The UK factor!!!!

True...you're right there Sparty.....just think he got a little to high on his heady juices with what followed

Interviews with RS are pretty clear that there is nothing definitive regarding a sequel, just that he'd like to do one and explore more of the ideas of Prometheus. BTW I hope Linderholfrenstein has little to do with it if it does get made. There is a collection of his twits, I mean tweets, online. Yikes. I know it is just twitter and I have never twittered, but people like this crap? Originally, the more direct Alien prequel was conceived as a two parter, but that has changed with the change in prequelness.

[quote]True...you're right there Sparty.....just think he got a little to high on his heady juices with what followed[/quote] I agree with you on that.

@haydunce No offence taken - mainly as I didn't suggest that big-wigs are necessarily, "privvy" to intellectual film making as a result of their financing. Neither did I make any comparisons, nor do I fully understand the one you have made and what it's actual value is in this context.... In fact, nothing you've said seems to have much at all to do with what I wrote and, for that reason, I can't begin to guess what you're actually saying. If I recall, the point being made was that, A] sequels somehow suffer, in comparison the the films that precede them, specifically because they are not made in the UK - where the inference was, B] that the UK was not in a position to influence the production sufficiently? My comment was to the effect that correlation does not imply causation - the conclusion that was reached is, at best, fallacious. While B], may be true, that truth does not necessarily make A], the case? Do you follow? To suggest it, when A] cannot be proven, is nonsensical - and to claim it as a position, in those circumstances, is perhaps naive - hence my comment: there is actually no way to demonstrate that the sequels would have been any "better", for being produced in the UK - therefore, the argument has no basis. To answer that, I suggested that, perhaps, the issue is not necessarily in [i]where[/i] sequels are manufactured, but in their [i]manufacture[/i] - as a notion and as a principle and in terms of the regard with which they are held and the way in which they are treated - on a per instance basis.

same with film rating..after building, shooting, cutting, editing, synchronizing etc etc, all the work steps, its clear what RS referred to with box office sales. Any serious director of a multi million project must in the end rely on actual sales, so rating is in fact a serious corporate factor.

Honestly I think this has more to do with the quality of sequels in general than it has to do with where they were filmed. Great films such as Alien catch lightning in a bottle. Not something easily repeated yet that is what sequels try to do. Now in some cases sequels are good. Maybe 2 or 3 in the history of films have been considered better by mass ammounts of people but normally it just doesn't happen. Personally, I'm from the US but have more European sensibilities and have no problem when people talk shit about the US when it comes to things like audiences needing to be spoon fed their entertainment and having everything watered down. So, I would usually be inclined to agree with you. But I think you're way off on this one. Take Blade Runner for instance. Scotts' first time with an American crew and there were numerous problems on set but we still got a great film. Sequels end up sucking because most of the time they're rehashes that aren't as good as their predecessors...period.