Bingowings said:
The characters in Blade Runner have very little detail attached to them but what we do see rings true.
For me there is nothing in the film that I have to let pass.
The characters in Prometheus (David being the possible exception but some of his scenes are scuppered by the rest of the crew) make no sense but nonsense.
What I meant by comparing the creatures in this film to the alien life cycle is in the 1979 film they made narrative sense to be the way they were in that film.
In this film they are just less interesting stand-ins for we have already seen but they are only there because the actors need some object to respond to, there is no narrative requirement for them to be the way they are, they could have looked like anything and acted in any way.
The problem for me isn't that it isn't a straight Alien prequel (though with the current story elements that would make more sense) rather it's too much like a straight Alien prequel only with the alien replaced by something a bit like the things in the Alien films only not as interesting.
They should have gone with the straight Alien prequel or written a totally new film this is the same half way watered down mishmash that Alien 3 (Ward's space monks plus Twohy's prison planet) was and it's not even as good a film as that.
Like the PT it's full of implausible characters doing stupid things in a story that doesn't make sense.
This is true even if you try to ignore it's not an Alien prequel which is a hard task because everyone is going through such hoops to remind me it is one.
Bingowings said:
The characters in Blade Runner have very little detail attached to them but what we do see rings true.
For me there is nothing in the film that I have to let pass.
The characters in Prometheus (David being the possible exception but some of his scenes are scuppered by the rest of the crew) make no sense but nonsense.
Well, I can't say much when it comes to opinion. But for me there isn't much difference. Don't get me wrong--I agree that Blade Runner has better drawn characters overall. But in terms of the ones that matter--David, Vickers, Shaw, Janick, even Wayland--they are on equal ground. The side characters in Prometheus are more anonymous, in Blade Runner Gaff and Bryant are much more memorable, and behave more consistently, and I agree about Millburn treating the cobra alien like it's a cat when it's clearly behaving in a dangerous way; the writers built themselves a nice excuse, because he is high, but come on that's a bit much, I'm high right now and I would never do that. Overall though, I'm not necessarily trying to suggest Prometheus is a better film, but the difference is much less pronounced than you are making it out to be. The core cast is on equal grounds, and since the background players--Millburn and Fiefeld excepted--are pretty anonymous anyway, the core cast amounts to 95% of the performances in the film. But I do agree that Blade Runner overall has better acting, I just think it is only so by a little bit and not some unacceptable chasm as you propose.
What I meant by comparing the creatures in this film to the alien life cycle is in the 1979 film they made narrative sense to be the way they were in that film.
In this film they are just less interesting stand-ins for we have already seen but they are only there because the actors need some object to respond to, there is no narrative requirement for them to be the way they are, they could have looked like anything and acted in any way.
The problem for me isn't that it isn't a straight Alien prequel (though with the current story elements that would make more sense) rather it's too much like a straight Alien prequel only with the alien replaced by something a bit like the things in the Alien films only not as interesting.
They should have gone with the straight Alien prequel or written a totally new film this is the same half way watered down mishmash that Alien 3 (Ward's space monks plus Twohy's prison planet) was and it's not even as good a film as that.
Like the PT it's full of implausible characters doing stupid things in a story that doesn't make sense.
This is true even if you try to ignore it's not an Alien prequel which is a hard task because everyone is going through such hoops to remind me it is one.
I was going to respond to most of your specific points, but I think I can do it in a more general sense. And that is, that most of your arguments here--at least as they apply to the design--are pretty much the same thing as I said before, they are prejudiced because it's not the Alien Zero you keep being reminded of. And that's fair enough, it's pretty understandable, as I said one of the biggest things about the film is that it's not an Alien prequel yet it still sort of is, only it isn't, only it is. So do you judge it in context of an Alien prequel, or not, or let some things slide but not others? It's a very peculiar film in this sense, and it's hard to frame, because criticism must depend on context. I fucking love the Godzilla films, but of course they are terribly made, but they get away with all of that because they are Godzilla films. But this is what I realized with Promtheus, and I guess this is hard for people to accept, and I don't hold that against them. Prometheus is not an Alien prequel. It's not the same type of film, and there is pretty scant evidence outside of Weyland to even suggest it is in the same universe, so if you like Alien you won't necessarily like this. But it's really not like Alien, other than borrowing design concepts. Should Battlestar Galactica be held to be consistent with Star Wars, as it rips off everything and has the same effects crew? But at least Battlestar is in a similar vein, but Prometheus is closer in spirit to Blade Runner than Alien.
So, basically, at the end of the day, I asked myself: "would I rather have a Ridley Scott original sci-fi film that based it's design and some of it's concepts off Alien, or the same thing without any influence of Alien"? And my conclusion was that yes, I would like an original Ridley Scott film that re-uses ideas and imagery hinted at in Alien. Because I fucking love Alien, Alien is my favourite film other than Star Wars, and I believe, whatever it is they could come up with, whatever alternative designs and deliberately-different ideas--they would be worse. They would not be as good as Alien. So I would rather have an original film that revisits some of the concepts and touches upon or includes some of the same visuals and designs as that film. Because I wouldn't want a prequel, but at the same time I kind of am curious where Scott would take things. And I think Scott has the same feeling. So, to me, it was the best of both worlds. I loved the film, then was confused about the film once I thought deeply about it, and then I loved the film even more for the more unconventional hybrid path it took. I understand why that throws people, because for a moment it did to me too, but IMO once you don't have that "is it or isn't it?" question in your head the film is very, very well made, a few big flaws aside. You say it's not about your prejudice as to whether it's Alien or not, yet most of your argument and closing statements are complaints about how it was visually cluing you in to being an Alien prequel but then not following up. As I said, I don't fault you for this, but I still do think that many of your hangups with the film come from it's unconventional pseudo-sequel nature.