Hi everybody !
Fist of all, please, excuse the bad english from a frech guy...
Am I the only one who knows the truth about Alien Covenant and Prometheus? Among other things, that these films are really good, if they take a different direction than that taken by the first four films, well it's just the vision of the director, and somewhere of the creator of the saga. I do not understand, what is the problem if David is at the center of the story and not the Xenomorph? It's interesting to have another vision, another point of view, so we do not always see the same thing.
In concrete terms, I am looking for people who:
- Consider Prometheus and Alien Covenant as good films.
- Understand the meaning of movies, innuendo and hidden references.
- Have realized that the humans of these movies are idiots and that it is wanted.
- Have understood that David created the Xenomorph.
Explanations:
Yes, humans are stupid in these movies. So what ? If you understand these films, then you know that all this is wanted, humans are now considered as people without intelligence, and that their destiny is to lose, all the time. Moreover, it is confirmed when we look at the first film, everything becomes very clear. Indeed, when we look at the film from a philosophical point of view, we know from the first film that humans are the creators of their own burden (Xenomorph).
And again yes, David created the Xenomorphs. Why always want to find explanations that prove the opposite? The novel is a novel. Since when is a novel more canon than a film? David created the Xenomorph and that's all. How to explain Prometheus then? Well, it's very simple: If you have seen Prometheus, you know that there is no Xenomorph, no more on the fresco than those taken from the chests of Engineers. Just be attentive in the film, and understand it well. Or is it a misunderstanding? The truth is this: The Engineers created the Deacon and David created the Xenomorph. David was inspired by the creation of Engineers (Deacon) to perfect and improve it. And no, the Deacons are not just from the random experience of Prometheus. Again, you have to understand the movie.
For more information if you do not understand me, ask me, I can explain everything ;)
So please, tell me that I'm not alone, because with all that I read on the forums and the media, I really feel like the only one who really understood these films . I think those who do not like have not understood the meaning of the movies. So if you're like me, tell me, I'm lonely right now ... :'( :laugh:
PS: I do not want to offend anyone, I just tell the truth. Many things have been misunderstood in these films, and even after the debates, people still have not understood ... So I just want to restore the truth by explaining to you, I do not want to be nasty ;)
Really ? Oh thank you :D :laugh:
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 06:07:58 PM
Really ? Oh thank you :D :laugh:
Personally i don't agree with you at all sorry. But a large percentage of this board (a small number though) do seem to agree with you, so you're not alone.
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 06, 2017, 06:31:26 PM
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 06:07:58 PM
Really ? Oh thank you :D :laugh:
Personally i don't agree with you at all sorry. But a large percentage of this board (a small number though) do seem to agree with you, so you're not alone.
Really? The hate seems to far outweigh the love for the prequels here and everywhere else on the internet. I mean the polls may tell a different story but the people with a negative opinion really make a lot more noise than anyone with a positive opinion.
You've answered your own question.
To the OP, I like the movies, but it's possible to understand them and still not like them.
No. You are not alone. I think it's a great movie. Most of my thoughts are expressed in my review of the movie. (http://www.hideousplastic.com/?page_id=3002)
A lot of people like this movie - and 'PROMETHEUS', too, for that matter. It's just a tragedy that so many of them have been driven out of these forums by the attitudes of certain people here. There's very little encouragement for fans of Scott's New Canon here. Not your fault. Not the fault of the movie.
'ALIEN Covenant' is a Great movie.
Many people love it. Don't let the naysayers, haters and denialists present on this forum have you believe otherwise.
-Windebieste.
OP this forum isn't a hive mind..
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 05:46:42 PM
Am I the only one who knows the truth about Alien Covenant and Prometheus?
Yes. Out of seven billion people on the planet, you are the one and only person to know the truth.
Thank's for those who understand me ^^'
SM, how can they dislike the film and understand it ? The most heard reproaches are that the characters are stupid, but it's not legitimate beacause it's the final goal. Other thing : David did not create the Xenomorph... But when we understand the film, we understand that there is only one way to be perfect : David create the Xenomorph.
Really, I don't understand the people who dislike these films ^^' they are really good ! But to my mind, they don't understand the films ^^'
I understand a lot of movies that I don't like, Covenant among them. You can't legitimately believe that EVERYONE who doesn't like the movie just didn't "get it."
If you like it then great, I'm sure there are plenty of people here that did so luckily you aren't the only one. I'm glad you got the film you wanted.
"How can people dislike this movie"
Different opinions and things
At least, you respect my opinion ;D
I totally understand both Prometheus and Covenant. Prometheus is the better of the two, and Covenant is a disappointment.
I like Prometheus a lot, and, while I feel a disdain for it, I don't dislike all of Covenant. I just feel it had so much potential and wasted it all.
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 08:25:55 PM
The most heard reproaches are that the characters are stupid, but it's not legitimate beacause it's the final goal.
I get that, since most people want to see their ideal people to root for - Mary Sue and Gary Stu.
But Prometheus/Covenant has a darker vision of humanity that people are not comfortable with.
Your Definitely not alone, I love the film too. Loads of people on here do so you are in good company.
It's just not to everyone's taste is all.
I like some scenes in Covenant, but not really the movie as a whole. I think in that regard i prefered Prometheus a bit more.
QuoteReally, I don't understand the people who dislike these films
There you go then.
QuoteThe most heard reproaches are that the characters are stupid, but it's not legitimate beacause it's the final goal
How is the final goal stupidity? I generally don't agree with the 'stupid character' argument, but people like characters to act in a realistic manner, and can be hard to root for scientists and space explorers (ie. people purported to be intelligent) to do things that they believe are dumb.
QuoteBut when we understand the film, we understand that there is only one way to be perfect : David create the Xenomorph.
I think something is being lost in translation here, mon ami.
Yes, but if it's wanted, I don't understand the problem... It's like Resurrection ! The Newborn is horrible, but it's wanted from the director... I think that we have to respect the view of the director, because there are no mistakes in these films, in contrary to every critics that I can read, at least no more than in the other films.
The audience isn't obliged to respect view of the director.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 06, 2017, 07:31:19 PM
No. You are not alone. I think it's a great movie. Most of my thoughts are expressed in my review of the movie. (http://www.hideousplastic.com/?page_id=3002)
A lot of people like this movie - and 'PROMETHEUS', too, for that matter. It's just a tragedy that so many of them have been driven out of these forums by the attitudes of certain people here. There's very little encouragement for fans of Scott's New Canon here. Not your fault. Not the fault of the movie.
'ALIEN Covenant' is a Great movie.
Many people love it. Don't let the naysayers, haters and denialists present on this forum have you believe otherwise.
-Windebieste.
Nobody gets put out dude. Most of the criticism at this point is well constructed. Nick pushed self destruct.
I'm yet to find this army of Queen loving Marine fans too, cause I wanna join that gang if possible.
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 05:46:42 PM
So please, tell me that I'm not alone, because with all that I read on the forums and the media, I really feel like the only one who really understood these films . I think those who do not like have not understood the meaning of the movies. So if you're like me, tell me, I'm lonely right now ... :'( :laugh:
You're not! ;)
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 05:46:42 PM
Yes, humans are stupid in these movies. So what ? If you understand these films, then you know that all this is wanted, humans are now considered as people without intelligence, and that their destiny is to lose, all the time. Moreover, it is confirmed when we look at the first film, everything becomes very clear. Indeed, when we look at the film from a philosophical point of view, we know from the first film that humans are the creators of their own burden (Xenomorph).
It'll be 3 corner fights - David, Engineers & Corporate. We are in the middle! Helpless!
I love it, personally. It's the best in the series since Aliens. It has some flaws but it largely doesn't matter at the end of the day. I really liked the darker tone, and it's a movie that can get you thinking. I also like the dangerous AI angle Scott is going with.
Ah great ;D
I think the major complaints involve not the ideas raised by the movies but the manner by which they were presented.
I think I prefer Covenant over Prometheus but there's still things in Covenant I just don't like. There are plenty of people who both enjoy and dislike Covenant on here, it's just a little easier to be vocal about things you don't like.
Despite Winde's accusation, people aren't driven off here for liking the film. I have an expectation of people to behave in a mature manner, regardless of if you like the film or not, and if that can't be achieved then you probably don't have the attitude I want on here.
It's funny, I get accused of just banning anyone who say they hate the film and accused of banning anyone who loves the film. I just canne win. :laugh:
It's kind of ironc, but it was the Alien that ruined it all for me. I woulda been in the love camp if he'd managed to stick to his guns with the Engineers and the black goo. I'm not that far off really liking what he did. Just that last third of Covenant really counters a lot of the good work he put down.
I'm the same. My problems with Prometheus were not the lack of Alien. I would have happily continued with the more overt Prometheus themes and explored the Engineers further.
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 05:46:42 PM
Hi everybody !
Fist of all, please, excuse the bad english from a french guy...
Am I the only one who knows the truth about Alien Covenant and Prometheus? Among other things, that these films are really good, if they take a different direction than that taken by the first four films, well it's just the vision of the director, and somewhere of the creator of the saga. I do not understand, what is the problem if David is at the center of the story and not the Xenomorph? It's interesting to have another vision, another point of view, so we do not always see the same thing.
In concrete terms, I am looking for people who:
- Consider Prometheus and Alien Covenant as good films.
- Understand the meaning of movies, innuendo and hidden references.
- Have realized that the humans of these movies are idiots and that it is wanted.
- Have understood that David created the Xenomorph.
Explanations:
Yes, humans are stupid in these movies. So what ? If you understand these films, then you know that all this is wanted, humans are now considered as people without intelligence, and that their destiny is to lose, all the time. Moreover, it is confirmed when we look at the first film, everything becomes very clear. Indeed, when we look at the film from a philosophical point of view, we know from the first film that humans are the creators of their own burden (Xenomorph).
And again yes, David created the Xenomorphs. Why always want to find explanations that prove the opposite? The novel is a novel. Since when is a novel more canon than a film? David created the Xenomorph and that's all. How to explain Prometheus then? Well, it's very simple: If you have seen Prometheus, you know that there is no Xenomorph, no more on the fresco than those taken from the chests of Engineers. Just be attentive in the film, and understand it well. Or is it a misunderstanding? The truth is this: The Engineers created the Deacon and David created the Xenomorph. David was inspired by the creation of Engineers (Deacon) to perfect and improve it. And no, the Deacons are not just from the random experience of Prometheus. Again, you have to understand the movie.
Bienvenue, Predator @ Alien. (S'il vous plaît pardonnez mon mauvais français? Peut-être que cela nous mettra sur un terrain de jeu égal?) Vous n'êtes pas seul à aimer ALIEN COVENANT. J'aime vraiment bien ça. J'ai récemment regardé ALIEN encore et après, j'ai remarqué que le look de ce film a été répercuté dans COVENANT: l'obscurité, les éléments gothiques, l'horreur.
En ce qui concerne vos quatre points:
1. J'aime les deux films pour ce qu'ils sont: revisite un monde que j'aime!
2. J'ai compris la plupart des principaux thèmes et références, mais je continue d'en chercher d'autres. Il y a tellement de choses à voir dans les films.
3. Oui! Je ne crois pas que les mauvais choix faits par les personnages soient là par hasard.
4. Je suis d'accord qu'il est le créateur de 'a' xenomorph, mais je ne suis pas sûr que je 'veux' qu'il soit 'LE' créateur de l'Alien que nous voyons dans 'Alien' (1979). Mais je garde un esprit ouvert.
Merci de partager ces pensées ici. Et bienvenue à bord! :)
Thank you all, thank's to you, I don't feel so alone ;D
Quote from: Highland on Dec 07, 2017, 06:43:39 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 06, 2017, 07:31:19 PM
No. You are not alone. I think it's a great movie. Most of my thoughts are expressed in my review of the movie. (http://www.hideousplastic.com/?page_id=3002)
A lot of people like this movie - and 'PROMETHEUS', too, for that matter. It's just a tragedy that so many of them have been driven out of these forums by the attitudes of certain people here. There's very little encouragement for fans of Scott's New Canon here. Not your fault. Not the fault of the movie.
'ALIEN Covenant' is a Great movie.
Many people love it. Don't let the naysayers, haters and denialists present on this forum have you believe otherwise.
-Windebieste.
Nobody gets put out dude. Most of the criticism at this point is well constructed. Nick pushed self destruct.
I'm yet to find this army of Queen loving Marine fans too, cause I wanna join that gang if possible.
Do you exclude all the nonsensical ramblings about Ridley Scott being George Lucas in your "most of the criticism" set :laugh: ?
Ridley Scott is unfortunately exhibiting a lot of those signs though.
http://youtu.be/adjfTktpIzg?t=13m24s
Just hearing that interview segment read aloud just cements that fact.
Quote
"Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if (screenwriter) Hampton (Fancher) agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, 'Well, isn't it corny?' I said, 'Listen, I'll be the best f**king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?' So, and that, you learn — you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f**king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, 'You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.' Harrison (Ford), he was never — I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, 'Uh, I don't know about that.' I said, 'But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, 'I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a f**king unicorn!' ' Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is 'Duh.' So now it will be revealed (in the sequel), one way or the other."
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 07, 2017, 08:14:38 PM
Ridley Scott is unfortunately exhibiting a lot of those signs though.
https://youtu.be/adjfTktpIzg?t=13m24s
Just hearing that interview segment read aloud just cements that fact.
Quote
"Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if (screenwriter) Hampton (Fancher) agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, 'Well, isn't it corny?' I said, 'Listen, I'll be the best f**king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?' So, and that, you learn — you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f**king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, 'You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.' Harrison (Ford), he was never — I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, 'Uh, I don't know about that.' I said, 'But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, 'I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a f**king unicorn!' ' Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is 'Duh.' So now it will be revealed (in the sequel), one way or the other."
So now that Hicks has officially said "Ridley is senile" comments are not welcome, you just link to videos where people say he's senile rather than saying it out loud yourself. Clever.
I love the prequels & totally love & back Ridley Scott for what he's trying to do expanding the universe, i overall like the direction of the story despite some of the negativity the films have received but the theatrical cuts are only good, keeping them from great films.
This fancut of The first film ' Prometheus Workprint' makes the film properly epic & elevates it massively Alien 3 Assembly Cut style: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzIewBtyckjtVW5aWEtzOU9walE/view
I beg someone with the skills to put together an epic extended cut of Covenant by Not playing Director taking out of the original film but adding intelligently all or most footage of the featurettes(Last supper,Crossing,Advent,Phobos(Like the last one included but Probably best in snippets or left out) & where sensible without messing up the continuity most of the deleted scenes, ultimately plenty of extra film there to Bump it up to 2.5 hours. Anyway this Avp page should help someone capable unlike me: http://www.avpgalaxy.net/alien-movies/alien-covenant/deleted-scenes/?page2
Please! 🙂
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 07, 2017, 08:36:07 PM
So now that Hicks has officially said "Ridley is senile" comments are not welcome, you just link to videos where people say he's senile rather than saying it out loud yourself. Clever.
Senile? No. I don't believe that it is necessary to start making jokes about a persons mental standing. Out of touch? Possibly. Creatively burned out? I think so, definitely. He can certainly be forgiven his pride, but he has a problem with being stubborn, and frankly his words in that interview, and others, smack of arrogance. Not confidence, arrogance.
RLM's read of that interview just drives home the point. Ridley just seems to be at the point where he will do whatever he wants, even if it doesn't really make any sense.
If Hicks has any issue with my posts, i'm sure he'll let me know. :)
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 07, 2017, 07:04:50 PM
Quote from: Highland on Dec 07, 2017, 06:43:39 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 06, 2017, 07:31:19 PM
No. You are not alone. I think it's a great movie. Most of my thoughts are expressed in my review of the movie. (http://www.hideousplastic.com/?page_id=3002)
A lot of people like this movie - and 'PROMETHEUS', too, for that matter. It's just a tragedy that so many of them have been driven out of these forums by the attitudes of certain people here. There's very little encouragement for fans of Scott's New Canon here. Not your fault. Not the fault of the movie.
'ALIEN Covenant' is a Great movie.
Many people love it. Don't let the naysayers, haters and denialists present on this forum have you believe otherwise.
-Windebieste.
Nobody gets put out dude. Most of the criticism at this point is well constructed. Nick pushed self destruct.
I'm yet to find this army of Queen loving Marine fans too, cause I wanna join that gang if possible.
Do you exclude all the nonsensical ramblings about Ridley Scott being George Lucas in your "most of the criticism" set :laugh: ?
I mean amongst the core memembers everybody's pretty sweet. You're always going to get people that go over the top. For a lot of people it's probably a real thing that Ridley is screwing things up because he's the top dog.
It's not like you can just turn around and blank it because it's Paul Anderson.
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Dec 06, 2017, 05:46:42 PM
Hi everybody !
Fist of all, please, excuse the bad english from a frech guy...
Am I the only one who knows the truth about Alien Covenant and Prometheus? Among other things, that these films are really good, if they take a different direction than that taken by the first four films, well it's just the vision of the director, and somewhere of the creator of the saga. I do not understand, what is the problem if David is at the center of the story and not the Xenomorph? It's interesting to have another vision, another point of view, so we do not always see the same thing.
In concrete terms, I am looking for people who:
- Consider Prometheus and Alien Covenant as good films.
- Understand the meaning of movies, innuendo and hidden references.
- Have realized that the humans of these movies are idiots and that it is wanted.
- Have understood that David created the Xenomorph.
Explanations:
Yes, humans are stupid in these movies. So what ? If you understand these films, then you know that all this is wanted, humans are now considered as people without intelligence, and that their destiny is to lose, all the time. Moreover, it is confirmed when we look at the first film, everything becomes very clear. Indeed, when we look at the film from a philosophical point of view, we know from the first film that humans are the creators of their own burden (Xenomorph).
And again yes, David created the Xenomorphs. Why always want to find explanations that prove the opposite? The novel is a novel. Since when is a novel more canon than a film? David created the Xenomorph and that's all. How to explain Prometheus then? Well, it's very simple: If you have seen Prometheus, you know that there is no Xenomorph, no more on the fresco than those taken from the chests of Engineers. Just be attentive in the film, and understand it well. Or is it a misunderstanding? The truth is this: The Engineers created the Deacon and David created the Xenomorph. David was inspired by the creation of Engineers (Deacon) to perfect and improve it. And no, the Deacons are not just from the random experience of Prometheus. Again, you have to understand the movie.
For more information if you do not understand me, ask me, I can explain everything ;)
So please, tell me that I'm not alone, because with all that I read on the forums and the media, I really feel like the only one who really understood these films . I think those who do not like have not understood the meaning of the movies. So if you're like me, tell me, I'm lonely right now ... :'( :laugh:
PS: I do not want to offend anyone, I just tell the truth. Many things have been misunderstood in these films, and even after the debates, people still have not understood ... So I just want to restore the truth by explaining to you, I do not want to be nasty ;)
You are NOT alone.
I love these new films.
I understand Covenant. It's still bad.
I think the prequels are great. It was a left field approach, but that's why I like them. They're also chocked full of interesting references and parallels that make for good digestible brain fodder. Covenant in particular joins lots of the dots that manages to improve Prometheus without simplifying the themes it brought up. It also satisfies on the ALIEN front, being the best and most evenly matched film to the original, whilst being totally different.
The writing's poor, as shown in several reviews of the films, and that may have been one of the reasons for ave. ratings and revenues. The good news is that that's the cheapest problem to solve. The bad news is that it's the most challenging.
Quote from: monkeylove on Dec 07, 2017, 08:11:28 AM
I think the major complaints involve not the ideas raised by the movies but the manner by which they were presented.
Dunno about that. A lot of peoples core disdain for this movie seems to come from David creating the Alien, or the focus that the film puts on David. People that are fine with it seem to be more forgiving of the movie's flaws though.
I enjoyed the film. I'm personally surprised at the negative and angry reaction directed toward David's involvement in the creation of the xenomorph.
In my own opinion, this explanation is far and away more interesting than the xenomorph as a biological weapon of the Engineers.
I actually think that viewing the alien as a tool for another species is quite demeaning to a creature described as the "perfect organism". The fact that the xenomorph is the product of Engineer technology and AI ingenuity is far more interesting and satisfying as it explains the physical power of the organism and also adds to the fascination of Ash and other AIs in the series. AI, like the xenomorph itself, also lacks morality - another connection that makes sense.
I think many fans become convinced of long-held theories, when that doesn't turn out to be the case... they get disappointed. But, if you think of it, the xenomorph as some sort of subservient slave species to a Space Jockey/Engineer is very demeaning. It either turns the alien into a tool or makes them weak.
Quote from: Prof. a on Dec 15, 2017, 05:29:47 PM
I enjoyed the film. I'm personally surprised at the negative and angry reaction directed toward David's involvement in the creation of the xenomorph.
In my own opinion, this explanation is far and away more interesting than the xenomorph as a biological weapon of the Engineers.
I actually think that viewing the alien as a tool for another species is quite demeaning to a creature described as the "perfect organism". The fact that the xenomorph is the product of Engineer technology and AI ingenuity is far more interesting and satisfying as it explains the physical power of the organism and also adds to the fascination of Ash and other AIs in the series. AI, like the xenomorph itself, also lacks morality - another connection that makes sense.
I think many fans become convinced of long-held theories, when that doesn't turn out to be the case... they get disappointed. But, if you think of it, the xenomorph as some sort of subservient slave species to a Space Jockey/Engineer is very demeaning. It either turns the alien into a tool or makes them weak.
Agree 100% I remember in advance of Covenant thinking how interesting it would be for the xenomorph to be put together by AI. So many more possibilities
Quote from: Prof. a on Dec 15, 2017, 05:29:47 PM
I think many fans become convinced of long-held theories, when that doesn't turn out to be the case... they get disappointed. But, if you think of it, the xenomorph as some sort of subservient slave species to a Space Jockey/Engineer is very demeaning. It either turns the alien into a tool or makes them weak.
But even that was vastly preferable to the hive colony. IMHO.
It also gives them motive. Plus Conflict is a backbone of any story. I'm happy to see the Aliens possess an innate pre-programmed reason to attack humans built into them. The whole notion of a mysterious biomechanical dream world origin is as ropy as f**k. How do you even justify that - it still has to be made by someone because there's no way it could occur naturally. Scott has just trimmed off the unnecessary fat - there's no need for it.
Now we know how Aliens were made - and they're made to be a weapon. It's not a new concept either. It's also a very personal motivation on David's part to have them be manufactured killers. So they have a history now. Plenty of it, too. We know the Engineers created them, thousands of years ago using the accelerant as a catalyst. David modified and is the process of perfecting them - he's not quite there at the time of 'ALIEN Covenant, but he's getting there'. Next we'll see how he applies his newly created 'perfect organism' against humanity with 2000 (and embryos) colonists for hosts. That's enticing stuff right there!
Motivation and Conflict. Both are at the core of what Scott is bringing to the screen and it's all there, laid out in front of us. A 'gigeresque' planet? How does such a planet exist, anyway...?
Boil it down and you get the same result - someone made it.
-Windebieste.
My problem isn't them being made - it's that they're a product of humanity in a roundabout way which closes down the universe. It takes this massive ancient feel about them and reduces the backstory of the Alien lore to around 10 years or so prior to Alien.
For me, it was much more interesting when it was possible they were the creation of some ancient race, whose who style was around the biomechanical, for some ancient war with equally strange God-like aliens.
My general rule of thumb is always refer back to the creator of the fictional universe - that being O'Bannon. And in his original story, it's implied not even the Engineers/Space Jockeys created the creatures. The Space Jockey stumbled upon them just like the humans did (they mention there was no evidence there was more than one Space Jockey).
And the Space Jockey tried to extract a specimen from the ancient pyramid and brought one of the ancient urns into the derelict ship. The story implies the alien creation got out and infected the Space Jockey. The human crew discovered that urn in the derelict ship with the lid removed. Whereas the hundreds of urns in the ancient pyramid were sealed. Except for one, which infected Kane (or in O'Bannon's story - Broussard, who is attacked by the facehugger in the ancient pyramid, not the derelict ship).
Oddly, Prometheus borrows quite a bit from O'Bannon's original story that wasn't used in Alien 79, but Scott reinserts those plot elements into the current story in a way that strays quite far from O'Bannon's original vision.
Today's Alien world is no longer O'Bannon's world. Is that paying tribute to the original author's creation, or is it surgical exploitation - dissecting a work of art and reusing the parts to create his own monster.
In a surreal way, Ridley is a lot like David.
It's not a new idea, it was already done in Planet of the Vampires:
(https://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/4646c.jpg)
Ridley Scott has made them so much more interesting by linking them with the alien instead of just two random creatures who stumbled upon each other.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:58:29 AM
It's not a new idea, it was already done in Planet of the Vampires:
That's a somewhat generic claim that can be applied to countless movies. I don't turn my nose up to familiar stories. The same tales are told again and again....to the point it's no longer absorbing the story, it's absorbing how they are presented.
There's that saying, which has been twisted, molded, and wrongly credited as it's been passed along, but the core of it's message remains the same: There are only nine truly original stories since mankind began creating stories. Everything else is just a variant of one of those nine original stories.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:58:29 AM
It's not a new idea, it was already done in Planet of the Vampires:
https://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/4646c.jpg
Ridley Scott has made them so much more interesting by linking them with the alien instead of just two random creatures who stumbled upon each other.
Of course that idea isn't new, it all boils down to something man has wondered about since aeons, it's the mystery of what could possibly exist out there that is the most unnerving. This is probably one of the reasons why mankind have religions to make us feel safe and important. Ridley Scott forced the vast empty and cold universe in to a small corner where now the Alien film is all about making humans as the centre of the universe, where's the fun in that? First he humanized the space jokceys, then he humanized the Alien and in a way he also humanized the AI. Ash was a perfect, very believable portrayal of a dangerous corporate machine in a humanoid form, Bishop was good too. Unlike the theatric but banal touchy feely poetry loving David who wouldn't feel out of place in camp fantasy horror (Fassbender was good though). Ridley should have done a new scifi series about AI completely unrelated to Alien, because i do agree that the AI is very interesting and worth exploring, as many scifi films have proven, but Covenant isn't one of them.
All the things that made the Alien movies unique and stand apart/above other scifi-horror has been lost with the prequels, it might as well be a r-rated Star Trek feature. Don't get me wrong i do like Star Trek but i loved the Alien series for completely different reasons.
I totally disagree with the sentiment that the prequels have closed down the universe. Humanity's (very, very limited) involvement in the xenomorph's creation is the only logical, narrative choice from a traditional storytelling perspective. If you are going to create a new series of films, the humans have to fit into the puzzle in some way - assuming we have a film with human leads and not just aliens. Human characters are supposed to be fleshed out and well developed - not just mere fodder for aliens. So, in order to tell the story of the alien/space jockey, there has to be some connection to humanity. Jon Spaights made his pitch just like that - look at the Prometheus special features.
Reecebomb writes: Ridley Scott forced the vast empty and cold universe in to a small corner where now the Alien film is all about making humans as the centre of the universe...
But, your own sentence explains why humans MUST be involved in some way...the universe is VAST and EMPTY. There is no documented, intelligent life forms on other planets. As far as we know, humanity is unique in some way. We haven't been contacted by or discovered any other species like us.
I'd argue that these prequels would be more like Star Trek if there were multiple civilizations throughout the universe (you know, like Star Trek). Instead, Scott does depict a "vast, empty, and cold" universe - he depicts it not just from his camera work (multiple shots are chosen in both Prometheus and Covenant to emphasize this) but in the narrative.
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 18, 2017, 02:59:13 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:58:29 AM
It's not a new idea, it was already done in Planet of the Vampires:
https://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/4646c.jpg
Ridley Scott has made them so much more interesting by linking them with the alien instead of just two random creatures who stumbled upon each other.
Of course that idea isn't new, it all boils down to something man has wondered about since aeons, it's the mystery of what could possibly exist out there that is the most unnerving. This is probably one of the reasons why mankind have religions to make us feel safe and important. Ridley Scott forced the vast empty and cold universe in to a small corner where now the Alien film is all about making humans as the centre of the universe, where's the fun in that? First he humanized the space jokceys, then he humanized the Alien and in a way he also humanized the AI. Ash was a perfect, very believable portrayal of a dangerous corporate machine in a humanoid form, Bishop was good too. Unlike the theatric but banal touchy feely poetry loving David who wouldn't feel out of place in camp fantasy horror (Fassbender was good though). Ridley should have done a new scifi series about AI completely unrelated to Alien, because i do agree that the AI is very interesting and worth exploring, as many scifi films have proven, but Covenant isn't one of them.
All the things that made the Alien movies unique and stand apart/above other scifi-horror has been lost with the prequels, it might as well be a r-rated Star Trek feature. Don't get me wrong i do like Star Trek but i loved the Alien series for completely different reasons.
No, that's just your interpretation of it. Everything in Alien is related to humans, from the physiology of the Alien, its need for a humanoid host, to the Company's involvement and a robot looking like a human. It's about humans and a humanoid monster, the whole "muh ancient mysterious Lovecraftian evil cold space" thing is a fukken meme.
Quote from: Prof. a on Dec 18, 2017, 05:09:25 PM
I totally disagree with the sentiment that the prequels have closed down the universe. Humanity's (very, very limited) involvement in the xenomorph's creation is the only logical, narrative choice from a traditional storytelling perspective. If you are going to create a new series of films, the humans have to fit into the puzzle in some way - assuming we have a film with human leads and not just aliens. Human characters are supposed to be fleshed out and well developed - not just mere fodder for aliens. So, in order to tell the story of the alien/space jockey, there has to be some connection to humanity. Jon Spaights made his pitch just like that - look at the Prometheus special features.
Reecebomb writes: Ridley Scott forced the vast empty and cold universe in to a small corner where now the Alien film is all about making humans as the centre of the universe...
But, your own sentence explains why humans MUST be involved in some way...the universe is VAST and EMPTY. There is no documented, intelligent life forms on other planets. As far as we know, humanity is unique in some way. We haven't been contacted by or discovered any other species like us.
I'd argue that these prequels would be more like Star Trek if there were multiple civilizations throughout the universe (you know, like Star Trek). Instead, Scott does depict a "vast, empty, and cold" universe - he depicts it not just from his camera work (multiple shots are chosen in both Prometheus and Covenant to emphasize this) but in the narrative.
I think you don't really understand what i meant, also don't blame you as my writing and explanation skills leave a lot to be desired.
It goes without saying that the characters need to be well developed/fleshed out - never suggested otherwise. The prequels made humans as a species as the center of the universe, space jockey went from this enigmatic unknown but obviosly intelligent lifeform to a dumb but intimidating albino space wrestler to basically humans with pale skin and no hair. Unlike Ash, David having feelings and behaving lika a (sociopath) human and all basically makes him a human too, in the end the Alien in a way was created by humans. The whole AI being responsible for the birth of xenomorph could have perhaps worked if it weren't so shoddily written and executed, it's objectively a mess. This doesn't mean you can't like the film, i fancy some flawed films myself.
The original Alien films give the impression that the space travel is still in early stages and we are only beginning to understand the ways of space, that is seemingly bleak and empty and at the same time claustrophobic and endless in scope. We haven't contacted any lifeforms beyond earth but if we do, it may not be that pleasant. In Alien we made contact and we were instantly and violently put in our place. There maybe something out there that is worse than we could imagine, we are insignificant and that what scares us.
The prequels in comparison put humans on a pedestal and gives really daft explanations how life is made (the black goo).
Star Trek comparison was more on how the Prequels feel more like fantasy films that have no basis in reality, Alien is a documentary next to the prequels. Also Covenant engineer world looked like a Star Trek set to me. In the original Alien series people are only able to reach nothing but cold rocks that we still want to colonize, in the prequels we can travel to picturesque worlds with not much difficulty, not that scary imo.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 18, 2017, 05:30:10 PM
No, that's just your interpretation of it. Everything in Alien is related to humans, from the physiology of the Alien, its need for a humanoid host, to the Company's involvement and a robot looking like a human. It's about humans and a humanoid monster, the whole "muh ancient mysterious Lovecraftian evil cold space" thing is a fukken meme.
I know i'm not alone on this. You're downplaying something that has captivated us for ages and will continue to do so. No magical black liquid is going to surpass the fear of the unknown.
I'm not sure how humanity is put on a pedestal - not only are we at the mercy of the Alien, we're also at the mercy of the pathogen and our own creations in the form of David.
Quote from: SM on Dec 18, 2017, 07:35:39 PM
I'm not sure how humanity is put on a pedestal - not only are we at the mercy of the Alien, we're also at the mercy of the pathogen and our own creations in the form of David.
At the end of the Covenant the situation of the colonists is pretty dire I agree, but I just didn' buy it how the story got to that point. The aliens were dumb us f**k, both were easily disposed of. David is like a Mary Sue of AI's, his powers are more magical than just artificial intelligence and yes David is our creation, congrats to us! David and Shaw cruising around with the Space Jockey ship like it was nothing again devalues the alien technology, not to mention how easily the engineers are perished, the engineer in Prometheus wasn't the smartest either. Humanity can feel pretty dominant, this is all very strange how stupid many of the human characters act in the film, you'd think they wouldn't survive the trip to Thailand. The pathogen, I'm not buying it, it's just a plot device that hasn't been thought all the way through.
I like these new movies about as much as I like the skull.
The Skull with Peter Cushing? Yes, that's a good film too.
Quote from: SM on Dec 18, 2017, 07:35:39 PM
I'm not sure how humanity is put on a pedestal - not only are we at the mercy of the Alien, we're also at the mercy of the pathogen and our own creations in the form of David.
Just in the sense that everything in the universe seems to revolve around us in one way or another. The Alien isn't some nightmare from deep space we stumbled upon, it's something our neighbour threw together in his back yard last week. The Jockey is literally a man in a suit.
It's just humans all the way down.
Then best you just watch Alien 1-4 where the origin isn't explained, because how is a narrative going to work if you don't include humans? How would the opening scene of Prometheus work if it was a 10 foot skeleton or an elephant creature? It would be laughably ridiculous.
And how else is Ridley Scott supposed to show the evolution of the xenomorph? That's the entire basis of these prequels.
It's an original idea, having an android create the beast. It's one step above Island of Dr Moreau.
It appears all so called fans want is generic b-grade 1950s era monsters. Lovecraftian my foot. It's just the same old monster in space routine that's been done countless times.
Quote from: tleilaxu
Everything in Alien is related to humans, from the physiology of the Alien......
Conjuring up a truly unique alien creature would have no audience draw. I agree any fictional beings, most of the time always resemble some familiar Earth bound form because they know an unrecognizeable being gives the audience nothing to relate to.
If an Alien fan were to discipline him/herself to a purely objective view, the xenomorph is really not as unique as some fans carry on. Sure its shell and form is intriguing and even mysterious, but the xeno maintains similar Earth-bound physical traits - humanoid, bipedal, two arms, two legs, human torso, head, and so on. It's so familiar, a real human in a suit was able to portray the xeno. As for its other stages - Chestburter, Facehugger, Egg - all mimicking physical traits of other Earth bound creatures..
Scientists have theorized that if there was evolved life on other worlds, they would look absolutely nothing like human, or any creature of Earth for that matter.
One scientist I watched on a documentary explained that there is only a 3% difference in DNA between humans and squirrels due to us sharing Earth bound genetics. 97% of our DNA is identical to a squirrel, but compare how much we look different from a squirrel. Only a 3% variance resulted in an extreme difference physically.
Now imagine an evolved creature on another world that has, not 90%, not 50%, not even 5%, but zero percent of Earth bound DNA. 100% of its DNA is unique to Earth. I can't even begin to speculate its visual form.
Well the premise of Prometheus is that life did not evolve on Earth, a humanoid race seeded the universe with their dna so of course they look similar to us as we are genetically related to them.
But even if life could evolve elsewhere separately, it's not far fetched to assume they could evolve on a similar path to Earth's lifeforms.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:32:18 PM
Then best you just watch Alien 1-4 where the origin isn't explained, because how is a narrative going to work if you don't include humans? How would the opening scene of Prometheus work if it was a 10 foot skeleton or an elephant creature? It would be laughably ridiculous.
You could easily have the same story in Prometheus and not have the Engineers be men in suits. David could be developing the Alien rather than creating it.
The idea that for humans to be involved must mean they need to be kissing cousins with every species in space is moronic.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:32:18 PM
Then best you just watch Alien 1-4 where the origin isn't explained, because how is a narrative going to work if you don't include humans? How would the opening scene of Prometheus work if it was a 10 foot skeleton or an elephant creature? It would be laughably ridiculous.
You're being purposely obtuse. The PREMISE of Prometheus is faulty from the outset. Humans and the creature from the derelict should not be related in any manner. It is very clear from everything that existed at the time Alien was made, there was no such intent with the movie to make that claim. That was an Alien ship with an alien creature from another part of the galaxy and likely from a distant time in the past. The entire milestone of Alien is that it gave us a credible Alien presence. Not just Giger's beast, but the skeleton. So Prometheus sets out to basically undo that achievement from "go."
Let me ask how exactly, for one, is an alien creature that's actually alien inherently laughable? You don't know that. You have no way of knowing that. The truth is we've had decades of very alien creatures that were not laughable.
Are we going to make the Predators some half-human splinter species from 100,000 years ago too?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 18, 2017, 11:06:15 PM
You could easily have the same story in Prometheus and not have the Engineers be men in suits. David could be developing the Alien rather than creating it.
The idea that for humans to be involved must mean they need to be kissing cousins with every species in space is moronic.
Yeah. Seriously.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 18, 2017, 11:23:15 PM
You're being purposely obtuse.
"Purposely obtuse." That almost feels like an oxymoron. :laugh:
Sorry for the pointless interruption. Carry on.
Quote from: Gash on Dec 18, 2017, 08:41:05 PM
The Skull with Peter Cushing? Yes, that's a good film too.
He's referring to THE Skull. (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=56367.0)
One of the few debates on these forums regarding the movies that's actually in possession of any merit. lol.
-Windebieste.
QuoteHe's referring to THE Skull.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flurkmore.so%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F1%2F15%2FOrly-yarly-nowai-anim.png%2F180px-Orly-yarly-nowai-anim.png&hash=6aa4035f1712523ff9fd34b4551875478c388ad8)
Quote from: SiL on Dec 18, 2017, 11:06:15 PM
The idea that for humans to be involved must mean they need to be kissing cousins with every species in space is moronic.
It isn't moronic, it's called panspermia and is a valid scientific idea.
It's the premise that life evolved at some time/place, and spread throughout the universe via various means.
It isn't a moronic idea at all, it's actually a very interesting idea and has never been explored in any film.
But I suppose you just want some generic Star Trek plot where human astronauts stumble upon alien life.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 18, 2017, 11:23:15 PM
You're being purposely obtuse. The PREMISE of Prometheus is faulty from the outset. Humans and the creature from the derelict should not be related in any manner. It is very clear from everything that existed at the time Alien was made, there was no such intent with the movie to make that claim. That was an Alien ship with an alien creature from another part of the galaxy and likely from a distant time in the past. The entire milestone of Alien is that it gave us a credible Alien presence. Not just Giger's beast, but the skeleton. So Prometheus sets out to basically undo that achievement from "go."
You're right it wasn't the original intention, but the basic idea isn't new, it was Giger's designs and the execution that made it a milestone.
QuoteLet me ask how exactly, for one, is an alien creature that's actually alien inherently laughable? You don't know that. You have no way of knowing that. The truth is we've had decades of very alien creatures that were not laughable.
And how do you define 'alien'? Something that doesn't look 'human'? The Engineers are clearly not human and are 'alien'.
You have no idea what an actual alien would look like. It might look freaky and Giger-esque or it might resemble us.
What I'm saying is a 10 foot tall elephant thing walking around (like how it was depicted in the comics) would be laughable.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aliens/images/0/0a/Space_Jockey.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20100827165449)
^Cool design bro.
If that's the best they could come up with, no wonder Ridley Scott was like "f**k that" and made them look like mythological beings straight out of a classic painting.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aliens/images/0/0a/Space_Jockey.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/180?cb=20100827165449)
Spoiler
BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!1!!!
-Windebieste.
Hey, i drew that.
:-[
I'm sure some people love it!
I'm just not one of them.
-Windebieste.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2F294292_1324365655_large_zpspv1sp6da.jpg&hash=e518722dc2398205b9b57f69d37599d93fcef61e)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fpinsdaddy-cetanu-versus-space-jockey-by-inenarrable-on-deviantart_zpsyjdfrl6n.jpg&hash=64f3a3ebfcc22619120dfd14298cd5b03eff7040)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fconceptual-design-space-jockey-alive_zpsvneukcsv.jpg&hash=8b4d66a7456c7c327e71d93c0ec50dbbaa441557)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fspace_jockey_by_apneicmonkey-d3d0edd_zpso2kcdr5s.jpg&hash=4ae244257518a8f7a834e8d29ced77a66dc7d082)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fspace_jockey_by_inenarrable-d4iy4yn_zps1ejvkzbs.jpg&hash=67356af867d753fa494eef204d7b4996176efa6c)
Who said it should be like the comics? They should be towering, sophisticated, dangerous, and Alien. It should have been like that moment in Jurassic Park when the T'rex is revealed. ground breaking, terrifying, real.
These things aren't us. They are Alien in every sense, and aside of maybe a few passing physical similarities, their intentions are alien to us. That's f**king terrifying. We could be food, we could be play things, we could be curiosities to them.
I'm not saying any one of these would be it. I'm saying there were so many ways they could have taken it that would have been far more compelling and interesting and different. They took one of the most stock, dull Von Daniken derivative approaches to the greater Alien mythos, and they cheapened a number of it's unique qualities in the process.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:32:18 PM
Then best you just watch Alien 1-4 where the origin isn't explained, because how is a narrative going to work if you don't include humans? How would the opening scene of Prometheus work if it was a 10 foot skeleton or an elephant creature? It would be laughably ridiculous.
Was it ridiculous in Alien? No, it certainly wasn't.
QuoteAnd how else is Ridley Scott supposed to show the evolution of the xenomorph? That's the entire basis of these prequels.
That's not what the prequels are about. It might be where the last one took it in an attempt to "course-correct" but that is not what these things were about.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 03:51:15 AM
It isn't moronic, it's called panspermia and is a valid scientific idea.
It's the premise that life evolved at some time/place, and spread throughout the universe via various means.
It isn't a moronic idea at all, it's actually a very interesting idea and has never been explored in any film.
But I suppose you just want some generic Star Trek plot where human astronauts stumble upon alien life.
I have to wonder if you've watched Star Trek. ??? Because panspermia has been done in the past. In Star Trek. And Stargate. And I'm sure countless others. It's not original. It was an attempt to humanise the Space Jockeys so they were more "relatable" to the audience or something to that effect.
That's actually really funny. Yes, indeed, in Star Trek lore, most of the major alpha and beta quadrant species are apparently related due to an ancient alien species being very lonely and deciding to seed a bunch of worlds. See TNG "The Chase." It's dumb. So very very dumb. So much so that none of the following series so much as play lip service to the idea.
Incidentally that aspect has nothing to do with the theory/hypothesis of Panspermia. Panspermia is the idea that genetic material could be transplanted from one place in the cosmos to another. The theory is talking more about meteors and meteor impacts. Unintentional transfer. It was a concern that one of the Apollo missions might bring something back with them. See, that part is totally plausible.
One idea was that an impact on Mars, nearly a billion years back, ejected basic organic material into space and it ended up on Earth, which is what kick started the big boom here. Though, most scientists don't think that idea really holds up and it's more likely that the natural conditions on Earth simply brought about the basic building blocks that lead to organic life to rise up and thrive.
What isn't plausible is pre-destined evolution, or having a species basically seed life a billion years ago, with any kind of nuanced intention, said species still being alive with relatively little change in their appearance. Which is what Prometheus and Covenant both want us to believe happened. Not only is that dumb, but it's wholly unnecessary.
What is the deal with the 'aliens' in TOS who all appear to be completely human (aside from budget restraints)? Are they all the result of this 'seeding'?
From what I remember that was The Chase's justification for it, yeah. I'll see if I can dig up a clip.
Well I said it hasn't been explored in any film, I'm sure you could dig up a few old episodes of some cheesy tv show to prove your point. :P
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 19, 2017, 10:08:22 AM
From what I remember that was The Chase's justification for it, yeah. I'll see if I can dig up a clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j69iVReEU
So Odo and his mates made humanoids?
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 10:33:49 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 19, 2017, 10:08:22 AM
From what I remember that was The Chase's justification for it, yeah. I'll see if I can dig up a clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j69iVReEU
So Odo and his mates made humanoids?
:laugh: Lol. I don't believe they're intended to be the Changlings.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Well I said it hasn't been explored in any film, I'm sure you could dig up a few old episodes of some cheesy tv show to prove your point. :P
You were the one who brought up Star Trek. :P Stargate, not a particularly old or cheesy TV show, also had a whole series wide story around the idea that another species from another galaxy was responsible for the evolution of humans throughout this and other galaxies. Just proving that the concept isn't particularly original to the genre. ;)
Incidentally, Gene Roddenberry did write into his original 1964 Star Trek pitch something of a justification for the aliens to all look very similar.
1. We would only be visiting "Class M" worlds. Which, in the original pitch, meant they were very very Earth-like.
2. He came up with some pseudo science called Parallel Evolution/Parallel development. That most humanoid societies developed along the same lines.
This was his two-pronged attempt to justify using and reusing props from currently produced films. He remarked basically something to the effect "If we just finished shooting an Egyptian or a western movie, we can make clever reuse of set design and wardrobe." Hence why you have episodes where the crew beam down to a planet run by the 1930s Chicago mobs, or why you end up with episodes like "Who Mourns for Adonais" where they meet Apollo. That one, more than many of Trek's episodes really does tie into some of the same ideas of Prometheus and Alien : Covenant. With it's ties to our mythology, but also with the attitude of Apollo himself.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Well I said it hasn't been explored in any film, I'm sure you could dig up a few old episodes of some cheesy tv show to prove your point. :P
A quick Google shows that Mission to Mars and Laserhawk featured the concept. They're
films. But I'm sure you'll just wave that away.
QuoteLol. I don't believe they're intended to be the Changlings.
Really? She looks just like them.
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 10:51:36 AM
QuoteLol. I don't believe they're intended to be the Changlings.
Really? She looks just like them.
Same actress as the female changeling, too. Very similar make up job.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ancient_humanoid
They were played by the same actress, but no, I don't think she's supposed to be a Changling during this episode. It's not mentioned in any of the interactions with the Dominion.
I would have thought that if the Founders were spreading their own dna around the galaxy, they wouldn't be making everyone else "solids" given their hatred for us. It's probably just one of those coincidences with the make-up.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 19, 2017, 10:45:59 AM
A quick Google shows that Mission to Mars and Laserhawk featured the concept. They're films. But I'm sure you'll just wave that away.
I am sure many films may have
featured the concept, but was it actually
explored? In any depth at all? I'm not trying to wave it away but that was what I originally said.
(Btw I just watched the relevant scenes in both films. They are literally brief scenes or a few lines that have nothing to do with the plot of the movie)
What do you class as explored? Do you think the prequels explore it by your own definition?
Well I don't know. Compared to Mission of Mars which is the best example, which has a very brief scene at the end of the film, which shows a sole alien ship carrying micro-organisms to Earth after Mars is hit by a meteorite eons ago to Prometheus where from the very opening scene it is explored and is a major theme of the film.
You can watch the scene for yourself, that is all there is to it (it starts about the 4 min mark):
Prometheus explores it in about as much depth as any other movie. It pays it lip service, then goes out of its way to avoid addressing the issue to any satisfying conclusion at the end.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:32:18 PM
Then best you just watch Alien 1-4 where the origin isn't explained, because how is a narrative going to work if you don't include humans? How would the opening scene of Prometheus work if it was a 10 foot skeleton or an elephant creature? It would be laughably ridiculous.
And how else is Ridley Scott supposed to show the evolution of the xenomorph? That's the entire basis of these prequels.
It's an original idea, having an android create the beast. It's one step above Island of Dr Moreau.
It appears all so called fans want is generic b-grade 1950s era monsters. Lovecraftian my foot. It's just the same old monster in space routine that's been done countless times.
Whats different from a 10 foot elephant skeleton that wakes up and rips your head off without saying a word. To a 8 foot white Albino man that wakes up without saying a word and rips your head off?
If anything the elephant man makes more sense in a film about Aliens. I doubt anybody in the audience would question a weird monster going bezerk, but they sure had plenty of puzzled looks ( and youtube videos) about a humanoid just losing his shit for reasons unknown.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviezone.com%2Fspacejockey.png&hash=4c829226e6094ec003dd9ca8042b142610431fb2)
Quote from: Highland on Dec 19, 2017, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 10:32:18 PM
Then best you just watch Alien 1-4 where the origin isn't explained, because how is a narrative going to work if you don't include humans? How would the opening scene of Prometheus work if it was a 10 foot skeleton or an elephant creature? It would be laughably ridiculous.
And how else is Ridley Scott supposed to show the evolution of the xenomorph? That's the entire basis of these prequels.
It's an original idea, having an android create the beast. It's one step above Island of Dr Moreau.
It appears all so called fans want is generic b-grade 1950s era monsters. Lovecraftian my foot. It's just the same old monster in space routine that's been done countless times.
Whats different from a 10 foot elephant skeleton that wakes up and rips your head off without saying a word. To a 8 foot white Albino man that wakes up without saying a word and rips your head off?
If anything the elephant man makes more sense in a film about Aliens. I doubt anybody in the audience would question a weird monster going bezerk, but they sure had plenty of puzzled looks ( and youtube videos) about a humanoid just losing his shit for reasons unknown.
Actually the albino man is much more significant because of the connotations with transhumanism (in a sort of general sense) and ancient human Gods. I.e. we feel like we're standing before an Übermensch (let's ignore the nazi connotations here).
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Well I said it hasn't been explored in any film, I'm sure you could dig up a few old episodes of some cheesy tv show to prove your point. :P
Just click on the links ;)
1. Ancient astronauts in popular culture. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts_in_popular_culture)
2. The Secret History of Ancient Astronauts. (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/secret-history-of-ancient-astronauts.html)
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 19, 2017, 06:41:12 PM
Actually the albino man is much more significant because of the connotations with transhumanism (in a sort of general sense) and ancient human Gods. I.e. we feel like we're standing before an Übermensch (let's ignore the nazi connotations here).
Well, it also resonates visual with ancient mythology and such. There's a medium/wide shot of Weyland and his team standing before the Engineer that gives the impression of ancient hieroglyphics and paintings and has hefty religious intent behind it. That's all well and good, but it very clearly has nothing to do with the intentions of the original Alien or what that creature in the chair represented.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Dec 19, 2017, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Well I said it hasn't been explored in any film, I'm sure you could dig up a few old episodes of some cheesy tv show to prove your point. :P
Just click on the links ;)
1. Ancient astronauts in popular culture. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts_in_popular_culture)
2. The Secret History of Ancient Astronauts. (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/secret-history-of-ancient-astronauts.html)
That's ancient astronaut theory, yes that's been explored in many films. AVP being one notable example. However, I was talking about the idea that aliens seeded Earth to create life.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 19, 2017, 12:43:48 PM
Prometheus explores it in about as much depth as any other movie. It pays it lip service, then goes out of its way to avoid addressing the issue to any satisfying conclusion at the end.
Are you seriously telling me that Prometheus explores those ideas as much as Mission to Mars does? Did you watch the clip I posted? The actual 'exploring' only goes for about a minute and a half then is forgotten about for the rest of the movie.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 09:10:22 PM
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Dec 19, 2017, 06:49:33 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 10:30:57 AM
Well I said it hasn't been explored in any film, I'm sure you could dig up a few old episodes of some cheesy tv show to prove your point. :P
Just click on the links ;)
1. Ancient astronauts in popular culture. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts_in_popular_culture)
2. The Secret History of Ancient Astronauts. (http://www.jasoncolavito.com/secret-history-of-ancient-astronauts.html)
That's ancient astronaut theory, yes that's been explored in many films. AVP being one notable example. However, I was talking about the idea that aliens seeded Earth to create life.
The "alien seeding" theme still belongs to the Ancient Aliens mythos (or at least based on the way they handled this concept in Prometheus), since as I understand it, the true Panspermia's hypothesis is more about the space journey through natural means of transportation (like asteroids or comets) of the "building blocks of life", or even authentic organisms such as bacteria. You can make a case of an artificial panspermia with a hypothetical unintended contamination through a spacecraft carrying microorganisms. But as I said, the real Panspermia has nothing to do with the idea of a space man seeding life on Earth, who returns to the planet in order to have contact with his human creations billion years later. The last scenario seems more like an hybrid concept of both ideas.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alien-covenant.com%2Faliencovenant_uploads%2FPROMETHEUS_WETA_VFX_03.jpg&hash=9716b64765ede845b9f13730a6f61b0cd1881fc6)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-C0wGd1y7yaE%2FUzlTL1Z6sjI%2FAAAAAAAAKvc%2FBKF2fSMPpKc%2Fs3200%2Fcaveartinvitation.jpg&hash=cfc29b2a0b9e50155b540fd41751b8fd12a2d51e)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 09:10:22 PM
Are you seriously telling me that Prometheus explores those ideas as much as Mission to Mars does? Did you watch the clip I posted? The actual 'exploring' only goes for about a minute and a half then is forgotten about for the rest of the movie.
Outside of the confirmation that Engineers created us, how do you feel that Prometheus explores it?
Is that a serious question or are you taking the mickey? :)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 19, 2017, 08:05:33 AM
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u446/openmaw/conceptual-design-space-jockey-alive_zpsvneukcsv.jpg
Who said it should be like the comics? They should be towering, sophisticated, dangerous, and Alien. It should have been like that moment in Jurassic Park when the T'rex is revealed. ground breaking, terrifying, real.
These things aren't us. They are Alien in every sense, and aside of maybe a few passing physical similarities, their intentions are alien to us. That's f**king terrifying. We could be food, we could be play things, we could be curiosities to them.
I'm not saying any one of these would be it. I'm saying there were so many ways they could have taken it that would have been far more compelling and interesting and different. They took one of the most stock, dull Von Daniken derivative approaches to the greater Alien mythos, and they cheapened a number of it's unique qualities in the process.
Well, I did that one back in 2010, but I'm still all in favour of the Engineers.
Does anyone else read this thread with Micheal Jackson's "you are not alone" playing in their head.
I didn't before you mentioned it....
Quote from: Highland on Dec 20, 2017, 04:55:06 AM
Does anyone else read this thread with Micheal Jackson's "you are not alone" playing in their head.
Did you check the first post? ;)
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 20, 2017, 06:40:19 AM
Quote from: Highland on Dec 20, 2017, 04:55:06 AM
Does anyone else read this thread with Micheal Jackson's "you are not alone" playing in their head.
Did you check the first post? ;)
I'm not alone!
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Dec 19, 2017, 10:04:34 PM
The "alien seeding" theme still belongs to the Ancient Aliens mythos (or at least based on the way they handled this concept in Prometheus), since as I understand it, the true Panspermia's hypothesis is more about the space journey through natural means of transportation (like asteroids or comets) of the "building blocks of life", or even authentic organisms such as bacteria. You can make a case of an artificial panspermia with a hypothetical unintended contamination through a spacecraft carrying microorganisms. But as I said, the real Panspermia has nothing to do with the idea of a space man seeding life on Earth, who returns to the planet in order to have contact with his human creations billion years later. The last scenario seems more like an hybrid concept of both ideas.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alien-covenant.com%2Faliencovenant_uploads%2FPROMETHEUS_WETA_VFX_03.jpg&hash=9716b64765ede845b9f13730a6f61b0cd1881fc6)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-C0wGd1y7yaE%2FUzlTL1Z6sjI%2FAAAAAAAAKvc%2FBKF2fSMPpKc%2Fs3200%2Fcaveartinvitation.jpg&hash=cfc29b2a0b9e50155b540fd41751b8fd12a2d51e)
No there's such a thing as 'directed panspermia'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia
QuoteAre you seriously telling me that Prometheus explores those ideas as much as Mission to Mars does?
Prometheus brings it up, sidelines it, answers it 40 minutes in, then shifts the question to 'why did they want to kill us?' for the remaining 80 minutes. There's nothing profound or noteworthy in how it handled the topic.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 20, 2017, 08:19:05 PM
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Dec 19, 2017, 10:04:34 PM
The "alien seeding" theme still belongs to the Ancient Aliens mythos (or at least based on the way they handled this concept in Prometheus), since as I understand it, the true Panspermia's hypothesis is more about the space journey through natural means of transportation (like asteroids or comets) of the "building blocks of life", or even authentic organisms such as bacteria. You can make a case of an artificial panspermia with a hypothetical unintended contamination through a spacecraft carrying microorganisms. But as I said, the real Panspermia has nothing to do with the idea of a space man seeding life on Earth, who returns to the planet in order to have contact with his human creations billion years later. The last scenario seems more like an hybrid concept of both ideas.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alien-covenant.com%2Faliencovenant_uploads%2FPROMETHEUS_WETA_VFX_03.jpg&hash=9716b64765ede845b9f13730a6f61b0cd1881fc6)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-C0wGd1y7yaE%2FUzlTL1Z6sjI%2FAAAAAAAAKvc%2FBKF2fSMPpKc%2Fs3200%2Fcaveartinvitation.jpg&hash=cfc29b2a0b9e50155b540fd41751b8fd12a2d51e)
No there's such a thing as 'directed panspermia'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia
Fair enough. And while the Engineer is the "God of the gaps" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) from the Alien universe and the topic has similarities with Intelligent design creationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design), that definitely put to rest my last reply. Good find.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 20, 2017, 09:26:21 PM
QuoteAre you seriously telling me that Prometheus explores those ideas as much as Mission to Mars does?
Prometheus brings it up, sidelines it, answers it 40 minutes in, then shifts the question to 'why did they want to kill us?' for the remaining 80 minutes. There's nothing profound or noteworthy in how it handled the topic.
Thanks for your answer, but that wasn't my question. I wasn't asking whether Prometheus explores the idea satisfactorily, I was asking if it explored it more than Mission to Mars does.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Dec 20, 2017, 09:55:40 PM
Fair enough. And while the Engineer is the "God of the gaps" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) from the Alien universe and the topic has similarities with Intelligent design creationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design), that definitely put to rest my last reply. Good find.
???
Not substantially, no.
substantially
səbˈstanʃ(ə)li/Submit
adverb
1.
to a great or significant extent.
Not to a great or significant extent aka substantially, but otherwise yes it does. Thanks for answering my question SiL. :)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 19, 2017, 11:28:59 PM
Is that a serious question or are you taking the mickey? :)
I'm being serious. I don't feel like Prometheus really does much with the topic outside of what both it and Mission to Mars do regarding the topic - they confirm that someone else seeded human life. Prometheus doesn't particularly get into the reason why.
It's purposely vague about that point, too. To a fault.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 21, 2017, 09:25:33 AM
It's purposely vague about that point, too. To a fault.
and why would it point them to the installation. I guess unless the Engineers were saying - Once you can figure out how to get here - its time for you to die.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 21, 2017, 09:08:57 AM
I'm being serious. I don't feel like Prometheus really does much with the topic outside of what both it and Mission to Mars do regarding the topic - they confirm that someone else seeded human life. Prometheus doesn't particularly get into the reason why.
Prometheus is not about giving you the answers, it's about asking questions. Mission to Mars gave you a very brief answer about the
what but spent no time contemplating the
why.
Asking questions for the sake of it is boring and pointless.
And when I say it covers the topic more than Mission to Mars I mean it asks maybe one or two more questions; but in Prometheus that literally means two characters sit down, ask the question out loud, then go do something else.
It's not at all an in depth exploitation of the questions. It's fluff.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 22, 2017, 12:32:39 AMMission to Mars gave you a very brief answer about the what but spent no time contemplating the why.
Prometheus expected us to just accept the
what and then spent all of its run time not exploring the
why.
If they did explain it, I doubt anybody would be satisfied with the explanation. Less is more sometimes.
I don't need a 2 hour film to give me long and cheesy monologues.
What we got is an intriguing mystery, which is why people are still debating its merits 5 years on.
Mission to Mars does not intrigue in the slightest. The aliens are not interesting. The fact they created life on Earth seems put there as an afterthought, it has no bearing on the story. It's a dull and pedestrian way of presenting the idea.
Lol
Lol
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 23, 2017, 04:00:07 AM
If they did explain it, I doubt anybody would be satisfied with the explanation. Less is more sometimes.
I don't need a 2 hour film to give me long and cheesy monologues.
Didn't need to be a "long" or "cheesy monologue." Information can be delivered a variety of fashions.
QuoteWhat we got is an intriguing mystery, which is why people are still debating its merits 5 years on.
I can't say I'd describe as intriguing. More deliberately vague to generate discussion. I still don't think Scott or Lindelof even had a direction of where they were going or what they were going to do after.
There isn't even much of a discussion is there, in Alien:Covenant forum most of the topics are about different reasons why the film doesn't make sense or how the film could have been better.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 19, 2017, 08:05:33 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2F294292_1324365655_large_zpspv1sp6da.jpg&hash=e518722dc2398205b9b57f69d37599d93fcef61e)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fpinsdaddy-cetanu-versus-space-jockey-by-inenarrable-on-deviantart_zpsyjdfrl6n.jpg&hash=64f3a3ebfcc22619120dfd14298cd5b03eff7040)
http://i1068.photobucket.com/albums/u446/openmaw/conceptual-design-space-jockey-alive_zpsvneukcsv.jpg
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fspace_jockey_by_apneicmonkey-d3d0edd_zpso2kcdr5s.jpg&hash=4ae244257518a8f7a834e8d29ced77a66dc7d082)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1068.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu446%2Fopenmaw%2Fspace_jockey_by_inenarrable-d4iy4yn_zps1ejvkzbs.jpg&hash=67356af867d753fa494eef204d7b4996176efa6c)
Who said it should be like the comics? They should be towering, sophisticated, dangerous, and Alien. It should have been like that moment in Jurassic Park when the T'rex is revealed. ground breaking, terrifying, real.
These things aren't us. They are Alien in every sense, and aside of maybe a few passing physical similarities, their intentions are alien to us. That's f**king terrifying. We could be food, we could be play things, we could be curiosities to them.
I'm not saying any one of these would be it. I'm saying there were so many ways they could have taken it that would have been far more compelling and interesting and different. They took one of the most stock, dull Von Daniken derivative approaches to the greater Alien mythos, and they cheapened a number of it's unique qualities in the process.
Those aren't 'alien', just cool looking monsters like out of a video game.
Giger himself designed the Engineers back in 1977:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/6/66/Giger020.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20150109042029)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 07:56:36 AM
Those aren't 'alien', just cool looking monsters like out of a video game.
Giger himself designed the Engineers back in 1977:
Cool monsters out of a video game? I'm sure Giger would love that description.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2Fa%2Faf%2FSpace-jockey-enclosure_134142.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20140827021336&hash=18ab17e5fa55fcda8f72919052193a6dcba62150)
The "Engineer" in the above artwork looks a lot less Alien than the Jockey does. :P
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 25, 2017, 10:01:54 AM
Cool monsters out of a video game? I'm sure Giger would love that description.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2Fa%2Faf%2FSpace-jockey-enclosure_134142.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20140827021336&hash=18ab17e5fa55fcda8f72919052193a6dcba62150)
The "Engineer" in the above artwork looks a lot less Alien than the Jockey does. :P
And then there's this one, where he does look more humanoid.
I think the only thing we can't be sure of is his bottom half.
(https://alienseries.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/space-jockey-in-giger-hieroglypic.jpg)
^And those are clearly spacesuits.
I'm still unsure about whatever point you're trying to make? That the Engineers looked more Alien? That the Space Jockey's looked silly?
I didn't say it, it was said on Furious Gods documentary, from what I remember; to have a skeleton walk around would look silly so they chose not to do that.
They did say that. But that doesn't mean they were right. We've seen plenty of interesting concepts of the Jockey's up and mobile that look fantastic.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scified.com%2Farticles%2Falien-awakening---ridley-scott-confirms-engineers-return-alien-covenant-sequel-34.png&hash=9a292a606a9c461c22350baab4809c8d9ad7f6c3)
All I want to see is that thing walking around, maybe the next one.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 07:56:36 AM
Those aren't 'alien', just cool looking monsters like out of a video game.
Giger himself designed the Engineers back in 1977:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/6/66/Giger020.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20150109042029)
Been awhile since I've seen the Furious Gods documentary, but IIRC, it was Scott who insisted on the Engineers being humans in suits (against everyone else, basically). This picture might just be a coincidence?
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Dec 25, 2017, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 25, 2017, 10:01:54 AM
Cool monsters out of a video game? I'm sure Giger would love that description.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2Fa%2Faf%2FSpace-jockey-enclosure_134142.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20140827021336&hash=18ab17e5fa55fcda8f72919052193a6dcba62150)
The "Engineer" in the above artwork looks a lot less Alien than the Jockey does. :P
And then there's this one, where he does look more humanoid.
I think the only thing we can't be sure of is his bottom half.
https://alienseries.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/space-jockey-in-giger-hieroglypic.jpg
I love that artwork. It's important to realize that the notion that the space jockey is a strange """lovecraftian""" elephant-man-bear-pig isn't inherent to its portrayal in Alien. We simply didn't know what it was.
Quote from: Alionic on Dec 25, 2017, 06:29:40 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 07:56:36 AM
Those aren't 'alien', just cool looking monsters like out of a video game.
Giger himself designed the Engineers back in 1977:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/6/66/Giger020.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20150109042029)
Been awhile since I've seen the Furious Gods documentary, but IIRC, it was Scott who insisted on the Engineers being humans in suits (against everyone else, basically). This picture might just be a coincidence?
Coincidence.
The Jockey was originally an extraterrestrial.
Nope. Clearly a spacesuit.
And that pic I posted before can clearly be seen on the mural in Prometheus:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwNcQo.jpg&hash=445f03139c4fadc74a4cf2bb147ed73f7a56a1e3)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 10:17:07 PM
Nope. Clearly a spacesuit.
Are you talking about in 'Alien', or in 'Prometheus'? Because the one in 'Alien' explicitly wasn't a spacesuit.
I still like the notion that the Engineers and the Space Jockey aren't the same thing. It's more thematically interesting, and there's ample evidence across both movies to support it.
What a helluva a reveal that would be.
I've always said of the AVP franchise, if you're going to do a Predalien in an AVP flick, it should scare the Predator as much as a regular alien scares someone like Lambert. It should make them shit their pants.
Imagine that same line of thinking of a Jockey, towering over the last human survivor, confident of it's victory. It hears something from behind, tchk. Turns, and there's this TITAN standing there. The Jockey's mouth agap in terror as the SPACE JOCKEY towers over HIM. It's inhumane form rears back, striking out, crushing the Engineer's midsection like it's made of wet paper.
That wouldn't make any sense and would just be fan service.
The Jockey in the chair looks like bones because Giger's style is organic. They also discuss this in Furious Gods. The walls of the ship were made to look organic too. This was changed in Prometheus to look more mechanical.
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.
(Giger also worked on Prometheus too btw)
Sure it could have been a space suit. It wasn't a man inside a space suit though.....
Not a man, no. A humanoid alien.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwNcQo.jpg&hash=445f03139c4fadc74a4cf2bb147ed73f7a56a1e3)
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/4/4b/Hr-giger-facehugger-II.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130909194054)
Quote from: Highland on Dec 26, 2017, 08:09:14 AM
Sure it could have been a space suit. It wasn't a man inside a space suit though.....
Quite.
The man who created it said it was a skeleton.
Scorpio is making mischief again.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAU7SJat.gif&hash=66b2422d389ed9e65ee6245ce9963cef8150e317)
Ok, if he said that then that's fine. But where did he say that?
He says it in the art book for 'Prometheus', in the introduction.
It also says it's a skeleton in the script for 'Alien', and the novelization. Giger's art style aside, it was meant to be a skeleton. Even in the actual prop, it's got gaping eye sockets, teeth, and a tongue.
Can you post the exact quote and don't leave anything out. I don't have that book.
And as for tongue/teeth.... no. That doesn't make any sense.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/e/ee/Space_jockey_004.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130619052812)
I can see how you may mistake that for tongue and teeth, but no.
Eye sockets? That does not mean skeleton. Have you looked at any of Giger's art? They are biomechanoid beings. He does all kinds of weird things with bones.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantfreakinrobot.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fprometheus.jpg&hash=04f4d9ff9d61f32f9b94c9c745c4895b0c0fa35e)
You see the arms? That is clearly not a skeleton dude. It looks technological.
A skeleton arm would look something like this:
(https://static.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/07/09__10_09_01/sa1.jpg101e8101-296f-4771-9238-fe9e0e887b8dOriginal.jpg)
Because it's basically a humanoid arm, it even has 5 fingers.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/88/d0/b6/88d0b6b12a4b011722fda3affcce7a61.jpg)
Eye sockets. Evidence of skeleton?
:)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 10:55:37 AM
Can you post the exact quote and don't leave anything out. I don't have that book.
And as for tongue/teeth.... no. That doesn't make any sense.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/e/ee/Space_jockey_004.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130619052812
I can see how you may mistake that for tongue and teeth, but no.
I think you're going to have to clarify what "doesn't make any sense" means, because they're right there in that picture. If it doesn't make sense to you, it could be a lack of understanding on your part, rather than everyone else "not understanding" Giger's art or something like that. I understand his art style just fine, and I understand why it was so appealing to Ridley Scott for 'Alien' because it's so unique and otherworldly and unlike anything anyone has seen before. But the actual Space Jockey as written on the page was that it was a skeleton, and that's what Giger was instructed to design for the movie and what he interpreted.
Also it's worth pointing out that in Giger's original concept art for the Jockey, not only does it show the teeth and tongue, but it depicts a transparent bubble-helmet that would have gone over the skull. That seems redundant if the head itself is a spacesuit helmet. :P
The fact that we can even have this discussion is a good thing, it's a testament to Giger's art and talent that it looks so weird that where one person sees a skeleton, someone else sees a spacesuit. One of Prometheus' biggest disservices to his art is that it tries to say "no it's a spacesuit".
As for the Ridley Scott quote, from page 10 of 'Prometheus: Art of the Film':
Quote"I was curious that nobody had ever asked, 'Who was the big guy sitting in the seat?'" Scott says today. "He was fondly called the Space Jockey, though I don't know where that name came from. But somebody called it the Space Jockey, and the assumption was that he was skeletal. Then I thought, "Well, what happens if he's not a skeleton?"
Just for chuckles, I checked the book 'Giger's Alien' (which has quotes from his production diary) to see if he mentions anything, and it doesn't. I don't have a copy of his complete notes (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-H-R-Giger/dp/3905929457/) to see if he says anything elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure I remember someone on this forum saying they'd bought a copy.
Edit-- went ahead and poked around in the book Alien Vault (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Vault-Definitive-Story-Making/dp/0760341125), and on page 94-95 it says the following:
QuoteThe derelict's lonely sentinel, nicknamed by the Space Jockey by the film's crew (James Cameron calls him the Big Dental Patient), originates in O'Bannon and Shusset's initial Starbeast draft of the script. He is discovered by the astronauts, a giant skeleton languishing in a dead spaceship: 'a grotesque thing, bearing no resemblance to the human form.'
I'd check what Alien: The Archive (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Archive-Ultimate-Classic-Movies/dp/1783291044/) 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.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2017, 12:17:22 PM
I think you're going to have to clarify what "doesn't make any sense" means, because they're right there in that picture. If it doesn't make sense to you, it could be a lack of understanding on your part, rather than everyone else "not understanding" Giger's art or something like that. I understand his art style just fine, and I understand why it was so appealing to Ridley Scott for 'Alien' because it's so unique and otherworldly and unlike anything anyone has seen before. But the actual Space Jockey as written on the page was that it was a skeleton, and that's what Giger was instructed to design for the movie and what he interpreted.
Maybe I don't understand so help me to understand. You say there is a tongue yet empty eye sockets with no eyes. What happened to the eyes, then? Why is there nothing flesh except for this 'tongue', if it is a tongue?
QuoteAlso it's worth pointing out that in Giger's original concept art for the Jockey, not only does it show the teeth and tongue, but it depicts a transparent bubble-helmet that would have gone over the skull. That seems redundant if the head itself is a spacesuit helmet. :P
This is true, but it did not end up in the film. So how did this creature breathe with no atmosphere? Assuming it needs respiration to survive. Perhaps this was a rejected concept, like the headless chicken chestbursters.
QuoteThe fact that we can even have this discussion is a good thing, it's a testament to Giger's art and talent that it looks so weird that where one person sees a skeleton, someone else sees a spacesuit. One of Prometheus' biggest disservices to his art is that it tries to say "no it's a spacesuit".
It's more than just a spacesuit, though. We saw the Engineers body being almost completely biomech.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/3/33/Prometheus-bts-engineers-1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121107195026)
The 'spacesuit' is just part of that.
QuoteAs for the Ridley Scott quote, from page 10 of 'Prometheus: Art of the Film':
Quote"I was curious that nobody had ever asked, 'Who was the big guy sitting in the seat?'" Scott says today. "He was fondly called the Space Jockey, though I don't know where that name came from. But somebody called it the Space Jockey, and the assumption was that he was skeletal. Then I thought, "Well, what happens if he's not a skeleton?"
The "assumption".
assumption
əˈsʌm(p)ʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen,
without proof.
QuoteJust for chuckles, I checked the book 'Giger's Alien' (which has quotes from his production diary) to see if he mentions anything, and it doesn't. I don't have a copy of his complete notes (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-H-R-Giger/dp/3905929457/) to see if he says anything elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure I remember someone on this forum saying they'd bought a copy.
QuoteEdit-- went ahead and poked around in the book Alien Vault (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Vault-Definitive-Story-Making/dp/0760341125), and on page 94-95 it says the following:
QuoteThe derelict's lonely sentinel, nicknamed by the Space Jockey by the film's crew (James Cameron calls him the Big Dental Patient), originates in O'Bannon and Shusset's initial Starbeast draft of the script. He is discovered by the astronauts, a giant skeleton languishing in a dead spaceship: 'a grotesque thing, bearing no resemblance to the human form.'
Who said this quote?
QuoteI'd check what Alien: The Archive (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Archive-Ultimate-Classic-Movies/dp/1783291044/) 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 you're doing that whole reverse Engineering thing (pun intended).
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2017, 12:17:22 PM
I think you're going to have to clarify what "doesn't make any sense" means, because they're right there in that picture. If it doesn't make sense to you, it could be a lack of understanding on your part, rather than everyone else "not understanding" Giger's art or something like that. I understand his art style just fine, and I understand why it was so appealing to Ridley Scott for 'Alien' because it's so unique and otherworldly and unlike anything anyone has seen before. But the actual Space Jockey as written on the page was that it was a skeleton, and that's what Giger was instructed to design for the movie and what he interpreted.
Maybe I don't understand so help me to understand. You say there is a tongue yet empty eye sockets with no eyes. What happened to the eyes, then? Why is there nothing flesh except for this 'tongue', if it is a tongue?
It's an otherworldly biomechanoid organism, unlike anything relateable on earth. Perhaps it literally *is* the spacesuit - not wearing a spacesuit, the creature is itself a biological spacesuit, a fusion of technology and biology. That would allow it to have the appearance of a suit (the arms, as you pointed out) while also having a skull, eye sockets, and a tongue. The Space Jockey isn't "wearing" anything, it literally is the thing you're looking at, fused to the chair. They are one entity - that's one thing Giger *does* say in 'Giger's Alien', that the chair and the Jockey are one biomechanoid organism.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PMQuoteAlso it's worth pointing out that in Giger's original concept art for the Jockey, not only does it show the teeth and tongue, but it depicts a transparent bubble-helmet that would have gone over the skull. That seems redundant if the head itself is a spacesuit helmet. :P
This is true, but it did not end up in the film. So how did this creature breathe with no atmosphere? Assuming it needs respiration to survive. Perhaps this was a rejected concept, like the headless chicken chestbursters.
Just saying, if you're going to go with "Giger's intent", you probably shouldn't shift the goalposts around when it suddenly doesn't suit your argument. :)
Giger's original Space Jockey artwork, as drawn by Giger, had a dome helmet, negating the need for a spacesuit helmet. That certainly carries as much weight as citing his other artwork that depicts "space suits".
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
QuoteThe fact that we can even have this discussion is a good thing, it's a testament to Giger's art and talent that it looks so weird that where one person sees a skeleton, someone else sees a spacesuit. One of Prometheus' biggest disservices to his art is that it tries to say "no it's a spacesuit".
It's more than just a spacesuit, though. We saw the Engineers body being almost completely biomech.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/powerlisting/images/3/33/Prometheus-bts-engineers-1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121107195026)
The 'spacesuit' is just part of that.
I'm not talking about 'Prometheus', I'm talking about what we saw in 'Alien', and what was intended by the filmmakers in 1979 when they made it. Ridley Scott openly admits that "it's a guy in a suit" is a deviation from what they intended in the original film, and that's fine. But pretending that everyone intended it to be a spacesuit all along is some pretty wacky revisionist history. :D
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PMQuoteAs for the Ridley Scott quote, from page 10 of 'Prometheus: Art of the Film':
Quote"I was curious that nobody had ever asked, 'Who was the big guy sitting in the seat?'" Scott says today. "He was fondly called the Space Jockey, though I don't know where that name came from. But somebody called it the Space Jockey, and the assumption was that he was skeletal. Then I thought, "Well, what happens if he's not a skeleton?"
The "assumption".
assumption
əˈsʌm(p)ʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
That's a pretty silly misinterpretation of the word "assumption". He's not saying the filmmakers "assumed" it was a skeleton when the made the movie back in 1979, they knew exactly what they intended it to be when they made it, because they're the ones who made it. He's saying that the
audience assumed it was skeletal when they saw the movie.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
QuoteEdit-- went ahead and poked around in the book Alien Vault (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Vault-Definitive-Story-Making/dp/0760341125), and on page 94-95 it says the following:
QuoteThe derelict's lonely sentinel, nicknamed by the Space Jockey by the film's crew (James Cameron calls him the Big Dental Patient), originates in O'Bannon and Shusset's initial Starbeast draft of the script. He is discovered by the astronauts, a giant skeleton languishing in a dead spaceship: 'a grotesque thing, bearing no resemblance to the human form.'
Who said this quote?
The author of the book. He's citing the Starbeast script, which refers to it as a skeleton.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
QuoteI'd check what Alien: The Archive (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Archive-Ultimate-Classic-Movies/dp/1783291044/) 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.
Giger was not the only person who worked on 'Alien' - he was the artist, and he was drawing what other people told him to draw. If the script said "the crew finds a skeleton in a chair", he drew his interpretation of that in his own biomechanoid style. His intention isn't the sole deciding factor on what was going on in the design and writing process, and even if he
did explicitly intend it to be a spacesuit and not a skeleton, he'd be the only person working on the movie who felt that way. :P
As for Giger's personal intent, his complete diary might expand on it. If I had a copy, I'd check it. Unfortunately it's a $100+ book and not exactly in the budget right now, but I might buy a copy eventually.
Quote from: Highland on Dec 26, 2017, 12:59:47 PM
Scorpio you're doing that whole reverse Engineering thing (pun intended).
Exactly this: just because a sequel/prequel/whatever introduces a new idea doesn't mean it was suddenly
always intended to be that way from the beginning. Reminder: per Scott's quote, it was
his decision to change the Space Jockey to be a spacesuit for 'Prometheus', not Giger's. It's not like he's saying "Giger always meant this to be a spacesuit, and I wanted to expand on this for Prometheus"; no he's literally saying "we intended it to be one thing, and I chose to change it".
QuotePerhaps it literally *is* the spacesuit - not wearing a spacesuit, the creature is itself a biological spacesuit, a fusion of technology and biology.
It is clearly both a skeleton and a spacesuit.
The original design by Ron Cobb looks more like a skeleton (and it is referred to in the script as such as you mention), but the Giger design looks like a skeleton fused with a spacesuit.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 27, 2017, 12:52:11 AM
QuotePerhaps it literally *is* the spacesuit - not wearing a spacesuit, the creature is itself a biological spacesuit, a fusion of technology and biology.
It is clearly both a skeleton and a spacesuit.
The original design by Ron Cobb looks more like a skeleton (and it is referred to in the script as such as you mention), but the Giger design looks like a skeleton fused with a spacesuit.
....and now I think you've begun to understand. :)
And like I said, that's why I think Prometheus not just coming down hard on the side of "it's a spacesuit", but also saying "and the thing inside the spacesuit is a giant albino human", does a huge disservice to Giger's artwork and to 'Alien' as a whole.
I like 'Prometheus' a lot and I think it has some neat ideas and visuals, but as an 'Alien' prequel it falls flat. I think saddling it with the Alien baggage only drags both movies down, and Prometheus could have been a lot crazier and more original (and scarier) without being linked to 'Alien'.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2017, 02:03:23 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 27, 2017, 12:52:11 AM
QuotePerhaps it literally *is* the spacesuit - not wearing a spacesuit, the creature is itself a biological spacesuit, a fusion of technology and biology.
It is clearly both a skeleton and a spacesuit.
The original design by Ron Cobb looks more like a skeleton (and it is referred to in the script as such as you mention), but the Giger design looks like a skeleton fused with a spacesuit.
....and now I think you've begun to understand. :)
And like I said, that's why I think Prometheus not just coming down hard on the side of "it's a spacesuit", but also saying "and the thing inside the spacesuit is a giant albino human", does a huge disservice to Giger's artwork and to 'Alien' as a whole.
Because it didn't fit your headcanon? I doubt Giger himself cared about it.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 27, 2017, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2017, 02:03:23 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 27, 2017, 12:52:11 AM
QuotePerhaps it literally *is* the spacesuit - not wearing a spacesuit, the creature is itself a biological spacesuit, a fusion of technology and biology.
It is clearly both a skeleton and a spacesuit.
The original design by Ron Cobb looks more like a skeleton (and it is referred to in the script as such as you mention), but the Giger design looks like a skeleton fused with a spacesuit.
....and now I think you've begun to understand. :)
And like I said, that's why I think Prometheus not just coming down hard on the side of "it's a spacesuit", but also saying "and the thing inside the spacesuit is a giant albino human", does a huge disservice to Giger's artwork and to 'Alien' as a whole.
Because it didn't fit your headcanon? I doubt Giger himself cared about it.
Having an opinion about how Prometheus was handled has nothing to do with "headcanon". :)
It's a brilliant idea, actually. The fact that some fans hate it just means they can't accept any new ideas.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 27, 2017, 08:27:32 PM
It's a brilliant idea, actually. The fact that some fans hate it just means they can't accept any new ideas.
Lol, classic Scorpio.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 27, 2017, 08:27:32 PM
It's a brilliant idea, actually. The fact that some fans hate it just means they can't accept any new ideas.
Which idea?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2017, 09:33:55 PM
Which idea?
See, you still don't get it. That's how brilliant it is, you don't even know what
it is.
The spacesuit idea.
O Bannon originally meant it to be a skeleton, this is true.
O Bannon's original idea for the alien was this:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8Hcfjx2M--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18o69f9aa472gjpg.jpg)
No. That was Ron Cobb's take on the Alien.
O'Bannon always had Giger in his mind for the Alien.
My dislike of Covenant or Prometheus is not because I don't understand the movies. I simply prefer the original films. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of aspects in both movies that I love. Visually they are grandiose and stunning. I think David's character is at least interesting.
Honestly I found it difficult to care about the characters. Like mentioned previously the are so dumb in some moments that it suspends the disbelief of the movie itself. Why would a scientist remove his helmet on an alien world? Why would a navigator get lost in a ship that he just mapped out? A biologist approach a clearly aggressive hammerpede like it was some pet cat?Or not wear a suit in an Alien environment? Its simply to get characters in traps so they can be killed off like some B-slasher flick.
Also Covenant Established the origin of the xeno as Davids science project(the book explains that he borrowed the design). Nevertheless I just prefer the xeno to be an ancient horror found only in the deepest reaches of space and not something created 10 or 20 years before the events of Alien.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:29:11 AM
The spacesuit idea.
O Bannon originally meant it to be a skeleton, this is true.
O Bannon's original idea for the alien was this:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8Hcfjx2M--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18o69f9aa472gjpg.jpg)
There's a huge difference between "it's a biomechanical space suit, with another being inside" and "the being itself is biomechanical, and through this its very body acts as a spacesuit". As mentioned, Giger intended the Space Jockey to be a singular organism, the body and the chair fused and inseparable. If you're as married to Giger's "vision" as you claim, then Prometheus' spacesuit idea is a pretty strong divergence from it.
People don't dislike the spacesuit/Engineer idea because they're closed-minded and don't like new ideas, people don't like it because it drastically undermines a major component of what made 'Alien' scary and interesting.
I like the Engineer idea and how it relates to humanity (and humanity's relationship with "god"/religion, seeking their creator, etc), I think it's an interesting topic. I just don't like it
at the expense of 'Alien'.
Quote from: GreybackElder on Dec 28, 2017, 12:57:51 AM
Also Covenant Established the origin of the xeno as Davids science project(the book explains that he borrowed the design). Nevertheless I just prefer the xeno to be an ancient horror found only in the deepest reaches of space and not something created 10 or 20 years before the events of Alien.
Also this. A story about an android creating new life (and that life being horrific and dangerous) and the themes of godhood that stem from that are a legit interesting topic,
but not when it's f**king up the Alien as a creature and undermining the scarier and more interesting thematic elements from 'Alien'.
I love how people claim to know Giger's intentions. He was a surrealist. His work is open to interpretation. That's why you can't find any quote from Giger, because he wouldn't say what it is.
But if Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and who worked closely with Giger, says it is a spacesuit then that's fine by me. It doesn't undermine the original Alien at all. The idea of it being just a skeleton would undermine it. We still don't even know what it is, it's more than just a spacesuit. It's some kind of strange alien technology.
I am glad they didn't go the route of alien monster because that would have been generic and boring. Thank god fanboys have no say in these movies or we would just get dull rehashed ideas.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AM
I love how people claim to know Giger's intentions. He was a surrealist. His work is open to interpretation. That's why you can't find any quote from Giger, because he wouldn't say what it is.
Right. Interpreting the Space Jockey to be something based on off the cuff/behind the scenes comments is just that, interpretation. Ultimately it is what we are shown in the movie we have to take as a starting point, and the only thing we see is a strange humanoid-thing that looks fused to its chair.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AM
I am glad they didn't go the route of alien monster because that would have been generic and boring. Thank god fanboys have no say in these movies or we would just get dull rehashed ideas.
100% true. Fanboys have the worst ideas. I'd even hesitate to have myself decide if I had the chance, because I know there's a chance of the fanboy in me also doing something dull and generic.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AM
I love how people claim to know Giger's intentions. He was a surrealist. His work is open to interpretation. That's why you can't find any quote from Giger, because he wouldn't say what it is.
But if Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and who worked closely with Giger, says it is a spacesuit then that's fine by me. It doesn't undermine the original Alien at all. The idea of it being just a skeleton would undermine it. We still don't even know what it is, it's more than just a spacesuit. It's some kind of strange alien technology.
I am glad they didn't go the route of alien monster because that would have been generic and boring. Thank god fanboys have no say in these movies or we would just get dull rehashed ideas.
Wow, call me crazy but isn't a guy in a space suit way more boring than some intelligent alien monster that we've never seen before? That's not a fanboyism. I'm not sure where you getting that from. A guy in a suit had been done far more times.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 07:56:36 AM
Giger himself designed the Engineers back in 1977:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/6/66/Giger020.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/640?cb=20150109042029)
This old concept art could be one of the many inspirations for the Engineer's design of Prometheus. Though I wonder if, from the point of view of Giger, this guy is one of the builders of the pyramid on LV-426 (another species of beings totally different from the Space Jockey).
(https://i.redd.it/b0m1vux8g8yx.png)
Llike this early facehugger concept art, similar to the trilobite design as well as many other similarities between Prometheus and the early stages of Alien.
(https://monsterlegacy.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/facehuggercobb.jpg)
And yet, they mentioned some designs of Carlos Huante, Statue of Liberty and Michelangelo's David. But I guess this may be one of those weird "coincidences"...
However, I strongly doubt that the real Engineers were designed 40 years ago. :-\
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 01:09:00 AM
There's a huge difference between "it's a biomechanical space suit, with another being inside" and "the being itself is biomechanical, and through this its very body acts as a spacesuit". As mentioned, Giger intended the Space Jockey to be a singular organism, the body and the chair fused and inseparable. If you're as married to Giger's "vision" as you claim, then Prometheus' spacesuit idea is a pretty strong divergence from it.
It would have been a little more interesting to see Engineers sharing some kind of symbiosis with their space suits, instead of being a mere cosplay.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/21/68/37/216837c91558c2300cc9b32e1970c8b9.jpg)
But I prefer the real biomechanical organism anyway :P
Fire in the Sky did that before Independence Day
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ouTp4CnXg5s/U-p9BijvqfI/AAAAAAAAGwA/l8V1r7XJ56o/s1600/fire%2B7.PNG)
Independence Day just used a typical grey alien design inside a suit that very much reminds of Giger's alien.
Nobody could have imagined that the Space Jockey is actually a giant albino humanoid alien resembling a greek statue.
There have been dozens of fan art of a funky looking monster, nothing they could come up with would likely be better. Somebody posted some a few pages back. Looks cool as concept art but in a film would look ridiculous. I giant creature that has a trunk hanging in front of its mouth. It would be like something out of Doctor Who.
Quote"They have a new idea for the script that I should visualise. The skeleton of the astronaut, which used to be in the spacecraft, should now be placed in the landscape, blending in so that it can't be distinguished, and the crew wouldn't notice it until they see it on the recorder, back in the [Nostromo]. Like the film Blow-up, where the figure hidden in the bushes is only discovered once the negatives are developed."
Quote"Another change. They want the skeleton of the alien Space Jockey to lie in the cockpit again."
Courtesy Valaquen. (https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/rock-jockey/) Of course.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AM
I love how people claim to know Giger's intentions. He was a surrealist. His work is open to interpretation. That's why you can't find any quote from Giger, because he wouldn't say what it is.
Dude,
you were the one claiming to know Giger's intentions, and saying that his intention was the be-all end-all of whether it was a suit or a skeleton. Keep shifting them goalposts and hoping no one notices though, I guess. :D
Also there's a difference between "can't find a quote because it doesn't exist" and "can't find a quote because of lack of access to resources. Nice try, though. :)
And as stated, there *is* a quote from Giger saying that the Jockey and his chair are a fused, singular entity that can't be separated, so Prometheus' depiction does in fact undermine Giger's quoted "intent".
Also it's possible for a work to be open to interpretation while simultaneously knowing the creator's actual factual for-realsies no-foolin' intent. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean "it's impossible to know what the creator was thinking", it means "what the creator was thinking doesn't matter". I'm a real strong proponent of the view that the creator's intent doesn't matter, but if for the sake of argument people want to discuss what that intent
was, that's a whole separate discussion and one I'm fine with having. With regard to 'Alien', we actually do know the factual creator intent on whether the filmmakers meant it to be a skeleton or not back in 1979, and Ridley Scott himself acknowledges that 'Prometheus' is a divergence from that.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AMBut if Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and who worked closely with Giger, says it is a spacesuit then that's fine by me.
Ridley Scott, who
while working closely with Giger back in 1979, said it was a skeleton (per the quote I posted). Only 30 years later did Scott change his mind, independent of Giger. That's an important distinction. :)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AMIt doesn't undermine the original Alien at all. The idea of it being just a skeleton would undermine it. We still don't even know what it is, it's more than just a spacesuit. It's some kind of strange alien technology.
And that's where you're missing the point - you're seeing it merely as alien
technology, a tool to be used. You're approaching it from the angle that the spacesuit is biomechanical and uses a fusion of biological and technological elements, but is still divorced from the wearer (as evidenced by the fact that the wearer can put the suit on and take it off at will). Technology, but with biological elements.
Giger, as quoted, drew it as a biomechanical
organism, that the Space Jockey itself including the chair it was sitting in, were all one living, inseparable thing. Biology, with technological elements.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 02:31:42 AMThank god fanboys have no say in these movies or we would just get dull rehashed ideas.
I really like how you keep trying to pigeon-hole people with different opinions than yours to make it seem as if they're automatically inferior. They're "fanboys", or they "don't understand", etc. Corporal Hicks already made a lengthy post upthread about ways to better handle the Space Jockey concept than just "it's an albino dude in a suit".
Or, my personal favorite way to handle it would have been
don't even touch the topic and have Prometheus be unrelated to 'Alien'. Let the Space Jockey be a weird and creepy mystery open to the audience's interpretation. No matter what way it gets "explained" is going to disappoint some group of people, and nothing useful is gained from explaining it anyway.
Quote from: SM on Dec 28, 2017, 08:52:13 AM
Quote"They have a new idea for the script that I should visualise. The skeleton of the astronaut, which used to be in the spacecraft, should now be placed in the landscape, blending in so that it can't be distinguished, and the crew wouldn't notice it until they see it on the recorder, back in the [Nostromo]. Like the film Blow-up, where the figure hidden in the bushes is only discovered once the negatives are developed."
Quote"Another change. They want the skeleton of the alien Space Jockey to lie in the cockpit again."
Courtesy Valaquen. (https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/rock-jockey/) Of course.
Oh hey, some quotes from Giger where he says it's a skeleton. :D
The funniest part is I tried to give Scorpio an easy out by saying "it's both a skeleton and a spacesuit" and rolling with that compromise, and he
seemed to get it, and then he kept pushing the issue anyway and now here we are. :P
But like he said, it's all open to interpretation.
I could mention that Giger's english is not the best, and particularly in 1978 but I might get accused of "shifting the goal posts" again. There are no goal posts. Real life is complex, there are no winners and losers. Nothing is set in stone.
At one point the general idea was that it is a skeleton, I think we can all agree on that. Or that crew comes across dead creature, not robot or statue, basically.
That doesn't mean that the new films 'betray' the concept. They had many different ideas in the original Alien, some were used, some weren't.
I get it. You don't like it, because 'reasons'. That's fine, no problem. We could discuss its merits or drawbacks forever.
But the fact is it is no longer a skeleton, it's a spacesuit. Prometheus and Alien Covenant firmly established this. That's how it is. Either deal with it or keep complaining. I already gave my reasons why I think the idea works.
:) Have a nice day.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 09:39:18 AM
I could mention that Giger's english is not the best, and particularly in 1978 but I might get accused of "shifting the goal posts" again. There are no goal posts. Real life is complex, there are no winners and losers. Nothing is set in stone.
At one point the general idea was that it is a skeleton, I think we can all agree on that. Or that crew comes across dead creature, not robot or statue, basically.
That doesn't mean that the new films 'betray' the concept. They had many different ideas in the original Alien, some were used, some weren't.
I get it. You don't like it, because 'reasons'. That's fine, no problem. We could discuss its merits or drawbacks forever.
That's a whole lotta words to sidestep around saying "I was wrong." Whatever makes you happy, though; you do you. :)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 09:39:18 AMBut the fact is it is no longer a skeleton, it's a spacesuit. Prometheus and Alien Covenant firmly established this. That's how it is.
Are we still talking about authorial intent? If so, then yeah you're right. Beyond that, like you said, it's open to interpretation. :)
I interpret 'Alien' that the Space Jockey may not be the same as the Engineers, and there's ample on-screen and thematic evidence to support that interpretation.
Well, no, I'm not wrong because if you actually read my posts what I said was:
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 10:41:32 AM
^And those are clearly spacesuits.
Referring to this image:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/7/70/Giger016.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150109041555)
In this post:
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Dec 25, 2017, 10:20:37 AM
https://alienseries.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/space-jockey-in-giger-hieroglypic.jpg
Which, remarkably, looks like a spacesuit..
Now compare those figures in that image to the Space Jockey concept art:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imagesyoulike.com%2Fimages%2Fj%2F32x24%2Fj2449.jpg&hash=220d62df302892bcec228f12f4c7069316b64167)
There are a number of points of reference indicating those figures wearing spacesuits in the concept art above is the same as the space jockey concept figure:
1. The ribs
2. The grooves around the upper arm
3. The tube coming out of the face, in same position but in the former leads to the back more like a breathing apparatus
4. The shape of the head
5. The eyes
6. The fingers
If those spacesuited figures are not the space jockey, then what are they?
(Giger has been known to introduce his own ideas and concepts, just read his books like Giger's Alien or Giger's Film Design)
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.
QuoteIf 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.
And when did I state that everyone else who worked on the movie didn't think it was a skeleton?
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
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?
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Well, no, I'm not wrong because if you actually read my posts what I said was:
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 25, 2017, 10:41:32 AM
^And those are clearly spacesuits.
Referring to this image:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/7/70/Giger016.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150109041555)
In this post:
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Dec 25, 2017, 10:20:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
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.
Warning: Reading can do serious damage to your ignorance.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 11:59:16 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 28, 2017, 12:01:37 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 28, 2017, 03:16:39 PM
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? :)
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 07:44:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 26, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2017, 12:17:22 PM
I'd check what Alien: The Archive (https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Archive-Ultimate-Classic-Movies/dp/1783291044/) 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.
:)
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 :) )
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.