Am I alone ?

[Xenomrph]

You're correct, in the early concept art it clearly looks like a spacesuit. Where you're not correct is how it relates to everyone else who worked on the movie and what they intended. They wanted it to be a skeleton, he redrew it per their directions.

If those spacesuited figures are not the space jockey, then what are they?

Narratively they're the same, but that doesn't mean that they're literally the same entity and that all the qualities of one carry over to the other. They share visual similarities because that's Giger's style, and it's a revision of Giger's earlier concept art.

You should have stopped back when you were saying "it's both a skeleton and a spacesuit" because that was about as correct as you'd gotten so far, although I'm starting to wonder if you understood why you were correct. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all.

[Scorpio]

And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 

[Xenomrph]

And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 

You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).

I mean, unless you want to clarify what your point has been for the past few pages?

[Stitch]

Well, no, I'm not wrong because if you actually read my posts what I said was:

^And those are clearly spacesuits.

Referring to this image:



In this post:

https://alienseries.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/space-jockey-in-giger-hieroglypic.jpg

Which, remarkably, looks like a spacesuit..

Not to wade hip deep in this argument and get washed away in the current, but I have to disagree with Scorpio here.

In the top image I don't think it's a space suit. It looks like one, but if we take the three images as a series of events happening to one character, then the sequence argues against this interpretation.

Based on what happened to Kane, and the damage caused by the facehugger, we know that space suits are no defence against them. Surely the fact the character's face stays the same in the artwork implies that there's no damage from the facehugger and thus that there's no mask.

Now, you could say that they're not specifically from the alien series and so bringing in the facehugger dynamics from the films to the artwork isn't valid. In which case bringing the artwork in as evidence for the films is equally invalid. (Nobody has actually said this so far, I'm just covering my back.)

Based on the lack of damage to the character's 'space suit', it seems there's no damage to show, which is what happens when a human is facehugged. This would imply that the biology of the character includes the biotech which makes them look like they're wearing a suit, even though they're not.

[Scorpio]

And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 

You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).

Maybe if you actually go back a few pages and read what I said, instead of stating what you think I said, then I can properly respond to your post.  I don't play this game of "You said this, you said that".  If you want to respond to something I have said, then quote the relevant post, then respond to it.  Otherwise it's like Chinese whispers, a lot can get lost in translation.

[Biomechanoid]

Warning: Reading can do serious damage to your ignorance.

[Xenomrph]

And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton? 

You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).

Maybe if you actually go back a few pages and read what I said, instead of stating what you think I said, then I can properly respond to your post.  I don't play this game of "You said this, you said that".  If you want to respond to something I have said, then quote the relevant post, then respond to it.  Otherwise it's like Chinese whispers, a lot can get lost in translation.

I've been quoting your posts this entire time. Nice try, though.

[Scorpio]

You stated that the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger since he designed it, and that he designed the final Space Jockey as if it were a spacesuit rather than a skeleton (which is demonstrably false).

When did I state this? 

[Xenomrph]

But the above painting by Giger is evidence they were supposed to be spacesuits.

Everyone was fooled thinking it is a skeleton because they don't know anything about Giger's art.  They think just because it looks like bones then it must be bones.

I'd check what Alien: The Archive says on the matter, but I haven't gotten around to buying a copy yet. I'm confident it'll say what everything else has said, though: the Jockey, as written and designed, was a skeleton.

Not unless Giger himself said that was his intention.  Too late to ask him now, but if he has mentioned it somewhere.

[Scorpio]

Oh so you thought I was implying that "the only person whose intentions mattered was Giger", what I was actually trying to say was Giger has his own ideas when it comes to his art, so if somebody comes to Giger and says "draw me a skeleton", Giger will interpret that his own way because he was a surrealist painter

surrealism
səˈrɪəlɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
a 20th-century avant-garde movement in art and literature which sought to release the creative potential of the unconscious mind, for example by the irrational juxtaposition of images.

As opposed to Realism
Realism, in the arts, the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of nature or of contemporary life. Realism rejects imaginative idealization in favour of a close observation of outward appearances.

(Thank you Google  )

[Xenomrph]

Well yeah, that's one of the reasons they hired him, his interpretations and designs were so unique.

Either way, thanks for clarifying what you meant.