Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Feb 08, 2021, 09:25:16 PMSo sure, he could be providing a narrative detail to the audience about the age of the SJ; but his comments may also be considered foreshadowing of further errors he makes later in the movie. Critical errors based on poor judgment calls. Foreshadowing is also a valid narrative device; and as we are seeing in recent movies by Scott, commonplace.
This is an interesting idea and reading of the movie, although I don't agree with it - the intent for the Space Jockey at the time they were making the movie was that it was old. Thinking that Ridley had a master plan to demonstrate that Dallas actually has bad judgment is a bit too "revisionist history" for me.
QuoteWhat's more, define "fossilised". Once you find a definition that actually fits the condition of the Space Jockey, you'll begin to appreciate how it could easily be less than ten years old. It could easily be a recent or young sample.
Using a strict definition of "fossilized" kind of misses the point behind what is being said. Dallas is using shorthand to convey to the audience that it's old, and "fossilized" is an easy one-word way to do that which most people will instantly understand. Whether it's *literally* fossilized isn't the point.
QuoteThe derelict may have been on Acheron for thousands of years; or it may have been a more recent event. No one knows this detail just yet. Insisting it's one way or the other is based on data that can be easily misinterpreted - and renegotiated by any upcoming film maker. This is still a very flexible detail
This is a largely salient point though.
In a discussion about "scientific innaccuracies", basing empirical observation made by dialogue belonging to a fictional space captain of a fictional space tugboat regarding something he knows nothing about is outside any genuine scientific credibility.
It's not valid in this topic. It's an interesting point as a narrative device but it's not conclusive and certainly well outside of any scientific process.
On the other hand, desiccation and freezing are well documented means of natural specimen preserveation. As it is obvious the Space Jockey has never been buried, these are the only means of fossilisation that can be legitimately attributed to the SJ's condition. Permineralisation, castings and other lesser forms of fossilisation require the sample to be buried. This is clearly not the case with the SJ.
As such processes as desiccation and freezing can take a small amount of time on large samples, (elephants and rhinoceroses, for example) in this state they are dried out and preserved, it's perfectly feasible for the SJ to be less than twenty years old.
...or older. Pick a time frame anywhere between ten and ten thousand years. It's technically and scientifically possible - and a story written to accommodate and explain either is equally plausible.
On the other hand, what Dallas says is complete bullshit in terms of scientific observation. Sure, it can be used to support a narrative argument but in light of what this topic is about, it is 100% bereft of any scientific credibility.
-Windebieste.
