Peter Weyland video ! ^^

[red_otter]

The biggest problem here is Weyland's age. I'm not picky about this sort of stuff at all, but I just don't get how we can square "born at the turn of the millienium" with Pearce's age here. Is he really meant to be, say, 21/22? If so then Pearce is ridiculous casting, or at least choosing to do this particular viral video was daft.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the clip overall, it just seems odd to put a man clearly in his forties in a clip where he's meant to be so young. If he's NOT meant to be that age then what does that say about the accuracy of the biography?

Also: re-those leaked storyboards - hilarious bit of Ridley fvcking with us all. They don't look anything like real film set call sheets, yet they tallied up rather well with this clip...if you read some of the detail, it looks to me like they had a bit of a laugh making up highly unprofessional call sheets/storyboards to tease everyone. Lol.

[OpenMaw]

That sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Like people in their late 20's playing high school kids and looking nothing like the real-life counterpart.

Then again I honestly don't think he's TOO far off. I knew a guy who was 28 and you'd swear he was in his late 40's. (Heavy indulgent in smoking and drinking). All of that can be swept away when you consider the idea of new medications and things that could keep someone alive for a far longer stretch in just a couple decades.  To me, unless it's hugely disproportionate its no different than having, say, Alan Rickman playing a German terrorist or Sean Connery playing a Russian. As long as the actor gives a good performance, it shouldn't really bother anyone.

There's also another explanation. He's probably under a lot of stress and pressure given his reputation and drive to do all the things he wants to. That can take a toll on anyone. You could be in your early 20's and look ten years old in the face because of all the stress.

[red_otter]

That sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Like people in their late 20's playing high school kids and looking nothing like the real-life counterpart.

Then again I honestly don't think he's TOO far off. I knew a guy who was 28 and you'd swear he was in his late 40's. (Heavy indulgent in smoking and drinking). All of that can be swept away when you consider the idea of new medications and things that could keep someone alive for a far longer stretch in just a couple decades.  To me, unless it's hugely disproportionate its no different than having, say, Alan Rickman playing a German terrorist or Sean Connery playing a Russian. As long as the actor gives a good performance, it shouldn't really bother anyone.

There's also another explanation. He's probably under a lot of stress and pressure given his reputation and drive to do all the things he wants to. That can take a toll on anyone. You could be in your early 20's and look ten years old in the face because of all the stress.

Dude: watch it again and say to yourself: 21-year-old. And tell me that isn't the most ridiculous bit of non-age-appropriate casting you've ever seen. Of course the high-school-kids-in-their-twenties thing has been around forever, but that doesn't come close to the issue here. More though, he PLAYS it like a mature man-of-the-world. This plays like the speech of a man of 40ish. Now of course that could be the point - he's incredible precocious. But I still find it odd.

In terms of anti-ageing medications in the future - well yes, but then you'd expect him to be an older man looking younger, no? And yes, age is in the eye of the beholder (when I was a teenager anyone over 25 was basically "old") but this is really stretching it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care and I love the clip, I just don't get the age thing. It feels to me they got a bit stuck between having to have him still alive/a certain age for Prometheus and also making the date of this speech tally with Pearce's actual age. I feel like they hoped people would overlook this obvious absurdity, which I basically do as it's an awesome clip, even if this one aspect feels a bit clunky.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

"born at the turn of the millennium" can mean anywhere between 1980 through 2000. Using that, he looks the right age.

[red_otter]

"born at the turn of the millennium" can mean anywhere between 1980 through 2000. Using that, he looks the right age.

And that's clearly the right answer - makes sense of it. Thank you! Just couldn't work out what they were trying to do otherwise...there are even forums on the web where people are arguing he has a fast-ageing disease or something.

[St_Eddie]

"born at the turn of the millennium" can mean anywhere between 1980 through 2000. Using that, he looks the right age.

And that's clearly the right answer - makes sense of it. Thank you! Just couldn't work out what they were trying to do otherwise...there are even forums on the web where people are arguing he has a fast-ageing disease or something.

It is indeed the correct answer.  To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly baffled as to why a fair few people automatically interpret "born at the turn of the millennium" as meaning "born in the year 1999/2000.  If that were the case then they would have said "born at the beginning of this century".

[red_otter]

"born at the turn of the millennium" can mean anywhere between 1980 through 2000. Using that, he looks the right age.

And that's clearly the right answer - makes sense of it. Thank you! Just couldn't work out what they were trying to do otherwise...there are even forums on the web where people are arguing he has a fast-ageing disease or something.

It is indeed the correct answer.  To be perfectly honest, I'm slightly baffled as to why a fair few people automatically interpret "born at the turn of the millennium" as meaning "born in the year 1999/2000.  If that were the case then they would have said "born at the beginning of this century".

I can't really explain why either, I knew perfectly well what the term meant when I thought about it. I guess hungover posting can be as much of a hazard as drunk posting 

[St_Eddie]

I guess hungover posting can be as much of a hazard as drunk posting 

Haha.  So very, very true.

[bunnyavpg]

It's a deliberately ambiguous statement implying that he could be anywhere between 13 and 43 when that TED presentation takes place. Obviously we are meant to assume that it is nearer the higher age range. Even if he is in his 40s I still find it amazing that one man is responsible for so many advancements in technology, medicine, etc. He had to have had a helping hand somewhere along the line.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Those same people interpret 'DNA from ALIEN' as LITERAL DNA that we'll see in some kind of form. I don't get so much of the literal interpretation, but such is life. We're all different.

[red_otter]

Those same people interpret 'DNA from ALIEN' as LITERAL DNA that we'll see in some kind of form. I don't get so much of the literal interpretation, but such is life. We're all different.

I should probably quit while I'm ahead, but there have actually been two quotes. The first talked about Prometheus containing "strands of DNA" from Alien, while the second one said "By the end of the third act you start to realize there's a DNA of the very first alien, but none of the subsequent aliens".

I think your interpretation is more likely, but I'm genuinely a bit uncertain as those quotes seem kind of ambiguous to me.

*Pours himself another bloody mary*

[St_Eddie]

Those same people interpret 'DNA from ALIEN' as LITERAL DNA that we'll see in some kind of form. I don't get so much of the literal interpretation, but such is life. We're all different.

I should probably quit while I'm ahead, but there have actually been two quotes. The first talked about Prometheus containing "strands of DNA" from Alien, while the second one said "By the end of the third act you start to realize there's a DNA of the very first alien, but none of the subsequent aliens".

I think your interpretation is more likely, but I'm genuinely a bit uncertain as those quotes seem kind of ambiguous to me.

*Pours himself another bloody mary*

Actually I agree with you, in as much as I think the "DNA' comment could go either way at this point.

But, as far as Peter Weyland's age goes, I don't for a second think that we're supposed to believe that he's in his early 20s.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

I take 'the very first alien' meaning the film itself as opposed to the actual creature. But, who knows. I just want to be scared shitless.

[St_Eddie]

I take 'the very first alien' meaning the film itself as opposed to the actual creature. But, who knows. I just want to be scared shitless.

Amen.

[red_otter]

I take 'the very first alien' meaning the film itself as opposed to the actual creature. But, who knows. I just want to be scared shitless.

Just thinking out loud here, but if that is the correct interpretation, is that Scott saying this film will only be viable canon-wise in relation to the original film? If not, what does the quote mean?