@Renovatio said:

Thematically, Prometheus has more in common with BladeRunner than Alien... The juxtaposition of David and Shaw is at the centre of the film... An android that is fully aware of the nature of it's creation, next to a human who is searching for these answers...

Part of the problem here is that I just don't agree/believe that an android is "aware" of ANYTHING.

@Knixon said:

@Renovatio said:

Thematically, Prometheus has more in common with BladeRunner than Alien... The juxtaposition of David and Shaw is at the centre of the film... An android that is fully aware of the nature of it's creation, next to a human who is searching for these answers...

Part of the problem here is that I just don't agree/believe that an android is "aware" of ANYTHING.

Well, I think he meant that the android knows full well who created him while the human does not. The question that has haunted man since the dawn of time is immediately known to the android.

I'm not sure I can agree that an android "knows" anything either. I guess that's a kind of suspension of disbelief that I just can't go along with, at least not yet.

And what difference is there between an android "knowing" who built, and a person "knowing" who its parents were? To the extent it goes beyond that, I could argue that an android doesn't "know" who its ultimate creator was any more than people do, since ultimately the creator of people is also by extension the creator of the android.

But even if an android did "know" that it was built by people - and would it make a difference if the android was built in a factory that built lots of androids versus if someone like Peter Weyland built it by hand? - that's just a fact. Without programmed-in motivations based on emotions basically, which would also have to be built in by people, the android wouldn't have any reason to act on that "knowledge."

@movie_nazi said:

@AlienFanatic said:

Prometheus is the cotton candy of film. Pretty, looks substantial, but it's not filling, lacks substance, and you really wish you'd had a steak instead.

Prometheus is not without its problems. I quote myself when asked in the theater lobby directly after watching it when asked, "So, what'd ya think?" to which I literally said, "Meh". As previously stated the biggest problem with Prometheus is how they sloppily turned it into a slasher flick. Yes, you want aliens killing people but what scientist in their right mind removes his helmet in a foreign environment? Or reach out to pet a snake? They ruined it with a bunch of stupid shit like that. Prometheus ultimately lacked innovation in storytelling and fell into the trap of "its just a movie" to explain away how scientists could make moronic mistakes, repeatedly and the trend continued in Covenant.

What always irritates me is when fans of Prometheus and other controversial sequels accuse their detractors as too wedded to the original that they can't see the brilliance in those films. To me, the essential issue is that these filmmakers are too often interested in their own tangential ideas and aren't competent to work within the framework and expectations of a franchise.

This applies not only to Scott but almost certainly to Jeunet and the filmmakers tasked with making the abysmal AVP movies.

I'll be the first to admit that no one in movies or novels had found anything terribly interesting to add to the Alien series since James Cameron. (Some have argued here that even his entry was a failure.) Perhaps monster movies have little left to say after their creature is revealed. But I think it's silly to argue that these obtuse musings by a director seemingly disinterested in the franchise he spawned are somehow special when they have little to do with the property itself.

The filmmakers chose to behave dishonestly and cloaked a different premise in an Alien wrapper. THAT is what pisses the fans off and nothing more. If they'd had a lick of courage they'd have severed all ties between Prometheus and Alien from the get go.

Well put. It seems likely though that without the fatally flawed, made-up linking to Alien, Prometheus and Covenant would not have been made at all. Which overall might have been for the best, but at least with Prometheus if not Covenant at least there was something pretty to look at.

@AlienFanatic said:

I'll be the first to admit that no one in movies or novels had found anything terribly interesting to add to the Alien series since James Cameron. (Some have argued here that even his entry was a failure.)

I myself love Cameron's entry. It was a well-executed Seven Samurai clone. It's all muscle and no brain and I'm fine with that. As long as it's entertaining you won't hear me squawk.

@movie_nazi said:

@AlienFanatic said:

I'll be the first to admit that no one in movies or novels had found anything terribly interesting to add to the Alien series since James Cameron. (Some have argued here that even his entry was a failure.)

I myself love Cameron's entry. It was a well-executed Seven Samurai clone. It's all muscle and no brain and I'm fine with that. As long as it's entertaining you won't hear me squawk.

I basically agree, although I'm not sure what you mean by "no brain." If you mean no Prometheus/Covenant style navel-gazing, then yes. And that's really a plus. The essentially useless philosophical musings, especially when unconnected to or even contradictory of the franchise, are pointless at best. But it wasn't brainless in terms of characters trying to figure out how to survive/win. And I would say they were a lot less stupid about it - if they were even stupid at all - than in Prometheus etc. I also don't agree that it was just flat-out ridiculous/non-believable that Ripley would go back to LV-426. Maybe if she wasn't having nightmares about it, etc, sure. But in her situation/condition, it was quite believable that she had to at least TRY something that might help her deal with past events. Some might argue that people never have those kinds of problems, but the real lives of war veterans etc show otherwise.

@Knixon said:

@movie_nazi said:

@AlienFanatic said:

I'll be the first to admit that no one in movies or novels had found anything terribly interesting to add to the Alien series since James Cameron. (Some have argued here that even his entry was a failure.)

I myself love Cameron's entry. It was a well-executed Seven Samurai clone. It's all muscle and no brain and I'm fine with that. As long as it's entertaining you won't hear me squawk.

I basically agree, although I'm not sure what you mean by "no brain." If you mean no Prometheus/Covenant style navel-gazing, then yes. And that's really a plus. The essentially useless philosophical musings, especially when unconnected to or even contradictory of the franchise, are pointless at best. But it wasn't brainless in terms of characters trying to figure out how to survive/win. And I would say they were a lot less stupid about it - if they were even stupid at all - than in Prometheus etc. I also don't agree that it was just flat-out ridiculous/non-believable that Ripley would go back to LV-426. Maybe if she wasn't having nightmares about it, etc, sure. But in her situation/condition, it was quite believable that she had to at least TRY something that might help her deal with past events. Some might argue that people never have those kinds of problems, but the real lives of war veterans etc show otherwise.

Yes I meant no brains as in no philosophical angle. It was a dirty dozen/ seven samurai type flick where you have a group of warriors each with a unique personality and with minimal character development, they get you to care about the characters. Thus when each bites it, you are emotionally moved. Something severely lacking in the new films.

@Knixon said:

I'm not sure I can agree that an android "knows" anything either. I guess that's a kind of suspension of disbelief that I just can't go along with, at least not yet.

And what difference is there between an android "knowing" who built, and a person "knowing" who its parents were? To the extent it goes beyond that, I could argue that an android doesn't "know" who its ultimate creator was any more than people do, since ultimately the creator of people is also by extension the creator of the android.

But even if an android did "know" that it was built by people - and would it make a difference if the android was built in a factory that built lots of androids versus if someone like Peter Weyland built it by hand? - that's just a fact. Without programmed-in motivations based on emotions basically, which would also have to be built in by people, the android wouldn't have any reason to act on that "knowledge."

I'm not quite following you. What do you mean that an android doesn't "know" anything? I guess I need to know (no pun intended) your definition of knowing. And knowing who built you from scratch is not even close to knowing who your parents are. That's like saying you know the recipe for a dish simply because you know the person who sold you the dish.

Well I guess the implication of "knowing" that I intend, is more than just having the information. Otherwise you could say that a computer - or an encyclopedia for that matter - "knows" a lot; but that "knowledge" is meaningless on its own. In that sense, "knowing" doesn't occur without awareness and perhaps even emotion. Which might be simulated to some degree in a robot/android, but I have doubts could ever be real. At least as far as I'm concerned.

People who believe in evolution, at least, already know - or at least think they do - who/what created them. In that sense, anything - or anyone - created by humans would then owe its creation to the same source. And if - as Weyland and Shaw and others - believed, the "Engineers" created humans, then by the same indirection, they created David too.

@Knixon said:

I also don't agree that it was just flat-out ridiculous/non-believable that Ripley would go back to LV-426. Maybe if she wasn't having nightmares about it, etc, sure. But in her situation/condition, it was quite believable that she had to at least TRY something that might help her deal with past events. Some might argue that people never have those kinds of problems, but the real lives of war veterans etc show otherwise.

Are you seriously arguing that a person suffering from PTSD actually WANTS to go back into the battlefield to re-experience first hand the source of all of his fears!? If you have sources I'd love to see them.

@AlienFanatic said:

What always irritates me is when fans of Prometheus and other controversial sequels accuse their detractors as too wedded to the original that they can't see the brilliance in those films. To me, the essential issue is that these filmmakers are too often interested in their own tangential ideas and aren't competent to work within the framework and expectations of a franchise.

And who decides this "framework and expectations of a franchise", hmm? Is it you, the all knowing voice of the public? Have you considered that there might be disagreements between what the public's expectations are? Have you considered that Cameron's action-packed slasher film might be a greater departure from the "framework and expectations of a franchise" than any departure Covenant or Prometheus committed?

@Geff said:

@Knixon said:

I also don't agree that it was just flat-out ridiculous/non-believable that Ripley would go back to LV-426. Maybe if she wasn't having nightmares about it, etc, sure. But in her situation/condition, it was quite believable that she had to at least TRY something that might help her deal with past events. Some might argue that people never have those kinds of problems, but the real lives of war veterans etc show otherwise.

Are you seriously arguing that a person suffering from PTSD actually WANTS to go back into the battlefield to re-experience first hand the source of all of his fears!? If you have sources I'd love to see them.

@AlienFanatic said:

What always irritates me is when fans of Prometheus and other controversial sequels accuse their detractors as too wedded to the original that they can't see the brilliance in those films. To me, the essential issue is that these filmmakers are too often interested in their own tangential ideas and aren't competent to work within the framework and expectations of a franchise.

And who decides this "framework and expectations of a franchise", hmm? Is it you, the all knowing voice of the public? Have you considered that there might be disagreements between what the public's expectations are? Have you considered that Cameron's action-packed slasher film might be a greater departure from the "framework and expectations of a franchise" than any departure Covenant or Prometheus committed?

I'm not the arbiter of taste, nor do I claim to speak for others. As I said, there are those that despise how Cameron turned Alien into an action franchise. (In the intervening years, I've liked the Queen concept less and less and think that turning the creature into a mindless insect made them less frightening.)

Note that I did not mention Alien 3, which I personally loathe. With that film, there were no attempts to further explain the creature or rationalize it. There were no attempts at humor. It was a bleak, desperate film that many feel perfectly reflects the dismal universe that such a creature might be found in. I may not like it but I recognize that it fits, unlike the other entries I mentioned.

Prometheus, until the post-credits scene, had almost no relation to Alien at all. Had the engineer spaceships not been in the form of the derelict, no viewer--even an ardent fan--would have made the connection. Surely you've read how conflicted the production was, with Scott distancing himself from Alien as the filming wore on.

I'm arguing both that the Scott sequels have little to do with Alien and that they would have been better on their own. Fans have demonstrated their indifference to his ideas by spending less and less on the films.

You may enjoy them, and it seems that no matter how bad a movie is it will find a fan base. These aren't art house movies. They're expected to make significant profits by appealing to their fans. If box-office is a gauge of public opinion, the fans of Ridley's ongoing changes are fewer and fewer.

@AlienFanatic said:

You may enjoy them, and it seems that no matter how bad a movie is it will find a fan base. These aren't art house movies. They're expected to make significant profits by appealing to their fans. If box-office is a gauge of public opinion, the fans of Ridley's ongoing changes are fewer and fewer.

You recognize that Alien was an art movie right? It had limited release in theatres like most art movies and had a very small viewer base initially. It absolutely flopped in the box office. The film only recouped long afterwards with video sales after it gathered a small cult following.

It was never poised to be an exciting action blockbuster and it's not. There is a slow methodical pace a with emphasis on narration, again like art movies, not blockbusters.

@Geff said:

@Knixon said:

I also don't agree that it was just flat-out ridiculous/non-believable that Ripley would go back to LV-426. Maybe if she wasn't having nightmares about it, etc, sure. But in her situation/condition, it was quite believable that she had to at least TRY something that might help her deal with past events. Some might argue that people never have those kinds of problems, but the real lives of war veterans etc show otherwise.

Are you seriously arguing that a person suffering from PTSD actually WANTS to go back into the battlefield to re-experience first hand the source of all of his fears!? If you have sources I'd love to see them.

I didn't say WANTS. But if she didn't think there was any other way to deal with the nightmares etc, who are we to say it's absolutely impossible that she would try to somehow face and overcome her fears?

Pragmatically you are saying the same thing. Whether or not you choose to use the word "want" is irrelevant. Is there or is there not a desire to go back to the battlefield?