Prometheus FanArt

[Deuterium]

Yes, the Jockey designs are largely based around a fossilized skeloton, and I bet very different then what we'll see in Prometheus. People are literal and not ephemeral, it's to be expected.

but considering how Scott hinted the Space Jockey we saw in Alien MAY just be some kind of "suit" for something that was actually inside of it, it wouldn't make alot sense - given if that is true - if the thing we saw was a standart endoskeleton of some creature that looked rather different with flesh.
on the other side, if it was a fossilised exoskeleton, which would fit better with the suit-theory, the unfossilised "living" thing wouldn't have looked that much different, if different at all.

For clarification...assuming the Space Jockey's remains was representative of it's natural, uncloaked (no "external" suit) biological state... it was NOT FOSSILIZED.  In the movie, Kane (or maybe it was Dallas) said it looked "fossilized", but that was a mis-statement.  Fossilization is a unique, geological/mineralization process that requires an organism becoming completely covered in a sedimentary process.  What Kane probably meant to say was it was "mummified".  Due to loss of artificial environmental control, and exposure to the cold, dry, reducing atmosphere of LV-426, the space jockey's remains dessicated and naturally mummified.  Of course, even if the orthodox Space Jockey is turned into a creature in a "suit" (as per Ridley's recent musings), once the suit lost integrity and the being "inside" was exposed to the natural environment, it would also become mummified.

Personally, I don't like Ridley's recently disclosed, "new concept" for the Space Jockey.  I always envisioned the Space Jockey creature to be exactly what we saw in the original film, and almost perfectly preserved.  I never thought it's face was a helmet/mask (especially given the eye sockets and apparent mouth/orifice)...and what other people saw as a "hose" for a respirator, I saw as in integral part of it's anatomy -- in full keeping with Giger's bio-mechanical morphology.  Finally, the exploded section of the creature's "chest" certainly appears to consist entirely of biological skeletal structures, analogous to the bones/ribs of a terrestrial vertebrate.  In other words, the exposed wound cavity does not appear to establish or imply the presence of an external suit, separate from the creatures inate biological physiology.  Nor do I think was it Giger's original intention for the Space Jockey remains to depict a creature in a suit (but I could be wrong).

[Zeta Reticuli]

For clarification...assuming the Space Jockey's remains was representative of it's natural, uncloaked (no "external" suit) biological state... it was NOT FOSSILIZED.  In the movie, Kane (or maybe it was Dallas) said it looked "fossilized", but that was a mis-statement.  Fossilization is a unique, geological/mineralization process that requires an organism becoming completely covered in a sedimentary process.  What Kane probably meant to say was it was "mummified".  Due to loss of artificial environmental control, and exposure to the cold, dry, reducing atmosphere of LV-426, the space jockey's remains dessicated and naturally mummified.  Of course, even if the orthodox Space Jockey is turned into a creature in a "suit" (as per Ridley's recent musings), once the suit lost integrity and the being "inside" was exposed to the natural environment, it would also become mummified.

thats true.
however, considering LV-426's extreme atmosphere, we don't know that if the SJ was lying there for billions of years, it may have even so become fossilized under the special "extraterrestrial" conditions. thats of course only speculation, but it could serve as an excuse in case the SJ is really supposed to be fossilized, and the filmmakers had no other explanation 

Personally, I don't like Ridley's recently disclosed, "new concept" for the Space Jockey.  I always envisioned the Space Jockey creature to be exactly what we saw in the original film, and almost perfectly preserved.  I never thought it's face was a helmet/mask (especially given the eye sockets and apparent mouth/orifice)...and what other people saw as a "hose" for a respirator, I saw as in integral part of it's anatomy -- in full keeping with Giger's bio-mechanical morphology.  Finally, the exploded section of the creature's "chest" certainly appears to consist entirely of biological skeletal structures, analogous to the bones/ribs of a terrestrial vertebrate.  In other words, the exposed wound cavity does not appear to establish or imply the presence of an external suit, separate from the creatures inate biological physiology.  Nor do I think was it Giger's original intention for the Space Jockey remains to depict a creature in a suit (but I could be wrong).

i'm pretty sure we are talking about a biomechanical "suit" here, maybe even fully biological.

if the constructors of the derelict were able to somehow "grow" a biomechanical spaceship, why wouldn't they also be able to spawn their own exosuits, made fully of biomass.
it would be pretty much like the biosuits of the Aliens in Independence Day.

and the fact that Scott hinted that the SJ is only a shell for something else makes me even more curious about what could be inside of it.

[Infected]

Who said that there was any flesh that time cosumed?

Because there was a xeno that bursted out of there,if there was no flesh at the time it could have easily manouvered through the bone structure and it wouldnt have to burst through that thick bone.
and if there was another creature inside and the jockey functioned as a suit wouldnt the Nostromo crew see another skeleton inside? And whats in the backpack. the jockey could be part organic part mechanical.

[Infected]

For clarification...assuming the Space Jockey's remains was representative of it's natural, uncloaked (no "external" suit) biological state... it was NOT FOSSILIZED.  In the movie, Kane (or maybe it was Dallas) said it looked "fossilized", but that was a mis-statement.  Fossilization is a unique, geological/mineralization process that requires an organism becoming completely covered in a sedimentary process.  What Kane probably meant to say was it was "mummified".  Due to loss of artificial environmental control, and exposure to the cold, dry, reducing atmosphere of LV-426, the space jockey's remains dessicated and naturally mummified.  Of course, even if the orthodox Space Jockey is turned into a creature in a "suit" (as per Ridley's recent musings), once the suit lost integrity and the being "inside" was exposed to the natural environment, it would also become mummified.

thats true.
however, considering LV-426's extreme atmosphere, we don't know that if the SJ was lying there for billions of years, it may have even so become fossilized under the special "extraterrestrial" conditions. thats of course only speculation, but it could serve as an excuse in case the SJ is really supposed to be fossilized, and the filmmakers had no other explanation 

Personally, I don't like Ridley's recently disclosed, "new concept" for the Space Jockey.  I always envisioned the Space Jockey creature to be exactly what we saw in the original film, and almost perfectly preserved.  I never thought it's face was a helmet/mask (especially given the eye sockets and apparent mouth/orifice)...and what other people saw as a "hose" for a respirator, I saw as in integral part of it's anatomy -- in full keeping with Giger's bio-mechanical morphology.  Finally, the exploded section of the creature's "chest" certainly appears to consist entirely of biological skeletal structures, analogous to the bones/ribs of a terrestrial vertebrate.  In other words, the exposed wound cavity does not appear to establish or imply the presence of an external suit, separate from the creatures inate biological physiology.  Nor do I think was it Giger's original intention for the Space Jockey remains to depict a creature in a suit (but I could be wrong).

i'm pretty sure we are talking about a biomechanical "suit" here, maybe even fully biological.

if the constructors of the derelict were able to somehow "grow" a biomechanical spaceship, why wouldn't they also be able to spawn their own exosuits, made fully of biomass.
it would be pretty much like the biosuits of the Aliens in Independence Day.

and the fact that Scott hinted that the SJ is only a shell for something else makes me even more curious about what could be inside of it.

The jockey could indeed be a creature that reacts to its enviromental "attacks" it probably came under attack and therefor activated the xeno inside. when it goes into hyperspace it changes it adapts to every situation a universal snail.

[Gash]

http://x-inflict-x.deviantart.com/art/H-R-Giger-Space-Jockey-256134392?q=gallery%3Ax-inflict-x&qo=0

The jockey in Alien has no flesh but bones,
time has consumed its flesh? so why does everybody keep on drawing jockeys without flesh and with the look of a f**kin elephant?

Given the slightly softer fleshed out look of the Jockey dias in Prometheues that now makes the original dias look very much like a stripped back framework, you might well be right. On the other hand the adult alien aboard the Nostromo also wears a lot of it's skeletal structure on the outside. Giger's art has that detailed look generally so it's would be a bit strange to fully flesh out the Jockey as it would remove it from the design ethos. We shall see.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Yes, the Jockey designs are largely based around a fossilized skeloton, and I bet very different then what we'll see in Prometheus. People are literal and not ephemeral, it's to be expected.

but considering how Scott hinted the Space Jockey we saw in Alien MAY just be some kind of "suit" for something that was actually inside of it, it wouldn't make alot sense - given if that is true - if the thing we saw was a standart endoskeleton of some creature that looked rather different with flesh.
on the other side, if it was a fossilised exoskeleton, which would fit better with the suit-theory, the unfossilised "living" thing wouldn't have looked that much different, if different at all.



What you saw or see has little importance. We all saw something different, including the crew of the Nostromo.

For clarification...assuming the Space Jockey's remains was representative of it's natural, uncloaked (no "external" suit) biological state... it was NOT FOSSILIZED.  In the movie, Kane (or maybe it was Dallas) said it looked "fossilized", but that was a mis-statement.  Fossilization is a unique, geological/mineralization process that requires an organism becoming completely covered in a sedimentary process.  What Kane probably meant to say was it was "mummified".  Due to loss of artificial environmental control, and exposure to the cold, dry, reducing atmosphere of LV-426, the space jockey's remains dessicated and naturally mummified.  Of course, even if the orthodox Space Jockey is turned into a creature in a "suit" (as per Ridley's recent musings), once the suit lost integrity and the being "inside" was exposed to the natural environment, it would also become mummified.

Personally, I don't like Ridley's recently disclosed, "new concept" for the Space Jockey.  I always envisioned the Space Jockey creature to be exactly what we saw in the original film, and almost perfectly preserved.  I never thought it's face was a helmet/mask (especially given the eye sockets and apparent mouth/orifice)...and what other people saw as a "hose" for a respirator, I saw as in integral part of it's anatomy -- in full keeping with Giger's bio-mechanical morphology.  Finally, the exploded section of the creature's "chest" certainly appears to consist entirely of biological skeletal structures, analogous to the bones/ribs of a terrestrial vertebrate.  In other words, the exposed wound cavity does not appear to establish or imply the presence of an external suit, separate from the creatures inate biological physiology.  Nor do I think was it Giger's original intention for the Space Jockey remains to depict a creature in a suit (but I could be wrong).

[Deuterium]

ThisBethesdaSea...

Did you mean / intend to post some additional commentary or text?  It looks like you (maybe) accidentally just quoted previous post(s), without adding any further, personal comments.  Maybe this was by accident, or did you mean to re-quote previous posts for effect??

Just curious.  I have read many of your prior posts, on this website, and very much appreciate and respect your considered and thoughtful opinions and ideas, even though sometimes they may differ from my own.  Again, just wondering if you intended to add something additional, or accidentally quoted previous posts and missed opportunity to add additional contributions?

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Actually I did...ha. I see it in there but it didn't differentiate.

All I intended to say was that we all saw something different when presented with the space jockey in A L I E N. it ultimately doesn't matter though it's about what Ridley saw, and his ideas.

[Deuterium]

Actually I did...ha. I see it in there but it didn't differentiate.

All I intended to say was that we all saw something different when presented with the space jockey in A L I E N. it ultimately doesn't matter though it's about what Ridley saw, and his ideas. B

Ah, I missed that.  Got it, and I agree with your assesment.

Cheers.

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

I'm working on something related to this design so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Uh oh ikarop, scriptflags is claiming this poster to be official, lol:
http://www.scriptflags.com/2011/08/is-this-leaked-image-first-official.html

My favorite so far

[ikarop]

http://3ihard.deviantart.com/art/Ancient-One-257738195

[ThisBethesdaSea]

the tone is nice....there's a foreboding darkness....but the guy in the chair...no. There's no detail. He sorta looks like a big stuffed animal or somethin...lolz.

[Infected]

http://3ihard.deviantart.com/art/Ancient-One-257738195

I think its done very good,but the jockey looks too much of a fat king. he should be done with more mystery and scaryness.

[Never say no to Panda!]

This picture is missing several important things: a remote control, a flat screen, beer and a pizza.
You guys always see 'em as those mysterious frightening creatures...look at us humans, other species would laugh at us

Those Space Jockeys are real chiller, they even don't need any underwear...awesome!

[Purebreedalien]

http://3ihard.deviantart.com/art/Ancient-One-257738195

That is awesome.