The Vatican expects more out of the sequel too!

They should be thankful Shaw didn't throw her cross away in the end. All i'm saying... Also. Really, that's how they interpreted the movie? Monstrous beings who sacrifice themselves to save the Earth... WHAAAAAAA?!

I can definitely see their concern. I may not agree with it but they have every right to question a form of art that challenges the every foundations on which Christians base their faith on (me included). In all honesty though, I personally thought that Scott was trying to show why and how dangerous it is to put the core of ones soul on quantative facts. Think about it: Engineers create us, we find out that they created us, they decide to literally play God and try to destory us and/or use us as target dummies for the most potent weapon that we know of, weapon turns against them with the only survivor of the whole ordeal being the one who kept true to her faith and used it question the authenticity of not only the mission objectives, but false status of the Engineers. Thats just me though. I'm sure y'all disagree in some way

UUm.. i'm intrigued. Is there an English translation of the article?

Actually... come to think of it. I hope they put pressure on it, and make SURE it's an exponential improvement over Prometheus. If the movie disappoints, they send Paul Bettany to systematically kill everyone involved in the movie. YEAH!

Yet Shaw in the movie, questioned about her faith, aswered with a question: "And who created them?" Trully, if I discovered that Earth humans were engineered by an alien species, this does not affect my faith in the slightest way, just makes me more impressed by the ingenuity and proficiency of God as in the One Creator. Really, that is how I feel, and it was nice to see Shaw reactions. One could interpret it in many ways, one of those is that her faith is more than mere words. I like that ^^

@Patient Leech I don't speak Italian, but my Spanish helps me translate into English. This is the best I can do, and corrections are very welcome from anyone who can provide them: [b]It's a Bad Idea to Provoke the Gods[/b] Ridley Scott, director of [i]Blade Runner[/i] and [i]Alien[/i], two films that have made history in the genre, returns to science fiction after thirty years. He does so with [i]Prometheus[/i], a decisively ambitious film that poses questions about the origins of life and the existence of a God, a creator. But, what was expected to be the prequel to [i]Alien[/i]—which even according to the director underwent a change of course—does not deliver on the delicate questions it raises. And, as a piece of cinematography, it doesn’t even compare with the two aforementioned titles, from which it draws considerably but not always in an appreciable fashion. So, as it has been proclaimed by both its own franchise and others, it all turns into an epic battle between good and evil—or actually—between humans forced to fight monstrous beings from other galaxies, sacrificing themselves to save the Earth; and the failure of yet another attempt to steal the secret of immortality. Everything is filtered through the construction of a new science fiction mythology, which seems all too fascinating to Scott. With [i]Prometheus[/i], whose journey should somehow symbolize the search for the supernatural that everyone carries within, Scott moves away from Cameron, whose [i]Avatar[/i] explored pantheistic visions in his world of Pandora. But, it doesn't succeed in finding adequate material, also because it gets carried away in the complexities of the universe that boxes it in. The script suffers from inaccuracies—quite substantially—without the surprises or that constant tension that permeated [i]Alien[/i]. There's also a lack of character development, which has the players come across as superficial. Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) was more believable than Elizabeth Shaw. From someone like Scott one might have expected more, though, despite the obvious imperfections, the film delivers some interesting and spectacular sequences. But, only in the final scene is the connection with the history that is supposed to connect to the background revealed. This is a bit meager for a prequel, which may require a sequel, but hopefully one of the highest caliber.

I find myself sympathetic to this text. it does not say anything we ourselves have not noticed, and does recognize the potential of the story and yet where it failed so far, but with hopes for the sequel. Nice critic and well written indeed.

Yeah, but he liked Die Hard 4.0. To tell the truth, I couldn't give a rat's ass what the Vatican thinks about anything. Not since they locked up Galileo in his own house for showing things how they really are.

@sukkal Thanks very much for the translation!! Unfortunately I didn't find it nearly as interesting as I hoped. In true religious fashion they failed to put much appreciation into the deeper ideas of the film and instead focused on superficiality. [i]"And, as a piece of cinematography, it doesn’t even compare with the two aforementioned titles."[/i] Um, whut?? Complain about what you will, but that's just [b]wrong[/b]. The cinematography is phenomenal. I guess I shouldn't have expected much from the Vatican, but I didn't think they'd stoop to the same superficial levels that the rest of the critical world did. The film is critical of religious dogma, but simultaneously supportive of spiritual inquiry (in my opinion), and it's no wonder that the Vatican didn't pick up on that. And isn't Roger Ebert catholic? He gave the film 4 out of 4 stars. @zzplural: Lol, yeah... who really cares what the Vatican thinks?

I liked Die Hard 4.0...................................

Humm.... Interesting to see some comments... Yet the critic was well laid and it does express well what the movie delivered so far...which is little and the little delivered is filled with plot holes and controversy/confused tones Great visuals but a yet confused story line/plot. Lets try to isolate the source (Vatican and all...politics in the end, more than true religious zeal...) and the text is good and well made. My impressions of the movie so far. Sometimes I believe the religius content (if any) is being really overweighed, and could sunk the possible really epic sequels as much as the Monster Movie route could... They should hire a true Science Fiction writer to advise them, an then follow the advices...it could really improve the whole thng. Ridley Scott is a very talented director but he is no author...Dan O'bannon and Ron Shusset made a wonderful plot back then... In an offtopic opinion, it would be great to see Ridley Scott maing a movie from the Culture Novels from Iain M Banks or the Night's Dawn Trilogy from Peter F. Hamilton (A well made scene with Quinn Dexter would make even a Xeno piss and run in fear ...)

What do science fiction writers know? [url=http://science.jpl.nasa.gov/people/Hand/]This guy[/url], a proper scientist, acted as an advisor during the making of Prometheus.

Oh, that... I should have been more clear...having a science fiction author there and follow those advices. Isaac Asimov was the advisor to the first Star Trek Movie and some of his advisories were followed but then quickly abandoned later... It is no use to have good advise and discard it later...and it happens very frequently... And in certain cases a scientist advisor is not as good as a [i]science fiction writer[/i] advisor...different points of view of a great many things ...

The end of the day its a movie thats trying to touch upon how we are created? But its a movie non the less, and its also Fiction, so they just need to ignore it, just because it goes against what the Bible is based upon, those who follow any Abrahamic Religions just need to ignore the movie, its a movie and does not mean its fact or its not saying that the Bible or Koran are well Fake Fair Tales. Its not like the movie is making a offense to Christ like that Innocence of Islam movie did to Mohamed. Or though that could change if Jesus was a Space Jockey lol... Look if i worshiped a Giant Peanut God and thus wont eat M&Ms because of this, and a movie was made that goes against what the Great Peanut teaches... Well i just either stop watching Sci Fi, or i just accept its only a movie, and does not change my faith in the Peanut God and if those offend him, then i say let them face his wraith and be turned into Peanut Butter rather than me resort to taking matters into my own hands.... PS i dont worship any Gods not even the Peanut God, well because i love M&Ms.. PS sorry if this offends the Religious out there... my point is they as free people can worship and believe in what ever they want and they should not let a Fiction movie offend or alter the way they view or have faith in their Religion.

Yes, I am a religious man, and I love science fiction a lot. Actually anime is way more daring when dealing with religious plots/concepts, and way more coherent in most times (not 100%, but nothing is 100% anyway...) And again, point out we are the end result of any alien experience and my faith does not sways a a bit, but gets stronger as life is more pervasive, proving God is ot there ^^

LOL @ BigDave... Nice.

;) I hope some dont take offense mind ;) I respect other peoples believes and i know some have a deeper faith in them than others and for some, well they can accept and enjoy stuff like Sci Fi and take a interest in Science without ultimately effecting their faith. Others can not though, there are some who would be offended by Prometheus but then these few would also be offended by Jurassic Park 4 as how can you bring back something that never existed. I just think that some who are drastically so devoted to their Faith take offense more, hence why Muslims Countries (not implying everyone in those countries are Muslim or Religious) have a higher % of population who are more devoted to Islam and take it very serious as opposed to Western Cultures who as a % are more Liberal and may read from the Faiths of the Bible be that Jewish/Christian or Catholic but as a % they to not seem to be as devoted as Islam and thats maybe way they take less offense. Over a Hundred Years ago these Western Countries was in general more serious and if we go back 300 years ago and started to make fun of the Bible, Jesus or even make a Story that Claims Mankind was created by Aliens then it would offended a greater % of people then as it would nowadays.

David is rejected by Holloway on film because of lack of emotions, he criticizes his nonhuman condition, now The Vatican openly criticizes film because "playing to be God...is not good". I think Peter Weyland's speech is more threatening than people thought, adds a touch of curse on the film, I think this speech given pause to many who disagree others.