It's like people asking if they're going to do another film with K? (Which I think is symptom of cinema being saturated with feel good movies where there is no conflict or sacrifice, possibly in funny costumes...). He's utterly finished at the end of 2049, there isn't any more to say.

I don't know what it would look like but I think a relatively obvious road to go down would probably the ethics of general AI in computers. If you do have your own Joi, is she a slave? Does she "is", at all?

I really hope they land it if it gets made, although at worst it'll probably be a really pretty if confusing mess, which is better than most TV shows.

Prometheus had some good pieces - I particularly enjoyed the travel to the alien world and its vistas. Arguably this is 90% special effects instead of talented directing, but worthy of my time nonetheless. The movie does fall apart when they start exploring, though...

I think it's a great film on its own, and the people I've met who didn't like it expressed sentiments similar to yours (ruining the Alien universe").

I feel that a lot that makes Prometheus a good movie in itself is how it's paced and the graphical effects, albeit it still suffers from bad writing in a lot of places. The story per-se however is a complete dumpster fire because it changes and retcons the Alien universe lore to fit a story that perhaps didn't need to be told. At the same time there were deleted scenes that literally would have added 10-15 minutes to the run time and would have made it at least a 20% better Alien movie.

What makes a good movie and what makes a great sequel/prequel/movie in an established universe are two different sets of things. A good movie can be a good moviein itself but at the same time an absolutely terrible sequel/prequel/movie in an established universe. If you're working on an original idea then all bets are off, but if the work you're doing is in the exact same universe as preceding works then it needs to follow the lore of that universe - or at least NOT contradict previously established things. And you have to ask yourself - is the story that you're telling belonging in this universe? Does it enrich it? Does it bring something new? And by this you answer if the movie is worth actually making from an art point of view.

Would you like to see a modern version of the Mona Lisa painted in 3D on a computer? What if this art would have a blonde woman in it? With curly hair? And skimpy clothing? It can be a great work of art in itself, but has no business piggy backing on the Mona Lisa original.

As another example, there is a school of thought to subvert expectations by writing really dumb stuff, whereas you could subvert expectations in a manner that fits the universe. Star Wars VII, VIII, IX, Prometheus, Alien: Covenant and a lot of other works basically step all over established lore to tell submediocre stories, thus harming the universe in the process. I mean with Star Wars there's a whole 'nother can of worms - they literally made a huge part of the universe that exists non-canon. Why would you discard a lot of good stuff just so you can push your sub-mediocre stuff is beyond me, but hey, it's their IP, they do with it what they wish. I just can't be over the moon about it.

It's gnostic existential sci-fi horror with gorgeous set-pieces and style evocative of LOT 2046's more out there designs. Amanda Collin's emulation of an android is the best I've ever seen.

What? It's so poorly written it's even amazing.

When making critical comments, can you please use more substantive words than "amazing" without evidence? There's no content there on its own. What examples do you have from the series that cause you surprise or wonder (in the negative)?

I believe the existential meditations on a largely evil demiurge figure are fresh takes in the genre. The birth of a serpent from an android's body that could be the insane prison warden of a far-flung planet and the odd forms of punishment the Mithraic people mete out (like the explosive helmet tethered to an android caretaker) are lovely adornments on a thoughtfully realized world.

The first thing the robot build by the atheists does when her child is lost - is some pagan ritual. To be honest it was hard to take the rest seriously.

The whole story feels like someone is trying to tell a biblical story through a scifi setting (again) but can't find the right words. Or create believable characters. They are so primitive it's hard to feel anything about them.

It's hard to point out any evidence given that I finished the thing long time ago and did not like it one bit. All that is left is howling Mother afterimage and bitter taste.

Ironically it felt like something that was written and directed by an android (or rather, a replicant) trying to imitate emotions and symbolism.

Loved the original 1982 film and saw it many times, read and written about it, and know it by heart by now. So I was disappointed, but not too much, I expect this much from sequels. It's tough making a successful one.

Speaking of technical merits slipping a Mickey to a parched audience, see: The Mandalorian.

Critics would probably also notice the attention to thematic continuity and pull the public in :)