Alien "Plot Problem"?

External Since: Feb 22, 2005 Posts: 11

"Robert" <rdbake.RemoveThis@NOSPAMprtcnet.org> wrote in message news:<36hhk9F52j994U1.RemoveThis@individual.net>...

>
> Space Jockey and the ship are just a plot device; as to who/what
> they are, Ridley says it's a military ship and the cargo is weapons. Makes sense, jives
>with what I personally always suspected, and the Man said it,
so....;) If somebody feels >a need to plug _that_ into the Predator
universe, I dunno....Predator's enemies, >perhaps?

I think to say that Ridley offers a theory that it is a military ship
rather than says it is would be more accurate. I suppose personally
that Ridley talks about this to offer likely discussion matter rather
than a solid point for a sequal which I think he would most likely
wish to keep under wraps and just offer red herrings about a likely
theory. And maybe the idea that he would have about the derelict and
it's "pilot" would be less obvious once the details were looked at.

I like the idea that he talks about it having biological (or did he
say bacteriological?) weapons in the way that Saddam Hussein has and
well in reflection of that statement, it seems that there is no proof
that Saddam had any biological weapons.

Looking at the derelict construct still causes me to ask many many
questions that result in confusion and more intricacy in my theories
about it.

Dom

External Since: Feb 03, 2005 Posts: 21

"wmmvrrvrrmm" <wmmvrrvrrmm DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acd4710a.0502221204.55abe92c@posting.google.com...
> "Robert" <rdbake DeleteThis @NOSPAMprtcnet.org> wrote in message
> news:<36hhk9F52j994U1 DeleteThis @individual.net>...
>
>>
>> Space Jockey and the ship are just a plot device; as to who/what
>> they are, Ridley says it's a military ship and the cargo is weapons.
>> Makes sense, jives
>>with what I personally always suspected, and the Man said it,
> so....;) If somebody feels >a need to plug _that_ into the Predator
> universe, I dunno....Predator's enemies, >perhaps?
>
> I think to say that Ridley offers a theory that it is a military ship
> rather than says it is would be more accurate.

Yeah, I can see that interpretation.

I suppose personally
> that Ridley talks about this to offer likely discussion matter rather
> than a solid point for a sequal which I think he would most likely
> wish to keep under wraps and just offer red herrings about a likely
> theory. And maybe the idea that he would have about the derelict and
> it's "pilot" would be less obvious once the details were looked at.
>
> I like the idea that he talks about it having biological (or did he
> say bacteriological?)

Don't recall for sure - I think he's still trying to talk around the
lollipop
(or something) at this point.

>weapons in the way that Saddam Hussein has and
> well in reflection of that statement,

Huh?

it seems that there is no proof
> that Saddam had any biological weapons.
>
> Looking at the derelict construct still causes me to ask many many
> questions that result in confusion and more intricacy in my theories
> about it.

I guess when you have an artist like Giger on board....nothing's a
cigar. ;)