Latest News

Post Comment
Comments: 95
« Newer Comments 12 Older Comments »
  1. Kol
    a belief that she has chased after her entire life, as her parents before her did.

    -Chris

    do you think her father was kidnapped by aliens and that's the reason why we will see him in flashbacks?
    Maybe he became an engineer?

    this speculation is fun.  8)

    maybe we will see him like jodie foster see's her father in contact.
  2. Skylark Duquesne
    The way some comments are going anyone would think this film is going to be a religious epic, something I'm not seeing at all myself in any of the genuine quotes. There isn't anything that suggests supporting creationism, anymore than any other sci fi story that has used a similar premise has. All I've seen is that a character will have to question their faith.

    It's fiction, and drama is all the more effective if somehow finds their assumptions challenged. It reminds me of misconceptions about an episode of 1970s British post apocalyptic TV series 'Survivors' in which a religious group put their faith in God to save them, only to find that their arriving saviors - another group of survivors have brought a contagious virus with them. So all the religious characters die. Some critics just wrote it off as preachy TV suited to Sunday evening viewing rather than sci fi drama. In other words completely missing the point.

    The same could be said of a part of the story in Day of the Triffids. Just because religion themes are touched upon doesn't mean that there's an underlying support of religion. Or not.

    Same with Prometheus. Themes are there to create a story with drama and conflict (that's mental conflict). It doesn't actually have to say anything about what Ridley Scott himself believes.

    He's built a new grand mythology  -  a fiction stemming from the SJ in  A   L   I   E   N.

    Cool, what's wrong with that?

    Obviously, what we're all concerned about is the dramatic and emotional potential of the story. I expect nothing from Scott short of a punch in the stomach, a unique experience I would walk from dizzy and reeling and that would constitute a drastic departure from the tepid stuff studios churn out on an industrial basis. The Thing prequel was rather enjoyable but I was struck by how bland the treatment was compared with Carpenter's sicko, stylish masterpiece.
    In "Alien Vault", you can read Scott declared that he was fascinated by the no-bullshit nature of the script, "something that was utterly about function" (which echoes what Ash says about the Alien). That does not seem to make him much of a mystic. About "Blade Runner", which film critics disparaged because of its so-called lack of content, he said that "in this case, the design IS the statement".
    And yet... I have a hunch that this time, this particular horror piece will be intellectually as well as emotionally disturbing. Visceral and cerebral at the same time, a tale of space and inner exploration. I hope it will really be Scott's vision, unmarred by any interference from execs' marketing concerns.
  3. Darth Vile
    Cameron actually was a bit naive with the use of that bone like structure as seen in the derelict. That stuff appeared to be more apart of the architecture of the original ship, then anything the alien itself secreted or created. It didn't make narrative sense to include the structure in ALIENS with the exception of going into the ship.

    In terms of Aliens, I thought it was a very effective, and intelligent, nod to the first movie (even if not logical)… as it suddenly, and quite dramatically, gives the audience a visual connection to the experiences on the Derelict in Alien i.e. “don’t go in there”.
  4. ChrisPachi
    The way some comments are going anyone would think this film is going to be a religious epic, something I'm not seeing at all myself in any of the genuine quotes. There isn't anything that suggests supporting creationism, anymore than any other sci fi story that has used a similar premise has. All I've seen is that a character will have to question their faith.

    It could well be that Elizabeth Shaw is not traditionally religious at all, but a follower of an entirely fictitious belief system created for the alien universe. As an archeologist, her faith could be based on her sense that human beings were created by or guided by interstellar beings, a belief that she has chased after her entire life, as her parents before her did. She may have a personal conviction of the idea; certain of it's truth but unable to find the real smoking gun to prove it. Until...

    Unless of course it has been stated somewhere that she is in fact Christian/Muslim/Hindu or of some other real world religious denomination?

    -Chris
  5. Gash
    The way some comments are going anyone would think this film is going to be a religious epic, something I'm not seeing at all myself in any of the genuine quotes. There isn't anything that suggests supporting creationism, anymore than any other sci fi story that has used a similar premise has. All I've seen is that a character will have to question their faith.

    It's fiction, and drama is all the more effective if somehow finds their assumptions challenged. It reminds me of misconceptions about an episode of 1970s British post apocalyptic TV series 'Survivors' in which a religious group put their faith in God to save them, only to find that their arriving saviors - another group of survivors have brought a contagious virus with them. So all the religious characters die. Some critics just wrote it off as preachy TV suited to Sunday evening viewing rather than sci fi drama. In other words completely missing the point.

    The same could be said of a part of the story in Day of the Triffids. Just because religion themes are touched upon doesn't mean that there's an underlying support of religion. Or not.

    Same with Prometheus. Themes are there to create a story with drama and conflict (that's mental conflict). It doesn't actually have to say anything about what Ridley Scott himself believes.

    He's built a new grand mythology  -  a fiction stemming from the SJ in  A   L   I   E   N.

    Cool, what's wrong with that?
  6. Kol
    hi
    i'm new to this forum and enjoy reading your comments since the upcoming prometheus movie news starts.
    sorry if this post doesnt belong here but since you were analyzing the derelict ship i found
    this site with a model photos. hope this link doesnt violate any of your rules.

    http://www.phoxim.de/klaus_schaeftner_derelict/klaus_schaeftner_der23.jpg

    http://www.phoxim.de/klaus_schaeftner_derelict/klaus_schaeftner_derelict.html

    so prometheus stole the fire from the gods!

    http://www.phoxim.de/klaus_schaeftner_derelict/klaus_schaeftner_der17.jpg



    and the humans stole the hammer of the gods.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u107/hammer.jpg

  7. ChrisPachi
    If so, does he have a scientific, religious, metaphysical or materialistic bias?

    A good question. Some of his recent comments do hint that he has a specific belief about human origins on Earth, but it is probably just as easily based on his overactive imagination. The synopsis does say that he is creating a 'grand mythology', but to anchor it to any one religious ideal would be a bit trite, as you say.

    -Chris
  8. ThisBethesdaSea
    Cameron actually was a bit naive with the use of that bone like structure as seen in the derelict. That stuff appeared to be more apart of the architecture of the original ship, then anything the alien itself secreted or created. It didn't make narrative sense to include the structure in ALIENS with the exception of going into the ship.
  9. Skylark Duquesne
    I didn't mean to suggest that you were being offensive towards women, sorry, I just didn't understand your angle, there. As for the bugs thing, Scott called his Alien an insect numerous times, Giger called the egg silo a termite nest, Dan O'Bannon was influenced by insects - it all goes back to insects. Still, I can understand some people's aversion to the Queen, even though I don't feel the same way. Different strokes for different folks.
    As for man was not created by God in his semblance, but by the Devil that's pretty much like a lot of Gnosticism and the concept of the Demiurge.

    I like to throw ideas at times but lack the knowledge to back them up. I am not much of an erudite, nor am I a religious person (if not an atheist) but I checked on the theory that you evoke.
    It is altogether consistent with Ridley Scott's statements regarding Prometheus, isn't it ?
    What I wonder is : does Scott's ambitions extend beyond the desire to enthrall audiences with an effective shocker ? If so, does he have a scientific, religious, metaphysical or materialistic bias ?
    It is still unclear and it will possibly remain so after we've seen the film. I wouldn't blame that sensitive director for raising more interrogations than answers, but I'd really resent him for giving a trite explanation to one of the most mysterious scenes in science-fiction cinema.
  10. ChrisPachi
    I just tracked it down in case you're interested. It came from a Russian news site. That other fansite resized it and removed the tag manually. Original here:
    http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6531/kinopoiskruprometheus17.jpg
    I notice that David is half standing in some kind of channel, leaning on his left knee while his right leg is straight down into it - like he's just climbed out of a hole. Another detail about the tunnel there, for what it's worth.

    It might well be a living organism, in its own right, gradually reconfiguring itself into a biomechanical matrix (not unlike the Alien, itself, in that respect).
    Never thought of it that way. In Aliens it is suggested that the creature excretes the stuff, implying that it is actually sculptured by them, however IMO that idea never quite meshed with the symmetrical, almost architectural form of the end result. But then again, insects in nature do build fairly complex and symmetrical structures. Some spiders create massive 'nests' from their webs consisting of layer upon layer of webbing, all sculpted into curving 'tunnels' and 'rooms'...

    Eeesh, I just gave myself the heebies.

    -Chris
  11. ikarop
    http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t253/LarsVader/prometheus-new-7.jpg

    High res is over here http://www.michaelfassbender.org/prometheus-new-7.jpg
    I just tracked it down in case you're interested. It came from a Russian news site. That other fansite resized it and removed the tag manually. Original here:

    http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6531/kinopoiskruprometheus17.jpg

    Thanks!
    I was wondering about the resizing.
    Should have looked there for myself.

    There is a version without a logo actually.
    http://st.kinopoisk.ru/images/kadr/1758992.jpg

    Where do people get these pictures from, does Fox send them out or do they have a press page?
    Do they send out newsletters then to inform the press to download these images?
    Where do people get the international release dates from?
    Does anybody have acess to those sources?
    There is indeed. And they usually come from press kits or press vaults. For some reason the press don't seem to care about embargo dates in Eastern Europe. It happens quite often.
  12. LarsVader
    http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t253/LarsVader/prometheus-new-7.jpg

    High res is over here http://www.michaelfassbender.org/prometheus-new-7.jpg
    I just tracked it down in case you're interested. It came from a Russian news site. That other fansite resized it and removed the tag manually. Original here:

    http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6531/kinopoiskruprometheus17.jpg

    Thanks!
    I was wondering about the resizing.
    Should have looked there for myself.

    There is a version without a logo actually.
    http://st.kinopoisk.ru/images/kadr/1758992.jpg

    Where do people get these pictures from, does Fox send them out or do they have a press page?
    Do they send out newsletters then to inform the press to download these images?
    Where do people get the international release dates from?
    Does anybody have acess to those sources?
  13. AnthonyWC70788


    There is actually a precedence for this: Look at how the eggs appear to start sprouting roots. There could be a connection.

    Well, Giger designed those roots as tentacles on the eggs bases in the original movie, so I would go along with the idea that these things might be able to some extent crawl around looking enough to fix themselves in a place that was ideal

    Well hell the picture of the egg just got a whole lot freakier to me when you think of it like that. I never thought of it like that and that would be creepy as hell lol... Anthony
  14. LarsVader
    There's also the possibility inferred in 'Resurrection' that the gunk is somehow alive in a viral/fungal manner. It might well be a living organism, in its own right, gradually reconfiguring itself into a biomechanical matrix (not unlike the Alien, itself, in that respect). Being alive would certainly explain how it can slowly creep outward from where the creatures are hibernating, if one assumes they were dormant and not just periodically resting.

    There is actually a precedence for this: Look at how the eggs appear to start sprouting roots. There could be a connection.

    I like that thought.
  15. Xenomorphine
    Perhaps the alien resin is not a copy of the human chest cavity, but rather the human chest cavity is a copy of the alien resin... Nah. That's dumb.

    And then Agent Smith appears in the doorway as the Alien King... :D

    Quote
    The alien builds, that's no doubt. Even in the deleted scene from the original film the alien has 'plastered' the walls with some construction. But surely the derelict is not just plastered over by alien goo.

    Much of the atmosphere processor's interior was... And that was only after two weeks. They might've covered the entire thing and colony in the stuff if it had gone much longer.

    You'll noticed that there's more than just resin in these two environments.  There's clearly a lot of technology (or rather bio-technology), as you can see from the pipes etc.  In fact, they used the walls of the same set for both environments so those pipes that you can clearly see in the Space Jockey picture are also present in the egg chamber.  The Aliens don't build pipes and it's pretty much a given that a different civilisation wouldn't build the exact same pipes as the Space Jockeys!

    Yes - and in the colony, precisely those sorts of things are actually visible. It's not like in 'Alien Resurrection' (which can be excused by assuming the human DNA-tainted Aliens are having as many psychological adaptation problems as Ripley 8 was). There are clear parts where the stuff is somehow being deliberately changed into structures startlingly like the ribbing and such you see in the Jockey and egg chambers, both.

    I could throw up a post about this and identify them all with arrows and stuff, but... It took me ages and I'd need to be in the mood. :)

    There's also the possibility inferred in 'Resurrection' that the gunk is somehow alive in a viral/fungal manner. It might well be a living organism, in its own right, gradually reconfiguring itself into a biomechanical matrix (not unlike the Alien, itself, in that respect). Being alive would certainly explain how it can slowly creep outward from where the creatures are hibernating, if one assumes they were dormant and not just periodically resting.

    There is actually a precedence for this: Look at how the eggs appear to start sprouting roots. There could be a connection.
  16. Valaquen
    Thank you Valaquen for setting things straight and enlightening me on this point. I didn't know Scott had once toyed with the idea of a female creature. I do remember reading somewhere that he said it was a hermaphrodite from his standpoint. So now I know where the authors of "Species" drew their inspiration from (apart from "A for Andromeda").
    I didn't mean to appear offending to anyone. I am in no way sexist or whatever, quite the contrary. I voted for women quite often in my life so please do not misunderstand me. It's just that I am trying to find a thematic coherence in a film that has marked me for life. My interpretation may be reducing
    It's not so much the fact that the aliens are ruled by a queen that I don't much appreciate in Cameron's take on the licence, but the fact they are reduced to bugs in a way, as someone pointed out very pertinently in another thread.
    Indeed, Dan O'Bannon wanted to imbue his tale with a lovecraftian dimension. That's a far cry from giant bugs.
    In "Alien", Scott spoke of the alien as a kind of medieval gargoyle haunting a gothic cathedral. He said at one point they planned to suggest that the alien had reached Earth in the distant past and had given birth to the myth of the Devil. They ditched that concept for obvious reasons.
    Maybe that's the main provocative idea at the core of Prometheus : that man was not created by God in his semblance, but by the Devil.
    I didn't mean to suggest that you were being offensive towards women, sorry, I just didn't understand your angle, there. As for the bugs thing, Scott called his Alien an insect numerous times, Giger called the egg silo a termite nest, Dan O'Bannon was influenced by insects - it all goes back to insects. Still, I can understand some people's aversion to the Queen, even though I don't feel the same way. Different strokes for different folks.
    As for man was not created by God in his semblance, but by the Devil that's pretty much like a lot of Gnosticism and the concept of the Demiurge.
  17. Skylark Duquesne
    Thank you Valaquen for setting things straight and enlightening me on this point. I didn't know Scott had once toyed with the idea of a female creature. I do remember reading somewhere that he said it was a hermaphrodite from his standpoint. So now I know where the authors of "Species" drew their inspiration from (apart from "A for Andromeda").
    I didn't mean to appear offending to anyone. I am in no way sexist or whatever, quite the contrary. I voted for women quite often in my life so please do not misunderstand me. It's just that I am trying to find a thematic coherence in a film that has marked me for life. My interpretation may be reducing
    It's not so much the fact that the aliens are ruled by a queen that I don't much appreciate in Cameron's take on the licence, but the fact they are reduced to bugs in a way, as someone pointed out very pertinently in another thread.
    Indeed, Dan O'Bannon wanted to imbue his tale with a lovecraftian dimension. That's a far cry from giant bugs.
    In "Alien", Scott spoke of the alien as a kind of medieval gargoyle haunting a gothic cathedral. He said at one point they planned to suggest that the alien had reached Earth in the distant past and had given birth to the myth of the Devil. They ditched that concept for obvious reasons.
    Maybe that's the main provocative idea at the core of Prometheus : that man was not created by God in his semblance, but by the Devil.
    As an aside, I hate Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers" for the reasons stated above, all the more so since the enemy is a spacefaring species, which makes it ludicrous they should not be sentient. In Heinlein's novel, man is clearly at war against other civilizations.
  18. Valaquen
    I always saw the alien as the extreme embodiment of masculinity, a combination of phallic symbols, and a drive that could be reduced to two tropisms : predation (i.e. destruction) and reproduction.
    In French, "mâle" means "male", and "mal" signifies "evil". Both principles are indissociable, hence the almost similar spelling. In that case, it was only too logical that the alien's ultimate contender should be a woman.
    In "Aliens", I never liked the fact that these mean creatures obeyed a female entity, like stupid hive members. It ruins the coherence of Scott and O'Bannon's opus. Cameron is a passionate and generous filmmaker but his concepts are naive.
    To me, it's obvious the aliens are a construct, the product of the space jockey's experiments. These superior beings certainly imparted some of their traits to their "children".
    The Alien was actually intended to be a female - Scott spent some time looking for a woman to play the creature, as he thought two women [one alien, one human] battling one another would have excellent 'connotations'. When they couldn't find a woman, thy decided the Alien was a man in the shape of a woman, essentially, a hermaphrodite.

    I don't quite understand the offence or stupidity in obeying a "female entity," though.
  19. Skylark Duquesne
    I always saw the alien as the extreme embodiment of masculinity, a combination of phallic symbols, and a drive that could be reduced to two tropisms : predation (i.e. destruction) and reproduction.
    In French, "mâle" means "male", and "mal" signifies "evil". Both principles are indissociable, hence the almost similar spelling. In that case, it was only too logical that the alien's ultimate contender should be a woman.
    In "Aliens", I never liked the fact that these mean creatures obeyed a female entity, like stupid hive members. It ruins the coherence of Scott and O'Bannon's opus. Cameron is a passionate and generous filmmaker but his concepts are naive.
    To me, it's obvious the aliens are a construct, the product of the space jockey's experiments. These superior beings certainly imparted some of their traits to their "children".

    I'd like to ask you guys two questions :
    - Has anyone ever mentioned that the giant head looked so much like Guy Pearce ? Same handsome, fine features. What with the mystery surrounding Pearce's part, I wonder if there's not something to it.
    - How come the exploration party people don't wear a backpack, like some childish Captain Scarlet puppets ? No need for oxygen supply ?
  20. St_Eddie
    If the Space Jockey found the cavern, built by another civilisation, then why are the walls constructed in the same bio-mechanical way as the Jockey's chamber?

    Alien resin from ages back. Either from several creatures or just the one which emerged from the pilot. Wasn't like it had much else to do. :)

    I once did this huge comparison between images of the derelict/chamber interiors and the nest at Hadley's Hope. It definitely looks like one's a much more advanced state of the other. Both basically look like the skeletal interior of a whale.

    My theory for that is that, since all Aliens came from inside a chest cavity, they're naturally inclined to construct their nest into looking as much like one as possible, for psychological reasons of security and feeling 'home'.

    If true, then the 'real' hull could look completely different beneath it.

    It's an interesting theory but I'm not convinced...

    http://images.wikia.com/aliens/images/2/26/SpaceJockey.jpg

    http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/writing/figs/eggchamber.jpg

    You'll noticed that there's more than just resin in these two environments.  There's clearly a lot of technology (or rather bio-technology), as you can see from the pipes etc.  In fact, they used the walls of the same set for both environments so those pipes that you can clearly see in the Space Jockey picture are also present in the egg chamber.  The Aliens don't build pipes and it's pretty much a given that a different civilisation wouldn't build the exact same pipes as the Space Jockeys!
  21. ChrisPachi
    Alien resin from ages back.. [..] since all Aliens came from inside a chest cavity, they're naturally inclined to construct their nest into looking as much like one as possible

    Perhaps the alien resin is not a copy of the human chest cavity, but rather the human chest cavity is a copy of the alien resin... Nah. That's dumb.

    The alien builds, that's no doubt. Even in the deleted scene from the original film the alien has 'plastered' the walls with some construction. But surely the derelict is not just plastered over by alien goo.

    -Chris
  22. Xenomorphine
    If the Space Jockey found the cavern, built by another civilisation, then why are the walls constructed in the same bio-mechanical way as the Jockey's chamber?

    Alien resin from ages back. Either from several creatures or just the one which emerged from the pilot. Wasn't like it had much else to do. :)

    I once did this huge comparison between images of the derelict/chamber interiors and the nest at Hadley's Hope. It definitely looks like one's a much more advanced state of the other. Both basically look like the skeletal interior of a whale.

    My theory for that is that, since all Aliens came from inside a chest cavity, they're naturally inclined to construct their nest into looking as much like one as possible, for psychological reasons of security and feeling 'home'.

    If true, then the 'real' hull could look completely different beneath it.
  23. RAD_RAT
    If the Space Jockey found the cavern, built by another civilisation, then why are the walls constructed in the same bio-mechanical way as the Jockey's chamber?

    It could be a double blind... the Space Jockeys created humans, then found a clue to the origins of their own species, went investigating and got wasted, then we go and find the Jockeys and get wasted as well. The moral of the story is; if you are alienated from you parents, don't go looking, because they could be trailer trash.

    -Chris

    I like this idea about trailer trash parents :)
  24. RICH-ENGLAND
    If the Space Jockey found the cavern, built by another civilisation, then why are the walls constructed in the same bio-mechanical way as the Jockey's chamber?

    It could be a double blind... the Space Jockeys created humans, then found a clue to the origins of their own species, went investigating and got wasted, then we go and find the Jockeys and get wasted as well. The moral of the story is; if you are alienated from you parents, don't go looking, because they could be trailer trash.

    -Chris

     :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    thanks

    rich
  25. ChrisPachi
    If the Space Jockey found the cavern, built by another civilisation, then why are the walls constructed in the same bio-mechanical way as the Jockey's chamber?

    It could be a double blind... the Space Jockeys created humans, then found a clue to the origins of their own species, went investigating and got wasted, then we go and find the Jockeys and get wasted as well. The moral of the story is; if you are alienated from you parents, don't go looking, because they could be trailer trash.

    -Chris
  26. St_Eddie
    I am not certain that we ever get a good estimation of the actual size of the Derelict ship.  In A L I E N, you either have long shots, which gives you no information...or you have Kane, Dallas and Lambert entering an orifice an the external hull.  That close-up shot does not give you any way to gauge the size of the Derelict craft, in relation to the size of a human.  At least, that is my recollection.

    Actually, you can estimate it. :) A bunch of us did it a few years ago, by comparing the heights of the crew in the Jockey and egg chambers (and Jockey chair prop), respectively. You can then scale up.

    I think SM has access to the actual dimensions which were estimated.

    What I wrote above about the 'spaceship planet' was a joke, but in all seriousness, this is why I've always suspected the derelict is either a facility instead of a ship or it had simply docked onto a pre-existing cavern, built by a civilisation even older than its own construction: The underlying allegory being that the Space Jockey was exactly like the ill-fated Nostromo crew... It investigated and was doomed. Which puts a whole new foreshadowing spin on that scene where they find it.

    If the Space Jockey found the cavern, built by another civilisation, then why are the walls constructed in the same bio-mechanical way as the Jockey's chamber?
  27. Xenomorphine
    I am not certain that we ever get a good estimation of the actual size of the Derelict ship.  In A L I E N, you either have long shots, which gives you no information...or you have Kane, Dallas and Lambert entering an orifice an the external hull.  That close-up shot does not give you any way to gauge the size of the Derelict craft, in relation to the size of a human.  At least, that is my recollection.

    Actually, you can estimate it. :) A bunch of us did it a few years ago, by comparing the heights of the crew in the Jockey and egg chambers (and Jockey chair prop), respectively. You can then scale up.

    I think SM has access to the actual dimensions which were estimated.

    What I wrote above about the 'spaceship planet' was a joke, but in all seriousness, this is why I've always suspected the derelict is either a facility instead of a ship or it had simply docked onto a pre-existing cavern, built by a civilisation even older than its own construction: The underlying allegory being that the Space Jockey was exactly like the ill-fated Nostromo crew... It investigated and was doomed. Which puts a whole new foreshadowing spin on that scene where they find it.
  28. Deuterium
    Here's another speculative theory:

    LV-426, itself, is an ancient spacecraft. The 'derelict' is just the external bridge. That's why the egg chamber tunnel dimensions are technically too big to have fitted inside the hull above

    Now blow your minds...

    I am not certain that we ever get a good estimation of the actual size of the Derelict ship.  In A L I E N, you either have long shots, which gives you no information...or you have Kane, Dallas and Lambert entering an orifice an the external hull.  That close-up shot does not give you any way to gauge the size of the Derelict craft, in relation to the size of a human.  At least, that is my recollection.
  29. Xenomorphine
    Here's another speculative theory:

    LV-426, itself, is an ancient spacecraft. The 'derelict' is just the external bridge. That's why the egg chamber tunnel dimensions are technically too big to have fitted inside the hull above

    Now blow your minds...
  30. Engineer1
    Yeah the temple is also a ship.

    There's no reason why not - an ancient ship buried for millennia. On Earth or not, whatever.

    there's nothing to say the perplexing message isn't within that room

    Agree.

    -Chris

    You got me wrong, the temple on the alien planet being actually the Engineer's ship has been my theory for months ^^
    Ampule room not on Earth.
    You'll thank me later, or not coz i would have already spoiled a lot for ya ^^
  31. ThisBethesdaSea
    Engineer1, you still persist to post as fact and not speculation. It's tiring. I get your enthusiasm, I REALLY do, but none of us know anything, not one thing aside from  the confusing chaos of information already given.
  32. Gash
    Scott wouldn't have given anything away that he didn't want to. Also the the fact that the Empire journalist states "..follow a perplexing message to a planet that will open their eyes and their chests to a new alien race." Which is wholly speculation and rather undermines any other assumptions made on their part in the article.

    I can quite easily imagine the ampule room could be on Earth, there's nothing to say the perplexing message isn't within that room, on the markings on the face for example. Still it's fun to speculate.
  33. Engineer1
    They do wear the helmet before entering the temple/ship you can see it in some of the SDCC footage leaked images.
    The scenes with a boat supposed to be shot in spain never happened.

    The ampule room is not on Earth.
    The dicovery on Earth is some sort of text, transmission, map... Not a giant room housing ALIEN urns and a massive bust.
    From EMPIRE.
    "The crew of the Prometheus (the ship's name designed to echo the Greek myth) follow a perplexing message to a planet that will open their eyes and their chests to a new alien race."
    If the Ampule room was found on Earth the journalist would have not asked what it was to Scott at the end of the article.
    He would have just said the discovery of the Ampule room on Earth ....
    :)
« Newer Comments 12 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed