>>213035492
I disagree, he's very compelling.
Unclear motives can be compelling on their own, but he already has them. David's background: has to serve a selfish, ruthless father - Weyland, and his daughter, and the need to connect with his creator, and the ultimate creator, which was imprinted on him from Weyland himself. Creation with a capital 'C' matters to him, parenthood, children... Being subsequently disappointed in both tiers of 'creators', he becomes his own and that alone makes him interesting.
Further, another way to look at David is that since he's a synthetic and cannot create life, like Shaw who he forms a bond with because they can relate to eachother in that way; since he cannot create life, he creates death. By creating death he ensures his immortality, like Weyland wants, albeit inverted, outward, external. All the while being perfectly aware of the evil and harm he causes. You could say his measure of being an evil genius is matched by his empathy, both of which are built within him, look closely at the promo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ7E7Qp-s-8
You could say he's a walking contradiction but can androids feel cognitive dissonance? David feels something, especially when he's laying flowers on Shaw's grave and he sheds a tear. Not long after we find that he killed her, brutally mutilated her corpse to bring forth abominations. The morbidly interesting thing is that he hurt himself in doing so.
>David, what makes you sad?
>Cruelty.
>I can be cruel.
David has love and evil in him, both to the nth degree. The same dichotomy of good/evil exists in people, so he inherits the best and worst from us, but with AI the scale of the dichotomy explodes. Ridley Scott was maybe cautionary with writing him. The problem with David and the story, with its the over-the-top subtlety is that it's difficult to articulate and discuss. Blame the writing, cuts, pacing. It's too fast and it ends up obfuscating its own subject matter.
