**** The Official Prometheus Spoiler Discussion Thread ****

That was a very interesting read! I picked up on the 2000 years ago part but completely missed the fact that it was Christmas day. I think I'll have to watch it again at some point and see if I can pick up on the things I missed!
 
this is just like Lost - we are given so many mysteries and so few answers you can basically make up anything to fit.
i'm all for mystery but you need to put 'some' answers in - otherwise it isn't a story, its just a random collection of odd events.
i wonder who wrote lost..............
 
Street said:
That was a very interesting read! I picked up on the 2000 years ago part but completely missed the fact that it was Christmas day. I think I'll have to watch it again at some point and see if I can pick up on the things I missed!
Click to expand...

You dont remember the bit where the captain was putting up the christmas tree?
 
aardvark said:
this is just like Lost - we are given so many mysteries and so few answers you can basically make up anything to fit.
i'm all for mystery but you need to put 'some' answers in - otherwise it isn't a story, its just a random collection of odd events.
i wonder who wrote lost..............
Click to expand...
Bingo, and I'm blaming that guy too :p.

It is possible to give give out so much information that the audience feels like it's being spoon fed to them, in these cases it can very much be to the films detriment.

So how do you combat this? Well you can try to write something that is intelligent, but also thought provoking. Leave the audience feeling like they now understand most of the questions they had, but also leave possibilities to find out more should they wish to dig deeper.

Or you can simply tell the audience almost nothing, leaving subtle clues that 9/10 people are going to completely miss, which even when pieced together don't make a huge amount of sense. Unfortunately this does appear to be the way Damon Lindelof writes, because that's now two properties with huge potential that he's utterly failed to deliver on.
 
That post by EVH is epic, some great insight by the OP. But it cant take away from the fact the dialogue and scene structure is just plain pants in parts, as much as we haze Lindelof for the writing, Scott wrote it with him and it's his movie, the buck stops with him, it's just bloody poor.
 
Good thesis but mostly "stretched" to make a point.

Mural doesn't depict " the lifegiver with his abdomen torn open". It depicts lifegiver dominating a creature. This is actually quite important element in the movie, which was somewhat lost in post production. Because they were shooting in 3D, they shot everything in bright light, then added colour grading and tinting for 2D and 3D separately (because of tint on glasses). In the process, many elements, especially in 2D version were just lost in grading and artificial shadows added in post production.

This is what the grading techie thought we were going to see
mural1.jpg

This is what script wanted us to see
mural2.jpg


Promethean "lifegiver with his abdomen torn open" occurs only once on the screen, and as discussed earlier, it's an afterthought. The pre production script was called Paradise. The ship was called Magellan. Ridley wanted it to be called Icarus. The vibe was meant to much more Jesus-y.

I think the write up above doesn't do enough justice to Vickers. I think the scene cuts might be getting us confused too. Everything Vickers does in the movie, up until Waylands death, is to protect her father she seeks approval of. Medi equipment for her father is in her room. She reacts violently and ruthlessly to any contamination brought onboard the ship. Because her father is onboard. She warns the scientist they if they "find those beings down there, you will not engage them, you won't talk to them, you will do nothing, but report back to me". Because her father is meant to be the one to greet the "beings" first.
There is a moment in each badly scripted movie when you begin to wonder if the persons that allegedly wrote them wrote the script themselves. I had this feeling after seeing Matrix sequels or Star Wars prequels for example. Surely the earlier works must had been written by ghost writers, because once the "authors" took matters into their own hands, it looks like they understood almost nothing from original stories. For Prometheus, that moment, for me, arrived this morning, I was reading interview with Lindelof and he was asked if Vickers was meant to be an android. And he replied: " Well, is there anything in the movie that says she’s not?" Yes. Just about everything. She's snappy, which androids are not. She's illogical, which androids are not. She's emotional, which androids have no ability to be. Mate, you don't really understand the **** you supposedly wrote, do you?

Btw. The barren Elisabeth on Xmas day bit was actually very well spotted, even if technically incorrect, as Xmas was the day of arrival. Shaw's cesarian happens two or three days later.
 
Last edited:
Lindelof once again trying to wrap a trillion different themes in together, because he's so verse in all things culture.

Stinks of Lost, same **** again, ton's of (Quite frankly brilliant insights and ideas), executed because he can't get the basic's right.

I have no qualms with the multitude of questions left by the film, i just wish the ******* basics had been done right, his writing and scene weaving were atrocious, just as with Lost.

He's a guy with a brilliant knack for creating wonderful, epic settings and scenarios, but he clearly (Pardon my pun) gets lost and blinded by this, which makes him forget to flesh out the nitty gritty.

Saying all this. I still enjoyed the film, it just could have been something far more special.

Hell, it's no Alien Resurrection or AVP1/2 :)
 
It would be good if Jon Spaights is allowed to write the sequel(s).

He mentioned on Twitter that whilst it would be legal for him to release the original draft he did, whether he actually would was a different matter. So he's trying not to burn bridges with Fox and Ridley Scott. Which is good.
 
EVH said:
Prometheus contains such a huge amount of mythic resonance that it effectively obscures a more conventional plot. I'd like to draw your attention to the use of motifs and callbacks in the film that not only enrich it, but offer possible hints as to what was going on in otherwise confusing scenes.

Let's begin with the eponymous titan himself, Prometheus. He was a wise and benevolent entity who created mankind in the first place, forming the first humans from clay. The Gods were more or less okay with that, until Prometheus gave them fire. This was a big no-no, as fire was supposed to be the exclusive property of the Gods. As punishment, Prometheus was chained to a rock and condemned to have his liver ripped out and eaten every day by an eagle. (His liver magically grew back, in case you were wondering.)

Fix that image in your mind, please: the giver of life, with his abdomen torn open. We'll be coming back to it many times in the course of this article.

The ethos of the titan Prometheus is one of willing and necessary sacrifice for life's sake. That's a pattern we see replicated throughout the ancient world. J G Frazer wrote his lengthy anthropological study, The Golden Bough, around the idea of the Dying God - a lifegiver who voluntarily dies for the sake of the people. It was incumbent upon the King to die at the right and proper time, because that was what heaven demanded, and fertility would not ensue if he did not do his royal duty of dying.

Now, consider the opening sequence of Prometheus. We fly over a spectacular vista, which may or may not be primordial Earth. According to Ridley Scott, it doesn't matter. A lone Engineer at the top of a waterfall goes through a strange ritual, drinking from a cup of black goo that causes his body to disintegrate into the building blocks of life. We see the fragments of his body falling into the river, twirling and spiralling into DNA helices.

Ridley Scott has this to say about the scene:

Can we find a God in human history who creates plant life through his own death, and who is associated with a river? It's not difficult to find several, but the most obvious candidate is Osiris, the epitome of all the Frazerian 'Dying Gods'.

And we wouldn't be amiss in seeing the first of the movie's many Christian allegories in this scene, either. The Engineer removes his cloak before the ceremony, and hesitates before drinking the cupful of genetic solvent; he may well have been thinking 'If it be Thy will, let this cup pass from me.'

So, we know something about the Engineers, a founding principle laid down in the very first scene: acceptance of death, up to and including self-sacrifice, is right and proper in the creation of life. Prometheus, Osiris, John Barleycorn, and of course the Jesus of Christianity are all supposed to embody this same principle. It is held up as one of the most enduring human concepts of what it means to be 'good'.

Seen in this light, the perplexing obscurity of the rest of the film yields to an examination of the interwoven themes of sacrifice, creation, and preservation of life. We also discover, through hints, exactly what the nature of the clash between the Engineers and humanity entailed.

The crew of the Prometheus discover an ancient chamber, presided over by a brooding solemn face, in which urns of the same black substance are kept. A mural on the wall presents an image which, if you did as I asked earlier on, you will recognise instantly: the lifegiver with his abdomen torn open. Go and look at it here to refresh your memory. Note the serenity on the Engineer's face here.

And there's another mural there, one which shows a familiar xenomorph-like figure. This is the Destroyer who mirrors the Creator, I think - the avatar of supremely selfish life, devouring and destroying others purely to preserve itself. As Ash puts it: 'a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.'

Through Shaw and Holloway's investigations, we learn that the Engineers not only created human life, they supervised our development. (How else are we to explain the numerous images of Engineers in primitive art, complete with star diagram showing us the way to find them?) We have to assume, then, that for a good few hundred thousand years, they were pretty happy with us. They could have destroyed us at any time, but instead, they effectively invited us over; the big pointy finger seems to be saying 'Hey, guys, when you're grown up enough to develop space travel, come see us.' Until something changed, something which not only messed up our relationship with them but caused their installation on LV-223 to be almost entirely wiped out.

From the Engineers' perspective, so long as humans retained that notion of self-sacrifice as central, we weren't entirely beyond redemption. But we went and screwed it all up, and the film hints at when, if not why: the Engineers at the base died two thousand years ago. That suggests that the event that turned them against us and led to the huge piles of dead Engineers lying about was one and the same event. We did something very, very bad, and somehow the consequences of that dreadful act accompanied the Engineers back to LV-223 and massacred them.

If you have uneasy suspicions about what 'a bad thing approximately 2,000 years ago' might be, then let me reassure you that you are right. An astonishing excerpt from the Movies.com interview with Ridley Scott:



Yeah. The reason the Engineers don't like us any more is that they made us a Space Jesus, and we broke him. Reader, that's not me pulling wild ideas out of my arse. That's RIDLEY SCOTT.

So, imagine poor crucified Jesus, a fresh spear wound in his side. Oh, hey, there's the 'lifegiver with his abdomen torn open' motif again. That's three times now: Prometheus, Engineer mural, Jesus Christ. And I don't think I have to mention the 'sacrifice in the interest of giving life' bit again, do I? Everyone on the same page? Good.

So how did our (in the context of the film) terrible murderous act of crucifixion end up wiping out all but one of the Engineers back on LV-223? Presumably through the black slime, which evidently models its behaviour on the user's mental state. Create unselfishly, accepting self-destruction as the cost, and the black stuff engenders fertile life. But expose the potent black slimy stuff to the thoughts and emotions of flawed humanity, and 'the sleep of reason produces monsters'. We never see the threat that the Engineers were fleeing from, we never see them killed other than accidentally (decapitation by door), and we see no remaining trace of whatever killed them. Either it left a long time ago, or it reverted to inert black slime, waiting for a human mind to reactivate it.

The black slime reacts to the nature and intent of the being that wields it, and the humans in the film didn't even know that they WERE wielding it. That's why it remained completely inert in David's presence, and why he needed a human proxy in order to use the stuff to create anything. The black goo could read no emotion or intent from him, because he was an android.

Shaw's comment when the urn chamber is entered - 'we've changed the atmosphere in the room' - is deceptively informative. The psychic atmosphere has changed, because humans - tainted, Space Jesus-killing humans - are present. The slime begins to engender new life, drawing not from a self-sacrificing Engineer but from human hunger for knowledge, for more life, for more everything. Little wonder, then, that it takes serpent-like form. The symbolism of a corrupting serpent, turning men into beasts, is pretty unmistakeable.

Refusal to accept death is anathema to the Engineers. Right from the first scene, we learned their code of willing self-sacrifice in accord with a greater purpose. When the severed Engineer head is temporarily brought back to life, its expression registers horror and disgust. Cinemagoers are confused when the head explodes, because it's not clear why it should have done so. Perhaps the Engineer wanted to die again, to undo the tainted human agenda of new life without sacrifice.

But some humans do act in ways the Engineers might have grudgingly admired. Take Holloway, Shaw's lover, who impregnates her barren womb with his black slime riddled semen before realising he is being transformed into something Other. Unlike the hapless geologist and botanist left behind in the chamber, who only want to stay alive, Holloway willingly embraces death. He all but invites Meredith Vickers to kill him, and it's surely significant that she does so using fire, the other gift Prometheus gave to man besides his life.

The 'Caesarean' scene is central to the film's themes of creation, sacrifice, and giving life. Shaw has discovered she's pregnant with something non-human and sets the autodoc to slice it out of her. She lies there screaming, a gaping wound in her stomach, while her tentacled alien child thrashes and squeals in the clamp above her and OH HEY IT'S THE LIFEGIVER WITH HER ABDOMEN TORN OPEN. How many times has that image come up now? Four, I make it. (We're not done yet.)

And she doesn't kill it. And she calls the procedure a 'caesarean' instead of an 'abortion'.

(I'm not even going to begin to explore the pro-choice versus forced birth implications of that scene. I don't think they're clear, and I'm not entirely comfortable doing so. Let's just say that her unwanted offspring turning out to be her salvation is possibly problematic from a feminist standpoint and leave it there for now.)

Here's where the Christian allegories really come through. The day of this strange birth just happens to be Christmas Day. And this is a 'virgin birth' of sorts, although a dark and twisted one, because Shaw couldn't possibly be pregnant. And Shaw's the crucifix-wearing Christian of the crew. We may well ask, echoing Yeats: what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards LV-223 to be born?

Consider the scene where David tells Shaw that she's pregnant, and tell me that's not a riff on the Annunciation. The calm, graciously angelic android delivering the news, the pious mother who insists she can't possibly be pregnant, the wry declaration that it's no ordinary child... yeah, we've seen this before.

'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.'

A barren woman called Elizabeth, made pregnant by 'God'? Subtle, Ridley.

Anyway. If it weren't already clear enough that the central theme of the film is 'I suffer and die so that others may live' versus 'you suffer and die so that I may live' writ extremely large, Meredith Vickers helpfully spells it out:

'A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable.'

Vickers is not just speaking out of personal frustration here, though that's obviously one level of it. She wants her father out of the way, so she can finally come in to her inheritance. It's insult enough that Weyland describes the android David as 'the closest thing I have to a son', as if only a male heir was of any worth; his obstinate refusal to accept death is a slap in her face.

Weyland, preserved by his wealth and the technology it can buy, has lived far, far longer than his rightful time. A ghoulish, wizened creature who looks neither old nor young, he reminds me of Slough Feg, the decaying tyrant from the Slaine series in British comic 2000AD. In Slaine, an ancient (and by now familiar to you, dear reader, or so I would hope) Celtic law decrees that the King has to be ritually and willingly sacrificed at the end of his appointed time, for the good of the land and the people. Slough Feg refused to die, and became a rotting horror, the embodiment of evil.

The image of the sorcerer who refuses to accept rightful death is fundamental: it even forms a part of some occult philosophy. In Crowley's system, the magician who refuses to accept the bitter cup of Babalon and undergo dissolution of his individual ego in the Great Sea (remember that opening scene?) becomes an ossified, corrupted entity called a 'Black Brother' who can create no new life, and lives on as a sterile, emasculated husk.

With all this in mind, we can better understand the climactic scene in which the withered Weyland confronts the last surviving Engineer. See it from the Engineer's perspective. Two thousand years ago, humanity not only murdered the Engineers' emissary, it infected the Engineers' life-creating fluid with its own tainted selfish nature, creating monsters. And now, after so long, here humanity is, presumptuously accepting a long-overdue invitation, and even reawakening (and corrupting all over again) the life fluid.

And who has humanity chosen to represent them? A self-centred, self-satisfied narcissist who revels in his own artificially extended life, who speaks through the medium of a merely mechanical offspring. Humanity couldn't have chosen a worse ambassador.

It's hardly surprising that the Engineer reacts with contempt and disgust, ripping David's head off and battering Weyland to death with it. The subtext is bitter and ironic: you caused us to die at the hands of our own creation, so I am going to kill you with YOUR own creation, albeit in a crude and bludgeoning way.

The only way to save humanity is through self-sacrifice, and this is exactly what the captain (and his two oddly complacent co-pilots) opt to do. They crash the Prometheus into the Engineer's ship, giving up their lives in order to save others. Their willing self-sacrifice stands alongside Holloway's and the Engineer's from the opening sequence; by now, the film has racked up no less than five self-sacrificing gestures (six if we consider the exploding Engineer head).

Meredith Vickers, of course, has no interest in self-sacrifice. Like her father, she wants to keep herself alive, and so she ejects and lands on the planet's surface. With the surviving cast now down to Vickers and Shaw, we witness Vickers's rather silly death as the Engineer ship rolls over and crushes her, due to a sudden inability on her part to run sideways. Perhaps that's the point; perhaps the film is saying her view is blinkered, and ultimately that kills her. But I doubt it. Sometimes a daft death is just a daft death.

Finally, in the squidgy ending scenes of the film, the wrathful Engineer conveniently meets its death at the tentacles of Shaw's alien child, now somehow grown huge. But it's not just a death; there's obscene life being created here, too. The (in the Engineers' eyes) horrific human impulse to sacrifice others in order to survive has taken on flesh. The Engineer's body bursts open - blah blah lifegiver blah blah abdomen ripped apart hey we're up to five now - and the proto-Alien that emerges is the very image of the creature from the mural.

On the face of it, it seems absurd to suggest that the genesis of the Alien xenomorph ultimately lies in the grotesque human act of crucifying the Space Jockeys' emissary to Israel in four B.C., but that's what Ridley Scott proposes. It seems equally insane to propose that Prometheus is fundamentally about the clash between acceptance of death as a condition of creating/sustaining life versus clinging on to life at the expense of others, but the repeated, insistent use of motifs and themes bears this out.

As a closing point, let me draw your attention to a very different strand of symbolism that runs through Prometheus: the British science fiction show Doctor Who. In the 1970s episode 'The Daemons', an ancient mound is opened up, leading to an encounter with a gigantic being who proves to be an alien responsible for having guided mankind's development, and who now views mankind as a failed experiment that must be destroyed. The Engineers are seen tootling on flutes, in exactly the same way that the second Doctor does. The Third Doctor had an companion whose name was Liz Shaw, the same name as the protagonist of Prometheus. As with anything else in the film, it could all be coincidental; but knowing Ridley Scott, it doesn't seem very likely.
Click to expand...

I seen this posted earlier somewhere else. Some of the analysis is good, but the attempt to explain away some of the plot holes as a deliberate aspect of the script is totally laughable. We shouldn't be trying to explain away the writer's inadequacies as deep, well thought out plot points. They're not.

In fact, this dude's interpretation of the black goo stuff has just come straight out of his ****. There's no hints to any of that kind of stuff in the film, and what's more his own interpretation of it would actually lead to bigger holes in the verisimilitude of the film.

EDIT: Consider this: if the multi-purpose alien bioweapon black goo stuff reacts to human emotion, does that mean it that the fact it turns worms into wang-snakes mean that it's always been the intent of a worm, which would need to have emotions of its own, to turn into deadly face raping snakes? Of course not. Once one draws his conclusion about the black goo being some how sentient in its own right, it opens up a can of worms [sic] which this film doesn't even begin to take account of. The multi-purpose black goo is essentially a classic macguffin, it drives the plot but has no purpose of its own. Hence why it's multi-purpose.

I'm all for textual analysis (god knows I do a hell of a lot of it in my degree), but one can only give good textual analysis if the film itself gives us the information we need to draw the conclusion from the film that the director/writer want us to; sometimes this is given explicitly, sometimes it's made implicit by the mise-en-scene, other times it's inferred from dialogue and various directorial techniques and visual allusions. In Prometheus, this is sometimes the case (the Jesus/engineer/life on earth thing) but at other times it simply shoves something at us and expects us to accept it. Which is fine, y'know; a lot of the times in films we must suspend our disbelief in order to accept the verisimilitude that's being displayed on screen. However this particular analysis is reading too much into nothing, in some cases.
 
Last edited:
Just got back from watching it. (not read any past posts i just thought id pop in say my thoughts and leave it at that)

I thought it was pretty good, one of the best films i have seen in awhile. Very "Alien" isk. Imo.

Some issues here and there but overall i liked it. One thing my bro pointed out tho was that the engineer in Alien was sitting in the cannon chair or whatever and in Promethius he wasn't in the chair but instead he was on the escape shuttle thing instead. So it breaks continuity somewhat but meh i dont mind it was a good film.

Stupid blonde tho at the end running in a straight line not go to the side which was obvious thing to do to avoid it crashing on them/her.

Has me wondering how this will tie to predators tho i.e predators involvement in the initial stages of the "alien".

It was very interesting to see that "alien" had different stages to what we know of it from "alien 1".

I cant wait to find out how it evolves till we see the one we know and love which is going to be exciting to see because as it is the engineer version is quite different to the human version and how it gets from that to human version will be cool to see in the next film or two of this new trilogy (presuming).

I wonder if we will ever get a directors cut version of the film which extends it as i would think some things were cut due to time of the film or whatever and a dc version would restore it like past Alien DC have done.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read this entire thread, quite honestly I got bored of people wading through the same tirades.

But is the question of where the AvP movies fit into this answered? Is it just "pretend those movies never happened"? Because unless I miss my guess there are fully formed Xenomorphs/Queen under the polar ice cap that has been explored by a Weyland already.

IF you take AvP as canon then that would explain a lot of Davids actions and possible pre-knowledge.
 
This film really annoyed me. So detached from Alien yet played out like its the prequel yet doesn't fit at all.
Either make it fit Alien or make a different Alien film entirely!
Therefore IMO there has to be a "Prometheus 2" for it to make sense and more importantly; make me happy.

As for AvP, that was just a retarded "because it would be cool", don't look at it as anything to do with the Alien films.
 
Last edited:
SkeeterUK said:
Just got back from watching it. (not read any past posts i just thought id pop in say my thoughts and leave it at that)

I thought it was pretty good, one of the best films i have seen in awhile. Very "Alien" isk. Imo.

Some issues here and there but overall i liked it. One thing my bro pointed out tho was that the engineer in Alien was sitting in the cannon chair or whatever and in Promethius he wasn't in the chair but instead he was on the escape shuttle thing instead. So it breaks continuity somewhat but meh i dont mind it was a good film.

Stupid blonde tho at the end running in a straight line not go to the side which was obvious thing to do to avoid it crashing on them/her.

Has me wondering how this will tie to predators tho i.e predators involvement in the initial stages of the "alien".

It was very interesting to see that "alien" had different stages to what we know of it from "alien 1".

I cant wait to find out how it evolves till we see the one we know and love which is going to be exciting to see because as it is the engineer version is quite different to the human version and how it gets from that to human version will be cool to see in the next film or two of this new trilogy (presuming).

I wonder if we will ever get a directors cut version of the film which extends it as i would think some things were cut due to time of the film or whatever and a dc version would restore it like past Alien DC have done.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with AvP universe in any shape or form, RS has never said a good word about the AvP films either I think.

And don't forget Prometheus was held on LV-223 not LV-426, so it's not a continuity error, as it's a completely different planet.
 
Just got back from seeing this, agree and spotted a lot of holes listed here, tired now so will have a proper post tomorrow.

Quick sum up
Not as good as alien, but glad it wasn't tied
Bad acting and characters.. Except David
Amazing 3d
A bit bitty, lacks flow.
The main gist is there but lots of holes
Little confused by the snakes/black liquid link

Tie in with birth of Jesus?
 
Also just got back from seeing it - haven't really read this whole thread yet...

Overall I really liked it, however it was also a very perplexing film. I suspect there were just so many ideas they wanted to cram in - and couldn't expand on or adequately explain in the studio enforced 2 hour running time - that it turned out to be quite incoherent at times....and downright clumsy at others. Essentially, they bit off a lot more than they could chew. The end result was a strange mix of thought-provoking ideas with clever subtexts, and head-scratchingly bizarre behavior from the protagonists as they blunder from one nice setup to the next.

Some of it was so jarring that I simply HAVE to believe that important scenes were cut out to reduce the running time. Scenes that link sequences together often get booted because nothing important seems to happen - but without them things get messy. For example, after Shaw has the cesarean, she ends up in Weyland's chamber and they regard her - covered in blood, staples in the stomach and all - as if she's just casually strolled in for a chat. There was probably a scene where she talks to them via a video screen (maybe she's trying to find where everybody is?) so they are aware of her condition before she comes stumbling in. That scene as it stands is almost comical :(

Two words though: Special Edition ;) I think there's a brilliant film in there and it wouldn't take all that much to polish it up and make it more coherent. Stick in the missing scenes and exposition that almost certainly got hacked to keep the studio execs happy, and I think it will be awesome.

Only thing that really didn't work for me - the music. What was with the Saving Private Ryan-esque horn refrains? Really annoyed me!

EDIT TO ADD QUESTION: I was distracted a lot near the start with people coming in late and squeezing past me with their megabuckets of popcorn and vats of pop.........were they trying to say that the configuration of the 5 stars depicted in the ancient drawings could only be matched to that one particular point in space?
 
Last edited:
There is one huge thing which no one is talking about, it involves the scene with the Alien on the wall...

http://i46.tinypic.com/2zfqpzs.png

As Holloway walks towards the Alien picture to take a better look at it there is Just 1 and only 1 Vase next to that picture I think i remember it being a Green colour or something very different from all the other normal vases we see.

Was this single Vase special in any way to make the Xenomorphs we know in the other films?

It just seemed to stand out because it was nothing like the other vases we saw.
 
EVH Post
Click to expand...

Assuming that were the reasoning behind all this, and I do like this as an explanation, it is still let down by a very poorly put together film that lets all this escape. There are also still some large plot holes despite that explanation though as I said that could be explained away by general poor writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom