Prometheus (2012)

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

My two cents: The whole point of the original Space Jockey design was that you couldn't tell what was organic and what was technology...that it was fused/indistinguishable. Prometheus didn't so much change what was what (as we weren't intended to know from the design we were given in Alien), so much as decide what was what, and make it clear.

And for what it's worth, that "trunk" always looked like a flight helmet to me.



And since the Jockey was presumably piloting the Derelict craft, I'd pretty much always assumed that it was a helmet.

How can anybody at this point still insist that Ridley didn't change the design of the Space Jockey for Prometheus after reading Giger's own words in his personal diary for Alien back in 1978/1979?

While you're right that we never knew quite what it was or how it was merged into the chair, or what part was organic and what part was inorganic, the point is obvious that it was never a tall albino human-like being wearing a spacesuit. That was never, ever the idea for the Space Jockey. Giger's own words confirm that. And still people want to insist that Prometheus didn't change any of that.

No, Ridley didn't confirm anything. He altered it completely to fit the ridiculous plot that was written for Prometheus. He should have had some integrity and said no to changes like that and insisted he respect the integrity of the design as it was originally conceived and executed by Giger. The bottom line is as it was conceived originally, for Alien, the Space Jockey was unable to rise from the chair and move around. Giger said it himself - "he’s integrated totally into the function he performs." He was never made to be a humanoid figure that gets up and runs around and gets in fist-fights.

I think it's perfectly fine, and fun, to wonder and discuss what weird type of creature that was, but to suggest that it was always meant to be a human-type being is just not correct given all that we know about this.

[bsweetness]

Originally Posted by mar3o

How can anybody at this point still insist that Ridley didn't change the design of the Space Jockey for Prometheus after reading Giger's own words in his personal diary for Alien back in 1978/1979?

While you're right that we never knew quite what it was or how it was merged into the chair, or what part was organic and what part was inorganic, the point is obvious that it was never a tall albino human-like being wearing a spacesuit. That was never, ever the idea for the Space Jockey. Giger's own words confirm that. And still people want to insist that Prometheus didn't change any of that.

No, Ridley didn't confirm anything. He altered it completely to fit the ridiculous plot that was written for Prometheus. He should have had some integrity and said no to changes like that and insisted he respect the integrity of the design as it was originally conceived and executed by Giger. The bottom line is as it was conceived originally, for Alien, the Space Jockey was unable to rise from the chair and move around. Giger said it himself - "he’s integrated totally into the function he performs." He was never made to be a humanoid figure that gets up and runs around and gets in fist-fights.

I think it's perfectly fine, and fun, to wonder and discuss what weird type of creature that was, but to suggest that it was always meant to be a human-type being is just not correct given all that we know about this.

There's a big difference between what may have been intended when it was designed and how the director decided to let it play out. That happens all the time in movies - an artist or writer intends for something to be done one way, but then the director decides to change it. Did Scott intend to go in the direction he took in Prometheus when making Alien? Very likely not. But that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't explained on screen in Alien, so regardless of what was said in interviews, future films can take it in any direction they choose.

Does everyone have to like the direction Scott chose? No. Are people valid in wishing he had followed Giger's wishes more closely? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, it wasn't explained in Alien, so there's nothing inherently wrong with the direction Prometheus took it in based on what we saw in Alien.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

My two cents: The whole point of the original Space Jockey design was that you couldn't tell what was organic and what was technology...that it was fused/indistinguishable. Prometheus didn't so much change what was what (as we weren't intended to know from the design we were given in Alien), so much as decide what was what, and make it clear.

And for what it's worth, that "trunk" always looked like a flight helmet to me.



And since the Jockey was presumably piloting the Derelict craft, I'd pretty much always assumed that it was a helmet.

Just because it resembled, and might have even been originally inspired by the look of a flight helmet (or maybe an elephant), doesn't mean that's what it was supposed to be when Giger designed it. But obviously a helmet and suit is what Scott saw in it when he re-envisioned it for Prometheus.

Originally Posted by bsweetness

Does everyone have to like the direction Scott chose? No. Are people valid in wishing he had followed Giger's wishes more closely? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, it wasn't explained in Alien, so there's nothing inherently wrong with the direction Prometheus took it in based on what we saw in Alien.

I don't think it's necessarily about people wanting Scott to follow Giger's wishes more closely -- at least not in my case -- but it's more about the fact that there is an obvious contradiction, or let's call it an inconsistency, despite some visual similarites, between the two different concepts/designs of the Space Jockeys in each film. Personally, as I said before, I actually like the change, but it does conflict with what and how it was originally. We're just forced to have to accept that it was always a spacesuit, even though it wasn't originally conceived as one, and dismiss a lot of extended universe stories from the comics and novels that showed otherwise.

[Darkstream]

And now I'm really going to stir the pot and say that I wish Ridley Scott had found a way (not that he'd ever consider it) to somehow integrate the Predator lore into the Prometheus universe -- but of course that would probably just open up for more inconsistencies and continuity issues.

Although it does seem Dark Horse Comics are going to make an attempt at it.

Look here: http://io9.com/exclusive-details-on-...eda-1443548904

And here: http://io9.com/see-dark-horses-first...eth-1500505424

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by mar3o

The crew was believable.

I think that's an absurd statement. Alien takes place (supposedly) in 2172, 158 years from now. I don't think we can predict at all what believable behavior (or language for that matter) will be in 2172. Go back 158 years to 1856. Could someone living in that time predict what believable behavior would be today? Could an English speaker from 1856 even understand a speaker of today? The Alien (and Aliens) crew was believable from what we expected from a movie in the era the film was made.

The Prometheus expedition takes place in 2093, 79 years from now. I don't even think one can predict what believable behavior would be then. Do we behave and think like people did in 1935?

The one thing I'll give you is that in Prometheus, for a $ trillion expedition, the crew does seem to be both too small and made up mostly of idiots and renegades. You would also think that the balance of scientists to military types would be higher on such a mission and that the scientists would sound like they had a bit of intellect (aside from Shaw and Holloway). Was there even a linguist on the crew? But maybe there's lots of inflation between now and then and maybe our society has pretty much fallen apart and there are mostly only idiots and renegades. Maybe the advent of highly intelligent artificial lifeforms has given humanity even more impetus to become even stupider than we are today. Maybe because so much knowledge is at our fingertips, either in the form of computers or artificial lifeforms, we decide that we don't actually have to know anything ourselves.

The problem with that is that if the crew had been made up mostly of intellectuals with a smaller backup security crew of military types, would we have found the movie interesting at all? Would the masses have turned out to see a bunch of nerds discussing science and archeology? No, so the film does what films have always done and include all kinds of character types.

[mar3o]

@Darkstream, where did that second comic image you posted above come from? Just curious.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I think that's an absurd statement. Alien takes place (supposedly) in 2172, 158 years from now. I don't think we can predict at all what believable behavior (or language for that matter) will be in 2172. Go back 158 years to 1856. Could someone living in that time predict what believable behavior would be today? Could an English speaker from 1856 even understand a speaker of today? The Alien (and Aliens) crew was believable from what we expected from a movie in the era the film was made.

The Prometheus expedition takes place in 2093, 79 years from now. I don't even think one can predict what believable behavior would be then. Do we behave and think like people did in 1935?

The one thing I'll give you is that in Prometheus, for a $ trillion expedition, the crew does seem to be both too small and made up mostly of idiots and renegades. You would also think that the balance of scientists to military types would be higher on such a mission and that the scientists would sound like they had a bit of intellect (aside from Shaw and Holloway). Was there even a linguist on the crew? But maybe there's lots of inflation between now and then and maybe our society has pretty much fallen apart and there are mostly only idiots and renegades. Maybe the advent of highly intelligent artificial lifeforms has given humanity even more impetus to become even stupider than we are today. Maybe because so much knowledge is at our fingertips, either in the form of computers or artificial lifeforms, we decide that we don't actually have to know anything ourselves.

The problem with that is that if the crew had been made up mostly of intellectuals with a smaller backup security crew of military types, would we have found the movie interesting at all? Would the masses have turned out to see a bunch of nerds discussing science and archeology? No, so the film does what films have always done and include all kinds of character types.

I think you finding my statement absurd is absurd.

People are people. So because I find the characters in Alien believable as space miners/truckers, but find the supposedly "intelligent" scientists in Prometheus poorly realized, that's an absurd statement? Well for an absurd statement, there are a lot of people that feel the same way.

I don't know why you think somehow people are going to be drastically different in 158 years, as opposed to how we are now, or how we were 158 years earlier. People have lived for thousands and thousands of years. And people are still people. Society changes, but people are still people.

The second part of your quote I highlighted because that is exactly my point when I say believable. I believed the people in Alien because they acted like people might act in their situation, and didn't make lots of unbelievably dumb decisions throughout the film, and they portrayed their roles in such a way that I could buy that they were the characters they played. In Prometheus, everybody was an idiot. That's what I meant by believable.

One more thing - "Do we behave and think like people did in 1935?"

YES - Yes we do. People are people. People lied, stole, cheated, loved, killed, etc back in 1935 - and we do today and we will 200 years from now.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by mar3o

@Darkstream, where did that second comic image you posted above come from? Just curious.

I just Google-searched "Space Jockey in comics" and found it, but it's from Alien Apocalypse: The Destroying Angels published by Dark Horse.

Here's a few links on it...

http://alienexplorations.blogspot.co...ng-angels.html

http://alienexplorations.blogspot.co...theus-and.html




And I definitely agree with what you're saying about the Prometheus characters. The crew didn't even use logical precaution when dealing with the alien environment. At first they seemed to, but then it was just stupidly abandoned. Even the Noomi character Shaw made mention of what should or should not be done at one point or another, but then she joined in and resorted to being just as dumb.

At least in Alien when Dallas wanted to break quarantine, it was strongly adressed and opposed to by Ripley, and he acknowledged as much but felt forced into the situation where he was willing to take the risk in order to save Kane.

I've heard people complain that trained scientists should not act so irrational when facing a scary situation like dealing with alien beings, but I really don't agree with all that, because they are human after all and in the face of unknown fear I do believe it would be hard to predict how one would really react in that kind of situation, even if mentally prepared for it. It's everything that proceeded the scary stuff that I have a problem with -- all the conventional logic and scientific procedure that was thrown out the window as the scientists explored, discovered and examined all the alien subjects they encountered. I understand the struggle to show the Prometheus crew as arrogant human beings that were guilty of hubris, but the writing and direction failed in executing that, because all it did was make them look like idiots instead.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by mar3o

In Prometheus, everybody was an idiot. That's what I meant by believable.

I thought that some of their actions were ridiculous. Alien and Aliens was populated by believable characters that were well realised and were professional at their jobs.

The cast of Prometheus featured a scientist who took off his helmet in a hostile unknown environment and then had a temper-tantrum, after making mankind's greatest ever discovery. He did stay true to form though, after been infected with a biological pathogen he then had un-protected sex with his partner ...

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by chip75

I thought that some of their actions were ridiculous. Alien and Aliens was populated by believable characters that were well realised and were professional at their jobs.

The cast of Prometheus featured a scientist who took off his helmet in a hostile unknown environment and then had a temper-tantrum, after making mankind's greatest ever discovery. He did stay true to form though, after been infected with a biological pathogen he then had un-protected sex with his partner ...

Well, it's not like he knew he was infected.

[itsaboutHD]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The one thing I'll give you is that in Prometheus, for a $ trillion expedition, the crew does seem to be both too small and made up mostly of idiots and renegades. You would also think that the balance of scientists to military types would be higher on such a mission and that the scientists would sound like they had a bit of intellect (aside from Shaw and Holloway).

[./.]

The problem with that is that if the crew had been made up mostly of intellectuals with a smaller backup security crew of military types, would we have found the movie interesting at all? Would the masses have turned out to see a bunch of nerds discussing science and archeology? No, so the film does what films have always done and include all kinds of character types.

I think you nailed it with that first statement!

I think there are many very interesting "intellectual" characters in sci-fi, starting with Mister Spock. Even George Taylor, the character Charlton Heston played in Planet of the Apes, was much more sophisticated and intelligent, yet managed to retain a rough and tough persona. So, to answer the question, yes, I think it would've (but not would of) made a huge difference. I don't think they have to discuss science and nerdy stuff, just give the audience confidence that they really know their stuff, and once in a while befuddle them with clever science! That change alone would have shrunk the naysayers to a small fringe group that would fall in the same category as the flat-earthers, and whose collective complaints might appear on the back pages of The Enquirer.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Do we behave and think like people did in 1935?

Mostly we do.

[itsaboutHD]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I think you finding my statement absurd is absurd.

In Prometheus, everybody was an idiot. That's what I meant by believable.

One more thing - "Do we behave and think like people did in 1935?"

YES - Yes we do. People are people. People lied, stole, cheated, loved, killed, etc back in 1935 - and we do today and we will 200 years from now.

Not everybody. I think that David was very believable and excellently portrayed as a very advanced android. I agree with everything else you said, particularly the last part. We will behave the same way, even if our training, culture differs substantially.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by mar3o

How can anybody at this point still insist that Ridley didn't change the design of the Space Jockey for Prometheus after reading Giger's own words in his personal diary for Alien back in 1978/1979?

While you're right that we never knew quite what it was or how it was merged into the chair, or what part was organic and what part was inorganic, the point is obvious that it was never a tall albino human-like being wearing a spacesuit. That was never, ever the idea for the Space Jockey. Giger's own words confirm that. And still people want to insist that Prometheus didn't change any of that.

No, Ridley didn't confirm anything. He altered it completely to fit the ridiculous plot that was written for Prometheus. He should have had some integrity and said no to changes like that and insisted he respect the integrity of the design as it was originally conceived and executed by Giger. The bottom line is as it was conceived originally, for Alien, the Space Jockey was unable to rise from the chair and move around. Giger said it himself - "he’s integrated totally into the function he performs." He was never made to be a humanoid figure that gets up and runs around and gets in fist-fights.

I think it's perfectly fine, and fun, to wonder and discuss what weird type of creature that was, but to suggest that it was always meant to be a human-type being is just not correct given all that we know about this.

I never said it was always intended to be a humanoid. If the best you can do is to put words into the mouths of anyone who dares to voice an alternate viewpoint, maybe you should give up debating.

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Just because it resembled, and might have even been originally inspired by the look of a flight helmet (or maybe an elephant), doesn't mean that's what it was supposed to be when Giger designed it.

Nor does it necessarily mean that it wasn't.

I'm not talking about what Giger intended...his main intent was that you not be able to tell. That's Giger's genius. But beyond that, we don't know what he intended. I'm talking about what I see - and have always seen - when I look at the Jockey. He's a pilot, and he looks like he's wearing a pilot's flight helmet. That was my impression the very first time I watched Alien, decades before Prometheus was released. Your mileage may vary, but that hardly makes your view definitive, or anyone else's less valid.

I find it somewhat funny that Giger created something ambiguous, and what many fans seem to resent is not that Scott decided to make it something set and rigid, and thereby steal some of the enigmatic quality that the figure of the Space Jockey has always had (which I could understand completely)...but that his rigid definition of what the Jockey is does not mesh with their own rigid definition of what the Jockey is.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by itsaboutHD

Not everybody. I think that David was very believable and excellently portrayed as a very advanced android. I agree with everything else you said, particularly the last part. We will behave the same way, even if our training, culture differs substantially.

Michael Fassbender as David was definitely the exception when it came to the characters. I suppose that is owed mostly to him being an android. I would have loved it if he had a line at some point in the film saying, "Humans really are stupid."

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Nor does it necessarily mean that it wasn't.

I'm not talking about what Giger intended...his main intent was that you not be able to tell. That's Giger's genius. But beyond that, we don't know what he intended. I'm talking about what I see - and have always seen - when I look at the Jockey. He's a pilot, and he looks like he's wearing a pilot's flight helmet. That was my impression the very first time I watched Alien, decades before Prometheus was released. Your mileage may vary, but that hardly makes your view definitive, or anyone else's less valid.

There's no doubt that the Space Jockey was a pilot, at least to me (then again, I was always aware of Giger calling it The Pilot in his designs), but it was never because I thought he was wearing a flight helmet, even if it did slightly resemble one. It always looked to me like the skeleton of a cybernetic alien elephant-man in... no... attached to the cockpit of a giant space cannon or telescope.

I find it somewhat funny that Giger created something ambiguous, and what many fans seem to resent is not that Scott decided to make it something set and rigid, and thereby steal some of the enigmatic quality that the figure of the Space Jockey has always had (which I could understand completely)...but that his rigid definition of what the Jockey is does not mesh with their own rigid definition of what the Jockey is.

I think the mystery and the ambiguity was certainly part of the appeal. It's kind of like hearing the lyrics to a song and interpreting it to mean one thing, and then you later come to find out that it actually means something else entirely different -- or even worse -- it may not mean anything at all and never did. I imagine that could be kind of disappointing to some.

But in this case, I see it as Scott interpreting Giger's painting in a vague fashion, allowing people to build on that with their own interpretations based on what was given, then Scott came back later and said, "You're all wrong, because I didn't even know what the hell it was then, but now I do, and this is what it is, because this is what I'm making it now."

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

There's no doubt that the Space Jockey was a pilot, at least to me (then again, I was always aware of Giger calling it The Pilot in his designs), but it was never because I thought he was wearing a flight helmet, even if it did slightly resemble one. It always looked to me like the skeleton of a cybernetic alien elephant-man in... no... attached to the cockpit of a giant space cannon or telescope.

Well, it's obvious that he was piloting the craft...that's not something I thought because he appears to be wearing a flight helmet. What I'm saying is that the fact that he's the pilot reinforces the idea that it's a helmet...or at least makes the flight helmet make sense an an obvious inspiration. All I'm saying here is that it's no major stretch to say that it's a helmet. People are acting as if it was written in stone that it WASN'T a helmet, prior to Scott deciding that it was one. Which is not the case.

I think the mystery and the ambiguity was certainly part of the appeal. It's kind of like hearing the lyrics to a song and interpreting it to mean one thing, and then you later come to find out that it actually means something else entirely different -- or even worse -- it may not mean anything at all and never did. I imagine that could be kind of disappointing to some.

But in this case, I see it as Scott interpreting Giger's painting in a vague fashion, allowing people to build on that with their own interpretations based on what was given, then Scott came back later and said, "You're all wrong, because I didn't even know what the hell it was then, but now I do, and this is what it is, because this is what I'm making it now."

See, I get being upset that Scott came out and explained something that was better left mysterious and enigmatic. But what I can't get behind is people who had already made up their own concrete impression of what the Jockey was, complaining because Scott then made his own concrete impression, and it just happens to differ from theirs. Scott has as much right to his own interpretation of the Jockey as anyone else. More right, in fact, than anyone on this forum. Who commissioned Giger to design the Jockey in the first place? You?

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Well, it's obvious that he was piloting the craft...that's not something I thought because he appears to be wearing a flight helmet. What I'm saying is that the fact that he's the pilot reinforces the idea that it's a helmet...or at least makes the flight helmet make sense an an obvious inspiration. All I'm saying here is that it's no major stretch to say that it's a helmet. People are acting as if it was written in stone that it WASN'T a helmet, prior to Scott deciding that it was one. Which is not the case.



See, I get being upset that Scott came out and explained something that was better left mysterious and enigmatic. But what I can't get behind is people who had already made up their own concrete impression of what the Jockey was, complaining because Scott then made his own concrete impression, and it just happens to differ from theirs. Scott has as much right to his own interpretation of the Jockey as anyone else. More right, in fact, than anyone on this forum. Who commissioned Giger to design the Jockey in the first place? You?

I already had this argument. Go back and read what I said if you want to have it again. I'm done talking about the Space Jockey. I thought everyone here had already moved away from that by now. I think at this point I'd much rather discuss how great it would be if a Predator came up against an Engineer in the sequel. Oh, would that be too unbelievable to happen? Well, it wouldn't be anymore unbelievable than, let's say, going back and watching Alien and believing that that giant skeleton is a spacesuit! Ha!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by brian9229

Well, it's not like he knew he was infected.

No, but the next morning he saw eye worms and told nobody. Another intelligent decision.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by itsaboutHD

Not everybody. I think that David was very believable and excellently portrayed as a very advanced android. I agree with everything else you said, particularly the last part. We will behave the same way, even if our training, culture differs substantially.

I'll grant you that. David was the best character, hands down. But his bizarre choices without any clarification as to why he made those choices was frustrating. Why did he

[Show spoiler]infect a crew member

? Did that really seem like a smart idea? Was he ordered to do that? If so, it's just more proof that the others

[Show spoiler]including the old man

were all idiots.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

I already had this argument. Go back and read what I said if you want to have it again. I'm done talking about the Space Jockey. I thought everyone here had already moved away from that by now. I think at this point I'd much rather discuss how great it would be if a Predator came up against an Engineer in the sequel. Oh, would that be too unbelievable to happen? Well, it wouldn't be anymore unbelievable than, let's say, going back and watching Alien and believing that that giant skeleton is a spacesuit! Ha!

Agreed. I'm done with the Space Jockey in here. It's all been said, and we've heard straight from Giger on that subject from his own diary. People can believe what they want.