PROMETHEUS was (Alien 0?) NOW NO LONGER SPOILER FREE. — Page 8

I don't think it's the same ship.

For my theory of what I think is going on look up the Doctor Who episodes The Hand Of Fear and City Of Death and try and juggle them together with a bit of Milton's Paradise Lost.

I'm kinda hoping it's not the same 'derelict' ship either, purely because there are some distinctive design changes between it and the version originally seen in ALIEN.

On the other hand, there are also quite a few differences to the detailing of the 'Spacejockey', it's 'chair', and the 'base' surrounding it also, so this could just be a sign that Ridley isn't too fussed with 'continuity issues' with the original movie, and wanted to tweak things a little.  And the more 'futuristic'-looking screens could just be another thing that doesn't matter to him in the overall scheme of things, since he's now got the improved technology (and budget) to do them this way for today's audiences.

These obvious design differences will no doubt bother me a bit if this turns out to be the case...but I'm just glad this particular movie is being directed by him rather than anyone else I can think of, as I know I'm in for a visual feast either way.

All I know at this point is that this is all going to look terrific in decent 3D.

And here's an interesting 'timeline' chart that's appeared on the 'weylandindustries' site now, which shows when developments like the 'Spectagraph' (red floating 'mapping' ball seen in latest trailer) came along... 

(scroll down to the bottom and work your way up to the top of the page) - https://www.weylandindustries.com/#/timeline

About the holograms and such:

I'm pretty sure Scott is only counting his original Alien as canon with Prometheus, not any of the sequels.

As such, remember that the Nostromo was essentially a mining/transport ship, whereas the Prometheus is a heavily-funded research vessel.  Of course the technology onboard the Prometheus would be newer and more expensive than the technology onboard a ship whose sole purpose is to haul shit from point A to point B.

And if Scott's Alien and Prometheus are the only things that are canon to Scott's universe, then technology depicted in Aliens, Alien³, and Alien: Resurrection, as well as the AVP movies, don't factor into this discussion at all.

Rogue-theX said:

Noticed something about the ship while watching the different versions of the trailers.

It's the exact same ship design, just seen from the opposite side. Apparently they decided to flip the ship around in that shot since the original teaser was released.

I see what you mean, but I think it's just a matter of them continuing to refine the visual effects shots in the time between the teaser and the trailer. I first really realized this was common practice when I noticed this change between the Edward Norton Incredible Hulk teaser and a TV spot from a couple months later:

Aside from flipping the ship for the shot (the new composition is much stronger, imo), the new Prometheus trailer likely has much greater lighting, texture, and atmospheric detail than the earlier renders used in the teaser. I'm sure if you compare other shots, you'll find more improvements in the CGI.

TV-Spot ahoy!

Nothing new (I think) but a nice mix of what we have already seen.

see you auntie said:

It's my belief that there are multiple 'derelict' ships, as seen in Alien, around the universe and this movie focuses one one (or more) of the other ones. Maybe they go around the universe 'giving fire' to humans and/or other species.

There are obvious links in terms of theme between the film, the myth and other related stories.

For example Prometheus made man out of clay (Athena put the spirit in).

Zeus had already destroyed five previous races of men and Prometheus was keen to prevent this from happening again so when his brother ran out of positive attributes after giving them all to the animals Prometheus stole some fire from the sun to keep man alive and taught man the skills necessary to form civilisation.

Prometheus was punished by by having his body tied to a rock and his liver was pecked out by an eagle but being a Titan it regenerated (incidentally the human liver does have amazing regenerative abilities) making the torment eternal. Eventually he turned into rock.

Man was punished by having to endure woman (a common theme in most creation stories).

The first woman, Pandora is given to Epimetheus (Prometheus' brother) with a wedding gift of an urn.

She is told not open it but she has to take a peek (now you know how Greek e-mail viruses get spread around).

This releases all forms of torment on humanity except for hope.

The story as far as we know has evidence of an alien that instructs humanity in basic technology, urns containing all forms of nastiness and the human responsible is a woman.

The story was a big hit with the Romantic poets, Milton was a big hit and Prometheus was equated with Lucifer.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein Or The Modern Prometheus and the film has an artificial man at the heart of the story.

I said I was attempting to post as spoiler free as possible.

It would be impossible to answer your question without any kind of spoiler but it's pretty basic stuff that you can't really avoid noticing from the trailers and the posters which are popping up all over the place.

People tend to forget that Prometheus made mankind's physical form ergo the connection to Frankenstein making a man.

The tagline to the film links into that too.

see you auntie said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

If this turns out to be a stealth reboot of Stargate, I will be perplexed yet intrigued.

I haven't seen Stargate in a long time, but maybe more akin to the monolith in 2001. 

That synopsis was penned by a guy on IMDB, I remember him posting it as a fun bit of speculation and then noting with amusement when it went viral as a leaked story line.

It's been all over the place including the usual scummy red top tabloids over here,

I brought up the difference in technology issue on another board, and was roundly criticized to "get over it" and quit obsessing about it because it's 2012 and you can't have CRT monitors in a science fiction film set in the future anymore.

My feeling is that this is a bullshit excuse. The excuse actually bothers me more than the fact of the tech discrepancy itself.

It's an alternate reality, not our future (just look at the timeline on weylandindustries.com if you think this is supposed to be our future), so who's to say what technology is "supposed to" look like in this alternate future? Is Alien automatically unwatchable because the technology on the Nostromo is not flashy enough? Maybe to some, but not to me. What it does do, is hurt the continuity. It makes it harder for me to suspend my disbelief and buy into Prometheus as a true prequel to the Alien saga, as opposed to a J.J. Abrams-style reboot.

The flashy CG floating see-through displays seem like pandering to Avatar-fans, not like the meticulous, thoughtfully considered aesthetic of a director like Ridley Scott. I'll still see the movie, and let it stand or fall on the merits of its story/acting/directing, but it's just disappointing to me. If any director could've made "antiquated" technology look sexy in a 2012 film, it's Ridley Scott. Hey, Duncan Jones' Moon succeeded wonderfully without needing to wow the kids with fancy holo-displays. That film's aesthetic would fit right in with any number of classic science fiction films of the 20th century. Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica series made nice use of more traditional set design also.

Like I said, it's not a deal-breaker, it's just disappointing. Seems like the path of least resistance to me, like it's trying to appeal to teenagers more than to fans of the original films. As others have duly noted: the exact same problem a lot of us have with the SW prequels.