Prometheus 2 aka Alien: Paradise Lost

Here's the released Plot synopsis -

“Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, the crew of the colony ship Covenant discovers what they think is an uncharted paradise, but is actually a dark, dangerous world — whose sole inhabitant is the ‘synthetic’ David (Michael Fassbender), survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition.”

Which raises a few questions about the ending of Prometheus.

What happened to Shaw?
 
It could be it's set a while after Prometheus, in which case Shaw may have died between the two films, rather like Hicks in Aliens/Aliens 3

It sounds a little like one of the Aliens Blood and Fire GN's from that synopsis.
Different crashed ship and survivor, but similar basic synopsis.
 
Haha.

I assume David will appear in this film with head attached. A few androids have been torn apart in the Alien universe, and not one has been put back together looking as good as new (that we've seen). I am guessing that this will change in Covenant, and David will look like his head had never been torn off.

Given the lack of available equipment used to create androids, I'm guessing it will be the usual Hollywood magic fix. The kind of solutions they use in films when a problem needs solving, but there is no way to solve it logically, and makes any plausible sense. A kind of magic button, that when pressed suddenly fixes something.

It would be nice though, if they acknowledge that his head was removed and they show him looking somewhat worse for wear. Given the stupid nonsense that happened in Prometheus though, I'm not going to hold my breath that we're going to see that.
 
yeah cant say I'm hopeful for this. That's doubled after I saw what he said a couple weeks ago about Hollywood is just making remakes and sequels these days so he might as well jump on board. The guys not done anything decent in 15 years (blackhawk down) and now he's just rolling out the old classics for another turn on the street corner. Bladerunner and aliens don't need sequels/prequels. give it up!
 
sneakysnail said:
The guys not done anything decent in 15 years (blackhawk down) and now he's just rolling out the old classics for another turn on the street corner. Bladerunner and aliens don't need sequels/prequels. give it up!
Click to expand...

That's a little harsh - even his "worst" movies make decent money, but the way I see it is - Ridley is magical. As a director he can make visually stunning, well presented movies out of absolute toilet clogging scripts. The man is known in circles to be extremely picky and precise, he was forcefully removed by producers and studios from post production of several of his own movies (Blade Runner included) only because he was ready to re-shoot indefinitely for miniscule visual gains.

Obviously he can't add coherence where the script is lacking in the first place, but you won't walk out of the cinema after seeing Prometheus or Exodus and rage how poor the movie was technically - you'll be raging at plot and story.

And that's what surprises me. He's clearly one brilliant director. Who wants to do continuations and prequels to his favourite stories before the end of his life. He's a multi billionaire. His movies made money. His RSA TV commercial production company (Hovis' "Bike Run" and more) made money. His Scott Free Production company makes tons of money (gazillion of his own and other people's movies plus TV series). His Black Dog Films making music videos (R.E.M. "Everybody Hurts", Rihanna "S&M" etc) made money. His brother was a successful producer and director. His kids are successful producers and directors. And yet somehow we are to believe that in the movies he wanted to accomplish all his life, that he himself directs and produces he would allow some mythical "studio exec" to intervene and screw with the scripts and plots and outlines. How?
 
Last edited:
Drive is a superb film, musically and visually at least but I felt he did a terrible performance in it. I've mentioned previously in other threads that I genuinely felt like he was supposed to be retarded. He was difficult to watch, the interaction with him and Mulligan frustrated me, it was awkward and out of place. I've no problem with him playing a mentally disabled character but I didn't know if he was supposed to be or if it was just bad acting.

Gosling wasn't on my radar until I saw Drive, then he was on my "avoid" radar.
 
SixTwoSix said:
Drive is a superb film, musically and visually at least but I felt he did a terrible performance in it. I've mentioned previously in other threads that I genuinely felt like he was supposed to be retarded. He was difficult to watch, the interaction with him and Mulligan frustrated me, it was awkward and out of place. I've no problem with him playing a mentally disabled character but I didn't know if he was supposed to be or if it was just bad acting.

Gosling wasn't on my radar until I saw Drive, then he was on my "avoid" radar.
Click to expand...
Gosling did not write or direct his own role, ya know. That was how his character was supposed to be.

And I didn't mind it. It was definitely not 'realistic', but the whole film wasn't supposed to be realistic. It was an art movie with a surreal tone and atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom