Scientific inaccuracies in Alien

[Xenomrph]

It's not actually literally fossilized, but he's using the word to convey to the audience that it's ancient. That's the point.

[Local Trouble]

[Immortan Jonesy]

I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.

It's been 42 years since Alien, and now we can safely say that Dallas was contemplating a suit. That is a lot of water under the bridge I was not even born! 

It may be old, or recent; Dallas may be right or he may be wrong.

Edit: And yes! I'm still upset 

[Xenomrph]

I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.

It's been 42 years since Alien, and now we can safely say that Dallas was contemplating a suit.

Was he, though?

[BlueMarsalis79]

And no sane person would use the word fossilized to describe a corpse they thought was 20 years old.

"EE-ER"
"Please try again."

You completely miss the point I'm making that people can and do refer to things with various degrees of accuracy based on their surroundings.

The surroundings looks ancient, so it leads Dallas to believe the skeleton ergo must be, even though it's clearly not fossilized to anyone with eyes.

Also by the way:

Timetable for human ossification:
18 to 23 years
Bone of the lower limbs and os coxae become completely ossified.

23 to 26 years
Bone of the sternum, clavicles, and vertebrae become completely ossified.

By 25 years:
Nearly all bones are completely ossified.

Either Dallas' scientifically illiterate or knowingly using an incorrect term as shorthand to the nearby crew.

Or the writer's using that term as shorthand to the audience as with most of Alien's expositional dialogue.

And so it's no more a reliable argument to use the word "fossilized" as proof it's old as it is to use the word "molecular" to bolster an argument about the strength of the Alien's acid.

[Xenomrph]

He's using a shorthand term for both the characters and the audience to quickly indicate that it's ancient, yes. You aren't supposed to take him literally or infer his scientific background from it. The point isn't whether it's literally fossilized, or if Dallas is wrong due to a retcon from a later movie. The point is that 'Alien' intends the audience conclude it to be ancient, therefore it is. The mere fact he says it is sufficient to show the movie's intent.

Dallas is not set up to be an unreliable character, the audience is supposed to take what he says as gospel truth.

FULL DISCLOSURE— I'm conveniently ignoring Lambert's "1200km" line; she's equally meant to be a reliable character, and the intent *was* that LV426 be small (originally something like 120km, in fact).
Much like actual canon, head canon need not be internally consistent.

[BlueMarsalis79]

He's using a shorthand term for both the characters and the audience to quickly indicate that it's ancient, yes. You aren't supposed to take him literally or infer his scientific background from it. The point isn't whether it's literally fossilized, or if Dallas is wrong due to a retcon from a later movie. The point is that 'Alien' intends the audience conclude it to be ancient, therefore it is. The mere fact he says it is sufficient to show the movie's intent.

Dallas is not set up to be an unreliable character, the audience is supposed to take what he says as gospel truth.

We are?

I guess I missed that because of his never ending list of judgmental errors.

[Xenomrph]

He's an expository mouthpiece, yes he's meant to be a reliable narrator. His judgment errors are independent of that. He speaks the truth as he sees it, and we are meant to accept his word as truth. That's basic storytelling.

[BlueMarsalis79]

He's an expository mouthpiece, yes he's meant to be a reliable narrator. His judgment errors are independent of that. Likewise, Ash is an unreliable narrator, we should be questioning everything he says even if it turns out to be 100% true.

So lucky to have you here to explain the film to us.
And what way we are apparently "supposed" to take things.

[SiL]

No it's pretty obvious if they have a character look at something and say "hey it looks fossilized" and they make the thing he's looking at look decrepit, they want people to think it's old.

That can later be wrong, whatever, but acting like the makers of Alien wanted it to be vague or open to interpretation is fairly asinine.

[Xenomrph]

No it's pretty obvious if they have a character look at something and say "hey it looks fossilized" and they make the thing he's looking at look decrepit, they want people to think it's old.

That can later be wrong, whatever, but acting like the makers of Alien wanted it to be vague or open to interpretation is fairly asinine.

Bingo, exactly this.

I'm not saying people can't draw other conclusions or that later movies can't change things, I'm just saying that the intent in 'Alien' is clear.

[BlueMarsalis79]

I have never once argued what the film's trying to convey though, I'm not acting like it's vague, I am saying it's open to interpretation because intent only takes you so far.

[426Buddy]

I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Xenomrph]

I have never once argued what the film's trying to convey though, I'm not acting like it's vague, I am saying it's open to interpretation because intent only takes you so far.

In this particular instance I believe we will have to agree to disagree re: intent and it's usefulness.

[Immortan Jonesy]

I have a headache