Ridley Scott is another George Lucas! (spoilers-inside)

It's official: Ridley Scott is another George Lucas. OK, that might be stretching it slightly but damn, what a disappointment this movie is. Yes, I am a zealous Alien fan and I had personal desires for the film - none of which were met, so I am distraught. Let me start right at the deep end and with the plot; IMHO, some of the fake plots that surfaced were actually so much better - relatively speaking. I'm seriously going to have to search out every draft of the screenplay to figure out exactly where this all went wrong - do I focus my blame on Spaights, on Lindelhof, or on the execution itself by Scott? I've kept radio silence for the last couple of months as I could sense too much was spilling out before I saw the movie, but now that I've seen it I just need to get a lot off my chest - and apologies if other reviewers have already gone through the same stuff, I've not been patient enough to read every other review before opening my own mouth. I've read a few people enjoyed the opening sequence. I'm afraid to say, I did not like it for a few reasons: the Engineer's cloak looked like it was picked out from a department store - why there was a sewing seam on the hood, I do not know; the bowl of "bioforma" - just didn't like it; Engineer consumes the bioforma and disintegrates - why? a simple blood sample mixed with the stuff isn't potent enough?; The ship - why is it a saucer and not derelict-like? Yunno, maybe all this was to dramatise the creation of mankind, and maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I just couldn't buy into it. The dialogue was absolutely dreadful, which is a shame because there was some good actors to leverage. Shaw, Holloway and David were doing well until the plot lost the plot. Why is David such an asshole and f**king with people? Why is Fifield an even bigger asshole, such that you're eager for him to die soon. Why is everyone so laissez-faire about Shaw's auto-caesarean - even herself? "What is the point?" is a question I find I'm asking quite a lot - especially around the menagerie of alien lifeforms. The beauty of Alien (and Aliens) was the concrete purpose of a definitive lifecycle, which is completely devoid in this cesspool of rubbish ideas. Fifield, Holloway, and the other guy (I forget his name): why did they all have differing results - and then Shaw has a completely different result again. I realise I'm asking a lot more questions than providing answers or opinion - but that's the problem with the film: it answers nothing and forces you to ask a bunch of other questions which is annoying. BTW, if anyone figures out how any of the story ties in with the Prometheus legend, let me know (both Scott and Lindelhof talked of a deeper metaphor). The aliens were lousy and stupid, IMHO - and even the "proto-xeno" as people are calling it was just another cheap imitation you'd expect from a b-movie. But that's good because it helps me to detach it from anything to do with Alien - I'm even happy the original Derelict has nothing to do with this film (assuming the second ship is not the Derelict in later sequels). Let me summarise by saying this film is garbage and should be treated like garbage - it doesn't even stand on its own two feet, let alone as any relation to Alien. As a film, I rate Alien Versus Predator 1 as a better film, oh yes. Damn it I hate them for destroying what was the enigmatic Space Jockey and turning it into just a "suit" for some over-grown humanoids whose steroid intake seems to have gone to their head as they throw around weaker lifeforms rather than engage in dialogue. But enough - I must stop. This is my fresh, bruised mind dump but I stand by all of it. You may not agree with it but it's just my opinion.