Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Warning - while you were reading 133 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Other options
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 29, 2017, 11:26:56 AM
Well yeah, that's one of the reasons they hired him, his interpretations and designs were so unique.

Either way, thanks for clarifying what you meant.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 29, 2017, 08:04:58 AM
Oh so you thought I was implying that "the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger", what I was actually trying to say was Giger has his own ideas when it comes to his art, so if somebody comes to Giger and says "draw me a skeleton", Giger will interpret that his own way because he was a surrealist painter

surrealism
səˈrɪəlɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
a 20th-century avant-garde movement in art and literature which sought to release the creative potential of the unconscious mind, for example by the irrational juxtaposition of images.


As opposed to Realism
Realism, in the arts, the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of nature or of contemporary life. Realism rejects imaginative idealization in favour of a close observation of outward appearances.


(Thank you Google  :) )

Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 29, 2017, 06:32:10 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 07:44:19 AM
But the above painting by Giger is evidence they were supposed to be spacesuits.

Everyone was fooled thinking it is a skeleton because they don't know anything about Giger's art.  They think just because it looks like bones then it must be bones.

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2017, 12:17:22 PM
I'd check what Alien: The Archive says on the matter, but I haven't gotten around to buying a copy yet. I'm confident it'll say what everything else has said, though: the Jockey, as written and designed, was a skeleton.

Not unless Giger himself said that was his intention.  Too late to ask him now, but if he has mentioned it somewhere.

:)
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 29, 2017, 02:15:22 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM

You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).


When did I state this?  :)
Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 29, 2017, 01:06:50 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 11:59:16 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 
You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).


Maybe if you actually go back a few pages and read what I said, instead of stating what you think I said, then I can properly respond to your post.  I don't play this game of "You said this, you said that".  If you want to respond to something I have said, then quote the relevant post, then respond to it.  Otherwise it's like Chinese whispers, a lot can get lost in translation.


I've been quoting your posts this entire time. Nice try, though. :)
Posted by Biomechanoid
 - Dec 29, 2017, 12:52:31 AM
Warning: Reading can do serious damage to your ignorance.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 28, 2017, 11:59:16 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 
You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).


Maybe if you actually go back a few pages and read what I said, instead of stating what you think I said, then I can properly respond to your post.  I don't play this game of "You said this, you said that".  If you want to respond to something I have said, then quote the relevant post, then respond to it.  Otherwise it's like Chinese whispers, a lot can get lost in translation.

Posted by Stitch
 - Dec 28, 2017, 05:15:43 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Well, no, I'm not wrong because if you actually read my posts what I said was:

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 10:41:32 AM
^And those are clearly spacesuits.

Referring to this image:



In this post:

Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Dec 25, 2017, 10:20:37 AM


https://alienseries.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/space-jockey-in-giger-hieroglypic.jpg

Which, remarkably, looks like a spacesuit..

Not to wade hip deep in this argument and get washed away in the current, but I have to disagree with Scorpio here.

In the top image I don't think it's a space suit. It looks like one, but if we take the three images as a series of events happening to one character, then the sequence argues against this interpretation.

Based on what happened to Kane, and the damage caused by the facehugger, we know that space suits are no defence against them. Surely the fact the character's face stays the same in the artwork implies that there's no damage from the facehugger and thus that there's no mask.

Now, you could say that they're not specifically from the alien series and so bringing in the facehugger dynamics from the films to the artwork isn't valid. In which case bringing the artwork in as evidence for the films is equally invalid. (Nobody has actually said this so far, I'm just covering my back.)

Based on the lack of damage to the character's 'space suit', it seems there's no damage to show, which is what happens when a human is facehugged. This would imply that the biology of the character includes the biotech which makes them look like they're wearing a suit, even though they're not.
Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 
You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).

I mean, unless you want to clarify what your point has been for the past few pages?
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 
Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 28, 2017, 11:57:41 AM
You're correct, in the early concept art it clearly looks like a spacesuit. Where you're not correct is how it relates to everyone else who worked on the movie and what they intended. They wanted it to be a skeleton, he redrew it per their directions.

QuoteIf those spacesuited figures are not the space jockey, then what are they?
Narratively they're the same, but that doesn't mean that they're literally the same entity and that all the qualities of one carry over to the other. They share visual similarities because that's Giger's style, and it's a revision of Giger's earlier concept art.

You should have stopped back when you were saying "it's both a skeleton and a spacesuit" because that was about as correct as you'd gotten so far, although I'm starting to wonder if you understood why you were correct. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 28, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Well, no, I'm not wrong because if you actually read my posts what I said was:

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 10:41:32 AM
^And those are clearly spacesuits.

Referring to this image:



In this post:

Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Dec 25, 2017, 10:20:37 AM


https://alienseries.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/space-jockey-in-giger-hieroglypic.jpg

Which, remarkably, looks like a spacesuit..

Now compare those figures in that image to the Space Jockey concept art:



There are a number of points of reference indicating those figures wearing spacesuits in the concept art above is the same as the space jockey concept figure:

1.  The ribs
2.  The grooves around the upper arm
3.  The tube coming out of the face, in same position but in the former leads to the back more like a breathing apparatus
4.  The shape of the head
5.  The eyes
6.  The fingers

If those spacesuited figures are not the space jockey, then what are they?

(Giger has been known to introduce his own ideas and concepts, just read his books like Giger's Alien or Giger's Film Design)
Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 28, 2017, 11:17:26 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 09:39:18 AM
I could mention that Giger's english is not the best, and particularly in 1978 but I might get accused of "shifting the goal posts" again.  There are no goal posts.  Real life is complex, there are no winners and losers.  Nothing is set in stone.

At one point the general idea was that it is a skeleton, I think we can all agree on that.  Or that crew comes across dead creature, not robot or statue, basically.

That doesn't mean that the new films 'betray' the concept.  They had many different ideas in the original Alien, some were used, some weren't.

I get it.  You don't like it, because 'reasons'.  That's fine, no problem.  We could discuss its merits or drawbacks forever.
That's a whole lotta words to sidestep around saying "I was wrong." Whatever makes you happy, though; you do you. :)

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 09:39:18 AMBut the fact is it is no longer a skeleton, it's a spacesuit.  Prometheus and Alien Covenant firmly established this.  That's how it is. 
Are we still talking about authorial intent? If so, then yeah you're right. Beyond that, like you said, it's open to interpretation. :)
I interpret 'Alien' that the Space Jockey may not be the same as the Engineers, and there's ample on-screen and thematic evidence to support that interpretation.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 28, 2017, 09:39:18 AM
I could mention that Giger's english is not the best, and particularly in 1978 but I might get accused of "shifting the goal posts" again.  There are no goal posts.  Real life is complex, there are no winners and losers.  Nothing is set in stone.

At one point the general idea was that it is a skeleton, I think we can all agree on that.  Or that crew comes across dead creature, not robot or statue, basically.

That doesn't mean that the new films 'betray' the concept.  They had many different ideas in the original Alien, some were used, some weren't.

I get it.  You don't like it, because 'reasons'.  That's fine, no problem.  We could discuss its merits or drawbacks forever. 

But the fact is it is no longer a skeleton, it's a spacesuit.  Prometheus and Alien Covenant firmly established this.  That's how it is.  Either deal with it or keep complaining.  I already gave my reasons why I think the idea works.

:)  Have a nice day.
Posted by Xenomrph
 - Dec 28, 2017, 09:08:56 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AM
I love how people claim to know Giger's intentions.  He was a surrealist.  His work is open to interpretation.  That's why you can't find any quote from Giger, because he wouldn't say what it is.
Dude, you were the one claiming to know Giger's intentions, and saying that his intention was the be-all end-all of whether it was a suit or a skeleton. Keep shifting them goalposts and hoping no one notices though, I guess. :D

Also there's a difference between "can't find a quote because it doesn't exist" and "can't find a quote because of lack of access to resources. Nice try, though. :)
And as stated, there *is* a quote from Giger saying that the Jockey and his chair are a fused, singular entity that can't be separated, so Prometheus' depiction does in fact undermine Giger's quoted "intent".

Also it's possible for a work to be open to interpretation while simultaneously knowing the creator's actual factual for-realsies no-foolin' intent. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean "it's impossible to know what the creator was thinking", it means "what the creator was thinking doesn't matter". I'm a real strong proponent of the view that the creator's intent doesn't matter, but if for the sake of argument people want to discuss what that intent was, that's a whole separate discussion and one I'm fine with having. With regard to 'Alien', we actually do know the factual creator intent on whether the filmmakers meant it to be a skeleton or not back in 1979, and Ridley Scott himself acknowledges that 'Prometheus' is a divergence from that.

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AMBut if Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and who worked closely with Giger, says it is a spacesuit then that's fine by me.
Ridley Scott, who while working closely with Giger back in 1979, said it was a skeleton (per the quote I posted). Only 30 years later did Scott change his mind, independent of Giger. That's an important distinction. :)

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AMIt doesn't undermine the original Alien at all.  The idea of it being just a skeleton would undermine it.  We still don't even know what it is, it's more than just a spacesuit.  It's some kind of strange alien technology.
And that's where you're missing the point - you're seeing it merely as alien technology, a tool to be used. You're approaching it from the angle that the spacesuit is biomechanical and uses a fusion of biological and technological elements, but is still divorced from the wearer (as evidenced by the fact that the wearer can put the suit on and take it off at will). Technology, but with biological elements.
Giger, as quoted, drew it as a biomechanical organism, that the Space Jockey itself including the chair it was sitting in, were all one living, inseparable thing. Biology, with technological elements.

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AMThank god fanboys have no say in these movies or we would just get dull rehashed ideas.
I really like how you keep trying to pigeon-hole people with different opinions than yours to make it seem as if they're automatically inferior. They're "fanboys", or they "don't understand", etc. Corporal Hicks already made a lengthy post upthread about ways to better handle the Space Jockey concept than just "it's an albino dude in a suit".

Or, my personal favorite way to handle it would have been don't even touch the topic and have Prometheus be unrelated to 'Alien'. Let the Space Jockey be a weird and creepy mystery open to the audience's interpretation. No matter what way it gets "explained" is going to disappoint some group of people, and nothing useful is gained from explaining it anyway.

Quote from: SM on Dec 28, 2017, 08:52:13 AM
Quote"They have a new idea for the script that I should visualise. The skeleton of the astronaut, which used to be in the spacecraft, should now be placed in the landscape, blending in so that it can't be distinguished, and the crew wouldn't notice it until they see it on the recorder, back in the [Nostromo]. Like the film Blow-up, where the figure hidden in the bushes is only discovered once the negatives are developed."

Quote"Another change. They want the skeleton of the alien Space Jockey to lie in the cockpit again."

Courtesy Valaquen.  Of course.
Oh hey, some quotes from Giger where he says it's a skeleton. :D

The funniest part is I tried to give Scorpio an easy out by saying "it's both a skeleton and a spacesuit" and rolling with that compromise, and he seemed to get it, and then he kept pushing the issue anyway and now here we are. :P

But like he said, it's all open to interpretation.
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News