Bits Feed (Page 8,308)

@ craigamore I'm with you there on "Kane's son" @ Mark Cawley I think the sections of the novel Craigamore pointed out are relevant. I think the scene as written in the script leaves it even more mysterious in a good way; the change to company seeming to know all in the film weakens that point a little, one of the few points where I prefer the written dialogue to Holms' changes. You can check out the scene online--the Company doesn't really know much and Ash's admiration for the xeno develops after its birth. @ the coming That Ash, so sure it is a son! I guess every dad wants a boy.

Why would he even show these scenes in the trailer. I don't want to know in advance that they crash their ship into a space jockey vessel. I want it to be a surprise. The trailer is too revealing. Sorry to complain, but this is my honest feeling.

@Macs...what I'm getting at is that there is NOTHING in the theory of evolution that proves God's non-existence....Darwin himself believed that a creator set life into motion and that his theory was the functional mechanism of how life, i.e., biology operates. And simply believing God exists does not mean that evolution is nonsense either... Science constantly recognizes an impossible level of detail in the natural world and especially in biology that makes it difficult to argue natural evolution as the sole source of life. DNA reads like a ridiculously expasive novel, billions of lines long, detailing every instruction of biological function and life. Sure, that's what I personally believe, but it is what it is.

The unicorn footage was actually taken from "Legend." Scott added it into the Director's cut, long after Bladerunner was in the can. Dick never categorically states that Deckard is a replicant. Is it possible that Deckard was a replicant and not a human? Sure, but the entire point of this particular story, is that in all the ways that matter, the answer to that question, doesn't.

Ron Cobb is an amateur engineer who thinks about all those things, and has enough knowledge to make his designs plausible. I wonder if they have anyone like that among the design team, or are they just movie artists?

@Snugs ... I agree with that because if you think about it the Alien has just been 'born' and so is adjusting to its 'new' form ... hence it's practising to walk, crawl, etc ... it will then find its perfect stance ... FOR KICKING ARSE ...

I mean in Alien they kinda "touched" upon (no pun intended) an inter species rape sequence with Lambert. When Ripley finds her body intertwined in chains and seemingly clotheless. And Ridley in the interview said that he had not one but several sequences he was 'embarrassed' about due to the shock content

I think it's whatever Charlize runs into in a panic.

Roger that, Kane.

@arcaneradio thats minus payload of course.

at least there is a model for the Nostromo.. [URL=http://www.imagebanana.com/view/7x5zk5wg/nostromoblueprintenclos.jpg][IMG]http://img7.imagebanana.com/img/7x5zk5wg/thumb/nostromoblueprintenclos.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

@Kane77 [i]right, that was their contribution at their time and reflects their standards of thinking at their time.[/i] And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as we do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today. [i]So a real delighted one is proof to himself and others. Like the Christ or Buddha[/i] Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science. [i]Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe. [/i] Correct, of the two men most responsible for the mapping of the genome, one says it proves there is no need of God, the other says it is absolutely is proof of God! But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue. Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. In the end my God is my God. What my opinion is of him is of little consequence to you or the world. Except in action I take. We could take a page for Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer on that!

Everybody thinks it is the result of Shaw n Hollaway 'doing the nasty' However i hope her baby might be the result of something more sinister. Am i a sick twisted *$%^ for thinking this way? It just seems it wud be the most shocking thing

@ Sigismundo Here you go [url=http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movie/prometheus]3rd input from bottom[/url] Keanu's involvement mentioned - misspelled his name earlier. Keanu Reeves hired writer Jon Spaihts to script the space journey epic Passengers, which apparently got him the meeting with Fox and Scott Free, where he pitched the idea of an Alien prequel that the studio and Scott loved.

Destroying expensive star ships in the Alien series seems to a running theme. "They can bill me" - Ripley

@biomechanic... Ditto!

If it is a ship that is supposed to be viable in Earth similar atmospheres, I don't think the design is aerodynamically viable, but if the propulsion system can compensate for that "the bumblebee still flies"

its not that i am frustrated with it, i am perfectly happy with what i did with it, but i would like a more 3 dimensional pic that has more detail, just for reference (i am planning on using this in a movie if i ever get the chance) but yeah, i will post it and see what anyone comes up with :)

@Kane77 [i]right, that was their contribution at their time and reflects their standards of thinking at their time.[/i] And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as he do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today. [i]So a real delighted one is proof to himself and others. Like the Christ or Buddha[/i] Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science. [i]Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe. [/i] Correct, of the two men most responsible for the mapping of the genome, one says it proves there is no need of God, the other says it is absolutely is proof of God! But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue. Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. Ultimately, my God is my God. Whether my opinion bears any resemblance to yours is of little consequence to you or others except in our actions. We all could take a page I think from Kierkegaard or Bonhoeffer!

It's a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL]VTOL[/url] so with some suspension of disbelief about how it produces thrust it is technically feasible.

If I designed a ship, i would have all adjacent areas seal off in the event of explosive decompression, and the repressurize after the source of the decompression was rectified.

@Kane77 -"Thats plain BS, nobody could even define a man. what method ?what form? Its also very different from culture to culture." Exactly, you do understand the problem. And there is even more problems...

@ royal jelly. I am wondering what the ship in the foreground is. Due to my faulty spatial reasoning, I thought it was the Prometheus, and the four thrustered ship was a shuttle.

I don't even really like the Prometheus design, but all those bits of panelling and surface detail look fun to mess around with. Anyone here versed in engineering that can tell us if the design makes sense or is feasible?

Zim, I bet it is good the way it is. Maybe take a break from it and give it another go sometime fresh. However if you are certain you want someone to mess with your art I think it might be interesting to just go ahead and post it here and start an open competition.

I'm going with the post production option too ... because Holloways eyes look better black when he's infected ... plus the veins light up so to speak as opposed to a clear substance used ...

spaceship/airship, i will upload a pic in a few min

[url=http://channel-kdk12.wikispaces.com/file/view/alien-resurrection-film.jpg/181429617/alien-resurrection-film.jpg]Your text to link here...[/url]

I agree that the SJ being just a tall blue guy is kinda off. Just like the Alien being a bio weapon, if you ask me! It throws away a lot of its magic; if it's a naturally occurring organism, then it could occurr right in our back yards, and that's scary stuff! I think one of the things that got under everyone's skin back in '79 was that everything was just so out of the order we came to apreciate. The Alien is just an animal that can mop the floor with us. It's not an alien with fancy tech, it can literally kill us all with it's bare hands just for the sake of breeding. It can't be bought or convinced to do otherwise. It has no notion of moral. Only the survival of the species matters, above all. And (sorry @AlsoKnownAsNate) I think the SJ fit perfectly into that. Assuming alien life forms share morphology with us, let alone values of morality, is just waaaaay off and has a big component of "man being the center of the Universe" to it. Plus, I agree @the comming, it makes for a silly, impractical suite. Also I've just been checking the scene where the SJ is found in Alien and I can swear there are teeth in the "mask"... what's with that if it's just a suit? Ok, some will argue it could allow the SJ to feed on alien grounds and the suit would process the food into something usable. But still, just seems plain silly. On the other hand, a while back I posted somewhere (can't really remember where) that what is found in the Alien ship is JUST THE SUIT. If it's a bio-suit, could it be impregnated by the facehugger, even without a actual host? Just my 2 cents...

That would be awesome. I havent built a vehicle model in years.

i don't think it's the life vessel. it could be that they're only showing the front of the prometheus ship ramming the derelict

draw what?

@craigamore thanks your points are also very good. [i]Darwin himself was a believer....it even states in his 'Origin of Species' that a Creator was present to s[/i]et the mechanism of evolutional biology into motin (I'm paraphrasing there, but you get the idea.). "One can look at the world with a scientific mind and still see God in creation..." good expression. I coudn´t explain better.. @ Macs [i]Define God scientifically.[/i] Thats plain BS, nobody could even [i]define[/i] a man. what [i]method[/i] ?what [i]form[/i]? Its also very different from culture to culture.

Did someone say the prometheus Model ?????????????? my ears are on ...can you pre - order

the coming...earlier you asked this..."someone earlier mentioned Ridley imagined it to be a suit all along, dating back to 'Alien', is this true?" This is Ridley in Filmophobia about how he's always looked back at 'Alien'... "...Alien. It’s fairly pure. And this one does actually raise all kinds of other questions, because if someone could, a being, could be as monstrously clever to create something like we experienced in the very first one – I always figured it’s a weapon, and I always figured that [the ship in the first Alien] was a carrier of weapons. Therefore, who is that, inside that suit? That wasn’t a skeleton, that was a suit. And if you open up the suit, what do you get inside it? And why were they going, where were they going?" I look at it this way...I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and not because he's Ridley, but because we haven't seen Jackdidleysqaut yet......and if [b]he[/b] always saw it that way, what's the big deal? As to Deckard being a replicant...this is a complicated issue...Now, the following is from Philip K. Dick who wrote 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' upon which Bladerunner is based.. "The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?" It would seem pretty clear how he viewed Deckard in the novel. However, When Ridley says that he is a replicant in the film, I can believe and agree with it soundly for a few reasons.... 1) Ridley says Deckard is a replicant.....if the man who directed it says he is, well then, he is.....it's kind of simple 2) You have to go back to the history of 'Bladerunner' and understand what happened to it back when it was about to be released. The studio, unhappy with early screening results forced the awful and redundant Ford voiceover on Scott because they didn't believe audiences would understand the film or that Deckard was a replicant...as a result, Deckard film identity as a replicant is lost intranslation. Deckard as replicant was always the intention as can be seen here from an article detailing the film's lost script pages.....[url=http://io9.com/5181048/blade-runners-original-ending-yes-deckards-a-replicant]Blade Runner’s Original Ending: Yes, Deckard’s A Replicant[/url] "As Deckard stares at the sky, he concludes his voiceover: The great Tyrrell hadn't designed me, but whoever had, hadn't done so much better. 'You're programmed too,' she told me, and she was right. In my own modest way, I was a combat model. Roy Batty was my late brother." 3) The director's cut brings back and highlights specific elements that make it clear That he was a replicant...the following article helps explain this as well....[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm]Blade Runner riddle solved [/url] "In the Director's Cut version, the biggest clue for analysts was the appearance of a unicorn on screen while Deckard is lost in thought. The image of the mythical creature appears again towards the end of the film when he picks up an origami model discarded by another character, Gaff. As the replicants had no memories of their own, they had to be implanted, and fans interpreted the appearance of the model as a sign that Gaff knew what Deckard was thinking because it was an image shared by other non-humans. " There you have it fellas....have at it...

@...... invaderzim42 Can i follow you around to night .............Rock On

For a long time, I could not watch Alien mainly because of how the suspense came into play. It was so uncomfortable(which is the purpose) sitting there looking at an extreme close-up of the creature and feeling as if there was nothing I could do to escape. Aliens was different, maybe because there were more people involved and they had guns that time around. So, whereas, one would have that helpless feeling whilst watching Alien, they had a more confident(for lack of a better word)attitude as they watched Aliens because the humans had a more effective way of dealing with the Xenomorphs. That said, Alien is probably my favorite Ridley Scott film.

An interesting note on the Prometheus myth is that the only being to actually incur the wrath of Zeus and punishment is Prometheus himself, and humanity goes on to benefit exponentially from this one gift. I could see David as making the same sacrifice for HIS kind, androids, to give them all the gift of life, but somehow he is made to suffer eternally for it.

From the limited information in the trailer i can't be for sure. But the Space Jockey in both the comic series and graphic novels depict him as a large elefantoid creature and not in anysort of a suit. Now i know its possible that in the various issues in which the space jockey is referenced there could be differnt takes on his appreance through the different artist, but the common theme was said suit-less creature.

The Sulaco was a huge ship with an equally vast volume of air. Or some advanced device to compensate for a hull breach by quickly replacing the lost air volume. Or just Hollywood BS.