WHO ARE THE REAL MONSTERS???111
Yeeeeeah... In recent years, the 'Doctor Who
' team were repeatedly pulling that trick during interviews and the end results never matched up to the expectations they were hyping. I remember one of the writers trying to cover for what was clearly a lack of budget by declaring something like, "Nothing is scarier than an empty hotel room." And, like... Yeah, that kind of stuff can
be made to feel unsettling, given the right elements, but that's a far cry from what they were claiming - and the way it was actually executed felt very pedestrian.
The major example I'll always remember is the pilot for the 'Battlestar Galactica
' remake, where Adama, of all possible characters, improvised a speech where he droned on about how maybe humanity didn't deserve to win against during the first war against the cylons and, wow... Did that ever feel like sanctimonious BS. He, of all characters, in the original, was the one who stood for hope. He was the Picard-alike who was always emphatic about how, no matter the odds, humanity deserved a chance to prove it could rise above whatever misdeeds may have been committed in the past by a few. If he felt that way, why not resign from his post as someone in charge of defending
humanity from its greatest threats?
Ripley's quote worked really well, because she's not generalising and damning the Marines, Newt, her old crew, etcetera. She mentions species, but it's more of a directed comment against Burke and the corporate (as opposed to Capitalist) mindset he was representative of. Executives, politicians, etcetera, who come to see people as mere statistics and stepping stones for their personal gain.
If we're seeing the same tired old scenes, replayed in countless other films and TV shows, where a character solemnly goes, "Hey... We've advanced this far, but it's been on the back of genocide and slavery and environmental destruction. We're no good... Maybe we deserve
to die? Maybe something should
exist out there to put an end to us? Maybe we're advancing too far, man! It's a game for fools! Is it truly
so wrong for us to demonise those who simply ask for a little wealth redistribution? Is that so bad? Truly?"
Then all around them either nod their heads or give a really weak as f**k counter-argument... No. Just no.
The best example of that philosophy was probably already done in the 1990s, with 'Jurassic Park
': "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could
, they didn't stop to think if they should
It was beautifully delivered, because it was properly thought-provoking. It wasn't saying progress, itself, is a bad thing. It was pointing out that it needs to be done with common sense precautions, not rushing in blindly without weighing up consequences.
So far, Hawley's given a lot of emphasis to saying this essentially will
be lecturing us about dangers of AI which will
inevitably try to kill us (even though only one out of three definitive droid characters in the original films ever did so - and only because it was deliberately programmed to). We're told it will revolve around financial and/or social inequalities.
What we're not
being told is how any of that will relate (cleverly or otherwise) to the actual creatures, themselves. It feels more like he's noticed certain elements from the source material and wants to play around with those, instead of working them into a cohesive structure where it all feels like it'll serve the story, rather than having the story serve those politicised messages.
Maybe it will. Maybe Hawley does have the correct perspective and it's just not coming across well when replying to reporters. We shouldn't get worked up over these comments, by any means. All I'm saying is that we're beginning to see a worrying pattern in quotes delivered over successive interviews and it's in a direction which could
be detrimental to this property, if not handled well.
Like SiL, I absolutely wouldn't want to see something which is basically a live-action 'Fireteam Elite
', because that would be just hideously shallow. But nor do I want this to be philosophically nihilistic for nihilism's sake. The comments about AI are already starting to feel worryingly along the lines of how Scott mentioned he wanted further prequels to head in.
Why not put an emphasis on, say, the more legitimate and immediate concerns we have, right now, about genetic tampering? Those of us who have looked into what's come out about, say, the Chinese Communist Party's advances in that area (particularly in regards to optimising biological weapon projects to target specific ethnic groups), due to deliberately removing safeguards, can see obvious and timely parallels to what a show like this could be dealing with. Instead, we're just being told that an 'Alien
' show will deal with corporate executives, social inequalities, wealth redistribution and why AI will totally kill everyone in the future.
Alan Dean Foster already authored a book which revolved around issues like corporate espionage in this continuity and it wasn't exactly a hit.
I'll wait and see. I hope this isn't the direction it's going in, but there are grounds to feel it could be and that is concerning.