Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 01, 2017, 03:31:45 AM
I more of see it as bb-15 making an argument from the perspective of the movies that having the two planets be neighbors doesn't make sense in the context of the evidence the movies provide us, and I think he makes a pretty good case for it. I don't personally agree with his conclusion, but it's not like he's just saying "I think this is true" without backing it up with some sort of reasoning.
It's like numerous other "head-canon" theories that you can support from the movies, like the idea that Space Jockeys and Engineers aren't the same thing.
My initial argument had some examples which were not that effective.
Then I made my argument stronger.
I settled on
"evidence the movies provide us". This is probably the most solid basis of the argument (when the evidence from the extended universe can be questioned).
Bringing up the
"Space Jockeys and Engineers aren't the same thing" topic is intriguing. I had discussions on that subject on the now defunct IMDb message boards where my position was that the Space Jockeys were the same as the Engineers.
First, there was the size difference issue which can be countered in terms of the size of the suit but still that can bother people.
Second, in terms of whether the suit in "Alien" was a fossil, how reliable of a scientific source is Dallas in "Alien"?
- One argument about "Alien" is that the crew was made up of unsophisticated space truckers. And now Dallas can view something and determine if it is a fossil?
Anyway; the discussion was never resolved because again, there is an expectation by some that Space Jockeys are much taller than 8 feet (2.5 meters) Engineers and that the suit in "Alien" is actually the ribs of a fossilized alien.
Imo at least.
