Why are the Space Jockeys so small now?

Just LOOK AWAY from the truth ... you're supposed to LOOK AWAY from the fact that the Alien Space Jockey looks more like a GIANT GANESHA GODLIKE DRIVER OF A SPACETIME TELESCOPE some 5 meters tall, and consider that it's just a mini-giant in a 3m gimpsuit chair. Learn to comply with the Corporate Narrative, no matter how it confounds its own truth.

Depends which part of the scene from Alien you watch... [img]http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/843/843439/space-jockey-alien-3_1199392767.jpg[/img] Above the Engineer looks about 12-15 feet tall (because Ridley used his kids to make the set look huge), yet mere seconds later... ...the Engineer looks about 8-10 feet tall, which is about the same size of which they appeared to be in Prometheus... [IMG]http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac89/snorkelbottom/sizecomparisonALIEN.jpg[/IMG]

I read on a post from the director that the original Space Jockey in alien was 26ft long after being built, so no matter how you look at it perspective wise it was much larger. P.S, It also cost 500k to build even back then,...wow.

Welcome KrazedMadMan to the forums, we hope you enjoy the network and its many, varied discussions. In Alien the Space Jockey was never 26ft long, 12-15 feet would sound more appropriate as shown by this pre-production image of its creation... [img]http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2012/01/6ac12141127c2b26dccc65cb1030b1e8.jpg[/img] ...but the pilot itself is comparable to what we see in Prometheus when the actual actors where filmed next to it.

OK so after re reading the post is says the Space Jockey prop was 26ft long, so some of that could be the chair etc, but when you take into account that Scott himself used children for reference in the film shot it goes to say he was using that as a gauge to it's size, so let me see, actual Space Jockey about the size of two and a half grown adults (6ft), as seen in your pic = 15ft take into account that children are used for scale shot (4 1/2ft) puts the intentional preceived size for a Jockey at 19 1/2ft, so still a far cry from the 9ft Engineers we see in Prometheus.

This is the very nature of the problem with that scene, which shot do take as reference for the dead pilots intended size, the long shot or the close up. Take into account that as well intended as the long shot may have been it contradicts the scale seen in the close up shots, and had that been done today movie goers would have cried FAIL. remember this was Scott's 2nd ever film. Personally because we can see the characters faces i refer to the close-up for the size reference which I would put at 12 feet tall, which is a taller than the 9 feet Engineer in Prometheus. Which were rumored to be around 10-12 feet in pre-production, but didn't appear that height on screen, yet another fail TBH.

So I don't know how to load pics but theres a shot of an engineer standing in costume next to Scott and he's between 7 and 8 feet tall, so even bio suited he'd maybe be 10ft tall, thats half the size as the Alien Space Jockey, heck in your pic the guy sculpting him is only as big as its arm, so my point stands, why did they shrink?

The actor whom played the last Engineer is Ian Whyte (also known for playing Predators in the AVP films). Whyte stands at 7' 1", but in the scene where he stands over David and Weyland he was standing on a box, this combined with the dynamic camera angles used (high up and low down) make him appear around 9 feet tall, which as you say is still short of of 12 feet needed, and therefore is a glaring contradiction. Unless of course, as some have speculated, the Engineers grow taller with age, and this "Last Engineer" was a youth.

I like to think the Space Jockey of old is a separate race, maybe the Engineer's creators, the Juggernaut design adapted for the Engineers use. I also think it was simply impractical to the story of Prometheus to have a 26' tall character. Remember too that David needed a ladder to get that door open. Why were the controls so high?

Lots of rationalizations tend to be offered for explaining the size discrepancy, but basically Scott just changed his mind concerning what the Space Jockey is and threw things out of whack. Originally it was a large skeleton belonging to a creature whose function was integrated into the chair itself- so yes, he was melded into it. Sounds weird but it perfectly fits one of the film's themes, which is that truly alien things will feel odd because our minds have no point of reference for them. The differences in size between the long shot and the close-ups in ALIEN could in a way be considered a form of "continuity error" but I think Scott just wanted to convey that the creature was rather large and this was in itself unsettling. When he changed it to a just a tall humanoid in a suit, he could achieve two things: make it smaller and interactive, as opposed to a stationary set piece. Unfortunately, this killed a lot of what made the original Space Jockey so uniquely alien.

Good luck finding an actor that big and if not then it has to be cgi.

^^^^ what dopelganger said ^^^^ Even though the original SJ is alot bigger than the engineers in Prometheus, it wouldn't have been possible to film the engineers without using cgi and Ridley didn't want to use cgi in that way... I'm glad he didn't!

Ugh... the CGI argument thing again! So if the use of CGI would have allowed superior story elements to come to life, you would still be against it? Yes I know that ALIEN had no CGI to speak of, but remember the year when ALIEN was produced- even if they wanted to, the technology we have today did not exist. Simple as that. What about that wondrous landing sequence of the Prometheus ship early in the movie? That's CGI, and it's fucking amazing. Even Bob fighting Cuddles has CGI elements and that was a great scene too. He really put up a fight, and all that thrashing around didn't compromise the CGI elements at all (in my opinion, respectfully). So would Ridley have been able to retain the original dimensions of the Space Jockey using CGI, and in doing so improve upon the story elements? Yep, I believe so.

The engineer fighting cuddles scene looked poor, in my opinion. As did the scene with milburn and the weyland logo headed snake forcing its way into his gob. Them scenes were done using cgi right? The scenes where cgi use was at its best, was the hologram scenes. Cgi technology is no replacement for the real thing!

The height aside the original SJ looked so much better and they down scaled and simplified it because of costs - if it turns out that its in the film as cool as the original one woohoo! But if thats it - it is a sad fact that they just plain do not look anywhere near as good in prometheus :( ! He really needed to keep the design the same for this part... What could be cool was if this was one type of engineer and there are many - they are engineered them selves for particular tasks - different sizes tools arm lengths etc. . I reckon the only way out for ridley is to make the old SJ an elder a new thing we havnt seen yet! Do it baby!

Necro, OK I will absolutely admit the Hammerpede going into his mouth was not done very well- kind of choppy actually and it ended rather abruptly. Actually, the film is very much a mixed bag like this, moments of greatness mixed with good doses of WTF? What Major Noob also said is interesting, why where the controls so high up, seemed even Bob would not reach them.

I don't know about that but maybe one or a few of the taller ones could reach. Maybe they put the controls so high up so visiting humans couldn't reach? Maybe they didn't take the ladder thing into account lol?

Molecular, this CGI vs Actual Prosthetics argument raised its ugly head during the Thing (the prequel which did exactly what it said on the tin) which I thought worked well because it had a foundation in actual workshop craftsmanship, enhanced by 3D. I thought it worked, but then I'm the sort of idiot who thinks 3D can be as titillating as pornography, I'm thinking specifically of the Final Fantasy render sequences or [i]Advent Children[/i]. It's only a film; it's only pixels.