Does anyone know if they will be giving an explanation behind the Space Jockey - which I believe to be the most facinating creature in movie history.
Its kind of f-upped since I want to learn more about it but I know what ever explantion they give will not live up to the hype and msytery the original movie gave it. May be they should never explain it but I doubt Ridley and co will be able to resist the temptation!
:(
Quote from: Mystic Ninja on Nov 27, 2009, 05:00:05 PM
Does anyone know if they will be giving an explanation behind the Space Jockey - which I believe to be the most facinating creature in movie history.
Its kind of f-upped since I want to learn more about it but I know what ever explantion they give will not live up to the hype and msytery the original movie gave it. May be they should never explain it but I doubt Ridley and co will be able to resist the temptation!
:(
Probably not.
And why do you want an explanation on it? What's there to explain? It being left in ambiguity is way more fascinating then what would be told of it.
Quote from: Pvt. Hicks on Nov 27, 2009, 06:41:55 PM
Quote from: Mystic Ninja on Nov 27, 2009, 05:00:05 PM
Does anyone know if they will be giving an explanation behind the Space Jockey - which I believe to be the most facinating creature in movie history.
Its kind of f-upped since I want to learn more about it but I know what ever explantion they give will not live up to the hype and msytery the original movie gave it. May be they should never explain it but I doubt Ridley and co will be able to resist the temptation!
:(
i do and i dont
Probably not.
And why do you want an explanation on it? What's there to explain? It being left in ambiguity is way more fascinating then what would be told of it.
The one thing I would like to see in this prequal is the alien that came from the jockey, you know the one that killed the creature in the chair. Maybe it was a Queen I dunno, but it could gave us something different if you accept the alien is based on the DNA of the host, plus it would also explain why it wasn't present when the Nostromo crew arrive years later....
^ That's the plot I'm guessing the prequel to have. A crew finds the downed ship and wakes the hibernating Jockey-Alien... whatever the hell that may look like.
Depending on the xeno's size, the film could have the same basic story as the original Alien, only with a slightly different creature design.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Nov 28, 2009, 12:52:21 PM
The one thing I would like to see in this prequal is the alien that came from the jockey, you know the one that killed the creature in the chair. Maybe it was a Queen I dunno, but it could gave us something different if you accept the alien is based on the DNA of the host, plus it would also explain why it wasn't present when the Nostromo crew arrive years later....
In original script it was present. I think Ash was supposed to see it outside the Nostromo for a while.
And it was massuv!
If they make it at Weta - it'd be messuv. And if there was lots of them, they'd be messuv made on Messuv.
There even was a picture of space jockey-alien attached to one of the mountains outside derlict. I think that it was what Ash was supposed to notice.
I've never heard of any Jockey Alien photos. Anyone have them to post?
Quote from: Undeadite on Dec 09, 2009, 04:14:19 AM
I've never heard of any Jockey Alien photos. Anyone have them to post?
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=24059.0
I would prefer the Jockies or "Biomechanoids" to remain in shrouded mystery.
I'm sure there would be some mentions of the space jockey. Keep in mind how hard Ridley fought to get it in the movie.
Maybe a reference, but I'm glad the story doesn't revolve around it.
Quote from: brennan4 on Dec 18, 2009, 09:25:31 PM
I'm sure there would be some mentions of the space jockey. Keep in mind how hard Ridley fought to get it in the movie.
Really? I never knew that. Why?
Quote from: echobbase79 on Dec 19, 2009, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: brennan4 on Dec 18, 2009, 09:25:31 PM
I'm sure there would be some mentions of the space jockey. Keep in mind how hard Ridley fought to get it in the movie.
Really? I never knew that. Why?
Budget concerns.
Well I'm glad he fought to keep that in there. That's probably one of the creepiest moments in the film for me.
I wouldn't mind seeing more of the Jockey in this next movie. I'm 30 years old, been watching these movies literally my whole life (my mom saw the original when she was pregnant), and to be honest, I'm almost bored of the "space jockey mystery". If any other director other than Ridley was doing this next film, I'd say don't touch the jockey... but he's the man, and I'd love to see what he does with it.
But I understand that it is one of the great movie-mysteries... and I doubt we'll see much of the jockey, if at all. A reference or a snapshot would be nice though.
Jockey should never be explained...somethings are left better to the imagination...why was it there? Was it transporting the Alien as a weapon? Did they create the alien? That is what people are talking about 20 some years after the film....don't ruin that.
The fact that people are talking about it though, may indicate they want an answer.
The thing is..don't give them one. Let them discuss it...think about it...come up with their own explanations. That is more fun.
No arguments from me - but I'm sure there are lots of people who'd want the Jockey's explained or at least fleshed out (see what I did there?) in the prequel.
+1 for the jockey.
I think the fact of not knowing much information about the Jockey is what makes it so interesting. Keep the Space Jockey in the shadows. That's what made the original Alien so creepy. You saw just enough of the Alien, but not too much. A quick strike, or slow look around a corner with a short flash of the Alien.
I would definitely like for the Space Jockey to be a part of the film. I think it needs to be, but don't reveal everything about them.
Maybe not a living Jockey, but an Alien Drone from the one in chair from A1 would be very nice idea.
Are there any limits to what the facehugger can attach to? In the first AvP comics it could attach to a big rhino's head. In the first Alien movie, it could attach to a gigantic Jockey head.
And look at the size of the hole in the chest! Whatever came out of the Space Jockey was HUGE. And it's just a kid too. Wonder where the Jockey alien went though... that's another mystery.
And good idea for prequel.
Why the term Jockey? What makes it a jockey?
Also, the thing is massive so how the hell can one of those face huggers attack it? Are the facehuggers like the toy Stretch Armstrong?
I don't like the idea of the Space Jockeys being the ones who created the Aliens. Let nature take the credit.
QuoteWhat makes it a jockey?
Same thing that makes the Nostromo crew tug jockies.
Can a facehugger attach to a T-Rex? lol
Tug jockies, space jockies, what next!? Nob jockies!?
I'm going to call it something simpler, Elephant Space Man!
Quote from: Mystic Ninja on Jan 04, 2010, 10:38:40 PM
Why the term Jockey? What makes it a jockey?
Maybe the fact that it was controlling the derelict? ::)
Quote
Also, the thing is massive so how the hell can one of those face huggers attack it? Are the facehuggers like the toy Stretch Armstrong?
Maybe it attacked Jockey when he was in some kind of cryosleep?
Quote
I don't like the idea of the Space Jockeys being the ones who created the Aliens. Let nature take the credit.
Well, I do. Some things are just beyond any form of nature and evolution. Alien is a horror form beyond the stars, mystery of the deepest and darkest bowels of space, and I strongly hope that its origins will never be explained.
QuoteWell, I do. Some things are just beyond any form of nature and evolution. Alien is a horror form beyond the stars, mystery of the deepest and darkest bowels of space, and I strongly hope that its origins will never be explained.
And yet you'd prefer that they were created by the Jockies?
IMO, the Jockies didn't create the Alien...the ship just got infected. The jockies looked too stupid. I think there was a space jockey alien in the Colonial Marine game for the DS. Would that have been cool to see in the first movie? Probably not....maybe show him peeking around a corner in the background...that would have given me a nightmare.
QuoteThe jockies looked too stupid.
Sooo stupid they developed interstellar spacecrafts based on biotechnology.. right. ::)
You don't know who created that spacecraft. They could have just been pilots.
The whole franchise, including Predator, is an eloborate marketing campaign by Pizza Hut!
It was them who created the Xenomorphs.
The final scene, and twist, will involve a Predator walking into a Pizza hut restaurant and joining an Alien to share a pizza.
What would you guys think then? Would you guys be happy, as long as the Pred was a "real" Pred and the Alien was not a space ant?
Quote from: EarthHive on Jan 06, 2010, 06:31:57 AM
You don't know who created that spacecraft. They could have just been pilots.
They were visually quite compatible with the look of the derelict. The pilot even looked as if he was attached to the chair/navigation post by a bio link of some sort. That fits the overall biotech feel of the vessel.
Here's a very cool read regarding the Space Jockey and the Derelict :
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/writing/Derelict.html
I think some of these theories are pretty interesting.
I have to agree with what a previous poster said, though ... I'd rather it remained unexplained. That's what makes it so appealing.
@Wean
Good link, an interesting read.
I like the idea of the Derelict it self being the actual creator of the aliens. It kind of makes sense that way.
Quote from: WeaN on Jan 08, 2010, 03:23:37 AM
Here's a very cool read regarding the Space Jockey and the Derelict :
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/writing/Derelict.html
I think some of these theories are pretty interesting.
I have to agree with what a previous poster said, though ... I'd rather it remained unexplained. That's what makes it so appealing.
Correct me if Im wrong, may be I misread but if these are the ideas of the person who first created The Alien then is it not cannon?
These aren't the ideas of Dan O'Bannon, they're what someone thought up (Based on a novelisation by "Dean Allan Scott", whoever that is).
Quote from: SiL on Jan 08, 2010, 11:05:15 AM
These aren't the ideas of Dan O'Bannon, they're what someone thought up (Based on a novelisation by "Dean Allan Scott", whoever that is).
Ok but they are pretty cool ideas.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 08, 2010, 11:05:15 AM
These aren't the ideas of Dan O'Bannon, they're what someone thought up (Based on a novelisation by "Dean Allan Scott", whoever that is).
You got that right... this isn't cannon stuff... nobody said it was. Merely theories.
But since there isn't any cannon explaination about the origin of the Derelict, it's better than nothing.
I'll go with Dan O'Bannon's explanation, that the Jockey set down on the planet, found some eggs in a cave, hoarded them up, and then got screwed over before take-off.
Nah. I like to think that aliens were designed in war purpose but break free and annihilated Jockeys.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 08, 2010, 10:21:10 PM
I'll go with Dan O'Bannon's explanation, that the Jockey set down on the planet, found some eggs in a cave, hoarded them up, and then got screwed over before take-off.
If that was correct then how does it explain why the derelict, the jockey and the xenemorphs all have the same biomechanical look?
I believe the ideas discussed in the link are more plausible
Quote from: Mystic Ninja on Jan 08, 2010, 11:42:22 PM
If that was correct then how does it explain why the derelict, the jockey and the xenemorphs all have the same biomechanical look?
They were designed by the same guy :P
An "in-universe" explanation was offered by Ridley Scott - The Alien adds host traits together. So the Alien we see in
Alien is part Alien, part Space Jockey, part human - Hence walking like a man and having a biomechanical look.
Which actually also would explain why later Aliens look more fleshy - No Jockey influence.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 09, 2010, 01:03:16 AM
Quote from: Mystic Ninja on Jan 08, 2010, 11:42:22 PM
If that was correct then how does it explain why the derelict, the jockey and the xenemorphs all have the same biomechanical look?
They were designed by the same guy :P
An "in-universe" explanation was offered by Ridley Scott - The Alien adds host traits together. So the Alien we see in Alien is part Alien, part Space Jockey, part human - Hence walking like a man and having a biomechanical look.
Which actually also would explain why later Aliens look more fleshy - No Jockey influence.
This actually sounds like the best attempt at an explanation that i've ever heard. :P
Quote from: SiL on Jan 09, 2010, 01:03:16 AM
An "in-universe" explanation was offered by Ridley Scott - The Alien adds host traits together. So the Alien we see in Alien is part Alien, part Space Jockey, part human - Hence walking like a man and having a biomechanical look.
Which actually also would explain why later Aliens look more fleshy - No Jockey influence.
The aliens from
Aliens looked a bit different yes... still they also came from the Derelict (found by Newt's parents). So this doesn't make sense to me.
The Aliens in Aliens were still biomechanical.
The Alien in Alien 3 was less biomechanical than what we'd seen before, but was born from a dog from an egg that came from a Queen which was human-born, so it was diluted.
When they scratch-built their Queen in Resurrection the Jockey influence may have been lost, hence them being fleshy; the AvP and AvPR Aliens likely never would've been anywhere near a Jockey, so they wound up flesh-bags, too.
Is that really how you view it?
Personally I never bothered trying to rationalise the designs after Res because the truth is they're shit purely because ADI suck and the people in charge didn't know what the alien SHOULD look like.
Eh, not really. But it's a better explanation than "Well, because."
Plus ADI don't suck. Don't know what made the Alien effective, sure, but from a technical aspect they're great at what they do.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 09, 2010, 03:52:27 AM
The Aliens in Aliens were still biomechanical.
The Alien in Alien 3 was less biomechanical than what we'd seen before, but was born from a dog from an egg that came from a Queen which was human-born, so it was diluted.
When they scratch-built their Queen in Resurrection the Jockey influence may have been lost, hence them being fleshy; the AvP and AvPR Aliens likely never would've been anywhere near a Jockey, so they wound up flesh-bags, too.
Queen no was scratch built, just repainted brown. In fact if they hadn't done it, she might have fallen apart.
I was referring to the cloning, not how they actually made the puppet.
So ka.
I still think the Aliens should always be biomechanical, to be honest, none of this diluting stuff.
To me, it makes sense that the alien Facehuggers would have no traits from any hosts, and be 'pure' Xenomorphs, otherwise over time the genepool would get so diluted from generations of hosts that the aliens might become weaker, not even the same species at all.
And I concede on the ADI point, they're not bad at what they do, they just don't know what makes the alien most effective.
Well, A:R aliens makes sense. It is logical why they look, how they look.
Quote from: Puks on Jan 06, 2010, 01:59:02 PM
They were visually quite compatible with the look of the derelict. The pilot even looked as if he was attached to the chair/navigation post by a bio link of some sort. That fits the overall biotech feel of the vessel.
They knew how to paint. Something else could have built the ship and was able to hook GPS to them. I was having this same discussion with a friend about a Predator...were Predators smart enough to build their ships or did they take over some civilization and forced them into slavery...of course in AVP:R there was a kind of scientist Predator...so I don't know about that.
well from a comic i read it had a Jock alien. This thing was Hug, bigger then a fricken ship! I mean if u think the queen is huge and bad the Jock alien is a whole other ball game!
anyways i would luv to see what the chest burster is like in the movie. Be cool to fight the alien although nearly impossible i think. (Shudders at the thought of the sheer size of the creature.) I mean so far all aliens are a couple feet taller and bigger then its host, as of seen in the movies and other sorces. so i think this alien is going to be big for sure, maybe too big for the movie but it would still be cool to see.
anyways what i really want is good alien movie like in the old days none of that Alien Res stuff. :D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi239.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff244%2F000Master000%2FSAlien.jpg%3Ft%3D1263230605&hash=a7ec6406543856cf45227c788c6659335275027a)
One of ideas for Jockey alien. Yep, it`s huge. Now imagine space jockey alien queen.
That's massive. Whose chest did that ermerge from?
QuoteWhose chest did that ermerge from?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shinemusic.com.au%2Fshop%2Fimages%2FTenor%2520Saxophone.jpg&hash=33fc38abc164fd1ca7ae672fe66e411338686849)
Just looks like a regular alien x 1000!!
Where are the jockey features?
Doesn't really have any.
As well it shouldn't.
It's big and that's where the similarities end.
But then again, we don't really know what a Space Jockey would look like - the one we saw was millions, if not billions of years old, fossilised, and also seemingly fused to its chair. it's pretty hard to work out what it would look like.
From what I could see it didn't look that different to us, though, in terms of shape at least.
And please, nobody link the Jockey from the comics, it looks retarded, especially since it has a trunk, even though the thing on the fossilised Jockey's face is a breathing tube, trunks have no bones in them, and would just rot away completely.
Good point in regards to trunk!
It was clearly a breathing apparatus.
i'm glad somebody knew it wasn't a trunk besides me. :D
Well, I think it is a breathing tube. It makes the most sense to me. It could be something else, but not a trunk. That idea originates from somebody who really didn't think about what they were writing.
Quote from: Kriszilla on Jan 12, 2010, 12:14:10 AM
Well, I think it is a breathing tube. It makes the most sense to me. It could be something else, but not a trunk. That idea originates from somebody who really didn't think about what they were writing.
well i think on the commentary of alien ridley scott or sombody mentioned that the space jocky is really wearing a helmet. (although i can't tell) and that the tube is part of a breathing system of some kind or another. Still can't tell if its wearing a helmet though.
Assumptions akimbo!
SM, why reply if you have bugger all useful to add to the conversation?
But he did have something useful to say - You guys are making assumptions.
That's not a statement that really needed to be made though, is it?
It is when people act is if those assumptions have any merit as fact.
how's it a assumption when the comentary from alien states, wikki, and other site say its not a trunk but a breathing tube? ;D
SM, I don't think you're in a position to criticise people over what they state as fact.
You do it plenty of times yourself, in fact this site is full of people who treat their opinion as fact, or at least write it as such. Me included, quite often.
Quote from: The Dude5000 on Jan 12, 2010, 12:47:42 AM
how's it a assumption when the comentary from alien states, wikki, and other site say its not a trunk but a breathing tube? ;D
The commentary doesn't state it's a breathing tube.
Neither of them, in fact.
It was never designed to be wearing a helmet, and the thing was never intended as a "breathing tube".
Quote from: Kriszilla on Jan 12, 2010, 12:49:28 AM
SM, I don't think you're in a position to criticise people over what they state as fact.
You do it plenty of times yourself, in fact this site is full of people who treat their opinion as fact, or at least write it as such. Me included, quite often.
They usually back it up with something vaguely resembling evidence.
Well I can't see where there's anything that is particularly unreasonable here.
The appendage on the Jockey's face isn't a trunk, because a trunk is entirely made of soft tissues, so even if it did somehow fossilize, it wouldn't look like that.
Breathing tube is just a theory that I have stated as such - a theory, I haven't said it's fact, it's just an idea I have that makes sense, and can't be proved or disproved until the films state something that supports or contradicts the idea.
QuoteSM, I don't think you're in a position to criticise people over what they state as fact.
Since I'm very careful not to present opinion as fact; bullshit. I'm in a perfect position.
Okay, then;
Quote from: SM on Jan 12, 2010, 12:28:05 AM
An Alien is a meshing of Alien and host and therefore can never ever be "pure".
Stated as fact.
It isn't a fact, it's your opinion.
No it's fact.
Go watch an Alien film. Any will do, but 3 is probably the best in this case.
That explanation only takes normal adult aliens into consideration, ignoring eggs, facehuggers, and the queens.
Who says they take DNA from hosts? Hell, facehuggers don't even have hosts.
I said "Alien" aka "adult", "adult Alien", "warrior", "drone", et al.
If I had meant "facehugger" I would've said "facehugger".
Facehuggers and so on are all forms of the alien, you should be more specific.
As it is worded at present, you have stated opinion as fact.
I specifically didn't refer to facehuggers.
And usually when someone says "Alien", they're talking about the drone adult.
Maybe you are, but the conversation had branched out to all forms of the alien, and SM posted with that statement. Viewed in that context, he has stated debatable information as fact.
What you meant and what you said are different things.
Not really.
And he clarified, so he's no longer presenting an opinion as fact (Not that he ever was), so it's a moot point.
'Not really.'
That's your argument? So, unable to argue logically, you just resort to fobbing off my argument?
Anyways, yes, he has clarified his post, so it is now a moot point.
Quote from: SM on Jan 11, 2010, 10:13:37 PM
QuoteWhose chest did that ermerge from?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shinemusic.com.au%2Fshop%2Fimages%2FTenor%2520Saxophone.jpg&hash=33fc38abc164fd1ca7ae672fe66e411338686849)
bahahaha
QuoteAnyways, yes, he has corrected himself, so it is now a moot point.
No, I 'clarified' for the confused. Not, 'corrected'.
When I hear Alien, I think of the adult Alien. I think of the Alien in terms of Egg, facehugger, chestburster, and adult (Alien). So when I read a post talking about the Alien, I think of the adult. If the topic is the Facehugger, it makes more sense to say facehugger instead of saying Alien. Alien=Adult. We all say Queen Alien, not just Alien. Same idea with this. If you mean facehugger.... I didn't need SM to explain he was talking about the adult alien, along with most everyone else I am sure.
I believe its a breathing apparatus not a trunk.
I'm pretty sure I read in a book by the artist who designed the creature it was a breathing apparatus. Ill dig it out and scan it when I get the chance.
I think the trunk theory is based on the comics.
Giger never said it was a breathing apparatus.
I'm pretty sure he did but I may have misunderstood.
You guys are the experts.
Anyone has anyone confirmed it was a trunk? Apart from the comics.
Jockey is still "a f**king alien!" His trunk can be composed of bones, cause he isn`t an elephant but "a f**king alien!" And to brake your argument trunk is kind of nose so technical speaking this is breathing apparatus. Bony structure that looks like trunk of fossilized alien creature that probably was used as breathing apparatus.
that's a good way of putting it :D
We don't know if it was even used as a breathing apparatus, either. We have literally no way of knowing what it was used for. It may just well be its sternum for all we know.
i think it would be nice if they explained the Space Jokey physical looks a bit so we know what one really does look like that's not dead.
Quote from: Master on Jan 12, 2010, 09:44:51 AM
Jockey is still "a f**king alien!" His trunk can be composed of bones, cause he isn`t an elephant but "a f**king alien!" And to brake your argument trunk is kind of nose so technical speaking this is breathing apparatus. Bony structure that looks like trunk of fossilized alien creature that probably was used as breathing apparatus.
It wouldn't be a trunk if it had bones in it. It might be similar to one, but not an actual trunk, because a trunk in animal terms is the fusion of nose and upper lip into a prehensile proboscis. There's no bones involved.
Do you have a bone in your dick? I don`t think so. But some animals have a bone, others have a chondrus. Does it mean that they dosen`t have a dick cause there is no bone nor chondrus involved? Same situation is with trunk of "a f**king alien!" fossil.
Quote from: Kriszilla on Jan 12, 2010, 12:17:15 PM
Quote from: Master on Jan 12, 2010, 09:44:51 AM
Jockey is still "a f**king alien!" His trunk can be composed of bones, cause he isn`t an elephant but "a f**king alien!" And to brake your argument trunk is kind of nose so technical speaking this is breathing apparatus. Bony structure that looks like trunk of fossilized alien creature that probably was used as breathing apparatus.
It wouldn't be a trunk if it had bones in it. It might be similar to one, but not an actual trunk, because a trunk in animal terms is the fusion of nose and upper lip into a prehensile proboscis. There's no bones involved.
Well, since you put it that way....I forgot we are talking about real Aliens and not about Aliens in a Science Fiction film. If you were talking about the Aliens in the movies I would have to argue your trunk theory, but since you are not...... ::)
Jockey looks to me as an elephant based anthropoid.. and pretty fat as well. But.. jockey an alien-alien?
got to love debates at times lol. :D
Quote from: The_Silencer on Jan 12, 2010, 07:38:59 PM
Jockey looks to me as an elephant based anthropoid.. and pretty fat as well. But.. jockey an alien-alien?
Definition of alien:
* foreigner: a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country
* transfer property or ownership; "The will aliened the property to the heirs"
* stranger: anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found
* not contained in or deriving from the essential nature of something; "an economic theory alien to the spirit of capitalism"; "the mysticism so ...
* estrange: arouse hostility or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness; "She alienated her friends when she became fanatically religious"
* extraterrestrial being: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere * being or from or characteristic of another place or part of the world; "alien customs"; "exotic plants in a greenhouse"; "exotic cuisine
Quote from: Master on Jan 12, 2010, 03:05:36 PM
Do you have a bone in your dick?
LOL! Why do you think they call it a boner? LOL!
Yeah it's because it has a bone-
...oh wait.
Quote from: EarthHive on Jan 13, 2010, 04:34:23 AM
Quote from: Master on Jan 12, 2010, 03:05:36 PM
Do you have a bone in your dick?
LOL! Why do you think they call it a boner? LOL!
I'm LOL'ing at the mere fact you think you have a bone down there.
Yes, Hicks, I think there is a bone down there..... :-\
Somebody wake up Hicks...
Best not make comments to the contrary bracketed in LOL then.
I will try to work on my sarcasm.
Thanks for the advice (how was that?).
Needs work.
What has this turned into? Now we're talking about boners? :o
Quote from: EarthHive on Jan 13, 2010, 05:12:36 AM
Yes, Hicks, I think there is a bone down there..... :-\
Somebody wake up Hicks...
Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... No humans definatelly have no bone nor chondrus down there :D
Quote from: EarthHive on Jan 13, 2010, 05:12:36 AM
Yes, Hicks, I think there is a bone down there..... :-\
Somebody wake up Hicks...
Actually, it is cartilage....Goodbye.
I think he was joking... I hope so anyway. :P
Quote from: Private Hudson on Jan 14, 2010, 12:45:33 AM
Quote from: EarthHive on Jan 13, 2010, 05:12:36 AM
Yes, Hicks, I think there is a bone down there..... :-\
Somebody wake up Hicks...
Actually, it is cartilage....Goodbye.
Actually, it is sarcasm....Goodbye.
I think the part with the Space jockey in the first Alien movie is the best part. And for the Prequel i would love for them to expand on the race..
Quote from: scm on Jan 14, 2010, 03:35:52 AM
Actually, it is sarcasm....Goodbye.
Yes...thank you.
Does the space jockey have a major role in the comics and novel?
If so I fear what ever ideas expressed in the comics will be expressed in any movie interpretation. The comics appear very popular so its only natural that script writers lift ideas from them to please the comic fans.
I hope they come up with something new and of course good! :)
They play a role in some of the comics - a fairly major one.
However the films havne't paid any attention to the comics thus far (AvP notwithstanding) so they're unlikely to start now.
What role do they have in the comics? I assume they created the aliens?
If its too long to post please suggest a good link. Don't say read the comics!! :)
Spoiler
They didn't create the Aliens. The one in Alien was supposedly going to carry the eggs into deep space away from the Jockey civilisation, but was hugged and crashed. His friend pops up in Aliens Book 1 and zaps a bunch of Aliens with his ray gun, rescuing Hicks and Newt on the Alien Homeworld, then travels back to Earth and starts terraforming it for himself while it's being taken over by Aliens. That Jockey is later killed after the Aliens are wiped out.
They pop up again in Apocalypse : The Destroying Angels, but I don't remember the story.
Thanks for the info dude.
In Destroying Angels there was bunch of fossilized Jockeys and one alive in some kind of cryostasis. He was later impregnated with hugger, and Jockey Alien emerged.
I think he meant Wilks and what's her face although there story is alot like aliens but its not. And meet a "fake riply" later and they never knew her either. just saying.
Wilks = Hicks in all but name.
QuoteDestroying Angels
That title is sooo metal. I say use it for the alien prequel! \,,/
:D
But coupled with 'Apocalypse' - The Destroying Angels it was like they took a vote on the title at DH and it came out as a tie so they used both titles.
F**k.
That's even more metal!
Quote from: Kriszilla on Jan 12, 2010, 12:49:28 AM
SM, I don't think you're in a position to criticise people over what they state as fact.
You do it plenty of times yourself, in fact this site is full of people who treat their opinion as fact, or at least write it as such. Me included, quite often.
I am glad I am not the only one who thinks he is an ass.
You and xenomorph36 room mates or something?? ???
lol god sm you might be a hard A** at times but hey your still funny. :P
Quote from: SiL on Jan 12, 2010, 12:51:06 AM
Quote from: The Dude5000 on Jan 12, 2010, 12:47:42 AM
how's it a assumption when the comentary from alien states, wikki, and other site say its not a trunk but a breathing tube? ;D
The commentary doesn't state it's a breathing tube.
Neither of them, in fact.
It was never designed to be wearing a helmet, and the thing was never intended as a "breathing tube".
It had a helmet once upon a time:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_8sv9gYsuLwc%2FSZidoZu4DfI%2FAAAAAAAAAEY%2Fiu4gEpIrc4s%2Fs1600%2F380.jpg&hash=b6470d7d375e1c82809f47d87a3eac3378624436)
That's the beauty of biomechanics. You never know where the flesh ends and the metal starts. ;D
That thing being a tube is not mentined on the movies. Even if documentaries state that it was a tube, movie goers assumed it was an elephantine trunk attached to its chest. So I think it would not be wrong to make the jockey have a trunk. It fits Giger's disturbing imagery. I would love to see the Alien that came out of the jockey. I saw a "Jockey Alien" in a videogame vid in you tube.
You can see it at 1:21 and beyond for a few seconds (By the way, weird song).
If Colonial Marines make it to next gen...they need to have the Jockey Alien.
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Jan 25, 2010, 04:12:05 AM
That thing being a tube is not mentined on the movies. Even if documentaries state that it was a tube, movie goers assumed it was an elephantine trunk attached to its chest. So I think it would not be wrong to make the jockey have a trunk. It fits Giger's disturbing imagery.
It always looked like a ribbed pipe to me feeding him some kind of gas
I would like to believe it was a breathing pipe devise thingy. Always thought the trunk idea made it look retarded!
Guy above got banned pretty soon. :D
It happens. :(
i think it was the name. looked at his post none of them seemed offensive to me. i might of missed some though.
I'm curious as to why he was banned as well.
Well let's drop it, because the mods get mad when we discuss stuff like that.
good idea.
Quote from: predalien27 on Jan 31, 2010, 06:45:54 PM
Well let's drop it, because the mods get mad when we discuss stuff like that.
Stuff like what??
Quote from: psychonaut25 on Feb 02, 2010, 08:20:33 PM
Quote from: predalien27 on Jan 31, 2010, 06:45:54 PM
Well let's drop it, because the mods get mad when we discuss stuff like that.
Stuff like what??
When we talk abot people getting banned.
What has said that person?? Why was banned??? ??? ??? ???
The last like 5 posts or so just made me laugh so hard. :D :D :D
You know, shi*t happens... ;D
I just saw Alien the other day, and the space jockey seems to have the "trunk"/"tube" attached to its rib cage. If it were a respiration tube, why would it be attached to its rib cage?
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Feb 04, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
I just saw Alien the other day, and the space jockey seems to have the "trunk"/"tube" attached to its rib cage. If it were a respiration tube, why would it be attached to its rib cage?
To look strange and weird.
It's not like it would be flexible in life. It's made of bone. :)
I always thought it was mumified or a similar process that would occur with an ET's biology.
Quote from: Danger Close on Feb 09, 2010, 07:57:48 PM
I always thought it was mumified or a similar process that would occur with an ET's biology.
That's how i received it as well.
So what you are saying is that the tube IS part of the biology of the creature? Because everytime someone said tube, I thought the meant a plastic tube. I always thought that the tube/ trunk is part of the biology of the jockeys.
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Feb 09, 2010, 08:20:38 PM
So what you are saying is that the tube IS part of the biology of the creature? Because everytime someone said tube, I thought the meant a plastic tube. I always thought that the tube/ trunk is part of the biology of the jockeys.
IMHO it looks like part of body. Very organic part of body.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/alien/dvdcaptures/dvdcapture120.jpg)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/alien/dvdcaptures/dvdcapture116.jpg)
His "trunk" looks like a very big nose. :o
Didn't Dallas say that he thought it (Spacy Jockey) grew out of the chair. If that is true, then there might be other parts that are not biological, but have grown to be part of the creature.
It will be interesting to see how or if Scott explores the Space Jockey. How can a creature so advanced, survive if grown to a stationary "Chair". Or are the Jockies merly pilots or navigators as I have heard them refered to in the past, so many directions.
Hmmm, i would hate a prequel.. but seeing as who is the "Director" im happy, as for space jocky? yea i would like scott to explain this a bit more...
idk what to believe anymore. One it can't be fossilized, its not underground. But if is fossilized then that tube/trunk thingy is either a breathing thingy for a helmet or mask or something, or a bone. God be hard to move your head with a bone like that.
Now what really makes me wonder is.....what is it for? ;D
What would cause a creature to develop somthing like that? I mean its not useful as a trunk because its attached to the chest. It can't move. So i think it might be for breathing some how. maybe a secondary breathing tube. idk its respatory system is totally alien so who knows what its for. It could be its verision of a penis for all i know.
Quote from: Darth Dude on Feb 14, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
idk what to believe anymore. One it can't be fossilized, its not underground. But if is fossilized then that tube/trunk thingy is either a breathing thingy for a helmet or mask or something, or a bone. God be hard to move your head with a bone like that.
Now what really makes me wonder is.....what is it for? ;D
What would cause a creature to develop somthing like that? I mean its not useful as a trunk because its attached to the chest. It can't move. So i think it might be for breathing some how. maybe a secondary breathing tube. idk its respatory system is totally alien so who knows what its for. It could be its verision of a penis for all i know.
Lmao at the penis!! haha that be one hell of a strange idea eh? :o
timing reasons, if i'm not mistaken. that scene was supposed to be a lot longer but most of it never got filmed, and a lot of it got cut. I might be wrong though... haven't listened to the commentary in years
Quote from: ShadowStalker on Feb 18, 2010, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Dude on Feb 14, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
idk what to believe anymore. One it can't be fossilized, its not underground. But if is fossilized then that tube/trunk thingy is either a breathing thingy for a helmet or mask or something, or a bone. God be hard to move your head with a bone like that.
Now what really makes me wonder is.....what is it for? ;D
What would cause a creature to develop somthing like that? I mean its not useful as a trunk because its attached to the chest. It can't move. So i think it might be for breathing some how. maybe a secondary breathing tube. idk its respatory system is totally alien so who knows what its for. It could be its verision of a penis for all i know.
Lmao at the penis!! haha that be one hell of a strange idea eh? :o
I'm sure giger would do somthing like that lol :D
The tube makes sense if you look at the Jockey as a stationary being.
In my opinion, it was never meant to get out of that chair.
I see the ships as organic, possibly being "grown" and the Jockey's are a permanent part of the ship.
Yes, they're the pilot, but not the crew. The crew is a smaller, more human sized creature.
In Giger's "HIEROGLYPHS" painting, you can see what I assume would be the crew.
Actually, at one point, the Nostromonauts were supposed to see that plaque when exploring the Derelict.
It would help to show the lifecycle of the Alien. And the creatures depicted are definately not Jockeys.
(little known fact: There are actually 2 different versions of this painting. There are subtle differences in the creatures depicted in each)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff291%2Fsabres21768%2FAlienArt%2Flifecycle.jpg&hash=81449b2963e132f3224579e3065da0749d14d53a)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff291%2Fsabres21768%2FAlienArt%2Fhieroglyphics.jpg&hash=f358ba4e92ba7281f50c8dce7600ba747ee32153)
<.< I'd rather keep them mysterious than reveal all, or atleast only reveal eough to answer the questions laid out in A1 and present some new ones :P one answer for every 10 questions
Quote from: Fatal Facepalm on Feb 22, 2010, 08:18:43 AM
<.< I'd rather keep them mysterious than reveal all, or atleast only reveal eough to answer the questions laid out in A1 and present some new ones :P one answer for every 10 questions
so basically turn the Alien franchise into "Lost"?
Quote from: Xeros Kore on Feb 22, 2010, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Fatal Facepalm on Feb 22, 2010, 08:18:43 AM
<.< I'd rather keep them mysterious than reveal all, or atleast only reveal eough to answer the questions laid out in A1 and present some new ones :P one answer for every 10 questions
so basically turn the Alien franchise into "Lost"?
That's nice said. Every fan of Aliens want to know what happened on the derelict and who the Jockeys are. Mr. Scott should think about it.
I don't want to know.
So no, not every fan.
Not even a tiny bit??? ;) ;)
No in the least.
I'm will Sil on this one.
I don't want to know.
I love the mystery of it all.
And you'd be in the majority.
Quote from: Xeros Kore on Feb 22, 2010, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Fatal Facepalm on Feb 22, 2010, 08:18:43 AM
<.< I'd rather keep them mysterious than reveal all, or atleast only reveal eough to answer the questions laid out in A1 and present some new ones :P one answer for every 10 questions
so basically turn the Alien franchise into "Lost"?
Never watched lost, I just don't want to completely or even mostly or "for the most part" have them exposed. I would like to know what set up Alien in terms of the derilict, but the best part of the Alien series, to me, is the mystery of it all. It's because I know almost nothing about the xenos or the jockeys that keeps me fascinated and I would like it to stay that way.
This whole thread (and the links stemming from it) have been excellent reads. I've always assumed the SJ race created the aliens, but it's hard to say. But the debates and theories going back and forth are fun to read.
I'd like the SJ to be expanded upon, simply because I'm curious and I'd like a real answer. But I can see the fun in not knowing. I've a feeling that some of the theories fans make could be better than what writers decide upon.
The prequel will reveal more about SJ but , in my opinion after reading the script, their nature stay as mystery.
I want not to want to know but the more I want not to want to know the more I want to know. :-[
Quote from: Sabres21768 on Feb 21, 2010, 11:13:19 PM
The tube makes sense if you look at the Jockey as a stationary being.
In my opinion, it was never meant to get out of that chair.
I see the ships as organic, possibly being "grown" and the Jockey's are a permanent part of the ship.
Yes, they're the pilot, but not the crew. The crew is a smaller, more human sized creature.
In Giger's "HIEROGLYPHS" painting, you can see what I assume would be the crew.
Actually, at one point, the Nostromonauts were supposed to see that plaque when exploring the Derelict.
It would help to show the lifecycle of the Alien. And the creatures depicted are definately not Jockeys.
(little known fact: There are actually 2 different versions of this painting. There are subtle differences in the creatures depicted in each)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff291%2Fsabres21768%2FAlienArt%2Flifecycle.jpg&hash=81449b2963e132f3224579e3065da0749d14d53a)
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f291/sabres21768/AlienArt/hieroglyphics.jpg
Maybe they can use this hieroglyph in movie..but not another pyramid like in AVP.
Quote from: SiL on Feb 22, 2010, 10:38:45 PM
I don't want to know.
So no, not every fan.
I don't want to know...keep it a mystery...there is no crime in that.
Quote from: ShadowStalker on Feb 18, 2010, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: Darth Dude on Feb 14, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
idk what to believe anymore. One it can't be fossilized, its not underground. But if is fossilized then that tube/trunk thingy is either a breathing thingy for a helmet or mask or something, or a bone. God be hard to move your head with a bone like that.
Now what really makes me wonder is.....what is it for? ;D
What would cause a creature to develop somthing like that? I mean its not useful as a trunk because its attached to the chest. It can't move. So i think it might be for breathing some how. maybe a secondary breathing tube. idk its respatory system is totally alien so who knows what its for. It could be its verision of a penis for all i know.
Lmao at the penis!! haha that be one hell of a strange idea eh? :o
Well considering Giger is FIXATED on DICK and phallic objects, as he incorporates them into virtually all his designs ... it's not out of the question that it literally has no purpose and it was made purely as a cool looking aesthetic which in Giger's mind means DICK.
That's entirely unfair and ignorant >:(
Sometimes he draws vaginas, too.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 10, 2010, 04:48:22 AM
Sometimes he draws vaginas, too.
Obligatory ... that's all.
Even when doing it, you know he's thinking about cock.
What a sick, f**k.
He reminds me of the problem the kid has in Super Bad ... obsessed with drawing dicks.
:D
I think it should be mandatory for Alien fans to read Lovecraft so they can finally understand why you can't explain things like the Jockey. Any attempt to explain/show/whatever will fall short and be dumb.
However, if you could do it and have it have the same effect on the viewer as some crazy lovecraftian thing, that would be beyond awesome. But you can't.
Also, I think the Jockeys are just the slaves of a greater race that we haven't seen, a race we will never see because we can't see it.
Quote from: DamnBirds on Apr 10, 2010, 05:19:54 AM
Obligatory ... that's all.
Even when doing it, you know he's thinking about cock.
What a sick, f**k.
He reminds me of the problem the kid has in Super Bad ... obsessed with drawing dicks.
:D
Stand up comic:
"You guys remember that movie,
Alien? Yeah? Good. You should. It's a classic.
But did you ever notice how the Alien's head looked like a penis?
Well, it turns out that all the designer draws is dicks. Literally. Remember that asshole in eighth grade that would never stop drawing cocks on your workbook?
This guy gets paid millions to do just that."
QuoteI think it should be mandatory for Alien fans to read Lovecraft so they can finally understand why you can't explain things like the Jockey. Any attempt to explain/show/whatever will fall short and be dumb.
I certainly think the Lovecraftian aspects of the Alien should be explored more within special features. Both O'Bannon and Giger were influenced profoundly by the miserable dude. You might even say that
Alien is a spiritual sequel to Lovecraft's tales.
^yeah, I would totally nerd over that if it happened.
The Space Jockey should remain a mysterious enigma.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Apr 10, 2010, 07:05:46 AM
The Space Jockey should remain a mysterious enigma.
I agree, the mystique of the space jokey is what makes it so engaging imo.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Apr 10, 2010, 07:05:46 AM
The Space Jockey should remain a mysterious enigma.
QFMFT
Quote from: HitmonTom on Apr 10, 2010, 08:28:43 PM
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Apr 10, 2010, 07:05:46 AM
The Space Jockey should remain a mysterious enigma.
QFMFT
unfortunately, some people (particularly the mass movie going audience) would prefer to know the answers. the deifying of the alien and jockey among hardcore fans means any explanation will result in very vocal anger. however, the franchise wouldnt suffer, so i doubt that movie makers would shy away from explaining things.
in my personal opinion, i actually want a canon explanation for the jockeys and aliens origins, just so i dont have to listen to mates constantly arguing theories. it sometimes seems like a religion, where merely mentioning or looking in depth at a deified individual is forbidden.
i think the fact is most hardcore fans just prefer maintaining status quo to a potentially bad explanation. just remember that it possible that there may be a good explanation too!
But that's what's so great; there is no right explanation. Everyone's view is equally as valid, and if people want to get into a good-spirited debate about it, that is just fine. That is, afterall, why we have places like this. If the whole thing gets explained away, then one view is validated while all the rest are destroyed. Another thing is that part of the impact of the first film was all the mystery it had, all the questions that it left unanswered. If they all get answers, then part of what made Alien so great will be nullified.
Where's the fun in someone else making their idea the one and only interpretation?
Exactly.
I feel the Jockeys can be expanded upon without being awnsered and having the mystery taken away.
Instead of moving them and their origins/backgrounds/whatever forward, the movie makers should move them and the ideas surrounding them sideways.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 10, 2010, 10:05:37 PM
Where's the fun in someone else making their idea the one and only interpretation?
Not really valid when the guy who's telling you is the guy who came up with the idea in the first place.
No, because Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, and H. R. Giger aren't working on this film.
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Apr 10, 2010, 11:00:30 PM
No, because Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, and H. R. Giger aren't working on this film.
Gigers just the designer, there's plenty through the Alien franchise he didn't touch,pretty sure O'Bannon had nothing to do with the Jockey.
It's Scott's film, he made the jockey mysterious, now your going to deny him because a few blokes that worked on some aspects of the original aren't there?
Quote from: Highland on Apr 10, 2010, 11:19:06 PM
pretty sure O'Bannon had nothing to do with the Jockey.
WHAT?!He wrote the f**king screenplay! He's the one that put the f**king thing there in the first place! The only thing Scott had to do with it was managing to
keep it in the movie when the producers wanted it cut to save money.
And now he is, unfortunately, dead.
So no, it wouldn't be the guy who
created the thing, it would be Ridley Scott.
Who had very little to do with it.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 10, 2010, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: Highland on Apr 10, 2010, 11:19:06 PM
pretty sure O'Bannon had nothing to do with the Jockey.
WHAT?!
He wrote the f**king screenplay! He's the one that put the f**king thing there in the first place! The only thing Scott had to do with it was managing to keep it in the movie when the producers wanted it cut to save money.
And now he is, unfortunately, dead.
So no, it wouldn't be the guy who created the thing, it would be Ridley Scott.
Who had very little to do with it.
for obannon, it was simply a device, a message, a warning of what was to come. he prob just thought of the jockey as nothing more than 'e.t. who got facehugged'. because the jockey had little to do with the story being told, there was no need to create a backstory.
scott was responsible for makiing the jockey mysterious through production and direction, but it doesnt mean the intention was never there to explore the jockey anymore, it just didnt happen then. had the jockeys been explained in aliens, it wouldnt have bothered most people (in fact, it might have gained alot of popularity) so if it does get some added mythology, then im fine with it.
if you want mystery, dont watch prequels. if you dislike movie canon in a prequel etc, do what so many already do with avp and avp:r. choose to ignore and substitute with own canon. the large majority of movie goers would prefer answers (it is our nature), so why deny them of it just to keep a minority happy?
explaining things won't ruin the original alien. even aliens with camerons moron bugs in hive didnt ruin the first movie. neither did having the alien reduced to an animal in alien 3. in fact, the original movie just seems to get better.
so, no, i dissagree strongly, and can say with certainty that having the questions answered will not ruin anything for the masses, just the minority, that being most of us on this board. but even when it does happen, we will just retcon it out of our personal canon.
Quote from: jaztermareal on Apr 11, 2010, 12:27:47 AM
for obannon, it was simply a device, a message, a warning of what was to come. he prob just thought of the jockey as nothing more than 'e.t. who got facehugged'. because the jockey had little to do with the story being told, there was no need to create a backstory.
He created an entire back-story for the Jockey, and its relationship to the Alien. This even got published - Maledoro has scans of the article which details O'Bannon's back-story for
Alien.
Shit, his original draft actually has the Jockey play
more than a throw-away cameo. The characters make a big deal of making first contact with an alien species - The Jockey - and they even keep its skull as proof of their finds.
If anything, Scott and the producers put
less stock in the Jockey than O'Bannon did.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 11, 2010, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: jaztermareal on Apr 11, 2010, 12:27:47 AM
for obannon, it was simply a device, a message, a warning of what was to come. he prob just thought of the jockey as nothing more than 'e.t. who got facehugged'. because the jockey had little to do with the story being told, there was no need to create a backstory.
He created an entire back-story for the Jockey, and its relationship to the Alien. This even got published - Maledoro has scans of the article which details O'Bannon's back-story for Alien.
Shit, his original draft actually has the Jockey play more than a throw-away cameo. The characters make a big deal of making first contact with an alien species - The Jockey - and they even keep its skull as proof of their finds.
If anything, Scott and the producers put less stock in the Jockey than O'Bannon did.
then perhaps a prequel will delve into that backstory. if it was not supposed to be a mystery, then why so much effort to kepp it one? if there is a good story to be told, tell it.
Because it is entirely irrelevant to the plot of the movie. There's no need to go into the back-story.
And it won't go into O'Bannon's idea, but Ridley Scott had his own ideas, which are very different.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 11, 2010, 12:44:29 AM
Because it is entirely irrelevant to the plot of the movie. There's no need to go into the back-story.
And it won't go into O'Bannon's idea, but Ridley Scott had his own ideas, which are very different.
its a separate movie. it doesnt need to involved with movies plotline, its supposed to have a new plotline.
anyway, how can you be so sure scott isnt planning to use obannons ideas? you cant.
Quote from: jaztermareal on Apr 11, 2010, 12:51:33 AM
how can you be so sure scott isnt planning to use obannons ideas? you cant.
I can't be sure - But I can make an educated prediction.
Quote from: Sabres21768 on Feb 21, 2010, 11:13:19 PM
(little known fact: There are actually 2 different versions of this painting. There are subtle differences in the creatures depicted in each)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi49.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff291%2Fsabres21768%2FAlienArt%2Flifecycle.jpg&hash=81449b2963e132f3224579e3065da0749d14d53a)
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f291/sabres21768/AlienArt/hieroglyphics.jpg
What should I be looking for?
The shape of the head.
Ah yes, and the logo at the bottom. I'll make a really bad detective one day.
Quote from: jaztermareal on Apr 11, 2010, 12:27:47 AM
Quote from: SiL on Apr 10, 2010, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: Highland on Apr 10, 2010, 11:19:06 PM
pretty sure O'Bannon had nothing to do with the Jockey.
WHAT?!
He wrote the f**king screenplay! He's the one that put the f**king thing there in the first place! The only thing Scott had to do with it was managing to keep it in the movie when the producers wanted it cut to save money.
And now he is, unfortunately, dead.
So no, it wouldn't be the guy who created the thing, it would be Ridley Scott.
Who had very little to do with it.
so, no, i dissagree strongly, and can say with certainty that having the questions answered will not ruin anything for the masses, just the minority, that being most of us on this board. but even when it does happen, we will just retcon it out of our personal canon.
I can refute that through personal experience. For me, before I became obsessed with the Alien series about 9 or 10 months ago, what made me enjoy the original most was the mystery. If it hadn't been there, I wouldn't have enjoyed the film near as much, and I probably wouldn't be on this board right now.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 10, 2010, 11:51:23 PM
Quote from: Highland on Apr 10, 2010, 11:19:06 PM
pretty sure O'Bannon had nothing to do with the Jockey.
WHAT?!
He wrote the f**king screenplay! He's the one that put the f**king thing there in the first place! The only thing Scott had to do with it was managing to keep it in the movie when the producers wanted it cut to save money.
And now he is, unfortunately, dead.
So no, it wouldn't be the guy who created the thing, it would be Ridley Scott.
Who had very little to do with it.
So he had very little to do with it, and wanted it in the movie? which is it?. Scott's the man the pulls the strings, he made the jockey what it is today for Alien fans. For me, he has the power to do what he likes with it.
Between that and the fact that 99.9% of the world doesn't know what the fk a space jockey is, I'm sure he won't be losing any sleep over it.
Its just pure hypocrisy that fans don't want the jockey, yet will run out and buy the Quadrilogy (which has more plot holes and contradictions to the original than my work socks) and then listen to 500+ minutes of commentary to see what they missed.
That hypocrisy argument won't stop me; I don't have the Quadrilogy. The only one of the films I own is Alien.
Quote from: Highland on Apr 11, 2010, 05:15:49 AM
So he had very little to do with it, and wanted it in the movie? which is it?.
This isn't one of those "one or the other" arguments.
He wanted it in the movie, but he had little to do with its creation. O'Bannon dreamt it up, Giger designed it. Scott made sure it stayed in.
Quotehe made the jockey what it is today for Alien fans.
Only by virtue of being the one who ensured it made it into the picture. Its mysterious aspect was the work of the script, its lasting visual impression is the work of Giger.
QuoteFor me, he has the power to do what he likes with it.
Certainly does. But that doesn't mean he's the sole person, or even the most responsible, for it being what it is.
QuoteIts just pure hypocrisy that fans don't want the jockey, yet will run out and buy the Quadrilogy ... and then listen to 500+ minutes of commentary to see what they missed.
Pure wank.
It's apples and oranges.
They listen to the commentary for the behind the scenes stuff, not to have every mystery explained to them. I don't listen to Ridley's commentary on the 20th anniversary DVD to hear his ten seconds of postulation regarding the Jockey at the very end of the movie; I listen because it's a really interesting insight into the creation of the movie and its creative processes. I listen to the Quad features to hear the opinions of the people who made it, regarding the production of the picture and the final product itself.
There's a huge difference - to the point of there being no comparison - between wanting to know how the movie was made, and wanting to know the entire life-story of the Space Jockeys.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 11, 2010, 06:15:12 AM
Quote from: Highland on Apr 11, 2010, 05:15:49 AM
So he had very little to do with it, and wanted it in the movie? which is it?.
This isn't one of those "one or the other" arguments.
He wanted it in the movie, but he had little to do with its creation. O'Bannon dreamt it up, Giger designed it. Scott made sure it stayed in.
Quotehe made the jockey what it is today for Alien fans.
Only by virtue of being the one who ensured it made it into the picture. Its mysterious aspect was the work of the script, its lasting visual impression is the work of Giger.
QuoteFor me, he has the power to do what he likes with it.
Certainly does. But that doesn't mean he's the sole person, or even the most responsible, for it being what it is.
QuoteIts just pure hypocrisy that fans don't want the jockey, yet will run out and buy the Quadrilogy ... and then listen to 500+ minutes of commentary to see what they missed.
Pure wank.
It's apples and oranges.
They listen to the commentary for the behind the scenes stuff, not to have every mystery explained to them. I don't listen to Ridley's commentary on the 20th anniversary DVD to hear his ten seconds of postulation regarding the Jockey at the very end of the movie; I listen because it's a really interesting insight into the creation of the movie and its creative processes. I listen to the Quad features to hear the opinions of the people who made it, regarding the production of the picture and the final product itself.
There's a huge difference - to the point of there being no comparison - between wanting to know how the movie was made, and wanting to know the entire life-story of the Space Jockeys.
Why is it wank? Wank is giving the Alien ridges on it's head, or all of a sudden Queen Alien's just appearing out of LV426's ass crack, the fact that an alien walks on all 4's because it came from a dog or now spits acid. THATS wank.
Giving the power to the creator of the best movie in the franchise to expand on one of the most mysterious creatures in sci fi history isn't wank, it's bloody genius!
I just don't get how people can be so tolerant of the glaring fk ups and canon issues in every movie, and when the guy wants to go back to the original he gets shit for it because 75 alien fans like sketching alternate jockey storylines in their heads. (whilst missing the glaring fact that the alien has been screwed over royally for the past 30 years)
I like Star Wars, I hate the prequels, I still get the same sense of mystery when i watch Alec Guinness speaking to Luke, the last thing that enters my head is "bloody pod race" .
Quote from: Highland on Apr 11, 2010, 08:30:19 AM
Why is it wank?
I was talking about you comparing watching special features, to wanting to know about the Jockeys. The comparison is wank.
Quoteor all of a sudden Queen Alien's just appearing out of LV426's ass crack
Cameron explaining the mass of eggs, no different to
if Scott explains the Jockeys.
Besides, lots of people hate the Queen and everything it stands for.
Quotethe fact that an alien walks on all 4's because it came from a dog.
You can thank Ridley Scott for the idea of host traits -- that one was all him.
Quoteand when the guy wants to go back to the original he gets shit for it because 75 alien fans like sketching alternate jockey storylines in their heads.
I haven't seen anyone here say 'f**k Ridley Scott' or give him personally any shit about it -- Just that they don't like the concept of the Jockeys being explained in no uncertain terms.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 11, 2010, 08:47:49 AM
Quote from: Highland on Apr 11, 2010, 08:30:19 AM
Why is it wank?
I was talking about you comparing watching special features, to wanting to know about the Jockeys. The comparison is wank.
Quoteor all of a sudden Queen Alien's just appearing out of LV426's ass crack
Cameron explaining the mass of eggs, no different to if Scott explains the Jockeys.
Besides, lots of people hate the Queen and everything it stands for.
Quotethe fact that an alien walks on all 4's because it came from a dog.
You can thank Ridley Scott for the idea of host traits -- that one was all him.
Quoteand when the guy wants to go back to the original he gets shit for it because 75 alien fans like sketching alternate jockey storylines in their heads.
I haven't seen anyone here say 'f**k Ridley Scott' or give him personally any shit about it -- Just that they don't like the concept of the Jockeys being explained in no uncertain terms.
My comparison with the vids is because i like the reveal, I like the way they explain how things come to pass, how design ideas, concepts and back story's mold the storyline and I'm sure others like them for the same reason. The guy's about to give us (potentially) the master copy and people are all of a sudden knocking it back?
These are Alien movie's not Jockey movies, If some other part of the mythos has to be explored to open up a quality storyline for the creature then it's a smart move, not a backwards one.
Trying not to step on people's toes gets you Cloned Ripley's , Alien hybrids and eggs that appear out of knowhere.
If the Jockey has to be sacrificed for a movie even half the quality of Alien, I really can't see the gripes.
Quote from: Highland on Apr 11, 2010, 09:07:13 AM
My comparison with the vids is because i like the reveal, I like the way they explain how things come to pass, how design ideas, concepts and back story's mold the storyline and I'm sure others like them for the same reason.
Okay, but that's you. And, yes, plenty of others.
That doesn't, in the least, make anyone else hypocritical for wanting to know how the movies are made, but
not the back-story. The two are not mutually exclusive sentiments.
QuoteThe guy's about to give us (potentially) the master copy and people are all of a sudden knocking it back?
There's nothing 'sudden' about it. People have been saying they don't want the Jockeys explained for years.
QuoteTrying not to step on people's toes gets you Cloned Ripley's
That stepped on plenty of people's toes.
QuoteAlien hybrids
As did that.
Quoteand eggs that appear out of knowhere.
And that. Hell, more than anything, that. And they knew it.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 11, 2010, 09:17:41 AM
Quote from: Highland on Apr 11, 2010, 09:07:13 AM
My comparison with the vids is because i like the reveal, I like the way they explain how things come to pass, how design ideas, concepts and back story's mold the storyline and I'm sure others like them for the same reason.
Okay, but that's you. And, yes, plenty of others.
That doesn't, in the least, make anyone else hypocritical for wanting to know how the movies are made, but not the back-story. The two are not mutually exclusive sentiments.
QuoteThe guy's about to give us (potentially) the master copy and people are all of a sudden knocking it back?
There's nothing 'sudden' about it. People have been saying they don't want the Jockeys explained for years.
QuoteTrying not to step on people's toes gets you Cloned Ripley's
That stepped on plenty of people's toes.
QuoteAlien hybrids
As did that.
Quoteand eggs that appear out of knowhere.
And that. Hell, more than anything, that. And they knew it.
So your agreeing with me then or what?
Would you sacrifice the jockey for the original Alien, or would you rather they pussy foot around and come up with some poppy cock storyline? (PS that's a yes /no question, no "i would like a good story without the jockey..". ;))
I'd rather have no movie, period.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 11, 2010, 10:38:42 AM
I'd rather have no movie, period.
youd be in the minority.
An ever growing minority.
Quote from: jaztermareal on Apr 11, 2010, 01:22:41 PM
youd be in the minority.
Considering the average movie-goer would be entirely apathetic to whether one was made or not,
wanting a new movie would be the minority view.
I don't want it.
But I'm glad we're getting a prequel rather than a remake.
kthxbai
The space jockey we saw in the first film? No thanks.
What I would like is a NEW mystery.
The Jockey Alien turning up alive or dead would be really cool - hopefully Giger could design it himself.
It seemed to me that derelict was very big, maybe a more thorough investigation would find some interesting stuff - maybe another type of Jockey growing out of a wall somewhere.
I don't think the where the alien comes from will be explained by left deliberately ambiguous.