Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If they are a weapon, and I agree that I'm not 100% on board that idea, they would seem to be an exterminatus role, not a tactical one. Even that is still questionable becuase of the amount of time it would take and humans already had shown they could leave the planet. Sure making Earth a terrible place to be would be mean, but just doesn't seem like a good weapon.

I think we will find that they are either a new species created by the events of Promethues somehow, or just an alien species the Space Jockeys were using for some purpose. Perhaps they are the locusts they unleash on a new planet to prepare it for terraforming?

Of course the Scott Alien and the Cameron Alien were a bit different so I wonder which he is going to go with. In the original the creature had a self contained life cycle but had a very short life span, which is why it was so aggressive, went from snake to adult so fast, and collected people. There was no need for a queen.

A couple of points regarding a write-up in a movie mag. They originally had the plan to include the 'banana head' classic Alien in the film. But, Scott reasoned that we had already seen everything about it, and it can't carry the horror that the original showing in the movie did in 1979. Hell, even Cameron realised that back with Aliens, hence why he opted for an 'Action' film for Aliens, and looked at the Alien universe from a different angle. I wonder also if Scott probably felt that the Alien itself has forever been sullied by the Alien Vs. Predator movies, and this film will go back towards more mature storytelling, more mystery and more of a draw to bring people into the cinema than something like say 'Alien 4' might have otherwise managed.

Looks exciting though in any case!

I'm just hoping he got off the pipe ling enough to make a good story again. His last few movies have been craptacular.

Previews so far have been superb though.

Ahtman wrote:I think we will find that they are either a new species created by the events of Promethues somehow, or just an alien species the Space Jockeys were using for some purpose.

I don't think the xenomorph existentially results from the plot of Prometheus, given the fact that something very like the xenomorph appears in the trailer ... as a carving or something? Again, I wonder whether the xenomorph might be a more primitive form of the space jockey. The original concept for the xenomorph was that these things are born violent but mature into sentient and cultured beings. The one to be born on the Nostromo in early scripts would be born "out of context" and so simply leash out against humans who have no idea how to raise it properly. In that version, the eggs were not found in a ship piloted by a space jockey but rather in a pyramid constructed by the xenomorphs themselves. Maybe we could see some of that slightly recycled here?

I have a bet with a friend that Prometheus's big reveal is that human beings are actually the bioweapons engineered by the space jockeys. I guess the xenomorph could have just been one of their failed experiments.

Perhaps they are the locusts they unleash on a new planet to prepare it for terraforming?

I've considered this, too, but it's another case of "then some magic happens"-type missing information. Specifically, (1) xenomorphs just kind of make a mess, (2) there's no apparent reason to strip a planet of roughly human-sized life forms, speaking generally, and (3) there's still the "turn it off" problem. The third objection is easiest to answer: they eat themselves into starvation. But the first two weigh more heavily -- unless, as I said, Ridely comes up with entirely new information of an extremely narrow scope to answer them.

Of course the Scott Alien and the Cameron Alien were a bit different so I wonder which he is going to go with. In the original the creature had a self contained life cycle but had a very short life span, which is why it was so aggressive, went from snake to adult so fast, and collected people. There was no need for a queen.

At least one poster here has opined that only 12-year-old boys would enjoy Aliens more than Alien. I guess that means I'm less than half the age I thought because I thought that Aliens was a far better action film than Alien was a horror film. Alien has that one big gasp and once you've been exploitatively shocked by it the first time it's lost it's scare-punch. Sure, it's still gross but gross on its own hardly makes for a good horror film. So naturally fans start to notice how great the acting and sets are and the film becomes more of a thriller, which in turn has little to do specifically with the xenomorph (any monster will do). By contrast, Aliens is a great action film every single time that I watch it and the xenomorphs, especially the queen, are relevant in every viewing. So, long story short, Cameron's xenomorphs are better than Ridely's. That said, I don't think Ridely will have to choose if what he's said about the xenomorph not being in the film (other than maybe as wall decor?) is actually true.

Manchu wrote:something very like the xenomorph appears in the trailer ... as a carving or something?

being very like something isn't the same as being something. The aliens as we know them could be a combination of the original creature we see in the carving and a synthetic, thus creating a bio-mechanical version.

They went through several concepts for the Alien, and I recall them talking about the pyramid with the eggs. They also talked abut it having a short life cycle as well.

Manchu wrote:So, long story short, Cameron's xenomorphs are better than Ridely's.

You sir, are a charlatan, and man of ill repute.

Ahtman wrote:being very like something isn't the same as being something. The aliens as we know them could be a combination of the original creature we see in the carving and a synthetic, thus creating a bio-mechanical version.

Sure but what I was getting at is that the xenomorph cannot be an entirely new product of the events in Prometheus. Also, given the vast egg chambers in the Drelict, I doubt it even more strongly.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:being very like something isn't the same as being something. The aliens as we know them could be a combination of the original creature we see in the carving and a synthetic, thus creating a bio-mechanical version.

Sure but what I was getting at is that the xenomorph cannot be an entirely new product of the events in Prometheus. Also, given the vast egg chambers in the Drelict, I doubt it even more strongly.

I didn't mean that it was solely an entirely new creature created from scratch. It may be a change in something. It seems that it can't be a coincidence that in one of the rooms there are fields of vats that are arranged the same as eggs, a similar visual style as the eggs, with something alive in/on both.

This is all speculation and just random thoughts. None of this may happen, or anything remotely like it.

Manchu wrote: I guess that means I'm less than half the age I thought because I thought that Aliens was a far better action film than Alien was a horror film. Alien has that one big gasp and once you've been exploitatively shocked by it the first time it's lost it's scare-punch. Sure, it's still gross but gross on its own hardly makes for a good horror film. So naturally fans start to notice how great the acting and sets are and the film becomes more of a thriller, which in turn has little to do specifically with the xenomorph (any monster will do). By contrast, Aliens is a great action film every single time that I watch it and the xenomorphs, especially the queen, are relevant in every viewing. So, long story short, Cameron's xenomorphs are better than Ridely's. That said, I don't think Ridely will have to choose if what he's said about the xenomorph not being in the film (other than maybe as wall decor?) is actually true.

Can I ask what sort of age you were though Manchu when you first watched Alien, and how long ago? Being in my early 30's now while I wasn't there for the cinematic release (and am deeply envious of those who were), I watched it as a 11/12 year old on VHS and the film absolutely scared me witless. It's wonderfully shot, with the sense of claustrophobia and unglamorous setting, and the characters were portrayed brilliantly. You wanted Dallas to escape down the tunnel, and were angry at the incompetence of the hysterical woman who was unable to save him, a marked difference from a lot of modern and shallow gore-fests that leave you idly chewing popcorn as yet another boy/girl band wannabe gets gibbed on screen. But, I think the important point is that this was back before the internet, and the kind of cult-following that these films would later receive. Other than from a few comments from friends, who had seen the film and recommended it as only young kids watching 18-certificate movies can, I had no idea of what to expect. However, I think if I had watched it more recently, perhaps over the last decade, with full knowledge of the quadrilogy of films (and the later 2 A vs. P debacles), then there is no way I would have had anything like the experience of the film for a first viewing. And, I think that for a horror movie, the key is the controlling of the psychology of the viewer - if they know what's coming, then that effect immediately loses its potency.

As you say, the Alien has now lost its 'scare punch' - as I mentioned in a previous post, Scott has used this as a reason for the 'banana heads' not appearing in the movie, even though it seems a bit odd to have an 'Alien' film without them! But, if Scott can capture the atmosphere of the first film, and give us a new object for terror, then there is no reason at all it can't fulfil it's objective. In fact it has been too long since there has been a decent sci-fi horror, and I think I might well abstain from any further internet research on Prometheus just so that I can get the full effect of it!

To be honest though I think that comparing movies of different genres is a bit of a fruitless exercise. If they manage to complete what they set out to do (namely 'horrify' and ... erm... 'actionify'? ) then you can say that they are a 'good' film. I would put Alien in probably my top 3 horror films, along with 'The Thing' (Kurt Russell version) and the original Japanese version of 'The Ring', if one is to base how good the film is on an emotional reaction to it's content. I will say that this is somewhat harder to achieve with a horror movie - the genre is chock-full of movies that just have just missed the mark, and fail in their objective of gluing their viewers to the seats, and clammy hands clamped on the sides of the chair. Action movies can succeed in their remit by fulfilling some of the staples of film making - be it plot, character and the actual action sequences themselves, and I think are enjoyable in a far more relaxed manner than horror.

@Pacific: I saw Alien for the first time while in middle school, so between 11 and 13. It certainly scared me then and I had been primed for fright by the Alien 3 trailers on TV years before. (I even had the xenomorph toys before I saw any of the films and I remember playing with them with a marked sense of dread, disgust, and fear -- like they might somehow act as talismans to attract the things out of the film. Such is a child's imagination!) But I saw it again very shortly afterward and it didn't scare me at all. In no time flat, the franchise's monster went from childhood nightmare to sci-fi universe furniture.

My comparison between Alien and Aliens revolves around how well each consistently does what it's supposed to do. Alien scared me once. Aliens thrills me every time. Horror movies can aspire to being scary for more than one viewing. The Shining, for example, still scares me on some level (usually some new level) every time I watch it and most especially when I think about it and have one of those great "it could have been hallucinations" type conversations with another fan of the film. For those who've already seen it, Aliens isn't an effective horror movie so it has to do something else -- it has to be an artsy, philisophical scifi film (a la 2001) that transitions into a suspense thriller than transitions into an action film. It's horrendous as an action film -- who the feth goes back for the cat? (a dog, I could see) -- but thanks to its wonderful script, camera work, lighting, acting, costumes, and sets it's a pretty damn good artsy, philosophical film and all of those same factors make it a much more than servicable suspense film. By contrast, Aliens is a terrible "boo from the dark" horror film -- but then again, it makes no pretense at trying to scare you for the sake of horror. It's scaring you for the sake of getting your adrenaline up, getting you pumped and tense and ready to fight even a big nasty you have no hope against, and it works wonderfully, nearly perfectly, in that way. "Get away from her, you bitch" has all the punch, everytime, that the chestburster sequence had once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:It seems that it can't be a coincidence that in one of the rooms there are fields of vats that are arranged the same as eggs, a similar visual style as the eggs, with something alive in/on both.

The cynical response is that the studio wanted to market Sir Ridely's new sci-fi horror film using his Alien creditentials but Ridley insisted on telling everyone there were no xenomorphs in the movie. The compromise? Visual cues that suggest scenes from Alien.

But I'm not a cynic. I agree that it's not likely a coincidence. Note the weird "dancing" matter atop the ampule David is grinning at -- reminiscent of the wrong-side-up water drop effects on the eggs Kane encounters. There was absolutely no explanation for that phenomenon and I still can't think of one, other than Sir Ridley wanting to freak us out. Maybe Prometheus will explain? I very much doubt, however, that the ampules contain facehuggers (maybe some kind of X-Files type oil that gets in your brain through your eyes?). But could the Derelict start Prometheus with an empty cargo bay and end it with a full complement of evenly spaced xenomorph eggs? Sure -- just like anything that we've seen no hint of could possibly happen. I do like the idea that David will somehow hybridize with the jockeys and if that creates the xenomorphs ... well, I'll be interested to see how those eggs got there, all nicely placed and protected by that blue light field.

@Pacific: Sir Ridley talked in one interview about seeing the xenomorph at a Disney themepark. It was them, he knew, that the xenomoprh could not be scary anymore. But this conversation has made me think: it's actually really smart not to have xenomorphs in this movie for retroactive reasons. As Ahtman points out, his xenomorphs and Cameron's are so very different that he'd inevitably have to pick one variety or the other. And that's a no-win choice unless he's planning to spend some time, distracting from his own pacing and plotting, to explain it.

Manchu wrote: It's horrendous as an action film -- who the feth goes back for the cat? (a dog, I could see)

I'd go back for the cat. A dog, I would throw to the alien in hope that it might slow it down. Cats > Dogs

ifStatement wrote:Cats > Dogs

I think that's the corporate motto of Weyland Yutani.

Well they're evil bastards but at least their houses don't stink.

Yeah, ammonia-soaked clay is the tell-tale fragrance of hygienic living.

More on topic, as fresh as everything else is or could be about Prometheus, it will be interesting to see how the corporation-as-ultimate-evil theme gets played. Everyone has been talking about whether or not we can stand any more xenomorphs but I've heard nothing on the oh so stereotypical and massive hubris of Mr. Weyland. Speaking of corporate mottoes, perhaps this would be a better one for WY:

ifStatement wrote:

Manchu wrote: It's horrendous as an action film -- who the feth goes back for the cat? (a dog, I could see)

I'd go back for the cat. A dog, I would throw to the alien in hope that it might slow it down. Cats > Dogs

TBone the Yoda of Wiener Dogs finds such thoughts blasphemous. Blasphemer!

it is finally nice to see more of the fictional universe setting of aliens other than with the aliens. I always wanted to know more about humanity, corporations, politics, etc....

ifStatement wrote:

Manchu wrote: It's horrendous as an action film -- who the feth goes back for the cat? (a dog, I could see)

I'd go back for the cat. A dog, I would throw to the alien in hope that it might slow it down. Cats > Dogs

I have yet to meet a male without allergies who thinks such madness!

On topic, I am really looking forward to it. I suspect almost anyone who saw Alien as a kid (Im also in my 30s) feels the same.

Well, unless they are fething mental obviously.

Buffo, you may want to take a look at this book. It's been out of print and in high demand for years (check out those used prices!) but is going to be reprinted soon. If you were ever curious about any aspect of the early 22nd-century Marine Corps then this is the book for you.

Manchu wrote:Buffo, you may want to take a look at this book. It's been out of print and in high demand for years (check out those used prices!) but is going to be reprinted soon. If you were ever curious about any aspect of the early 22nd-century Marine Corps then this is the book for you.

Oh wow!!!!

Thank you very much for taking your time and showing me this. I will definitely look into that!

mattyrm wrote:

ifStatement wrote:I'd go back for the cat. A dog, I would throw to the alien in hope that it might slow it down. Cats > Dogs

I have yet to meet a male without allergies who thinks such madness!

heh well you probably have, it just protects your imprudent conceitedness by believing that you haven't.

Manchu wrote:Everyone has been talking about whether or not we can stand any more xenomorphs but I've heard nothing on the oh so stereotypical and massive hubris of Mr. Weyland.

It would be nice to see if they can give more information on the company , its people, and its motivations, beyond 'corporation = evil'.

@Buffo: There were also a couple of (rules heavy) roleplaying games from Leading Edge games that had tons of info on the military. Leading Edge even produced a line of minitaures:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:It would be nice to see if they can give more information on the company , its people, and its motivations, beyond 'corporation = evil'.

To be honest, I'd be a bit chagrined if David turned out to be a villain for the same reason. For my money, the best villain in all the films is Burke. Paul Reiser was born for that role.

It would be nice if the company actually wasn't some monlithic evil corporation. That shtick has kind of been done to death already.

What would be super nice is if they did another Aliens board game:



Here's a video review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nUkeNSJfo

You can play it via flash on New Grounds:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/408816


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and the eye thing? It's weirder than I thought:

Frazzled wrote:It would be nice if the company actually wasn't some monlithic evil corporation. That shtick has kind of been done to death already.

Weren't people complaining about that aspect of the new Muppets film?

To be fair, with the first few films that offered one hell of a plot device. The deeply sinister moment in Alien when you find out that it wasn't a distress signal, but a warning, and then Ash tries to kill Ripley (that was just such a well filmed sequence, studied it in detail during college ) And as Manchu says, Burke was a great character in Aliens, and again a good plot device for some of the best sequences of the film - namely Ripley waking up under the bed with newt to see the face-hugger container spilled in front of them.

On the other hand, the Wayland character in A vs. P was appallingly two-dimensional, just missing the white cat. Even a usually pretty competent actor like Lance Henrikkson couldn't do anything with such shoddy material. Thankfully, it looks like Guy Pearce's character is a lot more realistically portrayed if the trailers are anything to go by.

Huh, I thought Charles Bishop Weyland was written pretty sympathetically in AvP. Yeah, he gets caught up in the moment and needs reminding that human lives are at stake but he's not a total jackhole and he seems humbled as well as driven by his mystery malady. What bothered me most about him in that film is how the character was totally thrown away. AvP's Weyland was certainly more than some corporate gangster and deserved better than the meaningless death scene he got. It's hard to say about Sir Peter Weyland, just running off his monstrously arrogant TED 2023 speech. But it looks like we'll see him as a frail old man in Prometheus and maybe Ridley will mix up the corporations are bad schtick like in AvP.

I really shouldn't have read this thread whilst watching Alien for the first time.

On another note, I am looking forwards to this film a lot.

Whoa, I had never noticed this before:Between this, the eye thing, the "black veins" of Bald Man, and the infected crewman, we're definitely looking at humans being transformed.

Also, Tzeentch FTW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while we're at it, WTF? Seriously. What is hanging over Shaw's head there?And who put here in that contraption?

Vickers or David? Who is the more obvious corporate shill?

Pacific wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It would be nice if the company actually wasn't some monlithic evil corporation. That shtick has kind of been done to death already.

Weren't people complaining about that aspect of the new Muppets film?

Maniacal laughh...maniacal laughhh...
Done to death, but not just by Alien. Lots and lots of movies with the evil corporate spiel. Meh,

What if the "field of vats" from Prometheus are a type of blank genetic slate. Like a tub full of stem-cells waiting to be programmed? The xenomorph could be a horrible mistake made by the Prometheus crew in their ignorance.

I read somewhere that the Space Jockey race were the creators of many sentient races, humanity included. If that were the case I could see them having some type of way to speed up the evolutionary process...

Going to be the 2nd movie I see in theatres this year, first being Chronicle.

Alien and Aliens were excellent, I have high hopes for this film.