Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012) - Alien prequel

LOL. There are millions they'd love to reach. . . that don't read entertainment blogs. I've never viewed one in my life. I'd not have heard about this this week if it weren't for this site.

 

Me too, I'm now intrigued, not knowing about Scott's backstory.

 

Only #2 is worrying. It could either be too literal and clichéd or (I hope) vague enough that it suggests for more than it shows. #3 is actually the best thing about it. Too many trailers give the plot away. This makes it more mysterious and whets the appetite for more. As for #1, why do we need to see the alien again? Let's have something new.

 

Why is so much stock placed in trailers anyway? I was surprised when people on the Hugo thread whined about the trailer being misleading. I never thought trailers matter or gave an accurate preview of a film. They're just adverts slapped together by a PR firm from approved footage.

 

Green flag #1-Good.
Green Flag #2-Even better (I wouldn't be literal about it--Only people connected with the movie truly know the plot.
Green Flag #3-Even better! I like a mystery.

I'll see it!

 

#1 BS
#2 Perhaps but told through an Alien encounter (and trying to seperate itself from the last few pieces of dreck that had an Alien in it)
#3 Piecing it together as we speak and it makes me even more excited to see it.

 

You do not have infinite resources in space. The Company received the transmission and sent out a crew that was in the area. I am sure humanoid robots were more expensive than humans..only one per ship to protect your investment.

None in the area...also, this is a civilian and not a military ship. The Company wanted to get any alien for their own profits. They were probalby planning on breaking all sorts of laws. You want to keep the secret to yourself.

You could use it as a weapon...use the DNA for something. Change the DNA so the alen only lives a short time.

It was a small little guy..you would totally split up to catch it.

I thought they suspected there was some sort implantation going on. Maybe the android was manipulating the situation because he wanted the alien to live.

 

There's a scene in the film where Ash is examining something related to the Alien after it's died (but before it bursts out of Kane) and he clearly doesn't want Ripley to see what he's working on. Perhaps it's there. It's only a movie and just because we don't see things happen in it doesn't mean it's not part of the story.

There's also suspension of disbelief as well.

 

Thus proving the entertainment blogs served their purpose: they got the rest of the 'net talking about something about which there will be no real information for a long, long time.

 

Questions for Mr. Scott

One of the most compelling things about the original Alien movie is its inherent dream-like quality. Dreams have their own emotional coherence, which is usually outside logical thought. But movies are viewed ideally by wide-awake brains, so incoherence will always have the nagging appeal of an incomplete puzzle.

My wife and I watch this movie every year. Just a sample of too many questions we've generated over our innumerable viewings:

In Alien we are led to believe the derelict ship has been there for an immense amount of time because the pilot is fossilized (mummified would have been more believable, if much less "awesome"). Unlikely as it seems, in all that time the ship, a manufactured artifact, has remained intact in a very unstable environment. But if it's so unstable, how could there be consistent conditions for atmospheric fossilization?

In addition, there is some kind of energy source that has kept the eggs alive for at least the same amount of time, in what many viewers (and, in what seems to me revisionist hindsight, the director) have claimed is the ship's hold. But this enormous cave, which is called such by John Hurt's character, is nearly the same volume as the derelict ship. Compare the scale of the little figure being lowered down to the eggs and the three figures approaching the ship in previous scenes. No doubt this is a ridiculously over-sized space as a ship's hold and would have collapsed or been severely damaged on impact. It's not even the same shape as the ship: it curves forward in the distance, the ship's hull curves back. It's also perfectly level, just like the pilot's platform, which is directly above, even though the ship itself is canted at 20 or 30 degrees. On the other hand, it has the same eerie biomorphic architecture as the ship and its pilot.

So, did the pilot inadvertently bring an infestation of aliens to a barren world where they somehow set up some kind of high-tech hibernation below the crash site? Or were they already there and altered the texture of the ship the same way they modified the colony station for their nest in Aliens? If the pilot was a host vector, the alien he hatched must have been or became female to fill the cave with eggs. Where did she go? (We can ask this because of more "facts" revealed in Aliens.)

If the alien eggs were already on the planet:

What are the chances of the derelict crashing on the exact site of an alien nest, unless the planet is riddled with them? What are the chances of the ship randomly crashing on the planet at all? Was it exploring? Following a lead, collecting specimens like the Nostromo crew? Based on what? Is the planet a storage facility, and was the pilot landing for cargo when the ship crashed? (This might also explain architectural similarities of cave and derelict). Were the eggs part of a third species' - an enemy's - weapons cache? Ash calls the planet's atmosphere "primordial", so the aliens are not likely indigenous, which Ripley confirms in Aliens (but how does she know?). When the derelict crashes, how could one egg hatch and impregnate the pilot to produce another alien? What happened to that alien? Did it wander off, find a cave, pupate into a female and build another colony?

This is aside from the most basic question that has never, as far as I know, been answered in any of the movies (I've seen Three and Resurrection only once):

What do aliens eat? We know they kill (and, possibly, in Lambert's case, rape), and make people into cocoons for hatching more eggs. They shed skin like arthropods or reptiles during growing stages. But nobody gets eaten. They're big, energetic guys. Even worker bees need sustenance.

Now, before anyone criticizes me for anything besides my own silliness, let me emphasize that silliness and say watching this movie every year or so is one of my favourite pastimes. I usually forget its inconsistencies. Giger's set design, the pacing of the events, the cascading predicament of the crew (as foolish and incompetent as they are), the great soundtrack, and the convincing look of the Nostromo interiors make this, for me, a very enjoyable dark ride.

I hope Prometheus works. Despite some rare moments, Three and Resurrection felt like swindles.

 

This has always bugged me more about Aliens and not Alien. In Alien, you only see eggs in the beginning. The baby aliens are in hibernation and could live off the fluid in the eggshell for years maybe. In Aliens, there are a bunch of full grown aliens and a big mama that needs an incerdible amount of calories a day to survive. In my mind, I have filled in the plot hole by saying the the colony had some sort of large fish hatchery that provide the Aliens with food.

A bigger plot flaw for me in Aliens is that they sent all of the humans and android off the ship to the planet. You would leave at least one human in orbit.

 

I thought the Alien could eat metal or other substances in the ship's cargo...Ash at one point said it replaces its cells with polarized silicon.

 

And you got a lot of excuses. Trust me, I heard Dan O'Bannon talking about all this stuff in the 1980s, and even he was embarrassed by some of the lapses in logic of the movie. He wasn't the only one.

I like the movie visually, and it's been one of the most influential films of all time. But script wise, it's got a lot of holes. I think it's amazing that it's only Ridley Scott's second feature film. The guy is a visual genius, no doubt about it.

All good questions. My guess is that the Alien can damn near eat anything that moves and adapt to it. The interesting thing to me was the concept of the "pods" -- that the creatures were essentially in hibernation, waiting for a host to lean over, and then it'd jump into their face, wrap its tentacles around them, and implant more babies. The new babies would know the biology of their host (from growing up inside them), and further adapt. That part I have no trouble with.

I like to think that the bigger good-alien ship (the Space Jockey) just crashed on the planet, and maybe they had one carnivorous Alien aboard that they didn't know about. Maybe it slowly infected all the crew, and eventually everybody was dead, to the point that all the little pods got laid and put into hibernation until more "food" showed up. It's all up for grabs; I don't even think this was explained in the Alien novelization.

 

As far as I know the only explanation we have of the Space Jokey from anyone associated with the original film is Scotts description of his Alien sequel. In his version of the story the Aliens are weapons used to bomb planets and it escapes somehow. How far he ever got with this concept I have no clue, and how much of this concept remains in the new film is of course a mystery. I think they started writing the Space Jokey film but it grew into something else.

We'll see.

 

I think the Aliens are cold blooded. It seems that they intentionally look for or transform their environment into a hot and humid biomech nest. They only seem to move when threatened or perhaps have a chance to eat.

 

Yeah, but this was still at the "facehugger" stage. It was using Kane for a nutritional supplement as it was depositing the "chestbuster" in his gut, so it was converting animal resources into siliconized tissue. This was also a disposable stage of the adult creature's metamorphosis, and seems to be the only time it actually "fed". Why would it need to be an efficient predator if it didn't eat after this stage.....

Or if it was willing to settle for farmed fish?

An opportunistic infection, jumping from host to host at random. This is the most appealing (if you will) solution for me as well. It leaves the background open-ended, and in the context of the movie adds to the creep factor. Even Darwin had some emotional problems about parasites.

Here's a fearsome little book about the real thing:
http://www.amazon.com/Parasite-Rex-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325108125&sr=1-1

Of course, Alien is the bumblebee of horror flicks - it still flies despite the complaints of those of us who think we know better.

 

Well you're applying principles of evolution to a [fictional] life form. In terms of sci fi, there is no reason to assume that the same rules of evolution apply to different worlds where DNA and genetics may not be the blueprints for life. Then there's the question I raised earlier whether the alien was bioengineered by the company. And if you don't buy either of those ideas, there are many examples in biology of otherwise docile creatures that have evolved deadly behaviors as defense mechanisms, that have nothing to do with feeding. The best defense can be a good offense.

 

There's nothing to say they don't eat each other in times of desperation. The pilot must have sent the distress signal after he awoke from the facehugger knowing it was going to burst so he must have known how they attacked and reproduced.

 

By the way, I think Prometheus is going to be in 3D. Guess we'll get to experience a face hugger up close and personal. Not sure how I feel about that...

 

I think you're right. They're shooting in 3D, supposedly. I'll just as soon catch a 2D showing, when it opens.

Not a bad price on Alien Blu-ray, by the way.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ref_=sr_1_3&s=movies-tv&qid=1325115721&sr=1-3

 

No less than Hitchcock admitted that there's lots of story issues in North by Northwest that make no sense -- why would a crop-dusting biplane shoot Cary Grant in the middle of a corn field? why not just have a guy drive up and plug him? -- but it's such a fun film, you don't start dissecting it until long after you're walking from the theater. And, as Hitch pointed out, "by then, we've already got your money."

I think Alien is like that. There's a bunch of things that make no sense when you start picking them apart, but it's such an enjoyable, well-made film, it doesn't matter. It's a classic in every sense of the word, flaws and all.

 

This is dangerous. I was cobbling another post. I need to work. I'm stopping now. Great fun!

 

I'm not a cultist, I'm only maladjusted.

For sure, we have to be willing and able to suspend belief. After all, this movie was designed to frighten.

But one of the reasons Alien works so well is because the creature has many recognizable characteristics that have psychological resonance, features that make humans feel uneasy. If one suggests the foundation of the alien's existence is so exotic it completely bypasses what we know of living creatures through our own experience, then you have to wonder why it bothers with any living creatures at all. Ash confirms it has protein and cells, which presumes DNA or some kind of replicating analogue (proteins are way too complex to arrange themselves), so there's an evolutionary context regardless of its strangeness. We're being told it's a sophisticated form of animal life.

So far I don't buy the company engineering scenario, but that doesn't mean it can't be used effectively if it's part of the Prometheus scenario. It just seems like a bit of a cheat. I guess I prefer a randomly encountered creature that's a naturally adept parasite over stock mad scientists. In Prometheus, maybe the alien will be the monkey wrench - nature's curve ball - in another kind of bioengineering venture?

I understand what you're saying about defensive behaviour. It's possible the creature is just psychotically territorial, clearing the area for a new nest. As a drone maybe it has a limited life span and has to work as quickly as possible. But it doesn't cocoon anyone in the first movie - that scene was deleted. There's no indication it's a hive creature. It acts and looks like a determined, lone predator. I don't think the movie makers wanted us to doubt this.

However, at least for the first movie, the exclusion of the cocoon scene gives a waffly explanation for what the alien may eat. Brett and Dallas just disappeared, and we can make of that what we like. Perhaps we can also assume in Aliens the drones and the queen fed on the dead colonist hosts after the chestbuster hatched. If we allow this, the only reason Kane wasn't eaten for breakfast was because the infant alien was born instinctively ready to fight or run for its life and prudently chose to run. Still doesn't answer how it got so big during what seemed like a very brief search. That's a lot of metabolic credit just from sitting in a guy's crop for a few hours.

OK. I'll go away again. I couldn't sleep 'till I did this. Pathetic.

 

Yep. Long articles have been written that examine H.R. Giger's artwork and designs for the film, showing how both the spaceship and various aliens tend to resemble different kinds of human anatomy (and sexual themes). They definitely were intended to look familiar, yet weird and disturbing -- and it worked very well. I also agree with the earlier comment about the movie having a "nightmarish" feel. I think the first time I watched Alien the week it premiered in Hollywood, I saw about half of it peering out from behind my hands -- it scared the yell outta me.

That's another element that screenwriter Dan O'Bannon was not happy about. I seem to recall that in his original draft, a week or two passed, and the creature did find some food stores are start snacking, and maybe grabbed a few crewmembers for meals. Obviously, it's not gonna grow from a foot-high puppet to an 8-foot high monstrosity in an hour, which is what happened in the movie. It'd need a lot of time and food to do that (again, assuming you buy into it).

I also love the face-hugger idea. It's got a tentacle wrapped around the throat, so it threatens to kill its host if you try to remove it. And it has acid for blood! And once it finishes laying its egg, it dies and falls off. Amazing. It's a terrific idea for a monster.

I'd have to go back to Alan Dean Foster's novelization of the Alien movie script, because I think Alan interpreted and added some details that explain a lot of lapses in logic in the movie. Some of those happened through conversations with O'Bannon, just things that they didn't have time or money to film, and my memory is that the novel actually works a lot better in terms of making sense and explaining the creature's biology.

 

Wow...fun post!

I don't buy the bio-engineering stuff at all. But I do think the Company "knew" of this creature somehow. When Dallas goes to talk to Mother, why did Mother know about the Alien already? One could argue only from Dallas' data, but I suspect Mother and Ash already knew of the creature. Of course, it sort of makes it crazy for them to colonize LV-426 if they had an inkling...unless of the course Weyland-Yutani (nee the Company) was a lot more sinister than we even thought...

On Ridley's films, I have to agree only Blade Runner (on my 5 greatest films list...always!) and Alien are really great movies. But Thelma, Gladiator (despite the cheezy cgi and Spartacus similarities), Blackhawk Down, The Duellist, American Gangster and Someone to Watch Over Me are all very good films. Many don't like Hannibal, but I often come back to it. The opening fish market shooting has the entire shot on the dvd that you can select any scene and show it as you see fit. I wish more dvd's had this feature! 1492 is the only out and out clinker for me. Ridley is one of the few directors that I will go see regardless of the subject matter.

Early in his career, the critics always talked about his "style over substance" given his advertising film background. The Duelist, his first feature, really does look amazing and the story is a little convoluted.

I am so in for Prometheus. The only fear is that the "Space Jockey" explanation is too clear and destroys some of the mystery of Alien. But I'm willing to take that chance...

Loved Aliens, utterly despised 3 (in all forms...pun intended) Resurrection is a travesty, AVP should have remained a video game.

thanks