BREAKING: Noomi Rapace has officially joined Alien: Covenant! Shaw WILL return!

I'm excited about her being in it. After all, it was her story and so it be right to continue her journey and know the outcome, even if it is for just this film.

I am EXTREMELY excited about this!! I liked Rapace's performance (Shaw wasn't the most amazing character, but I think more development in Covenant will help) and as David007 said above me, her story was one of the main focuses of Prometheus. Man this is great

Yes! Very cool. Think I'll go watch Prometheus!

Happy happy day!!!

Super excited! I was very disappointed to hear she would not be in it. I'll definitely be watching this in theaters now.

this is just great....my night just got better

My original theory was that the role of Shaw was intende d to be small with David being the main tie-in between movies. And the producers wanted to focus on the new crew, to create distance from Prometheus. So I was thinking that Rapace probably turned-down the small role. And then they had to write her out of it all together.   

She will probably be in the first and 2nd acts as she probably will sacrifice herself in order to slow down David...

Damn it she's not an egg.

Yet.

@Aorta lol ;D

Lol Aorta, "yet".... this adds so much to the speculative assumptions we can make about this film's turn out. I'm so glad she's being included. I had a feeling she might be keeping her involvement a secret, but I wasn't 100% sure. It's so nice to get confirmation.

Yeah I had a secret feeling too! This is super exciting and I'm even more amped for this story. Rock on Elizabeth Shaw!

Edit: I was there for my daughters Caesariean delivery. Having watched Noomi's ordeal, l can't help but be connected (Although my daughter is a lot more approachable than Mr. T.). I had a feeling this would happen, but it's just such great news. 

Show will become SIL.

She the one sending the 
DNA message back to 
Earth to 1988-1992 etc.

Back to the past!!

When Ridley indicated she had a small role, when he made the two roles for David announcement in Australia, and then later indicated she would not come down to Sydney I assumed she would film her parts in Europe (probably Pinewood) so I am really pleased that she is inside the main shooting arrangements. It was a four month shoot so to bring her down toward the end suggests whatever was written in the autumn of last year has survived and she is needed for the narrative.

Anyone who knows how filming translates to screen knows that this late entrance to the schedule still represents the time needed for her small role.

If the "setting up " of the Covenant is beginning of first act in my vision of the film she may well be in the prologue as part of Davids big idea and then in a twist much later when we see where it all ends for her or …. possibly continues. She will certainly be built into the philosophical/spiritual elements of where we are going. 

 

She is back for Shaw's Giger-transformation by the hand of David!

@Lone...  wow.. that would be crazy  O-O

YES! JUST YES!

I love her character. I hope, that she and David will be fight against Covenant crew (corporate mercenaries). And Show or David will use extreme & dangerous bioweapon - xenomorph.

Maybe, Show go back on Earth on Juggernaut with new alien species (ALIEN 5 PLOT). And David will be biomechanical god (millions films in perspective).

don't be SIL-ly!!

LOL !

@Lone I have always thought she is more than Eggs: Alien and has a transformative experience. What I am fascinated to see is how willing she is and whether she too moves through Protagonist, Antagonist and Redemption.

My curiosity levels are rising !   

I stand by what I said several months ago... Rapace has always been coy about her involvement in 'Alien: Covenant' and I think those behind the production didn't want to announce it officially.  Maybe they've seen enough people comment negatively, assuming she wasn't involved, that they decided to let it be known that she is, in fact, involved.

Starts at 0:43 in this brief interview. After being asked if she had a chance to talk to Ridley Scott about 'Alien: Covenant' and if she was excited to continue the story, she answers, "Well, I have no comments on that yet" while laughing.

Indeed she was Coy in that Interview as if she knew what they had install for Shaw's Character regardless of if she would be playing the role or not, Rappace new something about the Character.

At first Ridley said she would only have a small role, then she was not in the Synopsis then we was told she would not be joining up with the rest for shooting in Australia and New Zealand (which does not mean she is not shooting elsewhere or all ready has done)

Then she was said to not be in the movie...

Now this....

I think we have to pay attention to the Synopsis and that she would only be playing a Small Role.

That is very bad, I very much dislike the Shaw character.  She has got to be a lot smarter this time (not the "that is what I choose to believe" and "I think that they want us to find them").

 

If there is something that I can't stand it is irrationality and these two examples are what I would call irrational statements. Who came up with this? Being a scientist she should know better that is one of the reasons why I even get more in a bad mood than if she would have been a random person that holds irrational opinions.

 

What I would prefer is if she would be made smarter this time, she would have learned something from Prometheus, no? If she hasn't learned to be more rational and questioning then this movie (I am afraid) will be a waste especially if she will be given much screen time.

I am glad to say the least.
I wonder of she hi jacked a 
Jugg and went to SJ
Headquarters?

@Membrane. I think the way they have dealt with this works well. The first point to get across was that A L I E N Covenant is not Elizabeth Shaw's story. By focusing for months on the Covenant Crew and the cryptic remark about the "synthetic" David we got to accept where the body of the story lies. Now for those , like myself, who want the story to flow naturally from one movement to another we have the re assurance that her part in the story is included whilst having already accepted her role is minor. Great positioning.

There is another element to this threading which is unique. Unlike the Ripley movies we have two separate  experiences moving into A. C.(Bishop was merely exposition). The anti hero David with his unbridled unburdened curiosity and the heroine whose faith driven curiosity has been transformed from wide eyed naivety to a grim single minded determination for answers putting her much closer to a boundary less David.

We have discussed W Y draw to Paradise as opposed to LV223 I think it much more likely that David is the messenger spinning his find rather than further messages from Shaw.     

   

@Michelle Yes, I too am curious with regards to how Shaw will react to her inevitable destiny!

She may even prove receptive or resigned to her horrific becoming?

I am so pleased to hear this. I think it would have been weird and bad for continuity if she wasn't in the film at all. I'm still concerned that changing the name to Alien: Covenant instead of Prometheus: Paradise or something like that will confuse people. I've already seen it confuse people. They won't know it's a continuation of Prometheus. But the Alien name is very well known, so maybe it will actually be better for business. I hope.

Patient Leech: I think that the name change to Alien Covenant is better because then it is clear that it is connected to Alien. One of the problems with Prometheus was that it wasn't connected to Alien enough so this is a step forward I think. You mention that it might be confusing and that it might not be obvious that it will be connected to Prometheus but if they do it well enough it might be understood that it is connected to both Alien and Prometheus. Hopefully they will find a way to connect those two.

Patient Leech and Thoughts_Dreams, I suppose they could easily tie them together via trailers and TV spots in some way.  I think the percentage of people who go to a movie based solely on just reading or seeing the title is fairly small.  Most would find out about 'Alien: Covenant' via a trailer or TV spot and I think the tie-in could easily be made briefly there.  That would be to try to capture as large of an audience as possible.  Of course, there would be tie-ins within the movie itself as well.

Membrane: If they do something for people to see that they are connected then it might be a good thing. This could probably be done in some way. Honestly it took me a while to see how Prometheus and Alien were connected.

Like Thoughts_Dreams I wasn't too fond of the Shaw character either, so this news isn't very exciting for me.

Lets hope that her character will be better written this time. The "this is what I choose to believe" and "No weapons for protection purposes on a scientific mission" mentality has to go because it made her character very unconvincing as a scientist.

Scientific thinking is basically having a hypothesis which then is put to the test. The tests either confirm your hypothesis, or prove it to be wrong, which then will give you new insights in the matter. Her Choosing to believe something, and cling to these beliefs made her utterly unconvincing to me. 

 

^ There's plenty of religious scientists out there. It's not that unrealistic. Contradictory perhaps, yes, but not unlike real life. 

Shame. I was looking forward to maybe seeing her decayed corpse in one of the cryo pods.

Maybe she'll give birth to a Jellyfish in this one?

I wasn't being flippant with that last comment btw. Prometheus seemed to have that "evil from the oceans" vibe.

The engineer drinks the black stuff and his body crumbles into the sea. Then, Shaw gives birth to a squid, which later turns into a kraken.

Even the deacons dislocating jaw was modelled on a goblin shark.

There's a definite theme going on there.

Yeah, it's like James Cameron's dark side. He's obsessed with all the underwater life... and some of the creatures in Avatar reflected that influence. But Prometheus is the darker, creepier deep sea life influence.

Am I the only one who wants to see xenomorphs rip aparts dozens of those annoying blue cat people from Avatar?

No, you're definitely not the only one Leech! (Good to see you back btw!) But lets not go giving FOX any idea's hey? lol

You know what I really want from Covenant? Originality!

Thanks, it's good to be back. The place is much improved. I had trouble logging in for a while, but Chris hooked me up.

I wouldn't expect much originality from Covenant. Like Ridley has said again and again, the beast is done. The xenomorph has been played out. But as long as there are some great new creatures, landscapes and good characters I think we'll be in for quite a treat. I actually wish they'd cut down the number of characters a bit. I think Prometheus did have too many lesser characters, but the themes and imagery are spectacular.

@Patient Leech,

True, there are many scientists that belief in a higher power of some sort. And most of them have some very personal views and thoughts on how the universe works. Most of the time these views don't fit any standard set of religious views, but it is rather evolved into something of it's own, which makes these people more spiritual than religious, which are 2 different things.

I don't have an issue with Elizabeth Shaw being a spiritual person, and if done right, her character could have been a very interesting element of the movie. 

Unfortunately her character was written in a bad way, and on screen she comes across as a naïve person with childlike curiosity, rather than a true leading scientist in her field. (Which should probably have been something close to Anthropology)

I do have an issue with the lack of logic in most of her decisions.

- Why not having armed security personnel with you on this mission ? It's an alien planet of which humanity knows nothing. I would think security precautions would be a big point during a mission like this.

- Why running tests on the engineer skull without (again) any form of proper protection

- Why does she interpret the ancient icons as an invitation ? I'd like to see some sort of character motivation that explains that. 

To me Shaw felt very incapable. Her survival is purely due to dumb luck instead of her being a strong and resourceful character like Ripley was. 

If the film was a novel they may have had time to go into greater detail about why they interpreted the murals as invitations. But I think given all the speculation about "Ancient Aliens" there is enough room to take it and run with it for the film.

[I]- Why running tests on the engineer skull without (again) any form of proper protection[/I]

Their assumption is that they were invited and the air was breathable. There didn't appear to be any immediate threat. Inadvisable perhaps, but they were operating on some form of "faith." I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but it makes some sense given the situation.

[I]- Why not having armed security personnel with you on this mission ? It's an alien planet of which humanity knows nothing. I would think security precautions would be a big point during a mission like this.[/I]

That would probably send the wrong impression to the beings whom they assume "invited" them.

[I]To me Shaw felt very incapable. Her survival is purely due to dumb luck instead of her being a strong and resourceful character like Ripley was. [/I]

I think using the Med Pod to remove her unwanted alien foetus was pretty strong and resourceful. Same with running from the Engineer after seeing what happened to everyone who confronted him.. lol. Also sicking her octopus facehugger on the Engineer was pretty resourceful (probably my favorite part of the movie).

@Charza

- Why not having armed security personnel with you on this mission ? It's an alien planet of which humanity knows nothing. I would think security precautions would be a big point during a mission like this.

She has faith. Knows it will work out....they haven't destroyed humanity in the 35,000 years of visiting Earth...why would they start now? 

- Why running tests on the engineer skull without (again) any form of proper protection

To me...this is David 8 and Vickers call...it's their ship....over zealous Shaw isn't waiting for anyone. Head should have been frozen for the trip home.

- Why does she interpret the ancient icons as an invitation ? I'd like to see some sort of character motivation that explains that. 

This is the first time in humanities history where we can travel to them. I visit your house and point to a location on a map, then leave without saying anything.....What would you take out of that? You have to have faith and a strong conviction to sell this trillion dollar project. 

She probably gets her funding the exact same way..over selling all her locations she is interested in.

"Being a scientist she should know better"

 

I was going to reply to this but Charza has done so in the same way i would have, some Scientists are also Religious and their findings may conflict their faith but they still have at the back of their minds a believer in their Faith, some just have a different take upon their Faith, and its pretty much how Prometheus showed Shaw maybe we was not created by God, as per Bible, and we was created by the Engineers, but then to attain her Faith, she is asking... "BUT WHO CREATED THEM" and so Creation had to come from some Source, and Shaw as with a minority of Scientists on Earth, would still ponder is the SOURCE of the creation of everything some Event like the Big Bang or is there still a Godlike Creator?

 

Truth is we have no 100% way to Prove or Disprove either, and it think this is a theme that Ridley wants to explore.

As far as the Flaws in the movie as discussed in the last few posts, yeah they are some but then its all part of moving the Plot Along... i am certain when Alien Covenant is released we could pick similar things and errors that you would assume a Real Mankind Mission to a Alien World would have precautions for.

Back to Shaw and her Character being flawed, yes i agree but a 2nd movie was a chance to fix and evolve her Character.  The Source claimed that they would find Answers, but the Answers are even more further Nefarious than those they had already uncovered on LV-223.

This could have been interesting for Shaws Faith, to be Questioned again, Holloway posed that Life could be created by anyone “all you need is DNA and a Petri Dish”  they found out these Engineers are thus not Gods, and they was creating something Horrific on LV-223... But Shaw wanted to know why? Why was we created? Why did they change their minds? Why did they want to destroy us?  And then she wants to go to where they (Engineers) came from and she wants to know WHO CREATED THEM!

So she still had hopes for a more Benevolent Answers and hopes to find some explanation behind it that would tie in her Faith of a God above all.

So if she found out they was “wrong, so wrong” the first time but still has some Faith, when and IF she finds out she is “way wrong” when she gets to Paradise, can you imagine what that would do to her FAITH?  What becomes of her then?

But i now think we wont be getting anything like this since the Chance to Alien Covenant.

BigDave: Maybe that but I find her so annoying and naive so I honestly hope that they will kill her off early in the movie and replace her with a more likeable character (this one wouldn't be very difficult I think). She should be killed and someone else would get her answers at least then we wouldn't need to see her very unlikeable and annoying character since she was one of the things that really reduced the quality (among other things) about Prometheus. I don't want to see her in a movie for 90 minutes again because it would not be fun.

 

At least she is better than Jar-Jar Binks.

Just wait til JarJar turns out to be the Creator.

Aorta: Right now it wouldn't surprise me. Once they start to mess it up the more they will do to damage the movie the first step being to bring Noomi back. Fox? What a bunch of assholes.

Aw! Look at it this way, ideally A:C has solid continuity with P and one great way to ensure that is by having Shaw in the movie. You may well imagine too that they took to heart the majority sentiment that killing Newt (a character that I couldn't care Jess about, but still) in A3 was lazy writing, and were determined not to repeat the sin.

Edit: which is not to say they won't kill Noomi, or make her an egg.

I really don't understand this hate towards Noomi. She's easily one of the best actresses working right now in my opinion. She's great. I've never seen such great vulnerability and subtlety. I'm thrilled she'll be back.. not to mention it would have been extremely weird for her to just disappear considering the way she signs off at the end of Prometheus. There needs to be some continuity.

Facehugger in a jar.

^From CGSociety

Patient Leech: I don't have anything against her as an actress but the character of Shaw is shit. What good is continuity if the character is just bad? That means that you must endure her the time that she is on screen and I don't want to do that. Nope it is better to show her as a corpse like they did with Newt in Alien 3 or kill her in the first scene that she is in.

@Thoughts_Dreams:

Perhaps we can agree to disagree! She is seeking answers, so I think she should be used as a catalyst for discovery regarding these mysterious Engineers, their home world and beyond.

Patient Leech: I think that they could kill her and still use some of her questions to expand the movie. In this way they could build some things into the movie based on Shaw's questions without having her in a big role so it would be less stupid. Because a lot of the damage was done in Prometheus it will be difficult to make a second movie but they could try to avoid some of the problems that was in the first one, one problem being Shaw.

She could have been wrote better for sure,  but i think it was a case of she is there to drive the Plot....

Same as Peter Weyland too

I think they could have learned their lesson and make for better writing of Characters in Alien Covenant but we shall have to wait and see.

Shaw was Naive and i can see the frustration, but i think after she finally finds out the true Horror and Agenda and her Faith is proved to be worthless this could be a event that changes her into a new Character.. like Sarah Connor in Terminator 2

We dont know what role she would play and yes she could just play a Plot Device for what ever Scheme David had up his sleeve...

 

I'm so excited to see how all of this will unfold... to watch Shaw & David go deeper into the unknown possibilities of their expedition. When? Where? How? What if? Etc, etc I want to see how everything is connected & expressed. Considering the reshaping experiences Shaw has been through I want to see how it affects her character. Everything at this point has got to go deeper hopefully while expanding to a whole another level.   

Posted by Zira:

"Considering the reshaping experiences Shaw has been through I want to see how it affects her character."

Exactly the reason why it would be poor writing to kill her off prematurely and needlessly.

Welcome to Scified Zira!

@Leech; Do you want to see Shaw have an happy ending?

Do you care about her character?

Or do you just want to see her used has a device, to get to the bottom of what's going on (answers?)

I care about her character in so much as she has this belief in heaven/paradise passed down from her father and I think it's likely that she will discover Paradise (the Engineer homeworld) and find that it is a horrendous and viscous place. So yeah, I think that's what she's for, she's to drive the discovery. I just don't think she should be dispensed with at least until she gets some answers and maybe at least has a death that means something.

That makes sense! Personally though, when I heard that she wouldn't be reprising her role has Shaw I thought 'how the hell are they going to explain her not being in it?'

Then, has I always do (trying to put 2 and 2 together,) I imagined that Shaw would have to die in order to get the answers she was seeking.

I could imagine David8 standing over her decaying corpse in the juggernaut cryo pod, explaining to a member of the Covenant maybe, that "she needed to see god in heaven in order to get her answers. So....I indulged her."

I would have liked that, very much!     

I absolutely care about Shaw. She has depth and a family background...Think I understand what she is going through. A true believer in the late 21st century must be tough. I'd imagine there are more Atheists in her time.

And compared to Ripley, who I don't have a clue about....and still don't know her motivations? let alone who her parents were or what happened to them...Why was Ripley in space and not home with her daughter? or parents??.....Ripley is very one dimensional compared to Shaw.

I forgot to add the "Bom Bom Boooom."

Then, he turns to the member/s of the Covenant and says, with a sly grin, "would you also like answers?"

I've just had a thought. Maybe the synthetics are programmed to give answers if ordered to do so, or direct the human questioner to the answers, per their programming?

Maybe, in order for the human to get their answers (to the big questions,) they have to die?

This could explain why ASH reacted to Ripley in the way he/it did when Ripley tried to get the answers out of him with her emotional out-burst?

She asked for answers. He took it has an order. And proceeded to direct her to said answers by way of murdering her.

I really don't see happy endings for anything here but the things that don't feel happiness anyway.

Contrary to the critical comments by some as to her character, Shaw's inclusion in Covenant is a huge plus for this evolving story. She is a most interesting character and, for me, really propelled the story forward.  Patient Leech and MonsterZero have already outlined spot on points about her character (and flawed humanity) so I won't repeat them here.  The Shaw haters are gonna hate and others of us feel very different.  Shaw was not the mission leader, so security details were not in her wheelhouse of responsibility or experience.

 

On a broader note - I hope Ridley sticks to his original comments about enough with the face huggers and chest busters already - they are done.  The many open questions in Prometheus are a positive to me - I don't want most of the questions answered and could not care less about the "horror" of squids / deacons / face huggers.

The original story line is the way to go IMO.

 

Well Prometheus Started as a Alien Movie and then was changed to Prometheus to be its own thing that can lead to Alien on one side and to something new the other.

Engineers<=== Prometheus ===>Alien

They had tried to explore the Engineers more but are now changing that to be more connected to Alien.

As far as Shaw, it would be interesting but i think the Synopsis stands and that she would play a smaller role.

The source i had, who my contact had spoken too Sunday and so i may see if got anymore answers Thursday.... they said  that Shaws role was not huge in the Drafts before John Logan was brought in... so even the Original Prometheus 2 may not had been about Shaw.

David 8 however plays a key role.

Then with the Alien Paradise Lost announcement Shaw was reduced to a Minor Role Officially.... then week or so latter Alien Covenant was named as the Title and Synopsis had no mention of Shaw.

I would assume her Role would be even less than Peter Weylands in Prometheus.

 

 

 

@Apple Corps; "On a broader note - I hope Ridley sticks to his original comments about enough with the face huggers and chest busters already - they are done."

He's apparentely moved on from that initial comment and decided to go with the Facehugger and Chestburster concepts after all. I think that means that we will almost certainly see the two creatures. 

"The many open questions in Prometheus are a positive to me - I don't want most of the questions answered and could not care less about the "horror" of squids / deacons / face huggers."

I too do not want (all the) answers, but the fact is these creatures i.e. Squid, deacon and face hugger are VERY important elements (in not just Prometheus, but,) in the whole ALIEN universe. It's acceptable to see the point of the fan/movie goer that these elements couldn't possibly be left out.

I could quite happily sit through 2 hours of watching an Alien spacecraft (the derelict) grow from the ground of LV426 and have a few cut scenes of the Space Jockey growing WITH his chair.

Jockey and Ship growing together, inter-connected.

The ship being the female and the Jockey being the male. Interconnected from birth to death. Jockey inseminating derelict and derelict giving birth to eggs!

That's what I want!  

 

"And compared to Ripley, who I don't have a clue about....and still don't know her motivations? let alone who her parents were or what happened to them...Why was Ripley in space and not home with her daughter? or parents??....."

All you need to know about Ripley is that she works in space and is trying to survive against a monster.

Ripley's history is irrelevant. Shaw's backstory is about a subtle as a house brick and as presented, comes across as superficial.  And I say that as a fan of her character.

"All you need to know about Ripley is that she works in space and is trying to survive against a monster."

Agreed.

From exploring the Engineers to more face huggers to.....

 

There is a lot of time between now and August 2017 for Sir Ridley to mis-direct (pun intended) us many times as to the story line.

@ S.M

Exactly.

I don't care about the background of each character. Ripley/Shaw included. 

Alien was a haunted house movie.

Don't care what Jamie Lee Curtis had for breakfast...or her latest boyfriend.

I was more disagreeing with the statement that Ripley was one-dimensional compared to Shaw (which I didn't make terribly clear).

Scott always said he didn't
Want another Ripley
Character.
He wanted someone who
Wasn't overly assured of
herself.

Enter catarsis

Apple Corps Jun-28-2016 2:59 PM

 

Contrary to the critical comments by some as to her character, Shaw's inclusion in Covenant is a huge plus for this evolving story. She is a most interesting character and, for me, really propelled the story forward.  Patient Leech and MonsterZero have already outlined spot on points about her character (and flawed humanity) so I won't repeat them here.  The Shaw haters are gonna hate and others of us feel very different.  Shaw was not the mission leader, so security details were not in her wheelhouse of responsibility or experience.

 

On a broader note - I hope Ridley sticks to his original comments about enough with the face huggers and chest busters already - they are done.  The many open questions in Prometheus are a positive to me - I don't want most of the questions answered and could not care less about the "horror" of squids / deacons / face huggers.

The original story line is the way to go IMO.

Well first of all, according to the mission brief by Peter Weyland, Shaw and Holloway were actually in charge of the expedition. 
(It is later revealed that this however is in direct conflict with certain Weyland Corp interests, but Shaw and Holloway are in charge of the scientific expedition.)

Your point that Shaw is not in charge of security makes no real sense.
There is an entire team of security guards to ensure crew safety on this mission. 

Shaw ignoring or even countering/overruling security advice by the Jackson character is just irresponsible and dumb.

You can be a Shaw fan, but there is simply no excuse for it other than bad writing or her having an unestablished personality disorder.

As I said before. Shaw could have been an interesting and even compelling character.
Unfortunately they wrote her as a naive and borderline foolish person, that consistently makes irresponsible decisions that not only affect her own self, but also the other crew members.

Think of the situation where shaw loses the fossilized head and just goes back into the storm with reckless abandon to get it. She put herself in danger, but also the entire crew, as she has to be rescued from that potentially life threatening situation.

One can theorize that the mission was doomed to fail from the get go, because David 8 was meddling, and Peter Weyland had his own secret agenda, but that still is no excuse for some of the screw ups earlier in the mission.  

 

MonsterZero Jun-28-2016 1:13 PM

I absolutely care about Shaw. She has depth and a family background...Think I understand what she is going through. A true believer in the late 21st century must be tough. I'd imagine there are more Atheists in her time.

And compared to Ripley, who I don't have a clue about....and still don't know her motivations? let alone who her parents were or what happened to them...Why was Ripley in space and not home with her daughter? or parents??.....Ripley is very one dimensional compared to Shaw.

I don't agree. Ripley is not a one dimensional character.
Although the first Alien movie never shows a flashback of her life before the Nostromo, we can see a lot of her personality shining through throughout the movie.

When we first meet Ellen Ripley she is a Lieuitenant on board of the Nostromo. 
She is a relatable and sympathetic character, doing her work on this space vessel. We see she is a laid back yet loyal person, whoon the one hand is helpful and on the other hand just doesn't take crap from her colleagues. A strong female presence in an otherwise male dominated line of work.

Ripley is put into an extraordinary situation, and finds herself to be a resourceful woman, and more importantly a survivor. Her character arc feels very natural and everything she does makes sense to me.

Shaw on the other hand has no real arc. Her character does not really change at all. At the end of Prometheus she is still the same Shaw, with the same views on life, only now mangled and beaten by all the violent events that took place. What is her defining character trait after the events of Prometheus ? Stubbornness ???  Thickheadedness ??? 
Is she doing this because she lost her mother at a very young age, or because apparently she can't conceive children through natural means ??? None of those bits of background information actually make sense into what motivates Shaw.

Look, don't get me wrong, I like Noomi Rapace. But her acting skills could not safe this terribly written character. 

 

Big Dave:

                             

Maybe it depends on how deep her faith is (you wrote something about that she could find out that her faith is worthless)? If you have someone that isn’t as deep into some faith then it takes less to make the person question it (compare it to someone that is a member of a cult, religious or what ever).

 

To me Shaw comes off as a bit of a fanatic which is unfortunate but that is a reason why I dislike her. Hopefully they will at least reduce her role so the movie becomes better but that also requires new characters that are interesting (something that Prometheus lacks). Sarah Connor is a good/well written character even though I must say that it was many years ago since I watched T2 the last time.

 

You wrote that Weyland and Shaw were there to make take the movie forward but what good is it if the characters are unlikable? Weyland wasn’t very interesting but at least he wasn’t annoying as Shaw was.

Aorta:

 

The difference is that Newt was alright as a character (you mentioned Newt in one of your posts). The characters were not dislikeable until Prometheus. Alien Resurrection isn’t the most likeable movie but the characters were not stupid. What good is continuity if the main character is crap?

 

No, they should kill Shaw and replace her with someone who is at least somewhat likeable. This is why I am glad that they will have a new female character (Daniels) because it is almost impossible to make her worse.

I hate fundamentalist religious belief way more than the average person, but to me Shaw was still a sympathetic character. I don't think she was presented as a ridiculous fundamentalist. She just had an aspect of faith passed down from her father. Her faith doesn't really seem pathological or outlandish to me, so I am really surprised to hear that people hate her so much. She was really presented as being a very sympathetic character, she loved her husband and there was that touching moment where she got upset about not being able to bear children.

I wasn't really a fan of the "Naïve, religious, blind faithful" aspect of Shaw's character, but I wouldn't go as far as to say she was an unlikable person.

And, to be fair, regarding the order from her to the security person "no guns." It makes sense that she wouldn't want to go and meet (wait she initially thought was) her makers with weapons. If you had the chance to meet (what you thought was) god, you wouldn't take a gun with you, would you? 

And let's not forget that they thought they were being invited. They just assumed (naively) that the engineers would be friendly.

Obviously we, the audience, knew that the shit was going to hit the fan. But the characters, understandably, were oblivious to what was awaiting them.   

Patient Leech:

 

Is your answer aimed at me? To me she came off as being irrational - even after she almost got killed by an Engineer she still said "first they made us and then they tried to destroy us" (or something like  that). Yes she almost got killed but that isn't to say that they made us because maybe they didn't at all? She doesn't have evidence or anything that points to it being true.

 

It doesn't matter that she got it from her father. Being a scientist she should be able to question things, that is needed if you are a scientist but no she just sticks to it because she chooses to believe that. Sorry but to believe in aliens like she did is equal to believe in Scientology to me which is ridiculous even worse when it comes from a scientist.

 

The cave painting, how can she know that it is an invitation? She just accepts it as being that even though she doesn't have any background information on it. Before you judge something then maybe you should do some background research to see if it is true but no she doesn't. Her character is supposed to do research so she should at least get more information before drawing a conclusion.

 

Even if I don't have a similar education that she is supposed to have in the movie I wouldn't say that it was an invitation because there is nothing to say that it is not even her faith is reason enough to say that. Compare this to diggings that they do about graves from the Vikings, there you have enough material to make rational decisions based on what we know (because it is on this planet) but even though if they have material there is nothing there to suggest that it is an invitation even if she believes that. Sorry but that is an example of a bad writing of the script.

 

Even Milburn and Fiflield seem to be better scientists than Shaw even though they are goofy but they don't believe in such things that she does. At least they didn't assume that it is an invitation (one of them says "Can you get a message to the scientist and that zealot girlfriend of his?") so I can have more patience with them.

 

One other thing that I read at a page (which is interesting) is that isn't she supposed to be a Christian? Maybe she isn't at all. Haven't they decided what kind of faith that she has? To me this isn't very important but it something that it is worth to notice is inconsistent.

 

Partially she is sympathetic (what you gave as examples) but the ridiculous sides make her unbearable.

"Is your answer aimed at me? To me she came off as being irrational - even after she almost got killed by an Engineer she still said "first they made us and then they tried to destroy us" (or something like  that). Yes she almost got killed but that isn't to say that they made us because maybe they didn't at all? She doesn't have evidence or anything that points to it being true."

The evidence is the DNA match, and the fact they were on Earth in the past showing us where they were.

 

"The cave painting, how can she know that it is an invitation? She just accepts it as being that even though she doesn't have any background information on it. Before you judge something then maybe you should do some background research to see if it is true but no she doesn't. Her character is supposed to do research so she should at least get more information before drawing a conclusion."

The research - shared by the non-believer Holloway - was detailed during the briefing.

 

"One other thing that I read at a page (which is interesting) is that isn't she supposed to be a Christian? Maybe she isn't at all. Haven't they decided what kind of faith that she has? To me this isn't very important but it something that it is worth to notice is inconsistent."

The crucifix that David takes from her and Shaw later gets back, wasn't a giveaway?

 A DNA match, shows us that the Engineers and Humanity come from a common genetic ancestor. It doesn't show that they "made" humanity, as Engineer DNA is essentially the same. 

Humans and Engineers are basically 2 different races within the same species. So the DNA match doesn't prove anything in terms of creation. 

As Charza said...

and in reply to SM..

"The evidence is the DNA match, and the fact they were on Earth in the past showing us where they were.

The research - shared by the non-believer Holloway - was detailed during the briefing."

Yes these are how things was supposed to be shown, but i think the case was that while the viewers could see this as we saw the Sacrificial Scene...  with regards to Holloway and Shaw, they dont know 100%

But as Scientists the evidence point to this perhaps being the case and its the reason for the Mission to then find out if there Theory was Correct ( As David pointed out)  But they ended up being wrong....

Right now the Movie shows there is a similar connection between Mankind and Engineers we have the same DNA.

But that does not mean, we come from them... they could come from us, they could be us or we both could come from the same source.... but movie is pointing to the Engineers being used to seed us.

But we cant be sure who is the creator of us... if the Engineers DNA is just part of a process used, to seed likewise life....   would it not be those above who commanded such Sacrifices or those who created the Sacrificial Goo who are the creators?

This is what i think the Movie was to touch upon, but now it seems to be more about why the Goo in relation to the Xenomorph instead.

 

As for Faith and Religion and having a Cross, having a Cross does not show how deep someones faith is in Jesus etc.

They believe in it somewhat... but it vary from person to person and i dont see Shaw as being Fanatical or else as soon as she found the DNA Match and Engineers being Mortal she would Flat out refuse to believe any of that.

She instead Questions it, but does not flat out refuse it... she still has hope that there is a More Divine, Biblical Creator involved with a Benevolent view of us.

But she could end up finding this not to be the case.... but then she could meet a rebellious faction and then still have faith that the Good Guys are around.... bring on Part 3

But i hope not lol

 

 

It's like Big Dave says. 
Shaw and Holloway had a hypothesis that these old icons and sybols were actually showing ancient aliens. The only basis for their theory was the fact that all these older civilizations pictured either gods, or giants pointing to a specific constellation of stars.

Now as it happens all these different cultures and civilizations deem the exact same constellation as very important, and it would indeed make for a very remarkable discovery, if such a thing is actually true.

But none of it, tells us this is an invitation. It basically could just mean anything. 

It could mean we humans came from there. It could mean that our ancient god figures came from there. It could mean that ancient aliens actually were visiting us, teaching us things, you name it. 

Shaw and Holloway however were utterly convinced that it was an invitation for humanity to go there..
If Prometheus is supposed to be real, and the history of humanity mirrors our real life history, then it is actually quite a ridiculous notion, that these "gods" were sending us an invitation. Think of it. Every single real life religion, being either ancient or relatively young, tells us stories of humanity, trying to reach the same level of existence as their gods. The Bible tells of the Babylonians who try to build their tower to reach for god, or the titular Prometheus, who helped humanity to get closer to their gods with terrible consequences.

Shaw and Holloway with their Anthropological, historical en Archaeological backgrounds should know of all these ancient myths, and the common theme is that the Gods warn us not to follow in their footsteps.
How on earth can they then simply conclude that these icons are an "invitation", if all these ancient legends share the theme that humanity should not try to get equal with their gods ???

   

"Humans and Engineers are basically 2 different races within the same species. So the DNA match doesn't prove anything in terms of creation. "

The word used was "evidence" not "prove".  The DNA match is evidence - not proof.

 

"Shaw and Holloway with their Anthropological, historical en Archaeological backgrounds should know of all these ancient myths, and the common theme is that the Gods warn us not to follow in their footsteps.
How on earth can they then simply conclude that these icons are an "invitation", if all these ancient legends share the theme that humanity should not try to get equal with their gods ???"

Because, ultimately, they're scientists and not theologians.  They should be scared off from exploring a scientific theory because old myths and legends say they shouldn't?

S.M Jun-30-2016 4:21 PM

 

"Humans and Engineers are basically 2 different races within the same species. So the DNA match doesn't prove anything in terms of creation. "

The word used was "evidence" not "prove".  The DNA match is evidence - not proof.

 

"Shaw and Holloway with their Anthropological, historical en Archaeological backgrounds should know of all these ancient myths, and the common theme is that the Gods warn us not to follow in their footsteps.
How on earth can they then simply conclude that these icons are an "invitation", if all these ancient legends share the theme that humanity should not try to get equal with their gods ???"

Because, ultimately, they're scientists and not theologians.  They should be scared off from exploring a scientific theory because old myths and legends say they shouldn't?

Alright, lets call it evidence.
Then still this DNA evidence doesn't prove that the Engineers are our creators. The only thing this DNA match proves is that humans and engineers are basically the same species. 

And no, of course Shaw and Holloway should not be afraid to explore their scientific thesis. Don't get me wrong, if such a discovery happened in real life it would be very remarkable, especially if there are means to actually go to a place which in normal circumstances would have been out of reach. 

I completely understand that they grabbed this oppertunity to go there, for it would be the most important discovery of a lifetime. 
The thing I find troubling though, is the fact that within the context of this script/movie they are utterly convinced that these icons should be read as an invitation. Especially Shaw chooses to believe that whatever is out there actually wants humans to go there. It's a simple case of flawed logic. 

If these ancient aliens/god figures truly wanted humanity to go to this place, they would have given us the means to do so, centuries ago.  Yet they didn't, so Shaw treating it this way is not logical at all. 

Basically this Prometheus expedition is a journey into the big unknown. It is completely uncharted territory. I think the movie would have been way more interesting if this given fact was actually treated as such. 

A movie like Interstellar also asks questions about human nature, and our place in the universe from a quantum physical point of view. In doing so, it has characters that actually ask the right questions about certain subjects, taking into account knowledge that is actually available to us.  
The characters also behave in ways that to me feel as believable.

Shaw and Holloway simply weren't believable scientists. Shaw is just a zealot that chooses to believe whatever she wants, and Holloway is a pouting spoiled brat, that basically is moping about not finding anything useful on LV-223.

 

 

"Then still this DNA evidence doesn't prove that the Engineers are our creators."

No one is saying it does.

 

"If these ancient aliens/god figures truly wanted humanity to go to this place, they would have given us the means to do so, centuries ago.  Yet they didn't, so Shaw treating it this way is not logical at all. "

Not knowing the Engineers motivations - that sounds like a hypothesis.  Like Holloway and Shaw had a different hypothesis.

SM:

Just because humans and Engineers share similar DNA traits doesn’t mean that they made us. It means that we have a somewhat common ancestor. Maybe they didn’t create humanity but that doesn’t mean that they are not responsible for making other things. Logic doesn’t seem to be the strongest ability that Shaw has.

 

Still that research doesn’t mean that it is an invitation. The one pointing at the stars could have meant something else – anything really. If they really wanted us to visit them then wouldn’t they have written it down or something in a way to make that clear? Shaw’s idea about that seems to be more in the line of wishful thinking rather than something that seems to be a reasonable result made from logic and rationality.

 

OK so David removed her cross so that says something about her Christianity but she still says that they (the Engineers) made us; which is inconsistent with Christianity so she can’t be 100% Christian at least. It seems that they didn’t think this through when they made the movie (as with other things).

"Just because humans and Engineers share similar DNA traits doesn’t mean that they made us."

I didn't claim otherwise.

 

"Still that research doesn’t mean that it is an invitation. "

"That's why it's called a hypothesis."

 

"OK so David removed her cross so that says something about her Christianity but she still says that they (the Engineers) made us; which is inconsistent with Christianity so she can’t be 100% Christian at least. It seems that they didn’t think this through when they made the movie (as with other things)."

Define "100% Christian". Besides she stays true to her faith by asking the question 'Who made them?' ie. The Engineers don't negate the existence of God. It's not a matter of 'not thinking things' through at all. They've created a character who is trying to reconcile her faith with science. The conflict between those two things creates drama.

Well SM has beaten me to a few points....

You see when we look at Faith, its not a case of Atheist or Religious... you have the Flat Out Atheist who defy Religion and Faith unless God came down and Greeted them but then they would pass them off as Alien beings or something else.

Then you have the Hard Core Religious who no matter what Proof to the contrary will always believe there was a Divine Creator who created everything.

So we Have Hard Core Atheist (Black) and Hard Core Religious (White) but there is a whole lot of Grey between those lines...  and i think Shaw fits in the darker shade of Grey.

You could say Shaw was silly because of her blind Faith, and a Scientist but then what about Weyland? 

He funded a Trillion Dollar Mission just as Fifield said "because of a Map you Two Kids found in a Cave"?

Shaw said not a Map and Invitation... she does not know this for a fact, but she believes its the case due to the amount of more than coincidental evidence she and Holloway had found... if we go back to the discovery of the Cave Painting Shaw says "i think they want us to find them"

She thinks this because of the clues they have found, and she is interested to see if these clues lead to any beings and if these beings or being are God....  She thinks its a invitation because you have to remember her FAITH she would see God as a Almighty Benevolent Creator who created Mankind as a favored Children, her faith is that God is not Evil... she said this when she said "god would not try and kill her"

So this is why she thinks its a invitation.... as for Holloway he would be wondering why would these beings leave clues to the same location and he may be naive to think it would be a trap....

It could have been a Benin Reason, and as such a Warning but then maybe  you would think it would have been more clearer... i.e Ancient Beings who was trying to Warn us would have left a bit of clues that would lead to a threat?

I think they could be simply the Engineers showing where Mankind came from, we know the Engineers are not from LV-223 but from Paradise... so i think LV-223 was just some Greenhouse/Nursery that these Genetic Gardeners use to create and experiment with Lifeforms and when they have the desired results they then seed them on Earth.

I think they showed us this is where you came from... maybe the Engineers would never intend for us to be as Advanced to ever be able to reach as far as the Stars, they was in their Arrogance very Naive about how far we could Evolve without their help.

Back to Weyland we have to ask why did he blindly fund a mission based on this two kids star maps? 

Well the Weyland Files etc shows us more, they show us that Probes/Sensors had detected a System in the Zeta 2 system that could support life... (life supporting environment) and the company intended to journey there at some point.

To then latter detect a signal, would all seem to much of a coincidence for Weyland and so he felt there was nothing more he could lose...... if this place is where the Gods came from maybe they could give him more Life.

But just based on a hunch, why risk all of that?  Depend on the Character, we have to remember Weyland appears as a Selfish Man only cares about his own success and such people when faced with death (we get them in real life) would rather squander there fortune in a hope to extend their life, than accept the inevitable and leave their fortune to their offspring.

Also the BIGGEST FACT.... is regardless of how much or how less you believe in a God or the Afterlife once your life is in Danger, or you know you only have a matter of weeks or months to go, you will find a high % of even none religious people will start to find Faith, start to prey or try and believe in a God.

Because of the Fear of not Death..... but what happens after Death...  If we knew for sure there was Life after Death, then the fear of death would not effect us.

It is the fear of death and what happens after death that greatly influences someone to turn to faith.

This is what has happened to Weyland, he is hopping that Shaw is right, because  if she is then even if he can not be granted life... but if he finds out these beings are Divine like the Bible, then there would be Life after Death potentially for him...

But all he found was NOTHING!

But Shaw still holds Faith that their is SOMETHING!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.M: 

 

The DNA match doesn't mean that they made us (as I stated above). It is no proof (Noomi seems to think that it is, "we have proof" she says to Holoway before she talks about not being able to have children which I didn't care about her not being able to) and there is not even evidence, you need more than that in order to draw a conclusion. Shaw is wrong IMO.

 

"They've created a character who is trying to reconcile her faith with science. The conflict between those two things creates drama."

 

Except for that she doesn't manage to do so, she still believes that the Engineers made us in such a stubborn way that she comes off as a fanatical person more than a scientist. Not even after she almost got killed does her views change that they (the Engineers) made us. Drama sure but it was done in a bad way, I am not against a movie that is asking questions about religion versus science but Prometheus didn't do that in a very good way (having characters such as Fifield and Milburn didn't help either).

 

A hypothesis, sure but it is still not rational. They don't have anything that supports it and no a figure pointing at something isn't enough. Shaw basically says that it is because it is what she chooses to believe and that is just dumb. It shows on emotions and not intellect which isn't very credible if you are supposed to be a scientist.

 

As far as 100% Christians goes I mean that she can't be a Christian if she also believes in ancient aliens. She might be a mix but she isn't a Christian.

"The DNA match doesn't mean that they made us (as I stated above). It is no proof (Noomi seems to think that it is, "we have proof" she says to Holoway before she talks about not being able to have children which I didn't care about her not being able to) and there is not even evidence, you need more than that in order to draw a conclusion. Shaw is wrong IMO."

In your opinion.  She says "Their genetic material predates ours. We come from them." That's evidence.

 

"Except for that she doesn't manage to do so, she still believes that the Engineers made us in such a stubborn way that she comes off as a fanatical person more than a scientist."

Whether she manages to do anything is irrelevant.

 

"A hypothesis, sure but it is still not rational. They don't have anything that supports it and no a figure pointing at something isn't enough. Shaw basically says that it is because it is what she chooses to believe and that is just dumb. It shows on emotions and not intellect which isn't very credible if you are supposed to be a scientist."

So explain Holloway and Weyland.

 

"As far as 100% Christians goes I mean that she can't be a Christian if she also believes in ancient aliens. She might be a mix but she isn't a Christian."

With so many denominations of Christianity, and people within those faiths having a wide variety of views, to say anyone is or isn't "100% Christian" is nonsense. The Catholic Church acknowledges things like the Big Bang and Evolution instead of the more literal interpretation of Young Earth Creationism - is the Catholic Church not 100% Christian?

"As far as 100% Christians goes I mean that she can't be a Christian if she also believes in ancient aliens. She might be a mix but she isn't a Christian"

I think this is something i covered, when i said on one hand you have Atheist (Black) other Religious Devout (White) but there are many areas of Grey, if Shaw was like one of the more how do i say without upsetting a very touchy subject and percentage?  There are some who believe in Religions and lets take Christianity who have a very narrow and extreme view they take everything as Literal... in context to the Bible, people who still think the World is Flat, no Dinosaurs etc.

If Shaw was one of these, she would maybe not have even done the mission to begin with...

As far as the assumptions by Shaw, yes this is what evidence seems to point towards but she still does not have the 100% Proof of these things....

But we are led to them being the case... i.e the Sacrificial Scene... if they cut that Scene then the case could be that we have no proof they created us.

We dont know if they did, all we know is Engineers use their DNA to seed Worlds, but the clues and what Ridley have said is that this DNA is used and then altered and evolved over and over until we are the end product.

But they can still go anyway with this whole who came first Humans or Engineers, some theories that we are them.. they came from us or they are us in some kind of Time Paradox...

But i think the rational theory would be that they are some form of Evolutionary Ancestor to our kind.... i think the Argument will be put to bed in Alien Covenant as i think maybe the connection would be made more clearer.

One thing Prometheus as a movie never truly made clear, was whether or not the DNA of the engineers matched only humanity, or whether it matched all documented life on earth.

When you see the readout, Shaw makes a comparison of the "Sample DNA" and "Human DNA". 

This data suggests that humanity and the Engineers are basically a DNA match.
The engineer however, was contaminated with the black stuff, and probably already had a significantly altered DNA profile. So how useful is this data really?

In the movie Shaw not only concludes that humanity came from the engineers, but basically were responsible for "everything".
The movie brushes over this statement, as Holloway is behaving like a drunk dick during this scene, and it is never mentioned again afterwards, but Shaw's conclusion is shaky at best.

Like Big Dave my theory is that Engineers and Humanity (Together with organisms that share our DNA) have a common ancestor yet to be revealed.  What this is, no one knows, but perhaps Alien Covenant will shed a new light on the subject.

 

 

Considering how the decapitated Engineer looked (ie. not like Fifield or Holloway), it would seem he was killed before the accelerant took hold.

This had been answered by Ridley Scott...

The movie we had seemed to show how Engineers DNA Seed a world, and it could be any world its just how they kick start it all.   Spaights showed that it was a direct result of Engineer infected Nano Scarabs that bitten a Primate... but this has holes in that theory.

Prometheus we are led to be shown this is how the Engineers start of creation.... but Ridley said that the Engineers came back time and time again to further upgrade life on Earth...

The Sacrificial Scene thus did not lead to a Evolution over a long time to reach Mankind... the Engineers had came back and continued to Evolve Life.

However this was not shown clearly in the movie at all.

But we have to remember Shaw and Holloway would not have been aware of the Sacrificial Scene, and so they may only had considered a more direct route to our creation and not that these Engineers Seeded life all the same.

With the Engineers returning over centuries and millennia, it could be argued it was shown in the movie.

S.M. :

To say that their genetic material predates ours so hence we come from them is like taking a very huge risk. Sure it might be true but just because they have older genetic material doesn’t mean that we come from them. Let’s say that they study human genes and find an animal that has closer genes to humans does that mean that we come from that animal and not apes? Not necessarily it just means that we have common genes. Shaw seems to think that it is proof but that just shows that she isn’t a very good scientist (since this thread is a bout Shaw). Evidence, data what ever, it is just too much of a stretch IMO.

 

No, it is relevant (as far as reconciling faith and science). She still holds on to the idea that they made us and in a almost fanatical way. This is like if you believe the Bible and then you get a lot of material that shows that the Bible is very questionable at best but you still hold on to your belief in a stubborn way, to me that is fanaticism. If she would try to balance it with rational thinking and so on then sure, but she doesn’t.

 

Weyland was a megalomaniac (I wonder if he would be classified as having a personality disorder if he would be real) that wanted to get more life and so how is that relevant? He would probably be locked up if he would be a person in the real world that had that point of view (sorry). Holloway at least he didn’t believe in that as far as I know, he was more of a skeptic.

 

As far as my comment about 100% Christian goes I think that it is important with definitions and that they are as exact as possible. I don’t believe in any religion but I find it weird that she calls herself Christian if she at the same time believes that the Engineers made us. One can simply question if she is a Christian at all; that is all I say.

 

Like Big Dave says, I hope they will explain the connection between humans and Engineers better in Alien Covenant. Hopefully they will give an answer that makes sense even though I am more interested in the different monsters that the Engineers do.

 

Big Dave: As far as religion and Shaw goes I just think that it is important with definitions. I don’t believe in any religion. I just questioned how much of a Christian she is if she believes in aliens (the Engineers) at the same time.

 

Charza: That would be interesting to see what that common ancestor would be. I hope that Alien Covenant will explain that in some way even though it wouldn’t need to be the major issue in the movie.

I am also one of the folks who wonder why some hate the Shaw character so much.  So she is flawed.  Maybe a little goofy.  So what.  And I also totally agree 100% about her stupid comment of "no guns".  But she is an important link to the Prometheus story, regardless.

There seems to be much disdain for fundamentalist religion here.  That seems to be Ridley's theme and many are quick to identify with it.  If in fact our creators were an advanced civilization, who were mythologized by ancient man as gods, then yeah you can scoff at religion as ancient fairy tales. And dismiss Shaw along with it.  But the fact is we don't know one way or the other. 

This is what I find so fascinating about the Prometheus story line.  What are our origins?  I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, but I am also open to other theories about our origins.  And that is what they are: theories.  Until we know for sure, one way or another, I want to keep an open mind.  As David says:  "..that's why they call it a thesis, Doctor."  

 

 

 

Diz-

I have no personal faith, but do embrace the idea of creationism, though I'm not an adherent.

There's been much criticism of the ancient astronaut and religious references in Prometheus, but I found it to be daring and creepy in an epic way. The idea that we might find and meet our makers, and it goes wrong, is pretty terrifying. But I didn't go in pre-disposed to hate it, despite the internet's best efforts to taint my opinion.

Shaw's optimism and naïveté made her a complex heroine, and polarizing. She's not an ass kicker, which to me was a refreshing choice. We needed a second movie to see this transformation in full, and I'm fascinated to see what form she takes. Hopefully, if she is a bad ass, it'll be revealed in a single act of sacrifice, or betrayal.