The derelict (ALIEN) didn't crash

I read somewhere here that it 'parked' on the planet. Due a ticket soon I think at this rate. Multiple ships - a whole fleet of them, each one a slight variation on the next, why not? Sounds good to me.

I never presumed it crashed I simply held the view that it was stranded, could've have crashed true, but could have stopped for a cuppa or summit.

I made a plot speculation a few days ago, in which it was implied that the ship was just parked and not crashed. I am happy my suspects are confirmed! ^^

I've been saying that for a while, trying to get people to see the real possibility that we're dealing with a different ship and pilot in Prometheus.

Also when I thought of how it got there (before Prometheus was even a notion) in my own head I had presumed that an alien had burst from the ships pilot and that they were stranded...... No matter as there were probably other ships the same and in alien WE just happened to discover them before THEY even knew we exsisted, hence why they had never destroyed our puny little planet (space is pretty big)...

I now believe though that this IS the same ship in Alien.

I can guarantee you that we did [i]not[/i] "all" think that it had crashed? You may have done - but then seem to have presumed that we [i]all[/i] did? Also, a great many have been arguing, for a long time, that the alien vehicle is generic, not singular.

I never thought it had crashed as in propper crashed. I likened it to driving down the road and then you feel like your about to have a heart attack and you brake and slow the car down and drive to the side of the road, you may come to a bumpy stop but its not a crash but not a perfect stop either. So i see the Derelict as landed but more of a emergency landing than a planned stop.

It can't be the same ship, unless they stop to do some serious redecorating of the map-room before they get to lv426. I'm sorry, but explaining away the stasis pods, chair, control panel, ramp, and different shape of the room by suggesting that the organic ship has morphed/been fossilized, the xenos changed things with their secretions, or my personal favorite: [i]artistic license...?![/i]....... just pegs my personal BS meter. Sorry, but that pig won't fly for this fan.

Well. Maybe but it seems derelicted as hell: [img]http://www.martinbowersmodelworld.co.uk/images/A71.jpg[/img] Unless the jockeys had no need of leveling things, and their technology is capable to stand any structural forces upon the carcass, this poor ship looks much more crashed than parked.

Its not the same Derelict ship. That would make Prometheus a DIRECT sequel to ALIEN and Ridley Scott already axed that thought.

@centrosphere "Derelict", is not predetermined upon, "Crashed"? Under certain circumstances, their respective effects could well be indistinguishable from either cause. In those circumstances, how something may "seem", or, "look", would be just - and only - that.

I just think that Sir Ridley has one more chapter planned out. BETWEEN Prometheus and ALIEN. Something that will brindge all tthe probable refrences to alien that prometheus has in store for us.

When an aeroplane falls from the sky and crashes it would be in thousands of pieces, its unlikely the derelict would be intact like it is.

The pilot knew what was going to happen after the face hugger dropped off so he landed the ship. As time was short he wasn't going to do a nice job of it.

Ridley said the movie would link Derectly to Alien at the end... Basically it leaves it as being able to explain Alien and how the Derelict, Dead Jockey, Eggs etc got there. But then there is so much to the movie that can be explored in other sequals and thus not have to touch upon the Alien from Alien ever again as its been covered by the Alien Franchise.

allinamberclad, OK. I´m not a native speaker of english so I mistaken the meaning of the word "derelict". But that troubled me, because if you think about the "Alien" movie canon, then the ship never was a derelict: it was never abandoned by it´s crew. The poor pilot died, but stood at his station. The "derelict" idea only makes sense when you think of the canon along the lines of the [url=http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/alien_shooting.html]original script from Hill and Giler[/url]. There, Lambert, Kane and Dallas don´t find the "space jockey"; the only aliens seen (beyond the facehugger) are dead (one fossilized, the other, an skeleton) and outside the ship. Finally, about the ship in "Alien": I still think it is crashed. Not as a plane fallen from the sky as Ukalien says, but after some kind of forced landing. The whole attitude of the ship conveys this feeling.

allinamberclad, I see what you mean. I´m not a native speaker of english and probably mistook the meaning of "derelict". But that troubles me further, because in this case, the ship that the Nostromo crew find at the planetoid in "Alien" is not a derelict. You see, the poor pilot never left the ship, he died at his station. The answer for this mistery, I think, is that the word "derelict" came from the [url=http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/alien_shooting.html]original script for "Alein" from Hill and Giler[/url]. There they actually call the ship a "derelict", and if you read it, you´ll see that the Nostromo exploring crew never see the "space jockey": the only aliens (bar the facehugger) they see are dead bodies outside the ship (one fossilized, and the other as an skeleton, both huge). So, the original ship in "Alien" was thought to be abandoned. Some way, the word "derelict" survived the changes in the script and made it to the world, so everybody knows it as "the derelict" today.

@centrosphere In that case, your English is excellent. "Derelict", should not trouble you. "Derelict", and, "Abandoned", are somewhat interchangeable - except that, "Derelict", confers obvious and literal, "decay" - and does so more obviously. Ordinarily, you are correct: neither word would be properly applicable where the ship remained inhabited, (which is what I think troubles you), but the ship was [i]not[/i] inhabited? The ship contained a corpse. A [i]corpse[/i] cannot, strictly speaking, constitute, "an inhabitant". A corpse cannot lay claim to what appears abandoned; nor can a corpse carry out the domestic duties that are required to prevent that item falling into decay - and [i]apparent[/i], "dereliction". "Derelict", would remain valid and correct.

Allinamberclad, Thanks for the remark. Of course I will not challenge your domain of the language. I´ll only point this: [i]"Nautical . a vessel abandoned in open water by its crew without any hope or intention of returning."[/i] [from [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/derelict]Dictionary.com[/url]] This conveys to me a sense of "purpose". As the SJ remained in the ship, I was thinking that this would descharacterize the purpose of "abandonment". But of course you english-speaking people have tacit knowledge of the language that goes beyond the mechanistic rules of a dictionary... Thank you, I learned a lot here.