Talk:Prometheus (2012 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Actors and roles

Regarding the "Cast" section, there is a set of actors who are verified to be part of the cast. On IMDb's page for the film, some of these actors have names for the roles. However, IMDb is notoriously inaccurate with character names from upcoming films, so we should not include names unless they are verifiable through other sources. For example, Rapace's character Elizabeth Shaw has been mentioned in Variety. For the other roles, this does not appear to be the case. In addition, the characters' names are especially unimportant because they are not preexisting characters and we have little idea of the story in which these characters exist. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to Alien

I reverted 83.67.116.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) because the IMDb FAQ reference in the lead section was not reliable. However, I did not see the Fassbender MTV reference. Even so, I am not sure if it truly belongs. Scott is not denying a relationship with Alien, so there is not necessarily a contradiction. We should be careful not to play statements off each other. There has been a lot of speculation about the nature of the film, and we should keep the premise simple unless we can truly verify what Alien elements are part of it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FOX released an "official synopsis" on July 1st, 2011. The movie definitely isn't about Alien. I don't know how to reference properly on Wiki yet. Can someone add it from this page: [1] (page is offical news service of SyFy cable channel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.147.200 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is this leaked synopsis which you can read here : [2], and it seems like it's quite close to an Alien prequel after all. It could be fake, or wrong, but my guess is to keep an eye on these rumors.Munin75 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote this synopsis, but the film appears to be more about the Space Jockey creature(s) than Aliens. StevePrutz (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Space jockeys always were the alien, At least as far as ridley scott was concerned, the aliens were always intended to be biological weapons, and are generally known as xenomrophs. The franchise moved away from this, s i guess ridley is trying to move things back that way. not to speak for him or anything. He talks about a lot of this on the directoral commentary on the alien DVD, the edition that preceded the alien quadrilogy boxset. I had it as part of a boxset called "Legacy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.228.68 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That's quite an exaggeration, and some of it's just flat-out wrong. I have the Quadrilogy set and have watched the commentaries and special features several times. Ridley Scott speculates, many years after the fact, on some possible background story for the space jockey as potential basis for a prequel film: that it may have been using the eggs as some sort of bio-weapon. But this isn't concrete in any way, shape, or form: it's just story ideas that he's making up 20 years after having made Alien (and a decade before coming up with Prometheus). Keep in mind that Scott didn't write Alien, Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett did. Also the term "xenomorph" wasn't used until the sequel, Aliens, which again Scott had nothing to do with (that was James Cameron's film, with a story by him, David Giler, & Walter Hill). Exploring the space jockey/Alien relationship was never the direction the franchise was headed...it always focused on the Ripley/Alien relationship. Developing a backstory for the space jockey was something Scott only came up with in the last decade or so, and should not be presented as some sort of initial intent of the franchise. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You weren't on IMDB a few years back were you? Anyways, as i said, the commentary i was talking about was on the "Alien Legacy" boxset, not the Quadrilogy, who's commentary i personally thought was a bit of a group love in. The original issue DVD's commentary contained in the legacy boxset was brilliant, a master class in how to make a film as Scott esentially sat down and explained how he made alien, from the design of the opening titles, to respraying the set gunmetal gray on the fly toward the end of the film. I guess there's a lot of arguments as to what constitutes canon, some people argue O'Bannon and Ronald Shusset early drafts were, and for a long time some people were determined that, even though the sequel stated "no Indigenous life" for LV426, even though Ridley Scott didn't fell they were indigenous to LV426, the Xenomorphs were native to the planet. there was also a pyramid early on that never appeared in the film etc etc. As far as i'm concerned, the writers created the characters and concept, but Ridley Scott directed the film, refined the concepts, and as the films constitue the canon and not early drafts of the screenplay then, purely IMO, Ridley Scott carries more weight than O'Bannn or Shusset. Remember the sequels which they were involved in carried on from ridley Scotts vision. How can you specualte what was intended for the series direction back before Aliens was made? I'm pretty sure Cameron outlined the Story on that one and he could have taken it any direction he wanted. In fact 7 years for a sequel is a pretty sizeable gap, Alien could have easily been standalone. I think making assumptions about what was intended for what was at the time a single film is an exageration and plain wrong. There was no "Initial Intent" for the franchise because it didn't become a franchise until 1986. I paraphrase but what Ridley Scott said in the legacy commentary was along the lines of "I always felt" or "Felt at the time" with respect to my comments earlier, that the space jockey was the Alien of the piece. Call it plain wrong if you like, but you're hardy an authority on it, you're a fan, just like me, and therefore your interpretation will differ from mine. I'm just going by what the man said. I guess, at the end of the day, if this film is a genuine part of the franchise, which it is starting to look like it is, we will see what becomes canon for the series. Until then noone can say anything about it. ther than ridley Scott who is responsible for the start of the series and will hopefully will be responsible for bringing it full circle. Thank God Ripley's not in it, that got really old.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.228.68 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really wish to take part in this 'is it an Alien prequel or not' discussion because it seems like a waste of time. BUt there is a stupid inconsistency in the introduction paragraph at the top of the article and the premise. One says the film explores its own mythology and only shares 'some strands of Alien's DNA' while the premise paragraph says it explores the Alien universe and explains the origin of the Alien. Why not leave out both bits of information and only quote what Ridley or Fox says. Can't we just wait to find out when the film is released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.124.105 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See below, under "#Contradiction". I agree with Darkwarriorblake that we could dump the Premise section. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, dump the "premise" section. There seems to be some kind of internet "battle" over this film's relationship to the Alien series which has spilled-over into this site. Having watched the trailer it seems pretty clear to me; however, this article shouldn't really take a position until the film's out and Scott et al have made their own position clear. --Zagrebo (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't saying that it's "unconnected to the films of the Alien franchise" taking a position - a blatantly false one? There's room to debate the degree of that connection, of course. 206.208.180.240 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not a blatantly false position. The sources directly support that the story of Prometheus is not directly connected to any of the stories of the Alien films. In other words, though there may be elements in the trailer that Alien fans find familiar (the derelict ship, a prop that seems to resemble the space jockey, things that look like eggs), there are no direct ties to the stories told in the previous Alien films: No Ripley, no Nostromo, no Weyland-Yutani, etc...we don't even know that there are Aliens ini t, for pete's sake. Unless the production team explicitly says that it's directly tied to the Alien films, or Prometheus is released and the film itself unambiguously bears out such connections, then it's unconnected per the sources we currently have. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How are those "elements" NOT connections to the Alien franchise? Also, the Weyland Company is confirmed as a part of the film. I'm not saying there are necessarily direct story ties, but if the trailer makes it explicit that we'll be seeing the space jockey and the derelict ship from the original film, those are connections to Alien. 206.208.180.240 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Derelict ships have nothing necessarily to do with Aliens or the Alien series. They're something that could be in almost any science fiction film. So IllaZilla is right - and there's no point arguing this. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's a derelict ship identical to the one from the original film? Even if it's a space jockey room that's identical? All I'm saying is that between these images and the confirmation that it takes place in the Alien universe, saying outright that it has "no connection to the Alien films" is silly. At least note that there's room for debate (which there is). 206.208.180.240 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you lock conversations because there are now 3 open discussions all about the same thing, it'd be best if we direct them all to a single discussion so we can all stop repeating ourselves. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made the other threads sub-threads of this one, so at least it's all under the same umbrella. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

It seems to me that the opening paragraph and the Premise section has contradictions. The opening paragraph states:

"Prometheus will explore its own mythology and universe and is not directly linked to Alien."

However the Premise section states:

"The film will focus on the mythology within the Alien universe. Set in the late-21st century, Prometheus will explore the advanced civilization of an extraterrestrial race responsible for the origins of modern humans on Earth,[3] as well as the background of the alien creature which made its first appearance in the 1979 film."

So how can the film have its own universe and not be linked to ALIEN and at the same time focus on the mythology within the ALIEN universe while exploring the background of the alien creature which first appeared in 1979? It seems that the article can't have it both ways... it is either in the ALIEN-verse or it isn't. It either explores the alien creature (not sure if this means the xenomorph or the space jockey) or it doesn't.

OK that's my 2 cents. 76.65.28.196 (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

THe premise is using outdated sources from 2010 before it was announced it wasn't going to be an Aliens prequel anymore.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading it and the sources the whole premise section is incorrect, first it features some tangent about greek mythology which is mentioned in one of the references as the source of the name but not actually listed by anyone involved with the film as a means if inspiration-the same source says it doesn't know if this mythology will be used AT ALL and yet it is the opening to the premise section. Then it continues with the use of outdated references for plot info which doesn't resemble what we know today. The whole thing needs to be jettisoned. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's kind of obvious that this is a Alien prequel/off-shoot after the newest trailer. I paused the Prometheus trailer to certain scenes of the spaceship and the command seat of the space jockey. Both are one in the same when I googled pictures of the ship in Alien. There's nothing to debate. - IYD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.240.185 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. Your own observations, as deduced from brief frames in a trailer, aren't sufficient. Again, Scott has specifically said that the film has "strands of Alien's DNA", and in other interviews he's said that there are allusions/homages to Alien...some of those are probably obvious to any Alien fan viewing the Prometheus trailer. But that doesn't make Prometheus an Alien prequel or even part of the Alien franchise, as Scott's specifically said that it isn't. Scott isn't the first director to intentionally make homages/allusions to a previous work in the context of a new film. That in itself doesn't make Prometheus an Alien prequel. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

indeed. The easiest example I can think of off the top of my head is the recent Marvel films, which contain nods to each other but are not sequels or prequels to each other, just independent stories within the same universe. However this it could be like the new Star Trek and be an alternate universe for all we know, there's no current, concrete information on it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Because the creators of the film are intentionally keeping the relationship to Alien ambiguous and (wisely, IMO) keeping most of the story details under wraps, we cannot make assumptions about the specific ties to Alien, especially just from our own observations of set pieces shows very quickly in a trailer. We need to wait until either (A) primary and/or secondary sources unambiguously describe the canonical relationship to Alien, or (B) the film is released and makes the relationship clear and explicit, at which point the source coverage of same will undoubtedly become readily available.. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My original point about the two selected quotes still stands; they contradict each other. Whether or not this is a prequel to ALIEN is irrelevant. You can't have a film that is unrelated or vaguely tied to the older film in one paragraph and then apparently directly related/focuses on that same material later in the article. It is either one or the other, not both. Anyway, it looks like someone did some quick copy editing which has added clarity. 76.65.28.196 (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere on this page, I think speculation about links to Alien and the Alien series should be kept out of this page until the film is out. I have my own theories about Scott's comments thus far (I think it is intended to be part of the Alien universe and pre-dates Alien but is not an "Alien film" because I think Scott doesn't want the baggage that comes with that; that he sees it as a film which stands and falls on its own merits) but I think this page should avoid making "is" or "is not" claims until the film's out and we either have a solid claim one way of the other or Scott leaves it up to the viewer to decide. --Zagrebo (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Intro paragraph cleanup/prequel status debate

The opening paragraph to this article is misleading, confusing, and contradictory to the body of the article.

Firstly, there's the fact that the article opening states without hint of a doubt that the film is not a prequel to Alien. The reality of the matter is that the films current status as to if it's a prequel is ambiguous at best. Yes there are some sources that say the film is an original piece, such as the Alien DNA quote by Ridley. But then you have the following interviews where people involved in the film have stated without ambiguity that the film is indeed connected to alien, such as this interview with the films writer (quote:So a true prequel should essentially proceed the events of the original film, but be about something entirely different, feature different characters , have an entirely different theme, although it takes place in that same world) , or this interview with the film lead actor (quote: It’s out next June, and it’s part of the Alien franchise), or this interview with another lead actor (quote: Prometheus" is absolutely connected to "Alien." Oh, absolutely. There's a definite connecting vein). And then you've got the trailer which critics analysis has shown pretty much has all but has the word Alien in it. So even if you think it's wrong to say it definitely is a prequel due to ambiguity, it's also wrong to say it definitely isn't.

The next problem though it simply the fact that the opening paragraph is just confusing to read, as it's out of tune with the rest of the article. The opening states that the film will "will explore its own mythology and universe and is not directly linked to Alien", but then later in the article we have paragraphs dedicated to how the film is connected to Alien. So if anything, we at least need to fix that up.

Now I really don't like getting into these "edit wars", so please let's stay civil about this.Little Jimmy (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire discussion about this immediately above. The opening paragraph is not confusing, and if you had read the immediate discussion above you would see that it is explained that sharing similar elements does not make it a prequel. It is, as best as we can tell without a source, at the moment just a film that possibly takes place in the same universe as Alien and possibly tells the story of hte Space Jockey. That does not make it a prequel, as it doesn't provide a back story for Ripley, the Sulaco, the Marines or any of that, it is telling a separate story which may have ties to Alien but is not the backstory to Alien. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is neither misleading nor contradictory. Darkwarriorblake put it well; read the discussion above. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"it is telling a separate story which may have ties to Alien but is not the backstory to Alien" is very different from claiming the film is "unconnected" to the Alien franchise. The introduction should at least reflect the ambiguity. 206.208.180.240 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you've kind of missed my point when I'm taking about it's relationship to Alien. I'm not trying to say we should list it as a prequel. What I'm saying is it's wrong for you to basically go out of your way to say that it isn't related to Alien. Scott's comments about the film containing "Alien DNA" are ambiguous at best, plus there's his other comments like how he says the last 8 minutes of the film connect to the first Alien, plus other comments from he films writer and actors. Yet not only do you refuse to reflect this in the article, you've even deleted the Alien box at the bottom of the page, like you're on some kind of "anti-alien" agenda.Little Jimmy (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely noone is clear on whether or not it is connected to the Alien franchise otherwise it would be clarified and we wouldn't have to keep continuing this discussion. I'm assuming since Illazilla edits the other Alien articles he isn't anti Alien and would be the first to write Alien all over this article if it were made clear. Its being purposely kept in the dark. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Heck, I rewrote Alien (film) top-to-bottom and launched WP:ALIEN. I even went to the 20th Century Fox panel at last year's San Diego Comic-Con and saw Charlize Theron talk about the film, as well as Ridley Scott discussing it in live feed from Iceland where they were filming. If this were unquestionably an Alien film, I'd be all about spelling it out for the reader. But it's being deliberately kept ambiguous by everyone involved, including Scott. The article lead spells out pretty well, IMO, how Prometheus started out as an Alien prequel but evolved into something that may or may not wing up being part of the Alien franchise. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I think we're starting to get on the same track. Indeed, the article should say that the film started out as an Alien prequel but evolved into something that may or may not wind up being part of the Alien franchise, but the problem I have is that the way the article is worded, it seems to say that the film definitely isn't related to Alien. When there's lines like, "though the film shares "strands of Alien's DNA, so to speak", Prometheus will explore its own mythology and universe and is not directly linked to Alien", that reads like the films is definitely not in the Alien universe. Lines like this should instead reflect the equivocally of the films relation to Alien.--Little Jimmy (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The "own mythology and universe", "not directly linked to Alien" stuff comes from what Scott himself has said, as stated in the Development section:

• By July 2011, Scott stated, "By the end of the third act you start to realize there’s a DNA of the very first [Alien], but none of the subsequent [films]."[38] Nevertheless, he made it clear that he made no direct link between Prometheus and Alien.[38]

--IllaZilla (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You do realize nothing in that sentence you posted says anything about "own mythology and universe" right?--Little Jimmy (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this will satisfy you then. "While 'Alien' was indeed the jumping-off point for this project, out of the creative process evolved a new, grand mythology and universe in which this original story takes place," Keep nitpicking all you like though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake; WP:BLUE; this film IS connected to the Alien franchise

Yes I know this is retreading old ground, but the intro paragraph is clearly misleading, specifically the phrase "script rewrites developed the film into a separate story unconnected to the films of the Alien franchise" (my emphasis). "Unconnected" is obviously, plainly, clearly incorrect. There are now numerous official promotional pictures from this movie showing both Space Jockeys (e.g. here) and the egg chamber (e.g. here) from the original Alien films. I generally agree about verifiability not truth but "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" WP:BLUE . The connection to the Alien film franchise, whether officially acknowledged or not, can be quickly and simply verified by looking at the official promotional pictures and also by reading the extensive media commentary by well-established genre journalists and critics in highly regarded film publications. Seriously, for heaven's sake, WP:BLUE, we are now (Jan 2012) at a point in the film's development where we can be certain that this film is connected to the Alien franchise and the introductory paragraph of this article is misleading unless we update it to reflect that fact. Andrew Oakley (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that it shares the same universe as Alien, even if it's not focused on the Xenomorph species. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Was the conversation above not good enough for you? Last time I checked, and admittedly I wasn't paying much attention, I don't recall a giant stone head in the egg chamber of the crashed ship, nor was I aware that fan gushing by "serious" journalists about their theories and interpretations of images such as the "egg chamber which is exactly the same as the one from the film except for the giant stone head" were considered verifiable compared to the actual direct sources saying it isn't attached to the Alien films. For all we know at this point, it could be like the new Star Trek and take place in a completely separate universe like one massive reboot, so let us just STOP now ok? Or at least stop creating new sections about this for god's sake, it is OLD and no amount of fan wishing is going to change the article without an actual source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Entertainment Weekly (circulation 1.7 million) has said "'Prometheus' trailer: Yep, this is DEFINITELY an 'Alien' prequel" as recently as December 2011.[3]
• Ain't It Cool News are callling Prometheus "Ridley Scott's upcoming ALIENverse saga" [4]
• Europe's largest selling genre magazine, SFX (circulation 31k), are now using phrases like "Alien prequel (no quibbling)" [5] and "Alien prequel (don’t argue)" [6].

Those are established film commentary sources and their well regarded critical views are highly pertinent. Even if we have to use some weasel words such as "The film has been widely reported by film journalists as being set in the Alien universe", that is still better than the clear falsehood of the article intro that the film is "unconnected". Indeed, I challenge you to find a reliable source that clearly states that the film is, to quote the article intro, "unconnected". Andrew Oakley (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[7] Someone actually involved with the film calls it a stand alone story with its own world that features similar elements like Weyland Yutani. You seem to be interpreting unconnected as has nothing to do with instead of what it is, which isn't The Thing (2011) to The Thing (1982). Featuring Weyland Yutani but not Xenomorphs or Ripley (which there is no evidence it does) does not connect them. Additionally, all your sources do what I said they did, which is claim it is based on their own speculation about released images. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Even better, the writer of the film says "that the universe in which each takes place shares a similar aesthetic." on Jan 14. Not the same universe, the universe in which each takes place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Darkwarriorblake on this. All the people actually involved with writing and filming Prometheus have said that it's not directly connected to the films of the Alien franchise. To whit, it does not feature any of the same characters and there's no evidence that it even features any Aliens. What they have said, obviously, is that it began life as an Alien prequel and is heavily Alien-inspired in its aesthetic, such that any fan of Alien will undoubtedly recognize familiar motifs such as the derelict, the space jockey dias, things that look like eggs (but are obviously not the same eggs as in Alien), etc. But shared elements and aesthetics does not make it part of, or connected to, the Alien franchise. If it were directly connected to the franchise, one would expect it to include, you know, Aliens. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

They're obviously going for a marketing build up similar to Cloverfield where you werent even sure what the creature looked like until the film came out unless you saw a leak of the action figure. The nearest example I can give, and I used it before in the above discussion is the Marvel films, which feature connecting elements like Nick Fury (Weyland Yutani) and the Cube (Space Jockey or whatever) but Thor is not a Captain America film anymore than Captain America is a Thor film, though in that particular case they do share a specific universe. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a parallel example myself, but that's a fairly good one. I also want to point out that this is not a simple case of WP:BLUE, because this is not information that is "patently obvious and generally accepted". If it were, we wouldn't need to have these discussions (and the film would probably just be titled Alien Origins or something). If anything, this is a prime example of something that is ambiguous and generally disputed: The creative team has deliberately danced danced around the issue, kept the plot and production details under-wraps, and avoided stating flat-out whether or not the film is part of the Alien franchise proper. They have instead downplayed its relationship to any film in the franchise other than the original Alien, and even then have only confirmed that it shares certain aesthetics and thematic elements, ones which would only be obvious/apparent to someone quite familiar with the original film. So yes, in this case you do need to cite that the sky is blue, because the issue is not patently obvious and in fact the connections would only be apparent to Alien fans. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's start naming films featuring Weyland-Yutani... It IS set in the same fictional universe, even off it is not connected to the *plot* of the other movies. The people denying the connection have confused plot for setting. Try reading the articles on this sure, or maybe retake middle-school English. 68.242.236.231 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have your first English lesson here: Pop quiz, highlight the part of this that says it has absolutely nothing to do with the Alien universe whatsoever. Bonus points if you can find the part where it says it is it's own story and own mythology but is no longer a prequel to nor directly connected to the Alien films. Here we go in 1...2...3... "Conceived as a prequel to Scott's 1979 science fiction horror film Alien, script rewrites developed the film into a separate story unconnected to the films of the Alien franchise. According to Scott, though the film shares "strands of Alien's DNA, so to speak", Prometheus will explore its own mythology and universe and is not directly linked to Alien.".

Did you catch it? It may have gone by fast. Or maybe just read the conversations above and don't try to be a smart ass unless you can pull it off. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The only place this article mentions Weyland-Yutani in any way, shape, or form is in the first paragraph of "Development", where it discusses Scott's ideas for the story while it was still conceptualized as an Alien prequel (in 2009). Later, after script rewrites, come the quotes from 2011: "Scott downplayed the film's ties to the Alien franchise. He said, 'While Alien was indeed the jumping-off point for this project, out of the creative process evolved a new, grand mythology and universe in which this original story takes place. The keen fan will recognize strands of Alien's DNA, so to speak, but the ideas tackled in this film are unique, large and provocative.' So there is no evidence that Weyland-Yutani will even appear in the film in any form. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And watching the trailer, that is quite clearly not an egg room, those things are solid, thin tubes. So again, viewing an image, making a judgement, does not equal actual source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IllaZilla, you might want to look at this photo: http://cdn.chud.com/9/99/9936eaaa_prometheus1.jpeg It says WEYLAND on her arm patch. I agree that the article should state that Prometheus explores its own mythology, but to say it isn't set within the Alien universe is ridiculous. 02:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.43.175 (talk)

Ignoring the direct quote by Scott in Illa's post above that says it is it's own universe and mythology, that image says Weyland and then something else but it isn't Yutani. Looks like "Ke". So again, drawing incorrect conclusions based on what you think you see. That patch means absolutely nothing in regards to its connection to Alien beyond the "DNA" mentioned. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a game of "what can fanboys spot in trailers & online screenshots?" It's about reliable sources and making sure the lead matches up to what the rest of the article says. As I said, the only mention of Weyland-Yutani anywhere in the article deals with Scott's ideas early in the concept stage, while he was definitely working on an Alien prequel. Scott himself has said that as he continued to work on the film, it developed into its own mythology and universe. Naturally since Alien was the jumping-off point, and it was originally going to be an Alien prequel, there are going to be elements in it that Alien fans may recognize ("The keen fan will recognize strands of Alien's DNA, so to speak"), but that does not make it set within the same fictional universe. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How about if the screenwriter and multiple cast members say outright, repeatedly that it's set within the same universe as Alien? 206.208.180.240 (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A) Why wouldn't you link them instead of random pictures?

B) Why aren't you linking them in that response?

C) How do they work with the same people then saying the opposite as part of their concentrated effort to conceal the story?

We are so far down the page and not one single person has actually put forth evidence to back up any claim, so I'm not holding high hopes about yours. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You also need to realize that universe, in a literary sense, doesn't mean, quite literally, another universe. Alien and Predator are capable of coexisting in a single fictional universe but they each have their own literary universe. And again, it'sa direct quote from Scott.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"I also do feel that this movie is the movie I would want to see as a fanboy, take place in that Alien universe, which precedes the events of the original Alien, but is not necessarily burdened by all the tropes of that franchise." See here 206.208.180.240 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not drawing "incorrect conclusions". WEYLAND doesn't precede YUTANI on the arm patch because it's before the companies merged. You want an interview? [8] Skip to 2:19:00. That's when he begins talking about Prometheus. He clearly says it PRECEDES Alien and takes place in the SAME WORLD but focuses on a different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.43.175 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure at this point I am done explaining to you how "Prometheus will explore its own mythology and universe and is not directly linked to Alien.", doesn't mean that the film has nothing to do with Alien or continue explaining the meaning of universe in this context or quite possibly, the meaning of context. The discussion has been rehashed over 3 lengthy discussions and I won't be participating in it anymore until some actual sources turn up that confirm its status beyond using similar design and background elements like Weyland. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure at this point I am done explaining to you how "Prometheus will explore its own mythology and universe and is not directly linked to Alien.", doesn't mean that the film has nothing to do with Alien..."

Then the article should reflect that. At the moment, it doesn't. The lead paragraph gives the impression that Prometheus has nothing to do with Alien whatsoever besides having similar art design. If the Ridley Scott quote remains in the article, then the Damon Lindelof quote should be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.43.175 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the article, there are several conflicting quotes from various stages of development. The article and lede make it very clear where the film originates and makes clear the extent of the connection between them which is sweet f-all at this point. Quote after quote saying "It doesn't do anything involving the Alien films but hey, there are some neat elements you might see in both like Weyland" doesn't make it a prequel or give it a DIRECT connection to those films, it gives it an INDIRECT connection. Alien doesn't tell the story of Darth Vader (Weyland-Yutani) and as far as know, Prometheus doesn't tell the story of Anakin Skywalker (Weyland or any other elements). There is no Ripley, no Xenomorphs, its a film with its own story and history and universe that may or may not take place in the same dimension as where another story took place. There are plenty of quotes in here already, adding 20 more than continue to say directly opposing things without actually saying anything clearly won't make a connection appear any faster. "It's a prequel", "It's not a prequel its a separate story", "but there are connections", "There are no direct connections", "You'll see some elements of Alien", "It has nothing to do with Alien". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever removed "unconnected" and re-worded the intro para. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My $0.02

You are right not to call it a sequel or prequel or whatever, but you are right that it is not reasonable on the basis of that to block the article from stating the obvious fact that this is in the Alien franchise, takes place in the same universe as that movie, or similar. Chrisrus (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Obvious" is not the standard for including something in a Wikipedia article, verifiability is. There seems to be no consensus at the moment for stating that the article is part of the Alien franchise, so please don't. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That and the article mentions the word Alien 72 times and thats not including other references to the film and links to many of those terms. Its history within and ties to development around Alien are not being "block"ed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're being reasonable, Mr. Cobwebs. This lack of consensus seems to consist of you, and it's very obvious. Take the repeated statements, the space jockey, and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's him, Darkwarriorblake, and IllaZilla, but I think that's it. If it walks like a duck, et cetera, et cetera. Thankfully the opening paragraph seems to have been edited to something much more reasonable. 206.208.180.240 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ridley's statement that the movie explores a "new" mythology

I think he probably means this "new" mythology is retconning the later Alien movies (Resurrection, AvP, etc.) that basically ruined his creation and made it cheesy instead of serious and believable, because he later says that the movie would be connected to his original alien movie but not the "subsequent alien films". Nex Carnifex (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation isn't relevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just showing there are other ways of interpreting it than saying they are completely different universes. Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Like your complete misinterpretation of the word universe in the context given. That is an interpretation too. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

mmm I can't imagine universe referring to anything else, unless you can provide an alternative. Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fictional universe. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that is what I was referring too, I was saying by universe I couldn't think of anything BUT the fictional Alien universe he could be referring too, duh. Nex Carnifex (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually.. would have argued against NetCarnifex a month ago, but looking at that new trailer and the blurb for the movie, I would say he's right. He could be Retconning the whole lot, making ever thing that came after alien non canon. From Guy Pearce playing Peter Wayland (no relation to the Wayland in AVP's) to the flashes of images adopted from Gigers original artwork, (the breast shaped "silo") to the blurb stating that the Space Jockeys are indigenous to the planet (which according to earlier info is zeta II reticuli). I guess i'm beginning to understand what "unrelated movie to the franchise" and "strands of alien DNA" is referring to. By the way i know my opinion doesn't count for much in terms of wikipedia (looking at you IllaZilla), I'm just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.171.144 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for new coverage

I attended the 20th Century Fox panel at San Diego Comic-Con International today, and Prometheus was the first item on the agenda. Damon Lindelof presented on behalf of Fox, Charlize Theron discussed her role in the film, exclusive footage was shown, and Ridley Scott and Noomi Rapace communicated live via video linkup from Iceland, where filming is currently taking place. Given the huge amount of media coverage at Comic-Con, it would be worth keeping an eye out for reliable source coverage popping up in the next few days covering details given at the event. In particular, the following items were covered:

• Theron's character is named Meredith Vickers
• On the relationship to Alien, Scott remarked that Prometheus has "the DNA of Alien, but that's where it ends", that the film's DNA "loosely applied to the original Alien" but that "we've gone in a completely different direction", and that this would all make sense to viewers at the end of the film.
• Scott also remarked that there would be 2 robot characters in the film.
• Scott also commented on the PG-13 rating.

Obviously I can't source these except to my own firsthand account, and thus wouldn't dare add them to the article, but anyone keeping their ear to the ground for new source coverage should watch for these points being covered, as many film sources (Ain't It Cool News, etc) have representatives at these things and coverage generally results swiftly. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm jealous! Thanks for the heads-up. Any pictures from the panel? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some, but I was pretty far back in the room so my pictures are all of the giant video screens and none of them are what I'd consider WP-worthy. I'm not much of a photographer. Hopefully someone closer to the front will have gotten some decent shots and may upload them. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just in Iceland. On July 23rd, I tried to get to Dettifoss (look it up if you're not familiar; it's the most powerful waterfall in Europe), but couldn't because of the film crew. I ended up driving right through their camp to get back to Hwy. 1. They had just finished the shoot near the falls and were airlifting crates of gear back to their camp, which was just to the east/northeast, right on top of 864. I got a couple cell phone pics of the chopper at work, although they're extremely low res; my high def video camera had just died the night before. :P

I didn't even know this movie was being made until I got back home and tried to figure out what was going on. It's a neat location for filming; the Jökulsá carved one heck of a canyon, pretty otherworldly in places. Hiking it under the midnight sun was practically a religious experience for me. I hope they got some shots from the west side of the river, too, as it's the more impressive side IMHO. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to followup: here's some pics of the surrounding area and of Dettifoss itself.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Pretty awesome spot to film a movie, IMHO. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot "Controversy"

Not sure if I have the same understanding of the word "controversy" as other people....but....what controversy? Clarification might be a better word? Or just leave it for now as "Plot"? "Controversy" - well, it isn't one. BTW - keeping quite an eye on this page for updates etc - page rework is excellent. I just don't get the "controversy". Greg1138 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a badly named section, and the content should not have been parted from "Production". I've reverted the editor. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Originally in two parts?

According to this The Guardian article, when the film was intended to be an Alien prequel, it was supposed to be in two parts, two seperate movies : Ridley scott alien prequelS. Has this info been debunked since?Munin75 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Please explain Why would would you keep on removing Category:Alien (franchise) from this article? It is clearly related to Alien even if it's not strictly a sequel/prequel to that film. It has a navbox at the bottom for the franchise, is supported by the WikiProject and has citations in the article connecting it to the larger Alien story. I can't imagine why you think that the category is inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the navbox as well. Yes, it has a relationship to the Alien franchise, as its conceptual beginnings were as a prequel to Alien. However, it has been declared that it will not directly tie in to any of the previous Alien films, and its ultimate relationship to the Alien franchise—if any—is intentionally being kept under wraps (as are most of the details about the story). It is merely listed in {{Alien}} as a "related article", because it is unknown whether it is or will be part of the franchise proper. Unless/until it is declared to be so in reliable primary & secondary sources, it is not an Alien film. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay I didn't even categorize it under Category:Alien (franchise) films, but Category:Alien (franchise). It's unarguably related to the franchise itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Until the film actually comes out we have nothing but unconfirmed leaked spoilers to go off that say it has anything at all remotely to do with Alien. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Space Jockey is a character in Alien, Ripely has specifically stated that the story would revolve around this character, it is obviously part of the Alien franchise.Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the numerous threads above regarding the deliberate ambiguity of its relationship to the Alien franchise. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ripley? I think you mean Ridley, Nex Carnifex. Anyway, IllaZilla is right. Editor's personal assumptions about what is "obvious" are not enough here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Workprint leaked online?

It appears a workprint of the film's leaked online. I can't find a specific source, but the fact that when you google 'Prometheus workprint' it comes up with twenty download links seems to speak for itself, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.66.56 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that something "leaked" on the internet isn't noteworthy unless it results in some other action that is noteworthy, such as being directly responded to by the director or production company, or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage. We should not add information about leaks to articles unless a notable consequence of the leak can be properly sourced to the same regular, reliable media sources that would be expected for any other content in the article. (Most of this cribbed from WP:LEAK.) --IllaZilla (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not true anyway. Posted on January 22 and the Internet hasn't exploded? Don't think so. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits

@Hypnosifi : First, the Collider source is being used by other parts in the article. So you broke that. Second, the Collider source references the TED site and Lindelof's personal twitter account, not an "unconfirmed report". Third, this "In June 2011 Scott said that Prometheus does occupy the same general universe as Alien " is said by Lindelof in a more recent interview in the sentence directly before this you added, its unnecessary and already made clear multiple times in the article that this is the case. Fourth, no claim is made that it takes place in a separate PHYSICAL universe, so it is not a 'fact' that needs to be in the lede, it says it started as an Alien prequel and then went on to become a different story, a separate physical universe is never claimed and the use of the word universe in that context does not refer to that, but it DOES refer to actual words used by Scott, which as said before, are mentioned in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing the Collider ref was used multiple times, but obviously it's a simple matter to cut and paste the ref to a later spot (edit: I see you just added a link to the the TED page right before the Collider link, which is also fine with me, so the rest of this paragraph isn't really important). Collider does link to the TED site at the very end after multiple other links, but if someone were to go looking there looking specifically for confirmation that Pearce plays Weyland in the film they'd waste a lot of time looking through all the other links (Lindelof's twitter account isn't relevant since it doesn't address this question), and they might well think the source for Collider's claim is the "Peter Weyland" link in the sentence "Through TED magic, they’ve managed to bring us a clip of a TED Talk from Peter Weyland, who is played by Guy Pearce in Ridley Scott‘s upcoming sci-fi film, Prometheus" right at the beginning of the article. That link goes to an earlier Collider article that's based entirely on the unconfirmed report I mentioned. In general, I think it's always pretty clearly better to link to a site that provides first-hand confirmation for a claim, rather than a secondary site which just makes the claim without explaining clearly where the confirmation came from, even if the secondary site does include a link to the first one.

I guess by "physical universe" you mean the same thing as the fictional universe link you provided in a comment to another editor? If so, that's what I mean as well, and I think in this context it would be easy to misinterpret the comment "Prometheus will explore its own mythology and universe". It's true that "mythology and universe" is Ridley Scott's own phrase, but given that it doesn't appear in quotes in the article and some of the surrounding words are different (Scott referred to "a new, grand mythology and universe in which this original story takes place") there's no real need to replicate his exact words here, and he presumably didn't mean Prometheus takes place in its own separate fictional universe since that other article I linked to shows him saying it takes place in the "same general universe" as Alien. And it's true that the earlier sentence "Lindelof developed a separate story that precedes the events of Alien" does imply it takes place in the same fictional universe, but since it doesn't say so explicitly a casual reader might miss the implication (especially given the next part about the movie having its "own mythology and universe"), and since this sentence is talking about past "rewrites" of the script it also isn't 100% clear that the final version of the script is intended to be in the same fictional universe. I've seen a great deal of confusion on this issue online so I think it's worth being as clear as possible. If you don't want to include a full sentence giving Ridley Scott's confirmation it takes place in the same universe, see my most recent edit in which I changed the sentence to read 'According to Scott, though the film shares "strands of Alien's DNA, so to speak", and takes place in the same universe, Prometheus will explore its own mythology and ideas.' Hypnosifl (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reflist

Does anyone have any issue with me moving the refs into the reflist to make editing easier? At the moment editing involves finding the text you want in a wall of references. Makes it unnecessarily difficult. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Mudow"

Kate Dickie's role has no official name as of now. The page used as source [19] references an interview published in the Daily Star, an unreliable British tabloid. This was also posted at AVPGalaxy, where the more knowledgeable users dismissed it as a fake [20] [21] More importantly, said fake interview is based on a fake plot summary that has been circling the net since August 2011, originally posted at IMDB by user robotpo as fan fiction [22]. Take note, this is where the words "Mudow", "bioformer", "skeletal monstrosities" and "starbeast" which are polluting the net came from (yes, I know Star Beast was the working title for Alien, and this was a reference to it). Moreover, IMDB itself keeps being unreliable, naming her character "Imora" last year, and now "Ford". So I'm taking all that out of the page. Guess we now need a better citation that shows that Dickie has a role. 190.209.130.251 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Near-Faster-than-Light

Does anyone else recognize the absurdity of referring to something as "near-faster-than-light?" The closest thing to that is "as fast as light," which is impossible (even if faster-than-light were not), so it can only mean "nearly light speed." Taking into account that comprehension of "faster-than-light" is meant to mean something akin to instantaneous, while light speed as a matter of interstellar travel is a multi-generational prospect, and the term is just bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsamans (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, from a physics view the correct terms would either be "near-light-speed", "light-speed", or "faster-than-light" travel. However the source does indeed refer to it as 'near-faster-than-light". Considering it has not yet been revealed by the creators which of these would correctly describe the actual interstellar travel depicted (though the cryo-sleep suggests 'near-light' or 'equal-to-light'). Perhaps it would be best to remove that particular reference altogether until a more official explanation or another source is revealed? Diraphe (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that "near-faster-than-light" was just an awkward way of phrasing the idea that they can move a little faster than light, but not by much. In physics this would still be sort of questionable, since an object traveling just a little faster than light in one inertial frame of reference would be traveling much faster than light, or even infinitely fast or backwards in time, in other frames, and all inertial frames are considered equally valid in relativity. Still, one could suppose they are talking about the speeds they can achieve relative to the frame where the ship was first launched, presumably the frame where the Earth was at rest or at least close to it.

Also, the [http://www.amazon.com/Aliens-Colonial-Marines-Technical-Manual/dp/1781161313 Colonial Marines Technical Manual] presented a science-fictional idea about FTL travel which is discussed on this page:

The ships FTL drive is a Romberg-Rockwell Cygnus 5 Hyperdrive Tachyon Shunt, which propels the ship through the light barrier by shifting the entire ship into a mirror state in which it is entirely composed of tachyons: In this state the ship CANNOT move at speeds lower than that of light. Speed is controlled by varying the mass and energy state of the ship. Shedding mass increases the ships speed, while increasing the ships mass lowers speed. The main disadvantage of this method of travel is that time is not compressed as one would expect, but *extended* when traveling at FTL speeds. This stretching of time is directly related to the square of the speed, and imposes some severe limits on the maximum speed of the ship, beyond which travel time becomes untenable. As is, all of the crew and passengers need to use the cold-sleep capsules during FTL travel, otherwise they would age far too fast compared to the rest of the universe.

Relativity does theoretically allow for the possibility of tachyons but doesn't say anything about how FTL objects would experience time, if they would have anything equivalent to "clocks" at all. But if FTL objects did exist and could measure their own time, it's not a bad sci-fi speculation that they might experience "time contraction" relative to us, just like slower-than-light objects experience time dilation. For a slower-than-light object clock moving at speed v in our frame, for each second ticked by the clock, ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}$ seconds of time pass in our frame, which becomes an imaginary number if you try to plug in a v that's larger than c. So a nice way to resolve this would be to suggest that for a faster-than-light clock moving at speed v, for each second of time ticked by the FTL clock, ${\frac {i}{\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}$ seconds pass in our frame, where i is the square root of -1, which is equal to ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {v^{2}/c^{2}-1}}}$ (so for example, a clock moving at 10 times the speed of light relative to Earth would tick 1 second forward every 1/sqrt(10^2 - 1) = 0.1005 seconds on Earth clocks, so a person moving along with it would seem to age at about 10 times the normal rate to observers on Earth, assuming the FTL traveler wasn't using hypersleep or some other artificial way to stop their aging). Again there's nothing in existing physics that says FTL must work this way, and the truth is that tachyons probably don't exist in the first place since if they did they would have to either lead to problems with causality or violate the symmetry between different inertial frames in relativity, but still this seems pretty good as a sci-fi speculation.

So, it could be that this sort of idea will be incorporated into Prometheus. But all that said, is there a way of actually verifying that Scott actually used the phrase "near-faster-than-light" or said that the movie would deal with "time dilation and the effects of essentially de-materializing and re-materializing"? The only source given in the wikipedia article is this article from scriptflags.com, which presents a bunch of quotes by Ridley Scott but doesn't say which interviews or talks they came from, so the author might have just been copying from other websites. I did find one source from an earlier date than the scriptflags article, this description of a Q&A with Ridley Scott on aintitcool.com, but the part about "Near Faster-Than-Light" isn't in quotes so the aintitcool author may just have been paraphrasing what Scott said there:

He mentioned the theory of Near Faster-Than-Light travel, which is complete science fiction at the moment; “Mr. Spock stuff” as he called it, rearranging matter essentially, but theoretically possible. “But what we’re allowed to do by movies is to cheat like hell. But I think the closer it is to the truth, the closer it is to the technological feasibility then it becomes that much more interesting. And if it’s a film like the one I’m going to do, then it becomes that much more frightening.”

Maybe it would be better to edit this section so it's based on the earlier aintitcool article which is based on a Q&A seen by the article's author, rather than the later scriptflags article which doesn't give the source or context of its quotes? Hypnosifl (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is another article compiling various reports of things he said at the Hero Complex Q&A that the aintitcool article above was reporting on. It includes in the links at the bottom a report from scifiwire (now blastr) which includes the following comments and quote: The part that's still science fiction is traveling light-years away and sustaining human life for the journey. Scott's going to take the real science of that and make it scary. "Actually, you're dematerializing and rematerializing, because light speed is that. You can't travel in that space of time, so you have to think about 'How do I mathematically change my matter, material presence?' It sounds like magic, but if we said in 1900 that I was going to have a cell phone, I'd be able to pick this up and talk to London, they'd put me in jail or a lunatic asylum. That's how far we've come. I think the closer it is to the truth and the closer it is to technological feasibility, it becomes that much more interesting. If it's a film like I'm going to do, it's going to become that much more frightening." Hypnosifl (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like something that would go in a design section rather than a development section, if he is putting enough thought into it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

When the movie comes out and we know the details I agree, but for now the "development" section seems to be used to mention the various hints of plot elements that have been given in interviews over the last few years, including the part that's already in there about "near faster than light" (like I said, I think that part should be modified so it uses references that are actually first-hand reports of the Hero Complex talk).

One more hint about this (which doesn't necessarily need to go in the article, but I thought I'd mention it): on the Weyland Industries timeline, the entry for May 20, 2032 has the headline "FTL Travel Made Possible", and it says "Weyland scientists discover the inverse relationship between velocity and the flow of time making the long sought-after concept of faster than light travel a reality. The search for practical application begins." That comment about "the inverse relationship between velocity and the flow of time" sounds a lot like the concept of reverse time dilation from the Colonial Marines Technical Manual which I talked about above. Hypnosifl (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Scotland

Does Scotland not raise to the level of Principal photography? An early sequence was filmed around The Storr (see third photograph). I camp there annually and recognised the place immediately. Unable to find a reliable source for this bit of information however. — ThePowerofX 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would count but it needs a source. I have noticed Scotland mentioned but it was in a tabloid paper I believe and commenters were questioning the authenticity so I didn't use it. If you can find a source though yes, we should add Scotland. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Cast list changes

I have reverted 5 edits by Kronaang Dunn, there is no room in the edit summary to explain everything.

• If David 8 is his in-film name, provide a source. All sources refer to him as David, as far as I am aware only the viral advert lists that particular MODEL as David 8.
• Several larger film articles are using this cast format now, it helps isolate each character for easier reading rather than a disjointed block of never ending text. See Captain America: The First Avenger, The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film), Thor (film), Fast Five, The Avengers (2012 film), and three of them are Good Articles. When you have a simple list of names, a simple list makes sense, but not when you have this much information.
• Cast reordering, while I can't remember what it was based off, someone did order these names by an official listing, might have been a trailer or something. This summary "Changed cast order for clarification and order of the character's descriptions" does not mean anything. Literally. Clarification of what? Order of character descriptions has what to do with their ordering? If there is a source providing a new order, change it up, but otherwise it's done this way to prevent POV listing by personal preference, i.e. I would rather have Charlize Theron nearer the top and Guy Pearce further down since his role seems so small. EDIT The ordering is based off the poster credits here
• "Holloway is also an archeologist and is Shaw's colleague and associate", again, needs source, I've seen him referred to as a scientist, not as an archaeologist. The entire crew are going to be her colleague.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the stuff from this "press kit" is from a skydrive. There is no publisher, no way of authenticating the information provided, and noone is covering it as authentic either. Also the Engineers, you have absolutely no idea on their role or the importance of the characters these particular ones play. Wikipedia is not IMDb, and should not be an extensive list of cast. You're employing POV to decide that 4 random characters are more important than others. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Alien

There's nothing here about being specifically excluded. A template is not a category. Why is {{Alien}} being deleted? It's clearly on the template. The other entries on the related line have the template on the articles, why not this one? Obviously, if you read this article, you may want to access other articles in that template. This article keeps talking about existing tangentially within the same "universe" as the original Alien film (but not necessarily anything else from Aliens etc), so I don't see why the template shouldn't be here. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

See above, under #Categorization. {{Alien}} isn't included because the film isn't part of the Alien franchise. Prometheus' ties to the Alien franchise have, from the very beginning, been kept deliberately ambiguous by the film's production team. Even if it's tangentially related to Alien, that doesn't make it part of the franchise. Thus the franchise navbox isn't included. Several of the other entries in the templates "related articles" section are directly related, though there are some that are only tangentially related (Val Verde, for example) and I would have no qualms with removing the template from those articles as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What is on the template is wrong, people just can't police every thing, its a lot of work. This is "potentially" the first film in a completely separate franchise that just happens to take place in the same universe as Alien. They've repeatedly stated that it has loose connections to those films, that it is a film that precedes the events of Alien but it is not about the events of the characters from Alien before they were in Alien, and that any sequels would feature even less of the barely there connections. They may be part of the "Scott-verse"TM but there is no reason to claim they are part of the same franchise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the passion for the movie and Ridley Scott are commendable, the fact remains that the movie is based on the Alien IP franchise, which is owned by Fox. This fact is proven by the many inclusions of protected IP content in the teasers shown, and also the production stills. Weyland, Space Jockeys, etc, etc. These are all elements that fall under the Alien IP. Ridley Scott doesn't own them, he doesn't have a say in who uses them, he just has the rights to use them when he works on an Alien franchise movie for Fox - Which is what he is doing for Prometheus. Basically it's a war of hearsay vs established knowledge. Too many times has Ridley Scott changed his stance on this movie to consider his comments accurate, but Fox stil own the franchise, and Ridley is working on Prometheus as part of the Fox owned Alien franchise. Regardless of whether or not it's a reboot, reimagining, prequel or sequel, the fact remains that it is part of a legally defined franchise owned by Fox - The ALIEN franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.89 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Same universe - Same template. Not including it is causing many people new to the ALIEN universe to be disinformed and ignorant of the works that predated Prometheus and how everything in that same universe came to be developed, and the whole extent of those fictional works. The important thing here is the ALIEN fictional universe, not the franchise, not the director. This is not a reboot, nor a re-imagination. This is a movie set in the very same fictional universe like I many times have said before. I thought Wikipedia was a source of information for the users who want to know more about a topic, not of mindless "debate for debate's sake" among contributors.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth are you starting this discussion again? There are pages of it above. They've said numerous times that it is a new franchise that just happens to take place in the same universe. Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor, Iron Man and the Hulk all take place in the same universe and they are part of the larger parent Marvel franchise, they are not a part of each others respective franchises however. They're also on record that any future Prometheus films would move even further away from the Alien films so why would or should they be forced to belong to another franchise? I'm not detailing any further examples, it's all taken care of above in the OTHER discussions, go read them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Prometheus and Alien to the Marvel omniverse is quite pretentious. The amount of works related to the ALIEN universe is not that big. This is just another one of the logical and sound reasons to include Prometheus in such universe. This is only ONE film. The so-called new franchise hasn't been fully developed yet. You are only complicating and hiding information regarding the same universe from the average user. Also, why is this article under the WikiProjectALIEN then if is not part of the same franchise?Kronnang Dunn (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it was added when it was a prequel and noone has bothered to remove it. It's not a cause and effect situation. And nothing is hidden, the franchise and films are linked extensively and/or mentioned regarding the early incarnation of the film, and it's development history is OVER discussed to satisfy people so don't tell me that anything is being hidden because a navigation template is not included at the bottom. "Well gee golly gawrsh, there's a link to Alien, and Aliens, and the Alien Franchise, and Sigourney Weaver, and Ridley Scott, and the Alien creature, and Alien vs Predator, and Ellen Ripley, and James Cameron, I wonder if this has anything to do with that dang thar Alien universe. Welp, there's no template at the bottom of the page, guess not". If that sounds overly sarcastic it's a balanced response to how silly your argument is. I wouldn't mind so much except this repeated debate about how the article hides the film's loose connections in the finale to the Alien films demonstrates that the people making the argument haven't actually read the article AT ALL. It's mentioned in the opening, in the casting, in the development extensively, and the Pre production, and these are the four earliest sections you can read. THEN it is mentioned in the sequel. But most importantly? It's mentioned in the goddamn lede! It's the second freaking paragraph! *drops microphone* I'm out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Count me in support of adding the template to the article. If Prometheus isn't considered part of the franchise, then how are the Predator films part of the Alien franchise, since they are only tangentially related to Alien by the inclusion of the alien skull in the second film? The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Alien and Predator franchises are inextricably related to one another. Comics, books, video games, and films under the Alien vs. Predator banner have been published continuously since the mid-1980s, and the film franchises were definitively tied together via the 2 AVP films. If you think the only connection between them is the Alien skull in the background of Predator 2, then you clearly don't know much about either franchise. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So if the ALIEN universe works are mentioned in the article... what harm, if any at all, does adding the ALIEN template could do to the article's non-biased real world description of the film? Your comments and sarcasm makes it seem like you and the rest of the people blocking the addition of the ALIEN template do it only for blocking's sake or to prove something which I truly can't understand yet. I don't believe it could be cannonity since concepts like those belong to a fan page, not a wikipedia article. More like the article was only and only yours to edit or something like it (pet article?). Sorry to mention this, but... isn't Wikipedia supposed to be open to public contribution to begin with? The Prometheus film has been described countless times by its creators as part of the ALIEN universe despite not being directly related to any of the other films. That and that alone should be reason enough to include the ALIEN template into the article.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates are for navigation purposes, a reader gains nothing by being directed to multiple articles about a subject which has nothing to do with the subject at hand beyond the loosest of connections to one film and as far as we know, no direct ones, i.e. no Ripley, no Xenomorph, which are the defining elements of those films. If anything it only forges confusion by implying a connection where there is little to be found. @Wookipedian, all the crossover games, films, toys, comics, and you choose to select an Easter Egg skull at the end of Predator 2 as the reason they have been linked? The alien literally appears in those things and the alien is what makes up an Alien film. That said, a template, like the rest of Wikipedia, is user edited and can be as wrong as anything else. There's a reason you can't use Wikipedia as a source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the Predator films themselves have next to nothing to do with the Alien films. Yes, there are crossover comics and the Alien vs. Predator films (which Ridley Scott considers a seperate franchise altogether), but where exactly do Arnold or Danny Glover deal with Ripley or Weyland Yutani? If we're going to have these films in the franchise template because of spin-off works, then why are we not including Prometheus, which is explicitly set in the Alien universe? The Wookieepedian (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If only for the fact that the space ship is the same, it is clear that there is enough connection to fall under the broad umbrella of referents implied by the presence of the template. Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we add the film to the template as a fourth franchise, so that there's the Alien, Predator, Alien vs. Predator and Prometheus franchises. The Wookieepedian (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. A single film doesn't constitute a new series or franchise. Leaving under "related articles" is fine, because it is related. Unless subsequent sequel films are made or whatever, there is no call to start a fourth "franchise" bar. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

But the film is equally related to the Alien franchise as is, say Predator 2, so putting it seperate from the rest of the films doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it could be removed from the template's body, but left in the template's heading? The Wookieepedian (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As the template's title bar indicates, it includes articles about topics in the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator franchises. The comparison to Predator 2 is therefore inapt, P2 being a Predator movie (of course). Prometheus is neither an Alien film, a Predator film, nor an Alien vs. Predator film. It is related to the Alien franchise, so it is listed as a related article. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. The Wookieepedian (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see common sense prevailed.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Being smug about being wrong and detrimental to the article is not a good thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Wrong and detrimental to the article"? If you are talking about spoilers I suggest you check Wikipedia's Spoilers Policy.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No I'm talking about bitching for the addition of a template that contains 56 unrelated links and only one that barely applies. Because all the relevant links in this article apparently do not suffice. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over Release Dates

Wiki Google Search Snippet is showing the wrong release dates for the movie.

US Searches are showing a release date of June 1, 2012 without noting it as the UK Release Date.

Tons of Google searcher are complaining because they search, see the release date of June 1, then don't see it in theaters.

Google Prometheus and you will see.

Not saying it is the editors of this articles issue or your problem, but it is causing a ton of confusion with US theaters.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.127.103 (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

First plot sentences

The first versions were much better. It was clear the a ship was flying over Earth and left an alien behind. Now it's as if we see the ship arriving on earth, which we don't, and the transition between ship and alien is not clear. Also it is not said that the ship leaves, which is more important and true than saying that it arrives. Also why has the DNA talk been removed? Dna is shows in the movie, recombining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmint (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This version, which I had edited in parts is much better in my opinion. In the distant past, the spacecraft of an advanced humanoid alien race flies over Earth. One of the aliens from the spacecraft is left behind and sacrifices itself, seeding Earth with what will eventually become the first human DNA. --Lightmint (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot Points (spoilery talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some points (can't edit, am too new).

It's not specifically stated that the planet at the open (where the Engineer stay behind and drinks a cup of black sauce, causing him to explode and impregnate the planet with his DNA) is Earth, is it? I grant you that's the inference, but we also see from the later holograms that the Engineers were keeping an eye on several planets - perhaps suitable for them to colonise once they have been adapted by their offspring, who knows. Is there any official film publicity to say that the planet in the prologue is Earth?

The Engineer, when he takes off, is carrying a cargo of masses of ampoules, not just one as the article currently states. Presumably his sensors can figure out where the "Prometheus" came from.

The "Space Jockey" at the opening of the original "Alien" is sitting in the command chair of the crashed ship, with his elephant-head helmet on, with a smallish hole in his armour, suggesting a smaller infant alien like in the later films burst out of him. The Engineer in this film - who we know from David's warning to Shaw is the pilot of the crashed ship - "bursts" on the floor of the MedLab, with no helmet on, and a human-sized alien bursts out. So they are not the same. That means that there must have been more than one surviving Engineer, surely, even if we assume that the horseshoe ship which crashes in this film is the same one as in the opening of "Alien".CaraPolkaDots (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a prequel to the events of Alien and so looking for any connection between the dead Engineer on Lv-426 (or whatever it is called) and this which takes place on an entirely different planet, will not end well. They're different Engineer's and different ships. That's the last engineer on that particular planet, the rest all died because of whatever bio-nightmare they accidentally unleashed on themselves. As for the opening planet, it is stated in interviews, it was shot in Iceland and ismeant to represent the beginning of time here. I'm not going hunting which reference it is down at the minute though. I'll correct the amount of ampoules.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The planet in Prometheus has a different name to the one in Alien and Aliens : not the same planet. It doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination to consider that perhaps the engineers/space-jockeys settled in another planet of the system and had the same kind of problem with their biological weapon (or a potential sequel to Prometheus may show a more direct link). And interviews confirm that the beginning of Prometheus is on Earth.--Munin75 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Made some minor edits and changes to the plot. I think it reads better now. Also, just to clarify: The "Alien" planet in this movie (LV-223) is an orbiting moon of LV-426, the planet where Ripley's crew first encounters the Derelict Ship/Space Jockey/Alien Eggs and the setting for the sequel Aliens. RealRecognizesReal (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to get into theory, the ENgineer in Alien had been dead a LONG time, it had fossilized, it's likely it died long before even this film takes place. Actually, considering what they were up to, it's certain he died well before this film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that the one in Alien only looked fossilised because he was wearing a bony biomechanical suit. One of the main points of Prometheus was to show the creation of the aliens, so it seems really strange that they'd end the film with the birth of a proto-alien if it has no relation to the eggs in Alien – and, therefore, no relation to the aliens in Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection. —Flax5 20:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In Prometheus, the decapitated "engineer" was dead for 2000 years. This is said pretty clearly in the movie.--Munin75 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the dead Engineer in Alien, not the decapitated one in Prometheus. —Flax5 20:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

He's talking about the seated one from Alien. The only point of Prometheus was to show what the Space Jockey was about Flax, and why they'd be carrying super deadly cargo around in spaceships. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about the dead space-jockey in Alien? Scott said this wasn't a direct prequel. Maybe a sequel will explain the dead engineer in Alien, but honestly, it's pretty clear that they had the same problem as in Prometheus in containing their "biological weapon". Period.--Munin75 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be all the media outlets prior to release exclaiming it was an Alien prequel and going to do all these things that are about Alien. So people go in thinking that it is setting up Alien and taking place on the same planet, which seems to be causing a lot of the confusion I've seen people experiencing about the film. SO they're all "PLOT HOLE, how is that Space Jockey over there when he is meant to be in the chair" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus clearly has plot holes. However, Scott has stressed many times that Prometheus isn't a direct prequel, and it's pretty clear that the planet in Prometheus isn't the same as the one in Alien/Aliens. I wasn't expecting to see a space-jockey die on his chair so it could conform to Alien. It's easy to imagine they colonized another planet and had problems there too. There are many plotholes in Prometheus. This isn't one of them.--Munin75 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Describing it as an "indirect prequel" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I know it's not the same planet (Alien is set on LV-426, while Prometheus is set on LV-223), but somehow the film left me with the impression that the alien in the final scene (or its descendants) were going to end up being taken from one planet to the other, perhaps via one of the other Engineer ships mentioned by David. I'm now aware that this is most likely wrong, however. —Flax5 20:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily wrong, certainly not explained in this film and not something that can go in the plot as some people keep adding. There are some obvious theories that could be applied but I dont particularly wish to fill this page up with spoilery content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If he died well before this movie, how come that the Prometheus didn't pick the warning signal that the Nostromo detected?--Lightmint (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nostromo didn't detect it, the company detected it and purposely sent the Nostromo nearby and made it seem like it was detected so they would investigate it. It's the whole reason Ash is on the ship. As for why Prometheus didn't detect it, it's not the same planet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes they did, and that's what guided them to the derelict. That the company knew about it is another problem. Also, they detected it when they were far from the ringplanet, so there is no reason the Prometheus couldn't detect it, they were in orbit of LV426. Not that this is relevant ro this discussion. --79.82.27.44 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys, Prometheus has plotholes. What's certain is that Scott wants to start a new franchise in the same universe. We may never get the answers to Alien, I don't think Scott wants to connect his new franchise to Alien. Let's not speculate and keep this talk page relevant to Prometheus.--Munin75 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A useful discussion. Perhaps the article should clarify that the planet on which they land is not the same one as the one in "Alien", as averagely intelligent viewers like me - misled by the crashed ship, the storm not unlike the atmosphere in "Alien", and Shaw's recorded warning at the end - will assume it's the same planet and won't check the serial numbers of the planets (for what it's worth the warning in "Alien" looks like some kind of binary code - I'm watching it on TV as I write this - but again that had slipped my mind). At some stage we could probably do with a reference for the fact that the opening planet is Earth, as this is not obvious from the film.CaraPolkaDots (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think wikipedia should knock it off with lines like this.

"In a scathing review of the film, Variety film critic Justin Chang accused..." It's clearly written by someone attempting to project their own viewpoint. Not sure why this page is protected either, was there even a discussion about it? 2.96.75.185 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right: This language is not neutral WP:TONE. I'll address. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'd also suggest that if we're saying it's received generally positive reviews and has a 79% on RT, that for purposes of proper weight we lead with some positive reviews, rather than the paragraph of negative reviews there now. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried adding some more reviews, tbh I thought someone else might pick up the slack but alas no. Can't add many more, they're all british ones, don't want to make it too bias one way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Geographical Error

"Filming also took place at one of the most powerful waterfalls in Europe, the Dettifoss waterfall in the Vatnajökull National Park in the north of Iceland."

Dettifoss is in the north of Iceland but the Vatnajökull National Park is in the south, where I suspect (but don't know) that the panoramic aerial shots were achieved.

(My first time commenting so please excuse any conventions that I have inadvertently violated.)--DecBrennan (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange, source must be confused, I will change it for you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, Dettifoss says it is in that park in the North. Are you sure you have the right part? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm now a bit confused myself even though I've been treking in Iceland a couple of times. Looking at the map, it does appear that the main part of the park is in the south (where the Glacier is) but there is a small addendum in the north where the runoff and the waterfall is:

http://www.vatnajokulsthjodgardur.is/media/skjol/Heildarkort_EN-12okt2011.jpg

So although this suggestion could be ignored if you like, I still think it's a bit confusing implying the Vatnajökull National Park national park is in the north. --DecBrennan (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Vatnajökull National Park, and I'm not sure why, it is present in the south and north of Iceland. Specifically the South, Southeast, North, North east regions, and Dettifoss exists in the North East part. I've made a slight change to avoid any confusion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Praise for you all

...for all the feuding I've seen since this article made my watchlist, you might think that the article would have suffered. It amazes me each time contentiously edited articles turn out as really very WP:Good as this one has. The Wisdom of Crowds at work, I guess. Kudos to all who contributed, it reads like silk. Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much the entirety of conflict is relegated to the plot (which is pretty normal, certainly for something that does not offer straightforward conclusions), so thankfully the sourced info avoids disruption *touch wood*.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Pre-release

There is an overabundance of information comparing this film to Madagascar 3 incuding information specifically related to that film and not this. They're not comparable films beyond releasing at the same time, they're clearly aimed at entirely different audiences. Surely this can be said in a much more streamlined fashion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Science fiction horror

I've added the category which has been removed twice called Category:American science fiction horror films. I understand that this film is not primarily considered a horror film, which is why I'm not adding it to the lead. But I still think it stands that it should be added secondarily as I have. I've provided three sources (Allmovie, The Huffington Post, Roger Ebert, Winnipeg Free Press, Washington Post, Time Magazine). These are all notable sources and I think it warrants the category. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So did you not read my edit when you undid it? Because science fiction horror is still there.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Uhh. Well. Um. I guess I'm used to edits of my own or..uh..It's too early for me. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, do you think that having both American science fiction films and American science fiction horror films are redundant? Because the latter category has the American science fiction films cat within it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's bizarre, if true. American science fiction films is not a sub-category of American science fiction horror films. It's impossible to claim that 2001: A Space Odyssey is in a category beneatch sci-fi horror films. ... Categories need to go from the more general down to specific, not vice versa. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is way too big

112,440 bytes even as it was not even released, maybe you should go and rather make a whole wikia about it or something. (Wikipedia:Article size) --Niemti (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What rubbish. There is absolutely no rule anywhere saying an article can't be of significant length just because the film it's about isn't released yet. Detailed sections on the writing, development, casting, filming, marketing, etc. of the film (all things that occur before the film is released) are expected of any decent article. Darkwarriorblake has been doing a commendable job making this a detailed article with numerous citations to reliable sources. Of course once the film comes out additional sections on its plot, reception, and impact will be added and fleshed out, but in no way whatsoever does that invalidate the current content, which is good to excellent. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution and is likely to continue growing. Other editors will add to articles when you are done with them. This is not a technical problem, because, for most practical purposes, Wikipedia has unlimited storage space; however, long articles may be more difficult to read, navigate, and comprehend.

An article longer than one or two pages when printed should be divided into sections to ease navigation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Layout for guidance). For most long articles, division into sections is natural anyway. Readers of the Mobile Web version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation.

A page of about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50k and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb". Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%.

Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. Most articles do not need to be excessively long; however, there are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion.

Measuring "readable prose" size

"Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding material such as: footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.); diagrams and images; tables and lists; Wikilinks and external URLs; and formatting and mark-up.

The following script is helpful for estimating readable prose size: User:Dr_pda/prosesize.

You're welcome. And why I wrote "not even released" - because this so overdtailed article does not even contain plot and reception sections, but it's already breaking the average concentration span limit (that's not even counting references etc, just the content). --Niemti (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also rather silly for Prometheus (film) to be so much larger (even prior to the film's release - how long will it be if growing at this rate, over 200,000 bytes?) than Prometheus (only 32,176 bytes in total and badly written). --Niemti (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Blockbuster films have lots of information, someone call the press they need to get on this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

According to those guidelines about here we should have been considering splitting it? What a load of nonsense. The Avengers (2012 film) is 150kb and it has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times and has apparently not been an impediment to anyone. And the woman from The Daily Mail who keeps copy pasting this article as actual news seems to read it fine enough. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That made me laugh - do you mean Kirsty McCormack? Because she ripped off the Wikipedia page The Railway Man (film) for this article: [23] (as well as making assumptions and getting stuff wrong based on what she'd read on the Wiki page ...) 81.156.175.211 (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember the name though that sounds familiar, but she had copy pasted lines that I wrote here straight into her article. I mean you are allowed to do that, but you know, her sole job which I presume she is being paid for is to research and write articles, not copy paste Wikipedia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I tagged the other film too. You can discuss your views about this editing guideline at Wikipedia talk:Article size. --Niemti (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The script from the excerpt you posted above says the readable text is only 37kb and 6000 words. It is not 150kb, do not continue to tag the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The article loads quickly, is split into appropriate sections for ease of reference and is very well written. If the reader wishes to know about the film's musical score, for example, they can simply read that section. If they wish to absorb everything there is to know about the film as they await its release they can read to their heart's content, without having to trawl the Internet. I don't see what the problem is here. It certainly isn't overdetailed, whatever that's supposed to mean (See Encyclopedia). Conversely, there are articles such as British people which takes a long time to download, contains a myriad of wikilinks and (dare I say needlessly) digresses into such diverse topics as cuisine and religion, which would be more appropriate to split into separate articles. nagualdesign (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Off topic but thanks for the comment about the layout and writing, I've put a lot of effort into it and it's nice to hear positive feedback. :D Edit of course it's a collaborative effort and a lot of people have helped protect it from vandalism and make lots of positive contributions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"It certainly isn't overdetailed, whatever that's supposed to mean (See Encyclopedia)." Encyclopedia entries used to be extremely short and I'll just cite Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles about fictional works: "It is of course possible to write in great detail on fiction in a way that is factually accurate, espouses the neutral point of view and is not original research, but historically, encyclopedias do this only in the context of representing critical points of view (e.g. when engaged in literary criticism)." For overly detailed articles there is Template:Overly detailed. This article is much, much (several times, already) longer than Prometheus - tell me, which subject is more important, and was longer around, and had more influence on culture (and the world history, like helping to create extremely popular political ideologies), and so on? --Niemti (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the age of the story have to do with anything? I've already told you, the script you posted says the article prose is perfectly fine in length and file size. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What it does (and it's not just thae age): this "blockbuster film" is a very trivial subject as compared to its namesake, and I don't see any reason for whole big paragraphs about such trivial detail like the design of "the space suits worn by the ship's crew". It's not a book on making of the film, or a fansite. It's just an encylopedia entry. I'm sure Xenopedia can have an article about the space suits and everything else like that, but I don't believe it's essential for Wikipedia. Quite to the contrary. This is the stuff that belongs to fandom websites and the making-of featurettes in the home media releases. (Even as I admit it's pretty neat.) --Niemti (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you never edited a film article before? Just because they can look like this doesn't mean they should. Some people are actually interested in what goes into the background of a film and what contributes to what we see on screen, especially one that will be as popular as this one. It's marketing material alone gets a huge reception. Detail != fansite anymore than Lack of Detail = important article that noone cares about. Calling this a fan article is completely offensive to the efforts of the people involved and entirely untrue, there is no focus on in-universe information or rumors that meet some kind of pre-conceived fan notions, but an attempt to present an overview of how this film came to be what it is. I find it fascinating and I assume others must do since noone has been removing information in large chunks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point out the design of these fictional space suits are discussed in more detail than the ones used during Apollo 11. You know, the manned Moon landing mission - "one giant leap for mankind" and all that. Also, this article is also only 69,782 bytes long. --Niemti (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

K, this has gone beyond reasonable now. You'll have to point me to WP: Discussions about fictional space suits should not exceed that of Apollo 11. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"WP: Discussions about fictional space suits should not exceed that of Apollo 11" does not exist. Anyway, the development section for this film is already several longer than the "Framework" section for Apollo 11, one of the most important space race achievements and one of the most important events in human history overall. Apollo 11 has also only 66 references. Do you really think such a discrepancy is making Wikipedia serious? --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, Niemti, details on the making of the film are exactly what Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on. Having been involved with getting several Alien film articles up to GA or FA, I can assure you things like the design of the sets and costumes are exactly the kind of content we want. If a reader isn't interested in those things, they can skip over them. That's why the article is divided into sections with descriptive headers, to organize the info and help readers find what they might be looking for/interested in specifically. Just because some readers don't care about how the film was made doesn't mean we should exclude that information, or shuttle it off to a separate article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote Wikipedia:Fancruft#Articles about fictional works again: "It is of course possible to write in great detail on fiction in a way that is factually accurate, espouses the neutral point of view and is not original research, but historically, encyclopedias do this only in the context of representing critical points of view (e.g. when engaged in literary criticism)." So it's critical reception that is actually essential. And this article will will probably double in size at this rate - there will be plot and reception, not to even mention the continued development detail trivia. Like this spacesuit design stuff, which I'm sure is neat (no sarcasm), but would better belong elsewhere, like in a book, a wikia, a fansite, a blog, an official making-of featurette for the fans from the producers, and so on. --Niemti (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not discussing fiction, it is discussing practical elements of a practical process that will generate a fictional media item that is only one part of this article. It is not discussing the suits in the scope of the film, it is discussing them in the scope of the film design process. And again, the creation of the Universe is one of the most important achievements EVER, it's THE most important achievement ever. Should all articles be less in size than that article because it is deemed more important than all? Please just stop now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood you well, but you seem to be confusing real world with fiction. Or maybe you thought I was talking about Apollo 11 the film, but I was talking about the real event. Anyway, "the creation of the Universe" is actually discussed at the article creation myth (and its sub-articles). --Niemti (talk)

I mean are you under the impression that it is discussing the suits worn by the characters in the fictional universe or what? Like they are real space suits? This is not under the scope of Fancruft at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just the importance of going into such a detail. Maybe something like Universe of Alien (or whatever title) would be a better place for discussing the technology and design in the series. --Niemti (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, with respect, I think you are misapplying the guidelines about fiction: If you read over guidelines/essays like Wikipedia:Fancruft and WP:WAF you should find that they talk about the level of detail of the fiction itself, not of the real-world aspects of the works. In other words, the article should obviously not have an extensively lengthy plot summary or go into in-depth backgrounds of each character's fictional backstory, or go on extensively about the fictional history of the Weyland corporation. However, the article should go into detail on the writing, production, etc. of the film itself, including things like actors, sets, special effects, and costumes. In other words, these guidelines do not say "do not go into great detail about works of fiction", they say "do not go into great detail about the fiction itself". I believe that, in quoting these guidelines, you are failing to distinguish between discussion of the work and discussion of the fiction. Between us, Darkwarriorblake and myself have about 12 years' experience working on Wikipedia film articles, including contributing to a number of Good and Featured articles. Not to sound domineering, but I'd like to ask you to just trust us when we say the length and level of detail in this article is acceptable and within guidelines. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along with IllaZilla and Darkwarriorblake's observations that discussion of the real-world production of a fictional product is not the same as overwriting about the actual fictional plot and fictional universe. I'd also agree with Niemti that the article is very long and that with science fiction, especially, it is always wise to keep an eye out for fancruft.

After giving it a quick going over, I'd like to suggest something that addresses both sides' issues: Part of the reason for the article's length is simply lengthy writing. I think with a little effort, wordy phrases can be trimmed and sentences shortened to reduce the size of the article without removing pertinent content. (Also, I'd be surprised if every single bit of content here does need to be here, but that's something that can be addressed afterward. One step at a time.)

Does this sound like a first step that both sides can work on for now? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I copy edit all the time and would get one of the GoCE to do it after release for a move to GA, but I don't think CE is going to make any particular dent except for the last paragraph of Development, which is basically people adding source after source to confirm its ties to Alien, but which doesn't really have anything to do with Development. Also at the minute, the level of prose falls within the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Article size, there are about 6000 words and about 37kb of info, I don't find it particularly oversized in either manner though, more so than what our modern articles seem to be becoming as standard. At least articles with people interested in them enough to seek out that necessary info. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

@Niemti If you ask me this discussion is way too big. However, to clarify my earlier point about the article not being 'overdetailed'; (from Encyclopedia) ..the phrase literally translates as "complete instruction" or "complete knowledge". Also, arguing that any other article which you deem to be more 'important' than this one ought to set limits on the length of this article is absurd. Many people would consider the Greek myth, itself a work of fiction, to be equally 'trivial'. If a reader wishes to read about new films, Greek myths, Apollo space suits or any other subject, real or fictional, they should be able to do so. Good articles are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you should spend more time working on your own contributions rather than attempting to disparage the good work done by other editors. You have made your point and it seems that you are alone in your opinion, so perhaps you should just leave it there. I don't wish to sound rude by saying this so please don't aim any vitriol back at me. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And I would add that a big endorsement is that it has been viewed over 430,000 times in the last 13 days, and there haven't been any complaints or even any edits really to fix things. Only really myself, Illa and Kronaang who edit it frequently, so people obviously don't have a problem with what they are seeing. Original research I know. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And very good work you and others have been doing. The WP:TONE in particular is excellent — this article in many ways could serve as a model for other such special-effects epics.

As I've learned (the hard way!) as a journalist and editor, one can still trim even tight writing, like here, in a way that doesn't affect content. I've just done so, I believe, with the lead; hopefully my edits, too, can serve as a model. For example, "The film officially began production..."? If it began production, you can bet it didn't do so unofficially. "It was shot entirely in 3D and required no post-production conversion"? Well, if it was shot in 3D, then of course it wouldn't need post-production conversion; we can just say, "It was shot entirely in 3D." And like that. I did remove one sentence, though, about Ridley Scott saying that if the film were successful he'd consider making a sequel. That's what we in the biz call "Dog bites man." It's not really notable or unusual that a director would consider making a sequel if his film were a hit.

So we've brought four paragraphs down from 467 to 375 words — nearly a hundred words shorter, and except possibly for the aforementioned sentence, it reads virtually the same in terms of content. I hope my colleagues consider these edits useful. -_Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely they're useful edits, and your comments here even moreso, I hope others will take it on-board as concise writing is something I find people of all stripes struggle with. It is particularly frustrating in my workplace when someone fails to email their main message up-front in clear and simple language and instead sends me a verbose 'story' or 'report'. -Oosh (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

nagualdesign: and on Wikipedia "overdetailed" means:

{{overdetailed}} (a tag)

Because Wikipedia is not about "complete knowledge". Seriously, it's not.

And I spend "a lot of work on my own contributions", thank you. But at The Dictator (2012 film), for example (a "blockbuster film" also in development), we just don't go into any minor detail. Or minor detail at all (maybe except the Hollywood incident, but not mentioning how Cohen was then jumped on by the real-world security and led away), in this case, which might be untrue in some others, like Max Payne 3 is pretty detailed (some stuff is also at Max Payne (character)), but I don't think it's OVERdetailed, or very long. And so on.

DWB: it might be 'only' "6000 words and about 37kb of info" right now, but this film is not even released. After plot, reception, also maybe controversy etc., and of course continued adding of development detail like that, it's going to be H-U-G-E. Maybe you guys would better make a fan site or write a book, or something. Again, no sarcasm. --Niemti (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

First: We don't preemptively do anything, we can't get articles locked because things might happen. Second: People read what they want to read, noone is forcing them to read the entire document, that's why we have section headers and subsection headers. Third: It is not too long, it really is not. Far and away it is not, there are tonnes of Good and Featured articles that exceed this in length and none have complaints about length, in fact in the 6 odd years I've been here you are the first and only person I've seen to complain about article length and the first to do so because you're not happy it's longer than Apollo 11. Fourth: I'm ignoring everything you say because I've asked you to stop referring to to this as a fan work and you continue to ignore that. Detail does not equal fan, there are tonnes of articles that go into detail and your opinion of what constitutes a minor detail is basically anything more than a film name, unless it is an article about a real event. Some people are actually interested in the detail behind the making of a film, that you are not is not of consequence since we aren't catering specifically and only to you. You've made quite clear above you won't be satisfied. You complained about the length, I provided you with evidence that it is not too long. Then you complained that it might be too long in the future. Then you complained it was longer than the article on the myth of Prometheus and Apollo 11. You have an agenda, and you clearly won't be happy until it is fulfilled. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all of good faith here, and no one has an agenda; there are simply some disagreements. My two cents: If it's 37K, this is below the 50K Wikipedia recommends as the threshold for considering splitting. And honestly, in my experience, the Release and Reception sections for most movies are not very big — most of the work of a movie is preproduction, casting, development and the like. We can probably trim a couple of K from it just by tightening some of the prose, and we should. But speaking for myself, I go along with the consensus of virtually all the editors here that the article is not overlong. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you're trimming it after all (already down 4 kb since yesterday) and it's good for me. Carry on. --Niemti (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We're all in it together, collaboratively. You and I got off on a bad foot with The Dictator, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from and that we all have the same goal of making this altruistic, free encyclopedia as good as we can. I'm sure we'll continue to work constructively and I look forward to seeing your work. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So we've moved back from offensively calling it fan wikia material to file size being the problem again? I need to clarify that the copy edits are being done to improve the language, not to satisfy your unrealistic length demands, because it doesn't exceed the guidelines or come close to them, so I don't need your approval to "carry on". I was working on making it a great article before you stopped by to make unfounded complaints and I'll be working on that after you find someone else's hard work to belittle. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is waay too big, and you just have undone all my efforts to reduce its redundant information over and over again. The intro above all. The premise description in the introduction is actually as long as the one in the premise section. Also, I see lots of technical information regarding the process of filming, which I believe is actually unnecesary to understand the most important and basic aspects of this film. Damon Lindelof's contribution to the film also has been maximalized to ridicule lengths. His own article page is not even as long as the Prometheus article information regarding his writing process for the film. And his photo in this film article is just the same found on his own biographical article (totally unnecesary for understanding the contents on this page). I thought this article was for everyone to read and/or edit, not just writers and filmakers. I sense lots of fan pageism and pet articleism here...Kronnang Dunn (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• When the film is released, that plot synopsis in the lede will give an overview and WON'T be the same length. It being the same length is a completely silly argument, the lede is to give an overview of the article content such that a reader can read just that and have a decent understanding. That lede summary covers it and has been written in such a way that it can last even after the film is released and a longer plot is in place. EDIT It's also an outright lie that it is as long as the one in the premise section.
• That Lindelof's article doesn't cover as much as this is also a stupid argument. That article is about Lindelof, it can cover as much as it wants but someone obviously hasn't been inclined to do so. This article is about the film, and it covers the contribution and thought process in creating the film.
• You can use the same image more than once, I told you go to look at the Alien (film) article and the use of image in decoration and information. It is a Good Article, it was not barred from being a Good Article because the image of H R Giger is the same there, and in his own article. If you want to start being bitchy about images, that image of the ship is WP:NFC, it offers no critical commentary and is just there. Per WP:NFC, it should be removed.
• I find it humorous that you try to make the article shorter by cutting the lede (which was already copy edited by the very well trained Tenebrae), but you then added a load of unnecessary info about the girl playing a young Shaw to compensate.
• Putting an end to this ridiculous length argument, please see American Beauty (film) and Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), both Featured Articles, both double the size of this one.
• Finally, the article isn't just for those who want a brief overview. Some people enjoy the more technical aspects of filmmaking and expect a thorough overview of the making of the film, not just the barest of bones. That is how it is for everyone to read.Darkwarriorblake (talk)

I do not think this article is too big. Some sections may have to be a little trimmed when more info becomes avalible after the release, but not for now. This is exactly what a film article should look like! It is really great to see that the article is already this good before the release, when the peek in views will probably occure! Many thanks to Darkwarriorblake for all the great work (s)he has put into this article! The User 567 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much 567. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture of the ship, I can see why it's there. The smugshot of the writer (the same as in his article) adds absolutely nothing to the article, besides making it more bloated and longer to download. --Niemti (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cry me a river. Then nip on over to Conan the Barbarian (1982 film), American Beauty (film), or Alien (film) and lament, for they must take you days to view in their entirety with so many images to download on your 14kbps dial up modem. If you can't wade through my sarcasm, I'll break it down. You complained about the size, then you complained about the amount of prose, now you're complaining because you can understand why the WP:NFC failing image is there but not the one you don't like. It is not some vast increase to the size of the article nor is the article bloated. You're basically picking any avenue you can to attack the very normal file size of this article because your initial argument didn't end with it looking like this. Take your smugshot and process that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"The picture of the ship, I can see why it's there. The smugshot of the writer (the same as in his article) adds absolutely nothing to the article, besides making it more bloated and longer to download...". Most rational comments I have seen so far!!! This article seems like a Damon Lindenof fan page, not an article about the movie "Prometheus". No, this article's size is not adecuate, and no, this article is not as good as some people may think. Is still too long.Kronnang Dunn (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not too long, and the picture of Lindelof is perfectly appropriate: He's a highly notable figure and a key person involved in the development and promotion of the film. Illustrating an article with freely-licensed pictures of the key persons involved is standard practice, and something you'll see in many FAs. For example 300 (film) (photo of Lena Headey), Alien vs. Predator (film) (photo of Lance Henriksen), Little Miss Sunshine (photo of Abigail Breslin), and Star Trek: First Contact (photos of Ronald D. Moore and Jonathan Frakes). I don't see how this case is any different from any of those exemplars, especially since this is a photo of one of the film's writers, promoting the film at an industry event. It certainly does not make the article look like "a Damon Lindenof fan page" and such sarcasm/blatant exaggeration doesn't validate your argument. If you find it to be "a Damon Lindenof fan page, not an article about the movie 'Prometheus'", then I dare say you haven't read much of the article. The article's size is perfectly adequate in comparison to most of our good and featured articles, and no, it is not as bad as some people may think. It certainly isn't too long. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Illazilla, have no idea what they are basing their "too long" critique on or this Damon Lindelof fan page thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't you at least use a DIFFERENT photo than is in his own article? And one that he looks a bit less smug, hopefully? --Niemti (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether you think he looks "smug" is entirely, utterly irrelevant. My overwhelming impression from your comments is that you just hate Damon Lindelof & don't want him associated with this film, which of course is ridiculous. Again, this is a photo of one of the film's writers, promoting the film at an industry event. It is an entirely, 100% pertinent visual representation of Lindelof's involvement with the film. Should we also remove the photo of Scott, Theron, & Fassbender (taken at the same event) because they look "smug"? <sarcasm>Oh please, let's let Niemti's personal opinion of the depicted person's attitude be the pass/fail test for all photos!</sarcasm> --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't really seem to be a picture of him available on here anyway that is either clear or not making a similar expression to the current one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Actually, IllaZilla, both you and Darkwarriorblake's 24/7 passion to Lindelof and his remarks about Prometheus not being a prequel not being part of ALIEN, your anti-spoiler editing, your article-petism make it seem that: a) One of you (or maybe both) are him, b)One of you is Spaiths and the other Lindenof, c)One of you is Ridley Scott and the other Lindenof, or d)One of you or both are a 20th Century Fox employees. Bad news: this page is free for anybody to edit. If you want to promote the film, there are other, way more eficient means...Kronnang Dunn (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There are three people who can provide info about the film itself. Spaihts, Lindelof, and Scott. Of those, only Lindelof is particularly forthcoming, Spaihts has only done one interview I've seen and Scott just keeps repeating the same lines for the most part. That said, it is still an inaccurate observation. There is no anti-spoiler editing, people have ruined films for users who contribute to articles but avoid the plot section because they edit the article and discuss plot elements in the edit summary, which I explained to you already, appropriately in an edit summary. It's not a command, it is a request/reminder to people editing the plot to just be considerate of other users when they explain what they have done. You MAY appreciate it when you check your watchlist and see: "Prometheus: I changed the plot to say that everyone but Elizabeth dies" when you haven't even seen the film. Also, accusing people of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is not something to do lightly AND it's stupid considering you know I edited The Thing and it is neither a Fox film or a Lindelof film, or even a Spaihts or Scott film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kronnang Dunn, your accusations are petulant and unfounded, your attitude poor, and your comments generally unhelpful. It's one thing to make reasoned arguments about aspects of the article, and quite another to accuse those who disagree with you of being people they are obviously not and of having a promotional agenda. Certainly neither I nor Darkwarriorblake are connected to the film in any way other than being Wikipedians interested in the film and in writing about it. I have watched this article as it's developed and I think Darkwarriorblake has done a commendable job, investing much time and effort into updating and improving it. Your and Niemti's constant belittling of the article's quality, and of other editor's efforts, is unconstructive and a general annoyance. I have no intention of spending any more time reading or responding to your inconsequential arguments and thinly-veiled insults. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

...and yet, the article is still waay too big...Kronnang Dunn (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is not, and you've yet to present a compelling argument to that effect or any objective proof that its length exceeds any of Wikipedia's standards. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just added the official plot of the film. Is it now...? =] Kronnang Dunn (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, so quit being a child. You've been told numerous times about sourcing, about removing images and about adding Gregson-Williams to the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

However, thank you for being considerate with the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is NOT way to big, or overly referenced. I learned a lot from it, and without having to click on links! I wish more Wiki articles were like this one.--$tephen T. Crye (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)