MAJOR SPOLILERS!!! A few things I couldnt piece together.

[Vyse]

I've been waiting for this film ever since I heard about it a few years a ago. I also religiously avoided watching the trailers so it didnt spoil the film for me. After leaving the cinema last night I thought it was a good sci fi film. But thinking about it more and more, somethings dont quite make sense. I dont know if ends are kept open intentionally for further films. However, I dont think its necessarily a bad thing as it does promote discuss and stare up interest in the alien/prometheus universe.

Below I have listed a few questions which I hope people could possibly answer.


1. Why did the space jockey at the start of the film decide to ingest the black stuff?

2. How did the captain figure out that the facility was a military site for alien weapons creation? (Perhaps there were defiantly scenes cut from the theatrical version of the film)

3. Is the film suggesting the space jockeys created the organic black stuff. So does that mean the alien that killed Fifield and the other guy was created and living among the black liquid? Or was it just an organism that happened to be living on that planet also?

4. The first hologram of the space jockeys saw them running away. But from what?

5. Why would these holograms have been record and allowed to be discovered as they were in the film?

6. In the later alien films we know that Charles Bishop Weyland is the head of the corporation, he is also a model for some of the androids. How does he relate to Peter Weyland? Is Charles a descendant of Peter?

Additionaly, something that did piss me off about the film were the lack of locations. We clearly saw the orbs mapping the whole structure, yet the characters kept revisiting the alcove and the ships deck. I wished they showed more of the passages/rooms in the mound.


Thanks

[Glaive]

HOW can Charles be a DESCENDANT of Peter?

[Berserker Pred]

I've been waiting for this film ever since I heard about it a few years a ago. I also religiously avoided watching the trailers so it didnt spoil the film for me. After leaving the cinema last night I thought it was a good sci fi film. But thinking about it more and more, somethings dont quite make sense. I dont know if ends are kept open intentionally for further films. However, I dont think its necessarily a bad thing as it does promote discuss and stare up interest in the alien/prometheus universe.

Below I have listed a few questions which I hope people could possibly answer.


1. Why did the space jockey at the start of the film decide to ingest the black stuff?

2. How did the captain figure out that the facility was a military site for alien weapons creation? (Perhaps there were defiantly scenes cut from the theatrical version of the film)

3. Is the film suggesting the space jockeys created the organic black stuff. So does that mean the alien that killed Fifield and the other guy was created and living among the black liquid? Or was it just an organism that happened to be living on that planet also?

4. The first hologram of the space jockeys saw them running away. But from what?

5. Why would these holograms have been record and allowed to be discovered as they were in the film?

6. In the later alien films we know that Charles Bishop Weyland is the head of the corporation, he is also a model for some of the androids. How does he relate to Peter Weyland? Is Charles a descendant of Peter?

Additionaly, something that did piss me off about the film were the lack of locations. We clearly saw the orbs mapping the whole structure, yet the characters kept revisiting the alcove and the ships deck. I wished they showed more of the passages/rooms in the mound.


Thanks

1. He killed himself so he could start new life on earth. "To create you must first destroy" (Or something like that David says.)

2. Because he went into the room full of urns and saw what it was doing to these people and figured it was a military base for weapons.

3. It is suggesting they created the black goo. However the snake thing that kills Fifield and Milburn was originally a a worm/maggot that mutated in the black goo.

4. I believe they are running away from the "Proto-Aliens." The alien you see at the end of the film.

5. Umm, I guess they are like security cameras. The Engineers could have used them to check if anything has broken free.

6. I have no idea of what relation he is to Peter.

Some of this is just what I think.

[Vyse]

Sorry, guess I was confused. After some research it seems the original Charles Weyland was born in the 1900's and subsequently his son Peter Weyland took over. I think I was confusing Peter with the Charles I saw in the 3rd film. Am I right in saying Charles in the 3rd film is also an android?

HOW can Charles be a DESCENDANT of Peter?

[Hive Tyrant]

Sorry, guess I was confused. After some research it seems the original Charles Weyland was born in the 1900's and subsequently his son Peter Weyland took over. I think I was confusing Peter with the Charles I saw in the 3rd film. Am I right in saying Charles in the 3rd film is also an android?

HOW can Charles be a DESCENDANT of Peter?

I wouldn't bring that up if I were you.

[Promethean Fire]

Sorry, guess I was confused. After some research it seems the original Charles Weyland was born in the 1900's and subsequently his son Peter Weyland took over. I think I was confusing Peter with the Charles I saw in the 3rd film. Am I right in saying Charles in the 3rd film is also an android?

HOW can Charles be a DESCENDANT of Peter?

I refuse to consider AVP as part of the ALIEN canon.  But if you insist.

The character in Alien III is credited as "Bishop II".  He bleeds red blood.  Ergo he is human (or replicant  ).  In the merchandise, this character was also referred to as Michael Bishop.

[Vyse]

OK, exclude the Charles we see from AVP.

Still, if the films were to be remade in sequence, does that mean the Bishop in Aliens 2 and 3 would resemble Peter Weyland from Prometheus? 

[Promethean Fire]

OK, exclude the Charles we see from AVP.

Still, if the films were to be remade in sequence, does that mean the Bishop in Aliens 2 and 3 would resemble Peter Weyland from Prometheus?

Depends if he wants to make a model in his own image, really.  I would imagine the David model would be the default android on the market.  Which would make Ash's reveal a little more surprising as we assume all robots would look like David.

[Vyse]

Can't remember if it was the 2nd or 3rd film, but it was alluded to that the Bishop android was based off the look of the companies creator. Which excluding AVP/AVP2 would mean Peter Weyland.

OK, exclude the Charles we see from AVP.

Still, if the films were to be remade in sequence, does that mean the Bishop in Aliens 2 and 3 would resemble Peter Weyland from Prometheus?

Depends if he wants to make a model in his own image, really.  I would imagine the David model would be the default android on the market.  Which would make Ash's reveal a little more surprising as we assume all robots would look like David.

[Promethean Fire]

Can't remember if it was the 2nd or 3rd film, but it was alluded to that the Bishop android was based off the look of the companies creator. Which excluding AVP/AVP2 would mean Peter Weyland.

[/quote]

This was never mentioned anywhere.  Except from Paul WS Anderson's mouth.  Making it ,essentially, a fanfic crock.

[Xenomorphine]

A lot of speculation hovered about over some sort of rumour that this was going to wipe 'Alien Versus Predator' out of canonical status. Turns out it didn't. Just didn't bother referencing it. A future story could just as easily reconcile the two (presumably as being relatives).

Bishop 2, back when 'Alien 3' was filmed, was more likely to have been human than android, but there was always the potential of ambiguity (a more advanced model designed for infiltration and related purposes). Ambiguity which 'Alien Versus Predator' appropriated for its own use. Nothing wrong with that. That's story-telling. Some people objected, but it's a personal like/dislike thing.

Of course, there also are those who disregard the AVP films as canon, but also prefer Bishop 2 being a robot.

'Michael Bishop' was, I believe, the name Bishop 2 was given on some sort of collectible trading card, back in the 1990s. It didn't really have canonical status for obvious reasons, though, which meant the first of the AVP films was free to ignore it.

[Promethean Fire]

A lot of speculation hovered about over some sort of rumour that this was going to wipe 'Alien Versus Predator' out of canonical status. Turns out it didn't. Just didn't bother referencing it. A future story could just as easily reconcile the two (presumably as being relatives).

Bishop 2, back when 'Alien 3' was filmed, was more likely to have been human than android, but there was always the potential of ambiguity (a more advanced model designed for infiltration and related purposes). Ambiguity which 'Alien Versus Predator' appropriated for its own use. Nothing wrong with that. That's story-telling. Some people objected, but it's a personal like/dislike thing.

Of course, there also are those who disregard the AVP films as canon, but also prefer Bishop 2 being a robot.

'Michael Bishop' was, I believe, the name Bishop 2 was given on some sort of collectible trading card, back in the 1990s. It didn't really have canonical status for obvious reasons, though, which meant the first of the AVP films was free to ignore it.

Ambiguity is such a lovely thing.  The more ambiguous, the better.  Prometheus is full of ambiguity.  Which is great, as it sparks all kind of debate between fans.  It also causes friction between people, as they come to love the ideas they create to solve those ambiguities.  And one person's idea may completetly disagree with another's.  But, again, that's the beauty of ambiguity.  Its up to you to decide. 

[Xenomorphine]

It's one of the professional writer's most powerful tools, indeed.

There are, on the other hand, times when one needs to shit or get off the pot, of course.