3 major A L I E N plot devices on the wrong planet?

spoilers!!! 1/2B and C 3. The elephant in the room is the question why this had to tie in with alien? 4. nope... 5. Don't know, it's never explained.

The engineer that gets "chestbursted" is not the one from alien. The planet IS lv-223 not 426. Why would giving an unknown planet a fake number benefit anyone? (it's unknown) Yes you are way off. The mere simplicity of it is that this is NOT a prequel to alien. People never listen. RS has been saying since the beginning it is NOT a prequel. At this point, it is obvious this was a set up for a sequel (or two) which may or may not (I'm thinking may) tie in to the original alien movie.

So, no disrespect intented (just clifying): We have all 3 plot devices from Alien... but on the wrong planet. Right? If so, with no explaination as of yet... that's totally relindeloftarded.

Yes - I completely agree and this is what I specifically don't like about the film. "We're going to show you the story of the derelict!" "hahahaa only kidding, you have to wait for a sequel!" grrrrr. its just so convoluted . It reminds me of the stories about alien3's plot being completely reworked during filming and then they ended up with a mess. And this whole Lost-influence.. [claim:]"we've got a big clever story here!" [reality:] "We're making up random crap as we go along!"

No, just 2, the ship and the warning message.

>>"no just 2 , the ship and the warning message" >>"Is the final Engineer sitting in the "chair" when he's chestbursted?" I get the distinct impression they wanted 3, and just couldn't muddle the plot together. which is why we get the phony derelict story.

@Blood: Sorry, just for clarification: Is the ending chestbursted protoalien Engineer in the SJ suit. or just one of the bald blue guys?

And this goes out to anyone who saw the film: So what you're all telling me is: we have the same EXACT things happening (that happened in Alien 79') to the wrong SJ in the wrong ship on the wrong planet. And in order for this film to (eventually) tie-in to said Alien 79' film, we would need to have them all happen again to a different SJ on a different ship on a different planet?

Sorry, DP.

@centaurian_slug Ridley never said that prometheus would tell the story of the derelict from Alien... that's what fanboys and girls wanted to see so they overhyped everything! Ridley said that he wanted to explain what the engineer race was and what they did, combine this with some Erich Von Däniken theory's and you've got yourself a movie called Prometheus.

I agree that people need to stop saying 'This isn't a direct prequel to Alien?!' because it was never meant to be. Ridley Scott said it many times. But, and i said this in a thread before, it's similar to how the remake of The Thing hijacked ideas from the original and tried to play them as their own.

The ship in Prometheus is'nt the derelict shown in the Alien films and (this probably goes without saying but wth) it wasn't the same engineer. And you can't blame the film or the makers for the hype. The media, yes. But mainly yourselves for listening to it and not researching your own self. Nobody who was involved in the film said that THE FILM Prometheus would show the story of the derelict. To be honest, I don't think the media did either. Personally I think Ridley Scott did bloody well in bringing a new lease of life into the story, opening it up for endless ideas. AND it steered it away from the AvP franchise which brought dormancy to an EPIC CLASSIC. @Brightonrock I don't think it's similar to The Thing, tho. There's no real comparison as The Thing was a direct and IMMEDIATE prequel, in that there is no time lapsed between the two films and if they didn't "hyjack ideas from the original" as you put it, the continuity would be screwed. It NEEDED to look the same and have the same feel. If you haven't watched them back to I highly recomend it, and if you have, you know what I mean. The corpses... the axe... What you are refering to in The Thing were merely clever continuity devices.

@ db the only same thing that's happening is a ship crashing. But in different places. It's not that unbelievable, planes crash in different places all the time :D

I've said this before in my [url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/9639]THE THING WORTHY PREQUEL[/url] thread, "I liked whtat this 'real prequel' did because it ANSWERED the journalistic who what where when why of the Original," what Ridley Scott always wanted to 'explore' (whether this meant he'd do it in this film, later or never) is a) that elephant guy in the chair and b) his cargo of eggs. You can be happy he went down the Pressure Suit direction, if you want, but for me the original 1979 Space Trucker's origins and docket sheet have NOT BEEN EXPLORED. No sir, not one bit. Instead we have STARGATE, where ancient alien invaders turned monkeys into men ... guffaw. Prometheus should have AT LEAST had the balls to dissociate itself completely from anything to do with Giger or Alien -- they weren't even in the same UNIVERSE; that being a horror/slasher/sex-pervert universe of inhuman urgency. Gah, anyway, enjoy your TV series.

Custodian- jeez, you're a mr. Crabbypants. The only thing RS and co. did wrong was underestimate the level of passion die hard Alien fans had for the original. And even that can't really be said, Spaihts' original draft was an Alien fans wet dream. Spaights himself said Fox wanted the changes, wanted Lindelof. Not Ridley. That said, we got a spectacular, unnerving sci fi psycho thriller better looking and more singular than any big budget sci fi film in many a year. All you lovers of science fiction should be delighted! But no, let's grouse about the fantastic achievement of creativity and talent that is Prometheus. You got the Alien universe on a whole new glossy platter dripping with body fluids like never before. New monsters. The best AI since HAL. Bad science? Come on, was there good science in Alien? Was the crew of the Nostromo any less fallible, or any more like able? What is RS trying to say, here, about humankind and it's foibles? Did anyone in the movie at any point say "these are the very best scientists money could buy." ? No. Just as RS promised, it's perverse, top to bottom. Unsettling. And yes, quite scary. I haven't been that disturbed by a science fiction film since, well, Alien.

Now my mind is filled with underwear with pincers. Thanks LOL