I think sex will be an important theme in this movie, it is after all about the creation of life. What if Shaw and Holloway inadvertantly 'create' a new lifeform?
In the trailer we see Holloway exposed to the acid / concentrated-terraforming-liquid. His face looks blotchy but not exactly mutilated so perhaps he may recover from this but his body has absorbed the life generating liquid, mutating his DNA.
Then, later Holloway and Shaw (noomi) have a scene where they 'get it on'. In the leaked trailer we see what appears to be a 'pregnant' Shaw. Also in the actual trailer we see her in underwear covered in dark blotches suddenly appear in the med-lab and she falls to her knees. Maybe she has just given birth after an accelerated pregnancy to something totally new and not quite human...
Good theory, but unlikely that they go banging each other after being exposed to some Alien DNA.
It's possible that she's already preggers when she starts the mission. It would help explain some of the time issues.
That would mean copying a (really poor) storyline out of 'Star Trek: Voyager'.
So there's a similar idea in ST Voyager...it doesn't mean that the same theme couldn't be re-explored again to better effect? Movies and stories have been around a long long time so we're bound to find similarities at some point or another.
The pregnancy thing may not quite be what happens...I think maybe Shaw is infested with some kind of alien life form as opposed to a formal pregnancy?
This is basically the same theory, just simplified, that I came up with not too long ago...
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=41814.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=41814.0)
... Ever since I posted that theory, there's been an influx of people posting the same thing as though it was their original concept. Maybe it's just a case of "great minds think alike" but I do find it quite coincidental that these posts only started to crop up after I'd posted my theory! I suspect that someone has stolen my theory and posted it up on IMDB or something.
Either way, it's probably best to check the boards for similar topics before posting in the future, hmm?
Quote from: St_Eddie on Feb 04, 2012, 12:09:48 PM
This is basically the same theory, just simplified, that I came up with not too long ago...
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=41814.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=41814.0)
... Ever since I posted that theory, there's been an influx of people posting the same thing as though it was their original concept. Maybe it's just a case of "great minds think alike" but I do find it quite coincidental that these posts only started to crop up after I'd posted my theory! I suspect that someone has stolen my theory and posted it up on IMDB or something.
ego much?
Either way, it's probably best to check the boards for similar topics before posting in the future, hmm?
Quote from: azrael55 on Feb 04, 2012, 01:06:39 PM
ego much?
Perhaps. I might be right though; it is a FACT that there's been a lot of people spouting the same theory ever since I originally posted it. If it makes me an egotistical douche to point out a factual observation, then so be it. I just want credit where credit's due.
Not only would it be an imitation of the poor 'Voyager' story, there'd really be no... Point to it. Certainly none which reflects the director's contention that what we're going to see will supposedly be a lot more disturbing than anything in 'Alien'.
Some guy mutating into a Space Jockey and raping someone wouldn't be even close to that. I could even see it bordering close to unintentional sci-fi comedy, if anything.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Feb 04, 2012, 03:53:19 PM
Some guy mutating into a Space Jockey and raping someone wouldn't be even close to that. I could even see it bordering close to unintentional sci-fi comedy, if anything.
I'd argue that a lot of the concepts in Blade Runner and Alien could have come across as an unintentional sci-fi comedy if it weren't for the fact that they were directed by Ridley Scott.
A marching teddy bear and a midget with a nose the size of an erect penis! Both were in Blade Runner and both could have had the audience rolling in the isles with laughter... if Blade Runner hadn't been directed by Ridley Scott. Under his masterful direction, both were creepy.
As for Alien; a man in a suit could have looked ridiculous if it had been directed by a lesser filmmaker. Don't believe me? Go watch AVP:R!
The key lies within the execution.
Amen St. Eddie. It's about class and the ability of the filmmaker in charge of the project to accurately and correctly portray the story. There many many great stories that were executed poorly.
The film A.I. features a walking talking Teddy Bear called 'Teddy' and without Spielberg behind the camera it could have been worse then laughable and in fact it was pretty flawless.
It's Ridley Scott...have a bit of faith for Christ's sakes! ;)
I'm not doubting Ridleys's skill in shrouding the Alien in Darkness in ALIEN (which was a huge plus imo),it was extremely well done,but i also think it needed to be done,much in the same way Spielberg was forced to keep the Shark in Jaws off camera for 80% of the film due to a bit of a dodgy effect,in that case "Bruce" the Shark,in this case a man in a suit .
I think back in the late 70's/early 80's practical effects had limits which in turn meant decisions on how much to show of the creature/effect had to be made,so was it Spielbergs's and Ridley's Genius,or decisions imposed on them?
I've often wondered this,but the fact Ridley has experienced that era of movie making can only help his judgement in this one,seeing the huge sets employed for Prometheus gives me hope!
I don't care if it's directed by a resurrected Hitchcock - nobody can make a mutant Space Jockey rapist in any way superior to what was in 'Alien'!
Besides which, RS doesn't exactly shit gold... Not every project the guy does is a cinematic masterpiece. I can't even name one I've found genuinely entertaining since 'Gladiator', to be quite honest.
The only masterpieces Scott has directed IMHO are his two science fiction outings. Let's hope his third is one as well.
Matchstick Men was a great film.
-Chris
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Feb 06, 2012, 06:06:07 AM
I don't care if it's directed by a resurrected Hitchcock - nobody can make a mutant Space Jockey rapist in any way superior to what was in 'Alien'!
Besides which, RS doesn't exactly shit gold... Not every project the guy does is a cinematic masterpiece. I can't even name one I've found genuinely entertaining since 'Gladiator', to be quite honest.
You're actually rooting on Prometheus being superior to Alien?! Yeah, good luck with that, you crazy diamond.
Of course no director is infallible but if I have faith in any single filmmaker to come up with a worthy Alien prequel; it's undoubtedly Ridley Scott, whether or not the plot involves a rape scene. To be honest, I don't understand why you find the potential rape sequence to be so absurd. You're not imagining Holloway to be physically transformed into an actual Space Jockey are you?! My plot theory was partially based upon the image of a man (possibly Holloway) sitting on a bed, next to a battered woman, looking ashamed of himself. The mutation I'm supposing is largely psychological at that point.
Personally I think that it's a pretty scary thought that a loved one's personality could be altered, resulting in them violently raping you and impregnating you with the seed of an alien lifeform. I can visualise that potential scene in my head and it's produces a very dark and unnerving image. Why you feel that this material would make for a comedic scene is completely beyond me. You must consider the rape scene in Deliverance and the maggot birth nightmare sequence in The Fly to be two of the most hilarious moments in the history of cinema!
Quote from: St_Eddie on Feb 06, 2012, 08:06:57 AM
You're actually rooting on Prometheus being superior to Alien?! Yeah, good luck with that, you crazy diamond.
Of course no director is infallible but if I have faith in any single filmmaker to come up with a worthy Alien prequel; it's undoubtedly Ridley Scott, whether or not the plot involves a rape scene.
You're... Basically saying what I've
been saying.
QuoteTo be honest, I don't understand why you find the potential rape sequence to be so absurd. You're not imagining Holloway to be physically transformed into an actual Space Jockey are you?!
You're the one who raised the issue of mutation. :) And the only theory which has been doing the rounds to do with that, is about the possibility of becoming partial or complete Space Jockeys.
QuoteMy plot theory was partially based upon the image of a man (possibly Holloway) sitting on a bed, next to a battered woman, looking ashamed of himself. The mutation I'm supposing is largely psychological at that point.
QuotePersonally I think that it's a pretty scary thought that a loved one's personality could be altered, resulting in them violently raping you and impregnating you with the seed of an alien lifeform. I can visualise that potential scene in my head and it's produces a very dark and unnerving image. Why you feel that this material would make for a comedic scene is completely beyond me. You must consider the rape scene in Deliverance and the maggot birth nightmare sequence in The Fly to be two of the most hilarious moments in the history of cinema!
Because it's a f**king Space Jockey. :)
The Space Jockey looked a bit disturbing in the first film, because it was a
strange and inhuman corpse. Something you wouldn't expect to see on Earth, which had clearly died in pain.
Having them walking about? That's relatively mundane. Having them
rape people? That's bordering on the ridiculous, not scary. Horror-wise, they're on the same level as the Newborn and I don't know
anyone who found it groping Call's injury or licking Ripley's face to be anything other than B-movie quality. That wouldn't have magically changed if Ridley Scott had been directing it, because the thing
looked ridiculous.
The creature we saw doing nothing but suggestively reaching its tail up between Lambert's legs?
That looked vicious, predatory and
horrific. An
dangerous abomination of nature.
It's like comparing a walrus and shark. They both eat fish and could both give you a really bad day if they each had a reason to be angry at you. But if you gave an expert director a camera and told him to make a horror film about both creatures, there is
no way the supposed horror flick about a killer walrus would in any way be scary. The shark? That's a
completely different story. It's
designed to be a killer. There are serious primal psychological facets at play in the concept of putting the view in the perspective of someone being chased by a shark.
Now, that doesn't mean every director will be
successful at conveying that, but it's obvious that a good one
could. There's next to zero chance, on the other hand, of even the best director in the world making a killer walrus seem like a genuine threat. You can have the most brilliant cinematography and music score in the world and it won't change that. :)
Imagine if '
Alien' or '
Predator' had been made with the original creature designs... You'd have the same actors, lighting, mood and music... Same camera angles. Same film. But if you think the creature would have been anywhere near as iconic, then with all due respect, you're kidding yourself. :)
And yes, that sort of thing is why giving birth to a giant maggot
can be portrayed effectively. That's why '
The Fly most certainly
was effective, even if one only counts the famous doughnut scene.
Having either a Space Jockey-like or normal-looking dude raping Noomi Rapace? Well, the act would be uncomfortable to watch, but it would be no different to just a mundane cop drama which happens to feature the same crime. It definitely won't be nearly as disturbing as what we saw (and, most importantly, didn't see and just heard) with Lambert.
None of which, of course, would be even the slightest issue if Ridley Scott, himself, hadn't been repeatedly quoted as saying he's going to be raising the bar and presenting us with something which will supposedly out-do the original's threat.
In fact, there's an easy way to test this theory. :) Go and watch '
Splice'. Watch it all the way through to the end. Then go and watch '
Alien'. The former's notorious scene might well feel explicit, but it won't have the unsettling power of Lambert's death.
I would like to step in here and say that my short and sweet OP theory was just that: a whimsical theory. But it now appears to have been warped into a different wild argument so let me clarify a few points...
(1) I did not realise that St_Eddie had recently posted something vaguely similar - but wildly more complicated. Plus - whats all this talk about 'rape'?! Do you think for one second that Ridley Scott is going to complicate this interstellar alien technology epic with a human rape subplot? It has been established that Shaw and Holloway are partners, in the biblical sense, and therefore one would assume that sex between them would be with open consent. Perhaps this is the very reason for there to be an 'intimate couple' in this deep space story.
(2) My OP idea did not mention anything about Holloway turning into a space jockey! No. I was making the assumption that the 'acid fluid' is some kind of super-concentrated terraforming liquid that is intended to be spread over a sterile planet in order to bring about organic life. The Prometheus crew are therefore analogous to monkeys mindlessly playing around inside a nuclear power station or chemical weapons factory - they are messing with technology that is extremely dangerous but ultimately in this case has positive life giving properties. Maybe that is a reason for the Jockey Suit - its a bio-hazard protection suit?
Anyways, that was the idea I was getting at: Holloway would absorb a dose of this 'magic life-promoting' substance and its effect would be to subtly change him at the genetic level. But not to the point where he became a psychopathic rapist! Perhaps he later does change into something unpleasant but the point was that a newly created life in Shaw's womb, would instantly be a new life form that has an accelerated growth rate due to the magic DNA.
To be honest I am not sure if the time factor would allow such a plot to exist, but it is clear that Elizabeth Shaw appears to be in good health after 'the first sortie' where they bring back the Jockey skull/helmet and analyse it in the med-lab. So perhaps during the first sortie, Holloway is exposed, then spends a day in bandages in the infirmary but then makes a miraculous recovery - revealing him to be in unnaturally perfect health by virtue of the 'wonder stuff'. He then dashes to Shaw with open arms for a 'night of 5 times' in their sleeping quarters! Holloway wakes up the next morning and sits at the edge of his bed with his head in his hands thinking 'what is happening to me - I feel different' etc. Meanwhile Shaw has morning sickness from hell...
Et viola, whimsical theory complete. No rapes. No mutant space jockies. One star child/beast.
@Xenomorphine - Whilst I certainly can appreciate where you're coming from, I'm still not entirely convinced that you understand the very core of my theory. Imagine a human being whom is still in the very early stages of a cellular mutation. To run along with The Fly analogy; remember when "Brundle Fly" still looked like Jeff Goldblum? I never suggested that a being similar to the Jockey seen in Alien would rape Shaw! Rather a twisted, mutated and bastardised (in psychological terms, only) version of Shaw's boyfriend, rapes her; the one person she thought she could trust.
In short: I'm proposing that Holloway still essentially looks human at the point at which he rapes his former lover. How is that comedic? I feel as though we're pulling from opposite ends of the rope here!
Also: 'Splice' ruled. Screw the haters! :P
Quote from: 180924609 on Feb 06, 2012, 11:12:42 PM
I did not realise that St_Eddie had recently posted something vaguely similar - but wildly more complicated. Plus - whats all this talk about 'rape'?! Do you think for one second that Ridley Scott is going to complicate this interstellar alien technology epic with a human rape subplot? It has been established that Shaw and Holloway are partners, in the biblical sense, and therefore one would assume that sex between them would be with open consent. Perhaps this is the very reason for there to be an 'intimate couple' in this deep space story.
Firstly, I apologise if I inferred that you had plagiarised my theory. I believe you to be genuine.
Secondly, it's very possible for a rape to occur within a otherwise consensual relationship. Especially if the aggressor is suffering from the unwanted consequences of a mutation of his very identify!
Quote from: 180924609 on Feb 06, 2012, 11:12:42 PMNo rapes. No mutant space jockies.
One rape. A few mutant Space Jockeys.
:P