MOVIES: 2012 trailer - Vatican destroyed

WELL it OFFENDED me, too! I’m with the original poster!! I got upset over the Angels and Demons trailer. This is just sad!! Why would anyone include the Vatican – & THE POPE – getting destroyed? It’s awful! Did they have to include it? NO! It makes me sick! :mad: :mad:

I wish we could do something!! I just feel like punching the director in the face! It’s like I’m angry but can’t do anything! What.

**I do have one question, what is this prophesy of the popes? **

Remember, there has never been a time in the last 2,000 years when the apocalypse wasn’t just around the corner.

great article that refutes the whole 2012 thing. Written by an astrobiologist.

Also, I forget the website, but here’s a piece reviewing the trailer:

… then things to avoid in December 2012 include: flying, driving large recreational vehicles, being in or near the Vatican, the White House, that enormous Jesus in Rio. Because his arms might fall off.

The Prophecy of the Popes is a list of 112 Latin phrases that are attributed to St. Malachy. Basically, each phrase is supposed to be a one line description of each successive pope from the time of St. Malachy until the end of the world. Right now, we’re “nearing the end”, so to speak, because the 111th phrase is (allegedly) about Pope Benedict XVI. Thus, according to the prophecy, the next pope will be the last (and the end of the world is thus at hand). It coincidentally fits rather well with this Mayan prediction about 2012 as both events could conceivably occur at the same time (the next pope and the year 2012).

Of course, these prophecies have long been suspected to be forgeries, but some still like to bring them up. For more detailed info, check the Prophecy article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia and scroll down to the section “Prophecies of St. Malachy: Concerning the Popes” about 3/4 down the page.

I wouldnt read too much into it really. The scene shows the faithful gathered for prayer with a number of Bishops (?) and the destruction looks quite random/natural and indiscriminate. I wouldnt look to be offended by this. there are more direct attacks to be concerned about.

They most likely chose the Vatican and the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro as the locations to feature in the trailer because those are the most well-known landmarks (now that the Statue of Liberty, New York City and the Golden Gate Bridge are too overdone in disaster movies) that would elicit an emotional response from a North American audience. The target demographic for this movie would probably be a typical American Christian who may be curious about eschatology or armageddon theories. It does make a great escapist film for a recession. I suppose the destruction of the Black Stone of Mecca, the Western Wall or a Buddhist temple would be less dramatic for a Western audience because Catholic landmarks are more recognizable and well-known for this particular demographic.

I find it interesting that Columbia Pictures, which distributed Angels & Demons (along with Sony) is also distributing this film. A possible guess would be that they could have just re-used the animation work done on the Vatican featured in Angels & Demons to save post-production costs on this film. This isn’t unheard of as the White House interior sets used for Indepedence Day were also recycled, having been built for The American President and previously used for Nixon.

The marketing spin they went with for their teaser trailer in 2008 does seem to have gone in a different direction and both films were in production at the same time. The Vatican scenes probably weren’t conceived or finished yet and the studio was testing the waters.


As an American, that trailer doesn’t elicit any strong emotions from me at all. First of all, the tsunami happens in a remote mountain area detached from Western civilization. Second of all, the place is deserted. Lastly, I cannot relate to the religion depicted. The fact that seeing the Vatican destroyed elicited emotional responses means the filmmakers did their job right! :smiley: They would probably use this Tibetan footage for the trailers catering to the Asian market.

But anyway, it’s just a movie. Everything in the world gets destroyed in the plot, hahaha. It’s the typical formula film rehashed to deal with current topics and new locales.

I advise Christians to not see this movie. It will cause scandal. We must be exemplars of hope and faith. This movie is based on superstition, and we must not get into superstition because it is against the First Commandment.

Oh please there are tons of movies that are ‘based on superstition’. I’ll give you a hint, they usually involve ghosts. :rolleyes:

In the case of this movie though, I still think it’s pretty cool. I believe it doesn’t just show the Vatican you know. Most apocalyptic movies show many international landmarks being trashed. (The Pyramids of Giza, the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Libery etc).

But the point is they included the Vatican!! :frowning:

…anyway, I’m not seeing this!

So…? Are you saying that the Church should be constricted to that of a mere building? Was the Rock that Christ spoke of the physical cornerstone of the Vatican?

I think the reason the Vatican is included is obvious: where would the faithful flock to when the end of the world seems to be near???

I seriously only saw it as a gathering of the faithful at the end of the world and the destruction of it was purely due to “natural” events that do not discriminate – think of a huge earthquake hitting a city. Everything is hit. The physical building of a church, no matter what denomination, is made of physical materials – ergo, vulnerable to the laws of physics and nature.

I really think people almost look for ways to be offended. There are direct attacks and subtle indirect attacks, I think this is neither.

I agree - this is neither a direct attack nor an indirect one. It looks like a disaster - or series of disasters - of indiscriminately natural origin. It is very silly, catholic1seeks, to be offended by it. There is nothing offensive about it. Now, a strong emotional response? Yes, that makes sense. I myself felt overwhelmed and a bit horrified by that trailer, but as another poster indicated, that means they’re done a good job with it.

Frankly, I was far more horrified by the image of a huge crack coming down the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel right between God’s finger and man’s finger. More so than the destruction of St. Peter’s Basilica, that’s a very powerful image which seems to convey hopelessness and a feeling of alienation from the divine. I’m surprised there haven’t been more comments about that part of the trailer specifically.

But anyway, these images of destruction of places/things beloved to us do seem deliberately designed to elicit strong emotional responses. And apparently they’re succeeding - so good for the movie makers!

None of this constitutes anything even close to an “attack” on our faith. It’s not even disrespectful or tasteless. I think I’ll go see 2012. My brother disagrees with me and doesn’t want to see it, but that’s because he thinks it looks like a cheesy disaster movie that, artistically speaking, wouldn’t be worth his time. That’s a good reason, not one born of knee-jerk paranoia.

Yes, I agree… I know nothing of the director, but one article (GuardianUK I think) seemed to suggest that he was adverse to religion. The trailers do seem that way. So the crack between Adam and God was offensive (yes, I said it!! :p) even more so then the destruction of the basilica (but then again, the nice old pope was inside!! and all those Catholics out front get smooshed). Also, the cardinals are praying… their prayers don’t seem to be answered!

So I go on to say it again: why did they include it? They didn’t have to! For crying out loud, they should of at least showed the pope being safely evacuated!! – LOL. :thumbsup:

I think that the makers wanting to get a strong emotional response is similar to trying to offend people – but that’s just me.

I didn’t read this part earlier…

I think I have a valid reason. I don’t want to see the pope get smooshed, the visible symbol of our Church get demolished, and support a movie that seems to say God ain’t involved :eek:

Gee, imagine Hollywood putting out a movie to offend Catholics. That could never happen , could it? Actually with a few rare exceptions lately when ever religion seems to come up in movies it’s either anti-Catholic and even anti-Christian or it’s some heretical schmaltz. We’ve come along way from the days of George Pal (a catholic director) and movies like Marty (best picture of 1955) with a very pro-catholic theme. Sadly, we spend lots of money on their anti-Catholic pablum like DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons which give us messages like there is no God or He’s dead and it’s all hopeless. Have you ever thought that maybe if we quit buying into their garbage and wasting money on it, maybe they’d stop making it especially if we support possitive movies like the Passion of the Christ and Bella?:shrug:

That wouldn’t matter. Movies like that are only an unfortunate fraction of what they have to reel in the money. Even, if you were to boycott Hollywood, you’d have to include the other movies that don’t necessarily offend and a lot of people watch solely for the entertainment factor (e.g. Night of the Museum 2, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, X-Men Origins: Wolverine etc). :\

I don’t think it necessarily says that God’s not involved - but here’s the main point: is it troubling and disturbing to imagine the Vatican and the pope being destroyed by an epic natural disaster of apocalyptic and eschatological proportions? Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean that a portrayal of that is anti-Catholic - quite the opposite, if you think about it:

Imagine if this disaster (in the movie) had happened in the late 1930s, and a movie trailer showed Hitler and his top advisors being demolished by an epic natural disaster of apocalyptic and eschatological proportions. Who would feel horrified? Who would think, “Oh, how awful”? No one would - we’d all cheer.

The movie trailer, by contrast, is designed to make us feel overwhelmed by destruction that we don’t want to happen. So in a way, it’s flattering that so much of the trailer portrayed the destruction of the Vatican specifically. If the director thought the Catholic Church was bad, he wouldn’t have included it in the trailer. Disaster movies always depict the destruction of places that are the most beloved. Don’t you think?

I agree that we shouldn’t support anti-Catholic movies or movies that distort Catholic faith, life, and history. That’s why I did not go see The DaVinci Code or Angels and Demons. But as I explained above, it’s rather flattering that the 2012 trailer depicts the destruction of the Vatican, because disaster movies always single out for destruction places regarded to be the most beloved by the most people.

But I admit - and this part is more directed to catholic1seeks - that it was silly of me to imply that someone needs a “reason” not to see a movie. No one is ever obligated to go see any movie, of course, so under normal circumstances any reason is a good reason.

But I still want to see 2012 and do not in any way believe it is anti-Catholic. In a disaster movie, they pick the places people love the most - the best places - and show their destruction in order to make audiences feel overwhelmed by the devastation. Good for 2012 for realizing how important and beloved the pope and Vatican City are!

Read an article not too long ago were several anthropologist who’s specialty was Mayan culture stated that the Mayan calender was supposed to just start over in 2012.

Wow, this look sooo good I cannot wait to see it. Thank you for posting the link to the trailer.

Also does anyone know if there is a book that this is based off, I would love to read it first, the books are always better.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit