exciting movie. @allinamberclad Or rather, to have a 2012 movie stylistically look like a 2012 movie with 2012 filmmaking techniques... a movie that is occuring in the alien canon, before another film that reflected tech from the era in which it was made. It was certainly a choice that had to be made by Scott and/or those at the heart of the creative process. That was my question, and I got my answer.

@poll III: i'm glad you created this topic although i'm really diggin' the fresh looking PROMETHEUS tech, i'd say this new tech is far more advanced than ANYTHING that i saw in my beloved ALIEN (1979) movie its one thing to create "grunge", its another thing to create an obviously far more advanced look for a story that takes place decades earlier than ALIEN did prime example, is what Lucas did with R2-D2 in the last 3 Star Wars prequels he did, R2 had ALL that tech, it looked really out of place when you see the situations it was in in the first 3 Star Wars films but, that is the risk that is taken when sci-fi prequels are done in spite of that, i'm still very excited to see this new film. can't wait..!

this thread has become the idea of beating a dead horse. RS can't and didn't plan on satisfying everyone. I plan on seeing Prometheus and enjoying it! Run away dead horse! Run!

Nah Damon said that the prometheus and Nostromo were different purpose ships! Thus explainning the techno differences!

Nah Damon said that the prometheus and Nostromo were different purpose ships! Thus explainning the techno differences!

Well doesnt prometheus only take place 30 years before alien?? Technology does not change too much in time. BUT... I am not saying that higher tech can't exist at the same time... cause it can! Lets take a few things into consideration. Like stated above look at the cars we have on the street. There are still older cars driving around at the same time as our newst and coolest cars. Look at cellphones, there are still some pretty old digital cells out there at the same time as smart phones. Or like Pol said, there are still some DOS systems out there. Whos to say that the Nostromo was new and top of the line. Not Ridley! Who is to say that the Nostromo wasn't the old tech, just refited to a point and still in service. We see it today in our own air force, navy, etc. They don't just get rid of old service machines. they refit them and use them until they become way too old and completely useless. So that is how I see the technology gap. Why give miners and tow truck divers the newest and the best machines. That is just not how it is gonna happen. The Notromo was old, really old and refitted to serve a purpose.

That's ok. I don't want to see CRT screens or padded mainframe Lite Brite rooms in a 150 million dollar film in 2012. But yes, Ridley did basically say 'because I wanted too.'

@allinamberclad It's true, my original question was loaded, and I wasn't trying to enter into a debate about the reasons why, or to what extent, that my question was loaded or how I was assuming things that technically are not necessarily true. It could have been interpreted from the phrasing of the question, since we're interpreting things. Perhaps you would have had more (or less) luck starting another discussion about how to interpret things or promoting the idea that any percieved discrepancies in technology are completely and plausibly explainable in-universe. But, alas, for the purposes of this particular discussion, that simply is tangential from what I was asking, so this is just a sideshow. So on that note, you're right, I'm wrong, I'm an idiot, you're awesome, my question was stupid and presumptive and you fixed it and me in record time. Let's move on.

@pol III No: "she", initially, said something about me making a comparison, based on the style of cars? This is nothing at all like what I said and nothing to do with the point I was making - I suggest you read it again: subsequently, I just explained what I actually said, in words more befitting. Similarly, you have attributed to me something I didn't say - I did not in any way suggest that "since new technology and old technology can be used in both films in their respective times, nobody should question whether or not the director has addressed the issue?" My position, staggeringly, under the circumstances, is quite the opposite. I just offered an interpretation that explains why the initial assumptions inherent in the question - that the facts of the matter present "an issue" - are actually loaded and, by that token, somewhat redundant. Nevertheless, I'm just glad you have received some kind of answer you are able to deal with.

I'm not going to explain what she was saying for her, but she said "stylistically (referring to the movie)", which I take to mean the style of movie. Oh and if she's a he, my mistake! Yes, I suppose the question was a little loaded. Most questions are. And yet... *motioning with finger and thumb opposed* ...saying there's a gap in technology isn't exactly going out on the farthest limb one can climb onto... CRT screens and padded mainframe lite-brite rooms as one put it. But I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you actually. There's an argument to be made that, when asked the question, Ridley (or anyone) could have just said there is no gap in technology! And there are creative ways of justifying that. Good form, allinamberclad, very good form sir. I salute you!