Forum Topic
joeyjoe
MemberOvomorphAugust 19, 2012Here is a quote from ridley scott that i pulled from a screen rant interview. Remarkably, Scott addresses the age (roughly) of the derelict craft on LV 426. Maybe some of you have read this, but given the amount of discussion we've engaged in regarding the age of the derelict on lv 426, id say im not the only one who missed this little tidbit. Below is the quote as it appears in the screen rant interview. (http://screenrant.com/interview-ridley-scott-prometheus-rothc-177916/)
"For all intents and purposes this is very loosely a prequel, very. The very simple question was ‘Who the hell was in that ship? Who is sitting in that seat?’ and ‘Why that cargo?’ and ‘Where was he going?’ no one asked the question, so I thought ‘Duh.’ It’s a ‘duh,’ isn’t it? And then you say ‘But how did that ship evolve in the first Alien?’ Then I would say ‘Actually he’s one of the group that had gone off and his cargo had gotten out of control,’ because he was heading somewhere else and it got out of control and actually he had died in the process and that would be the story there. That ship happened to be a brother to the ship that you see that comes out of the ground at the end. They are roughly of the same period give or take a couple hundred years, right?" (ridley scott)
So the derelict is not millions upon millions of years old (i had kind of hoped that it was)?!?! Also, we will not be seeing the derelict crash land on LV 426 in any of the sequels (thank goodness!). Although some room for interpretation still exists (scott's comments are somewhat loose), i took the above quote to mean that the juggernaut that crash landed on LV 426 took off from LV 223 (headed somewhere other than earth) around the same time that things went to hell in the facility on LV 223. As im typing, im realizing that there may be several ways to read Scotts statement. I dont have the time to continue with this right now so ill come back later and post. Having said that, i still think this little tidbit of info is worth discussing. Thoughts?
August 23, 2012
I too remember the quote of which you are referring to BigDave, not to be picky but in that quote Ridley said "maybe a couple of hundred years around the time of the fallout on LV-223".
Now although that infers approximately 200 years, sometimes people, especially from Ridleys neck of the woods in Glasgow say "a couple of" when they mean more or less than 2 times of something, often using instead of "a few of", which is often accepted to mean 3 times of something. So I think it would be more prudent to say "between 100-300 years before or after" rather than saying "200".
And remember, this is a guy who if his voice was used in a sat-nav would lead you in circles because of his affinity for the word right (Harry-Dean Stanton probably took the mannerism from Ridley).
