What's the biggest mystery of the film?

@darthmongo That's very interesting. I wonder if they obscured that intentionally in the trailer to hide a secret or if it changes color ‘live’ in the film. The look on his face and hand position, etc. make me think that the trailer image has been intentionally manipulated in a post-production process. Even in the example you’ve provided, it looks like perhaps an embryonic face-hugger...

@BigDave That is a really interesting idea ... the Jekyll and Hyde thing. I can honestly say I never even considered that idea before. Yet it makes such perfect sense given what I was saying about David having a more sensitive, conscience-driven aspect to his personality, but then also another side to him that is capable of being emotionless and "unethical", as per his programming. Maybe Ridley Scott was speaking metaphorically, and the two androids that we will get are Good David and Bad David, like you said. Which reminds me. Does anyone else think that Scott's constant comments about the movie containing "the DNA of Alien" might actually be a big tip-off, a clue to what literally happens in the movie, with the creature we will eventually come to know as the xenomorph developing out of the recomposed DNA elements of one of the human crew members, or possibly David?

[quote=Ripley8_David8][i]Does anyone else think that Scott's constant comments about the movie containing "the DNA of Alien" might actually be a big tip-off, a clue to what literally happens in the movie, with the creature we will eventually come to know as the xenomorph developing out of the recomposed DNA elements of one of the human crew members, or possibly David?[/i][/quote] I think he's speaking metaphorically. In terms of the art direction, general backstory, etc. I think it is possible that David or one of the other crew members [u]might[/u] have something to do with the xenos of Alien (intentionally or otherwise), but I'm prone to doubt it. I also think (am hopeful) that David plays a fundamentally redemptive role in the film, but who knows!? It was intentionally hidden from the crew of the [i]Nostromo[/i] that Ash was a synthetic. Presuming that Weyland knew at least the majority of what happens in Prometheus, the corporation's having hidden Ash's synthetic nature could point to something highly problematic related to David’s actions in this timeline.

"What's the biggest mystery of the film?" Why it's only 45 days away and still hasn't received a [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/parentalguide]rating[/url].... From IMDB; An almost naked woman is shown doing push-ups. A close sexual relationship between two crew members is heavily implied. Afterwards, they are depicting awakening together in the same room, half clothed. A woman is shown suffering from injuries due being expose to an unknown pathogen. She dies in a matter of minutes, in agony. A man looks his eyes in the mirror, finding a small worm-like creature entering inside his eyes. He panicks, and tries to put it out, heavily hurting his own eye. A raging man violently attacks another man. A women flosses her teeth. Due to gum disease, there is lots of blood. A character is shown smoking out of stress. The overall film's atmosphere is overwhelming due prevalent dark, misterious spaces, body horror, and violent creatures. Since the film deals with theological themes such as mankind's origin, religious beliefs conflicting science theories, loss of faith, transhumanism and posthumanism, religious audiences could find highly disturbing or even blasphemous some of the concepts dealt in Prometheus.

@Nephilim_LV426 It will be a [b]crime against cinema[/b] if it is edited down into the form of some PG13 porridge. The MPAA seem to have lost their minds of lately when it comes to ratings.

What you forgot is what is so close to the first movie is what is "unseen" can be far more scary that what is shown, sure we love gore and graphic nakedness but in the hands of some one who knows what they are doing a PG-13 can be scary or thought provoking

Though I do love boobs

@Grindolf Many, MANY PG13 things are super scary. Likely too scary for 13-year-olds. The film in its subject matter feels incredibly [b][u]adult[/u][/b] to me. I’m actually not that into gore and unnecessary violence. Nudity is great if it’s presented in the normal course of human behavior. Boobs, hoohaas, dingdongs, whatever... I’m sure that 13-year-olds see nudity daily via the internet. I just believe fundamentally that filmmaking should be a vehicle for STORYTELLING, and I don't want this [u]story[/u] to be castrated by the MPAA. There is a WORM(ish (thing!)) wriggling in a guy's eye. That is fundamentally disturbing. If the STORY is fundamentally disturbing, then LET IT BE THAT. Let Sir Scott tell that disturbing story. Shaw suffers a C-secition while kicking and screaming and has a large SQUID(dish (thing!)) removed from her body. That is fundamentally disturbing. If it is TOO disturbing for Ridley Scott, then HE should redact it. NOT FOX in a panic over the whims of the MPAA censors. In my mind, this is (must be) and R-rated film. If it is not, I won't be seeing the real thing until the director’s cut comes out on alternate media. OR, let them release both R-rated and PG13 versions at the same time and PROVE to the studio (and theaters) that the film that is TRUE to the artistic vision of its creators will MAKE MORE MONEY than something that has been butchered by greed.

The biggest mystery to me is whether we will see any xenomorphs in this prequel. I'm starting to freak out a little actually. Call it childish, but I can't imagine an 'Alien' movie with no aliens. I know they didn't show anything in the first film's trailer because they wanted to scare the living shit out of the audience, which is FANTASTIC, but all this mystery is driving me crazy!!! Is it going to be about how the aliens actually came to be, or will they already be there when the humans arrive!??! I CAN'T TAKE IT!!! ARRGHHH!!!! (chestburster pops out of my chest)