BOOKS/MOVIES: The Da Vinci Code

[BomarrPunk]

SoDarkTheConOfMan.com (http://SoDarkTheConOfMan.com)

New trailer for the Ron Howard adaptation is up. I think it looks good. I liked the book as far as bubblegum mystery goes. Some good twists there and should make for a great summer blockbuster. Paul Bettany looks great as Silus. I could live in a world without Tom Hanks though.

[Virus]

This looks GREAT!!!

[Soontir Solo]

Yeah, the trailer really looks good. I think the movie is going to be great. Ron Howard movies usually are. And Paul Bettany as Silus is great I think. From what you see of him in the trailer you can tell that he is going to make for some great scenes. I cant' wait for this movie to come out.

I expect this movie will make a ton of money at the boxoffice, and then 2 or 3 years later they will make Angels and Demons into a movie.

[Kapit]

i just caught the trailer, looked pretty damn sweet

im definiltey going to read this book over break

[Brian]

I'm I the only one who can't see this trailer?

[Virus]

Originally posted by Brian@Dec 14 2005, 11:16 PM
I'm I the only one who can't see this trailer?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Yep.

I can't wait to see how the church complains about this movie. I love it

[Justin]

The funny thing about this movie (and the book obviously) is that it's assertions are based on a hoax (the Priori of Sion), historical innacuracies (regarding the Knights Templar) and one man's transcription error (changing San Greal to Sang Real) and claiming them to be facts.

If I were Dan Brown and I had believed the Priori of Sion had been true while writing the book and then being confronted with the facts about it, I would be embarrassed and go back and revise future printings of the book so that it doesn't state a hoax was real while not necessarily compromising the secret society theme (which clearly is a major part of the narrative).

Nevertheless I hear that it makes for an interesting story, but there's no real evidence supporting its claims (in fact there is more hard evidence against them).

Sort of like From Hell's assertions that the Freemasons were behind the Jack the Ripper murders when that is basically just a flimsy conspiracy theory.

[Master Cephus]

I read the book a couple of years back. It was ok. But as Justin said, he uses assertions as facts and is like "everyone knows this" in his story. I take the story with a grain of salt as far as factual, but the plot was ok.

I just hope no one gets messed up by watching the movie and trying to believe it as truth...it's almost like Michael Moore...

[Soontir Solo]

Brian: You probably don't have the latest updated version of quicktime. Try downloading the latest updates.


I read the book as fiction, and that is it. I didn't read this book to find facts about the Holy Grail and so forth. I don't think Dan Brown meant to educated anyone or try to devlop some new historical theory. He is writing a story meant for entertainment, pure and simple.

I can't wait for his next book to come out. I think it is supposed to be about the Freemasons.

[Master Cephus]

I think what Brian was saying was that the link to the movie was broken for a bit yesterday. I had to download the ipod version and watch it through VLC.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I read the book as fiction, and that is it. I didn't read this book to find facts about the Holy Grail and so forth. I don't think Dan Brown meant to educated anyone or try to devlop some new historical theory. He is writing a story meant for entertainment, pure and simple.
[/b][/quote]

I agree, but what I think a lot of people are saying about the book is that people who are searching might take this book as pure fact, which is not the case. It's dangerous IMO.

I have heard about his new book. It should be interesting.

[BomarrPunk]

we should keep the topic away from stuff that would belong in the religion threads... that being said, its really hard to even say that anything that happened before the dark ages (I'm not being specific style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif ) is fact... so, take it all with a grain of salt. What is dangerous is that people think that anything that is written is fact. These boards are a good example of that.

As far as the film making goes I gotta say that Apollo 13 and Splash are the only 2 Ron howard movies I like, both for guilty pleasure reasons so seeing Ron Howard and Tom Hanks work together may be OK.

[SuperPalpy]

I'm only on about Chapter Forty in the book, and I'm already looking forward to the movie. And I haven't even seen any of the trailers.

[Soontir Solo]

I am probably looking forward to this movie more than anyother this summer (well maybe tied with X3).

The trailers look good, its good some great actors in it, and of course there is Ron Howard directing it. I love how much publicity it is getting due to Opus Dei and the Catholic Church coming out and condemning it.

This week a Christian Bible group on campus is holding some discussion thing where they talk about how the book is wrong and blah blah blah. If I am Dan Brown I have to be loving this kind of thing. This movie is going ot make a ton of money and his book is still going to sell well in print because of this kind of thing. I read somewhere that even a albino civil rights group has started protesting this movie due to teh albino character Silas. Love it.

[Virus]

^I too love how the Catholic Church and religious people are going crazy about this movie. ahhhhh bliss :)

I'll see this opening weekend and it will probably be the first blockbuster that I see this summer.

[Justin]

I'm a bigger fan of the Da Colbert Code.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Justin@May 3 2006, 07:36 PM
I'm a bigger fan of the Da Colbert Code.
Quoted post


that is.....

something with Steven Colbert I am guessing.

[Ripley]

Originally posted by Justin@May 3 2006, 06:36 PM
I'm a bigger fan of the Da Colbert Code.
Quoted post

At least we know the Da Colbert Code works.

A couple of my friends are dragging me to see the movie. Hopefully Howard and the cast will improve on the novel(which I found to be terrible).

[Virus]

why was it terrible?

[Iknis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4989710.stm
well it didnt live up to the hype surrounding it..

[Ithorian guy]

I also really don't understand why religious people are getting mad. If they don't like the views, they shouldn't watch it and just pretend like the book doesn't exist. Really, did the atheists get this mad when "Passion of the Christ" came out? I don't think so. And the book/movie it is fiction. One thing I don't agree on though, is that Dan Brown makes the religious group Opus Dei look like a corrupt, murderous organization.

[SuperPalpy]

Yeah, the early reviews are terrible... Damn, that sucks.

[Ripley]

Originally posted by Virus@May 3 2006, 10:57 PM
why was it terrible?
Quoted post

Dan Brown cannot write himself out of a wet paper bag. Characters were flat, dialogue horrible, plot predictable, and the novel overall felt like a Scoobie Doo episode.

[JSunday]

I thought it was an entertaining, quick read....not to be confused with dumbed-down. It's like saying well Kiss isn't RUSH-level of musicianship so by it's very nature it's bad because it's simpler.

I'd rather read Brown than Clancy.

[The Bandit]

Dan Brown cannot write himself out of a wet paper bag. Characters were flat, dialogue horrible, plot predictable, and the novel overall felt like a Scoobie Doo episode.

Wow, sounds like Ron Howard is the perfect choice to direct this one then!

-- 2bq

[Virus]

I'm still going to see it.

[Ripley]

Originally posted by JSunday@May 18 2006, 03:35 PM
I thought it was an entertaining, quick read....not to be confused with dumbed-down. It's like saying well Kiss isn't RUSH-level of musicianship so by it's very nature it's bad because it's simpler.

I'd rather read Brown than Clancy.
Quoted post

Brown does not even reach the level of light read. The novel is a badly written rehash of Brown's earlier novels, which are equally bad.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Ithorian guy@May 18 2006, 03:08 PM
I also really don't understand why religious people are getting mad. If they don't like the views, they shouldn't watch it and just pretend like the book doesn't exist. Really, did the atheists get this mad when "Passion of the Christ" came out? I don't think so. And the book/movie it is fiction. One thing I don't agree on though, is that Dan Brown makes the religious group Opus Dei look like a corrupt, murderous organization.
Quoted post

Because because fiction or not, falsities have been written about our Savior, the man that suffered for us and that we have put our Faith in. It isn't the truth!

And even though many will realize that it is just fiction, many will believe and put their faith in the false stories.

And why should Atheist get mad about a movie made about someone that they don't believe in. Most movies are about a not real character! So to an Atheist, a movie about Jesus (The Passion of The Christ) is just another movie about a fictional character? Why would they have cause to get upset of offended?

[GuyontheCouch]

Originally posted by P-Ray@May 19 2006, 05:00 AM
And why should Atheist get mad about a movie made about someone that they don't believe in. Most movies are about a not real character! So to an Atheist, a movie about Jesus (The Passion of The Christ) is just another movie about a fictional character? Why would they have cause to get upset of offended?
Quoted post


I know this is getting off topic, but I just cannot help myself. Let's not forget that religion aside there is historical proof that says there was a man about 2000 years ago in that area of the middle east who did claim to be Jesus Christ, the son of God and he did die on a cross. That being fact there is no way that Jesus Christ was ever fictional or will ever be fictional in that sense and yes an Athiest could get cheeved over a movie which tells a religious story of a man who to some may seem to be deified. I am of the opinion though that some people just need to get over themselves.

[The Bandit]

Because because fiction or not, falsities have been written about our Savior, the man that suffered for us and that we have put our Faith in. It isn't the truth!

And even though many will realize that it is just fiction, many will believe and put their faith in the false stories.

You know, a non-believer could say the same thing about a Christian -- people read fiction and put their faith in false stories. :)

Roger Ebert had a good line in his review (I didn't get a chance to read it, but did glance before I came into work) -- something like "People who believe that Dan Brown's book is fact are the same people who believe that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11."

As for atheists "not believe in Jesus," you should be more clear. Historical evidence certainly points to his existence and life, it's the Divine aspects that atheists are not going to buy into.

I think everyone on any side of the fence here should just step back and take a deep breath. Personally I couldn't care less about this movie/book either way. From my perspective, Christian groups that are protesting the film are actually going to boost interest in the film -- conveying the idea that there is something in it that is verboten... forbidden fruit if you will. :)

-- 2bq

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@May 19 2006, 08:31 AM
Because because fiction or not, falsities have been written about our Savior, the man that suffered for us and that we have put our Faith in. It isn't the truth!

And even though many will realize that it is just fiction, many will believe and put their faith in the false stories.

You know, a non-believer could say the same thing about a Christian -- people read fiction and put their faith in false stories. :)

-- 2bq
Quoted post

Your right, but I have more proof than just Dan Brown's written word.

And I know, a topic for another thread!

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by GuyontheCouch+May 19 2006, 05:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GuyontheCouch @ May 19 2006, 05:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-P-Ray@May 19 2006, 05:00 AM
And why should Atheist get mad about a movie made about someone that they don't believe in.* Most movies are about a not real character!* So to an Atheist, a movie about Jesus (The Passion of The Christ) is just another movie about a fictional character?* Why would they have cause to get upset of offended?
Quoted post


I know this is getting off topic, but I just cannot help myself. Let's not forget that religion aside there is historical proof that says there was a man about 2000 years ago in that area of the middle east who did claim to be Jesus Christ, the son of God and he did die on a cross. That being fact there is no way that Jesus Christ was ever fictional or will ever be fictional in that sense and yes an Athiest could get cheeved over a movie which tells a religious story of a man who to some may seem to be deified. I am of the opinion though that some people just need to get over themselves.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
I know you must know this, but I was talking about the story of The Divinci Code as being fictional not the story of Jesus(which I believe wholeheartedly).

BTW, GotC, love your avatar! ;) :D

[Admiral DaaLa]

The response to the movie was a joke.

Catholic banning the movie is a disgrace and only shows a lack of education. If you are red neck enough to believe Tom Hanks instead of what you were brought up on then you surely don't understand the core values of Christianity in the first place.
Does the Church not realise that banning a movie will only give it more publicity? Does the Pope not realise that the Easter mass should be about a little more then latest out of Hollywood!

Furthermore the movie focussed on a sect within the church. EXTREMISTS are bad in every religion.

I saw the movie last night and after hearing the critics go at it with a hack saw realised that they wouldn’t get their two seconds of fame without it. Great movie see it once or twice it will give you something to think about.


This will be continued later when I have the time to highlight female discrimination, Spanish inquisition, crusades and indulgences in better detail.

[Talcy]

The Da Vinci Code

*Slow
*Turgid
*Tom Hanks looking lost
*Audrey Tautou playing one note throughout the whole film.
*Akiva Goldsman should have his WGA card revoked. Lazy, lazy writing. Too many extra lines explainging thiings we've just learned for ourselves. And you adapt books for the screen. You don;t transfer them literally. They are two different mediums of storytelling with diferent techniques for the same effect. Goldsman should have had that hammered into him when he first learned screewriting.
*Slow, insipid and heavy handed direction that looked like Howard didn't really care. A smashed wing mirror being the only sense of threat in a chase involving a Smart Car (they should really have played the odds on that one). Who cared? I couldn't have cared less.
*Springs to half life only in the second half, and not just due to McKellen, good as he is.
*Visually labouring the point (especially at the end - we know what he's discovered, we don't need to see it!)
*Horrid CG Roslin Chapel (but the place is covered in scaffolding just now)
*How long can one night last?
*Absolutely useless and visually patronising CG historical flashbacks that could have shaved at least $10m off the budget, slowing things down.
*Every scene being about exposition (a cardinal sin in screenwriting), but the only one that worked at all being the one that you could tell was the "exposition scene".
*Hans Zimmer ripping off his previous scores to create unpaced and unstructured sleep inducement.
*Obvious plot twists involving several central characters appearing long before they are due.
*No sense of time or narrative structure in the slightest.
* No sense of urgency, genuine threat or even excitement at discovery.

What a bloody shame, as there were some really interesting ideas up there. Someone should remake it in 10 years or so and zap the story with a defibrilator. It's shameful, given who was involved with the making of the film. Speaking as a Catholic, I already know a lot of the theories in there about past atrocities and from the church (note: church, not faith of the individual) and if one cannot question one's faith at some time or another, then I believe it becomes devalued. No organisation, religious or not, can exists for so long without moments of shame. And I don't know what the Opus Dei are so worried about. They should watch the film and see that the villians are individuals who are betraying their own organisation (with misplaced loyalty) and who are, indeed, being played by someone outside the whole religious scheme of things. But it was kind of weird seeing Tom Hanks at Roslin chapel - less than 10 miles from me.

Again, a real shame this was a rubbish film.

[Obi-wannabe]

Originally posted by Ripley+May 19 2006, 12:45 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ripley @ May 19 2006, 12:45 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-JSunday@May 18 2006, 03:35 PM
I thought it was an entertaining, quick read....not to be confused with dumbed-down.* It's like saying well Kiss isn't RUSH-level of musicianship so by it's very nature it's bad because it's simpler.*

I'd rather read Brown than Clancy.
Quoted post

Brown does not even reach the level of light read. The novel is a badly written rehash of Brown's earlier novels, which are equally bad.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

So why do you read them? :shots:

[P-Ray]

The response to the movie was a joke.

Catholic banning the movie is a disgrace and only shows a lack of education. If you are red neck enough to believe Tom Hanks instead of what you were brought up on then you surely don't understand the core values of Christianity in the first place.
NO! And there in lies the problem. We both know that people hang their hat on mis truths daily!

Furthermore the movie focussed on a sect within the church. EXTREMISTS are bad in every religion.

Very true!

I saw the movie last night and after hearing the critics go at it with a hack saw realised that they wouldn’t get their two seconds of fame without it. Great movie see it once or twice it will give you something to think about.


Again, that's the problem, people will think about it and then possibly believe it!

This will be continued later when I have the time to highlight female discrimination, Spanish inquisition, crusades and indulgences in better detail.


No one has claimed to be perfect here! You must then not understand the core Christian values yourself! It's called FORGIVENESS! We should all use it!

Sorry, I asnswered it like this but I had problems with the quoting! ;)

[Dutch]

30 MIL opening day

[The Bandit]

his will be continued later when I have the time to highlight female discrimination, Spanish inquisition, crusades and indulgences in better detail.


No one has claimed to be perfect here! You must then not understand the core Christian values yourself! It's called FORGIVENESS! We should all use it!

So the Catholic church commits all these bad deeds against non-Christians, and their out is that it's the Christian thing to forgive? Sorry, but do you know how absurd that is?

Again, that's the problem, people will think about it and then possibly believe it!

People can believe whatever they choose -- free will and all. The world would be a better place if more people were concerned about their beliefs instead of those of others.

-- 2bq

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing+May 20 2006, 03:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(2 Butterflies Quarrleing @ May 20 2006, 03:04 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>So the Catholic church commits all these bad deeds against non-Christians, and their out is that it's the Christian thing to forgive? Sorry, but do you know how absurd that is?

Quoted post
[/b]
So that's means that we should condemn you for all the wrong that you have committed.

It is absurd for you to think there is any perfection out there be it Christian, Muslim or whatever!

<!--QuoteBegin-2 Butterflies Quarrleing@May 20 2006, 03:04 PM
People can believe whatever they choose -- free will and all. The world would be a better place if more people were concerned about their beliefs instead of those of others.
Quoted post
[/quote]

True but what you don't seem to understand is that for Christians, Jesus calls for us to pass along his truth to others. So it his command to concern ourselves with others beliefs no matter what you feel.

[The Bandit]

True but what you don't seem to understand is that for Christians, Jesus calls for us to pass along his truth to others. So it his command to concern ourselves with others beliefs no matter what you feel.

And he also commands you to turn the other cheek, to do unto others what you would have them do unto you, etc etc etc -- but which takes precedence? Would you want someone with different beliefs than you constantly trying to convert you to their viewpoint with no respect for your own? Would you want non-Christians to picket and boycot a film based on Scripture?

Perhaps it's time to look at the bigger message instead of pulling out whatever chapter/verse suits your viewpoint at any one time...

-- 2bq

[Ripley]

So why do you read them? :shots:
Every bad book shows me another way not to write a novel.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing+May 20 2006, 04:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(2 Butterflies Quarrleing @ May 20 2006, 04:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>True but what you don't seem to understand is that for Christians, Jesus calls for us to pass along his truth to others. So it his command to concern ourselves with others beliefs no matter what you feel.

And he also commands you to turn the other cheek, to do unto others what you would have them do unto you, etc etc etc -- but which takes precedence? Would you want someone with different beliefs than you constantly trying to convert you to their viewpoint with no respect for your own? Would you want non-Christians to picket and boycot a film based on Scripture?
Quoted post
[/b]
Are you kidding? Where have you been living? This happens already all the time!

Look at the Non Christian people up in arms about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". All that protest and controversy helped it's sales.
<!--QuoteBegin-2 Butterflies Quarrleing@May 20 2006, 04:01 PM
Perhaps it's time to look at the bigger message instead of pulling out whatever chapter/verse suits your viewpoint at any one time...
Quoted post
[/quote]
If you don't even follow it yourself, what makes you the expert? And what gives you the right to tell people how to do it properly?

[Virus]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, oh hi. I just woke up from seeing that boring movie. I'll write a review later tonight but my god that movie was so damn boring.

rating: C

[The Bandit]

Are you kidding? Where have you been living? This happens already all the time!

Look at the Non Christian people up in arms about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ". All that protest and controversy helped it's sales I suppose.

The same could be said for this film, judging by the box office numbers that have come in so far.

I didn't ask you if it "happened all the time" -- I asked you if you wanted it to happen.

If you don't even follow it yourself, what makes you the expert? And what gives you the right to tell people how to do it properly?

I never claimed to be an expert, however because I don't prescribe to a particular faith does not mean that I must be ignorant of the texts upon which it is based. I'm simply offering my opinion based on my personal experiences and knowledge. It's something to think about, not to get defensive about.

-- 2bq

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing+May 20 2006, 07:27 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(2 Butterflies Quarrleing @ May 20 2006, 07:27 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
I didn't ask you if it "happened all the time" -- I asked you if you wanted it to happen.

Quoted post
[/b]
Of course I don't want it to happen but in reality we both know that it does happen!
<!--QuoteBegin-2 Butterflies Quarrleing@May 20 2006, 07:27 PM
I never claimed to be an expert, however because I don't prescribe to a particular faith does not mean that I must be ignorant of the texts upon which it is based. I'm simply offering my opinion based on my personal experiences and knowledge. It's something to think about, not to get defensive about.

-- 2bq
Quoted post
[/quote]
Thanx for your opinion and I will think about it! And I'm not defensive, I'm sticking up for my personal belief.

However, I find it hypocritical when someone gives me advice or tells me something from doctrine that they don't subscribe to.

[Admiral DaaLa]

Stand BY:I have a great post coming it will be finished in an hour....

Admiral Daala the 'Unforgiving' has spoken :p

By the way you don't have to subscribe to a fatih to have an opinion. Does that mean the heroin addicts are the only ones allowed to have an opinion on heroin addiction???

[Admiral DaaLa]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@May 20 2006, 08:04 PM

People can believe whatever they choose -- free will and all. The world would be a better place if more people were concerned about their beliefs instead of those of others.

-- 2bq
Quoted post


Well said! I concur! :D

[Admiral DaaLa]

So much to say so little time…

This has done wonders for the Church. It has brought issues other then paedophilia, corruption and third world issues. Issues that have plagued the Church within recent times.

No one discuss the main points raised by Brown. The focus instead has been on why the Church has banned this movie. Catholics are up in arms about protecting their faith.

Dan Brown’s Controversies:

That Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

It’s evident from reading Dan Brown’s that not a 100% accurate that it is well researched. (references to the Council of Nicaea)

So why come to this conclusion in the first place. If Jesus wasn’t married why isn’t it mentioned? During that era it would have been more unusual for a 30 year old man to be with out a wife.

The church believes this is not the case but the Church relies heavily on its interpretation of the Bible. The Church has controlled information that has made the Bible for some 2000 years. (It is the same as no one questioning my thesis and taking my word as fact.)

Furthermore Brown does not say the Jesus is a bad guy or he does not question Jesus as the Saviour. He just adds that Jesus could have fathered a child and turned water into wine. Why is that such a horrid deplorable idea? Quite frankly it shouldn’t affect your belief in Christ. He was God made Man. And as everyone has insisted its FICTION.

The Church has much bigger issues to deal with. Could you honestly forgive someone for raping your child? After your family have been devote Catholics? If so you are a better person then I am and perhaps a better Catholic. But I don’t believe that the Church can ABSOLVE itself from sin. The Roman Catholic Church is like any other corporate business except it relies on the core beliefs of Christianity and the souls of honest followers.

[JediGirl]

Originally posted by Admiral DaaLa@May 20 2006, 09:22 PM

Furthermore Brown does not say the Jesus is a bad guy or he does not question Jesus as the Saviour. He just adds that Jesus could have fathered a child and turned water into wine. Why is that such a horrid deplorable idea? Quite frankly it shouldn’t affect your belief in Christ. He was God made Man. And as everyone has insisted its FICTION.

Quoted post


Just what I keep saying all the time. It bothers me to read those oh-so-well researched newspaper articles that keep claiming Brown was depicting Jesus as an ordinary man. This is what makes people hate the book although they have never read it.
I think the books´s great, read it within a few days and did not feel at all offended although I am a catholic.

So.... anyone of you guys seen the movie already? I think I´ll watch it the week after next week or so... any reviews or insights so far?

[brookie]

just read the book... meh.

overrated. raises some interesting points and questions, and it is NEVER a bad thing to ask questions.

i find it hilarious that some people are offended and protesting a MOVIE. lmfao.

oh yeah, and in "the last supper" the person to his right is totally a woman. anybody with a pair of eyes can see that. hahha oh Leo you rebel you.

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a badly written fictional book suggested it.

[DarthSolo]

Haven't read the book, but the movie was a thorough disapointment. The acting was less than impressive, especially Hanks, which surprised me because I love him as an actor. The plot had some interesting parts. The sybolism and theory interested me, though I don't buy it. Overall, an overrated movie. I may read the book, though I hear it's not well written.

[Javen]

Originally posted by brookie@May 21 2006, 07:14 PM

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a badly written fictional book suggested it.
Quoted post

Afraid not. If he did then he would have had no reason then to even go to the cross. Cause then that would have made himself a liar. Which he wasn't.

[Sam]

Nor have I read the book. I went to see the movie on Roger Ebert's recommendation, that it's better than the book, which he didn't like. And I, for the most part, agree with Ebert's assessment of the movie. Despite some of the far-fetched plotting inherited from the original story, it kept me interested throughout.

I don't know what many of the other critics were expecting from Ron Howard, when they complain about him playing it too safe with the material. Howard isn't the kind of director who makes movies that are culturally explosive. He makes movies that are heartwarming (at least the good ones; he's made some that were not so good), and his ending was true to that instinct. I thought it worked, even though I could see the big surprise coming from a long way off.

I thought Tom Hanks' performance worked in a fish-out-of-water sense. His character isn't supposed to be flamboyant. He's a bookworm, caught up in an action thriller that he doesn't know how to deal with, except for where he can use his intellectual expertise. Audrey Tautau wasn't particualrly flamboyant either, but she played a strong character who easily passes Susan Isaacs' "Brave Dames" test. If you want flamboyant, there's Sir Ian McKellen, and the plot, it turns out, gives a good reason for why he's that way. One critic called Paul Bettany's performance, as the murdering monk Silias, "sympathetic." I thought it was a good performance, but I wouldn't call it sympathetic, unless that's meant in the Norman Bates sense. To me, the character was totally, wacked out, psycho.

I did have a problem with Jean Reno's character, the police captain, changing his mind too suddenly. There needed to be more of a process, as there was with Stephen Rea's character in "V for Vendetta" and Tommy Lee Jones' character in "The Fugitive." (One of Ron Howard's earlier movies had the same problem. "Willow." Joanne Whaley's character changed her mind too suddenly to be believed.)

I loved Hans Zimmer's score, especially in the final scene.

And did anyone else catch Ron Howard's Hitchcock-like cameo?

Though I did not read the book, I am familiar with some of the issues involved. Much of the case the story makes is corroberated by independent sources. Where Dan Brown got into trouble was when he went beyond these sources, to claim as authentic certain documents which turned out to be forgeries. (I got this, not from a religious source, but from the non-religious "Free Inquiry" magazine, which you'd think would support the book from an 'ememy of my enemy is my friend' standpoint, but they did not. They panned it. They have not yet reviewed the movie.)

To answer P-Ray:

I did not see "The Passion of the Christ," nor will I ever see it. I don't think it's a fair comparison, because the controversy over "The DaVinci Code" is an intellectual one, except for those reacting emotionally to it. (And I did have a problem with Dan Brown's apparently sloppy, if not downright dishonest, handling of the 'facts'. With that, he harmed the cause of intellectual freedom he was purporting to support. The movie is, understandably, more careful.) The controversy over TPOTC had more to do with its director's and Religious Right groups' clear intention to use the film's extreme depiction of torture as a blunt instrument to gin up emotions for the culture war. It isn't only atheists who objected to TPOTC, but also many Christians objected to it.

Many Jews objected to the way TPOTC depicted the Jewish people who were not Christ's followers, and its claim that Pontius Pilate was weak and bowed to the Jews' will. That's not only historically inaccurate (Pilate was a tyrant who didn't have to bow to anybody's will, other than those to whom he answered in Rome. He was eventually deposed for being too overbearing.), it's also a big lie that's been told for centuries to gin up antisemitism. Interestingly, in Muslim countries, TPOTC played very successfully as anti-Jewish propaganda.

On a side note, now that you've expressed how you were offended both by "The DaVinci Code" and, separately, by political statements people have made in support of "V for Vendetta," perhaps you can understand how I feel about what was done to Padmé in ROTS.

[Talcy]

Originally posted by Javen+May 21 2006, 09:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Javen @ May 21 2006, 09:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-brookie@May 21 2006, 07:14 PM

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a badly written fictional book suggested it.
Quoted post

Afraid not. If he did then he would have had no reason then to even go to the cross. Cause then that would have made himself a liar. Which he wasn't.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
That all depends upon which Gospel you are getting your info from. One recognised by the Church, or one buried by it.

The theological debate here is all very well and to be expected, but I was more distracted by just how sloppily put together this film was. Anyone agree?

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Javen+May 21 2006, 09:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Javen @ May 21 2006, 09:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-brookie@May 21 2006, 07:14 PM

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a badly written fictional book suggested it.
Quoted post

Afraid not. If he did then he would have had no reason then to even go to the cross. Cause then that would have made himself a liar. Which he wasn't.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Alright I'm trying to understand this from your perspective Javen. And disclaimer - I don't believe Mary M. and Jesus were a couple.

But IF they were husband and wife. . . how would that make Christ a liar? How would it make Christ less godly? How would it make him less God? How would it be sinful? And how would it have nullified his reasons for going to the cross?

Honestly curious to know your view on it. :)

[Javen]

Originally posted by Marbleman+May 22 2006, 11:23 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marbleman @ May 22 2006, 11:23 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Javen@May 21 2006, 09:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-brookie@May 21 2006, 07:14 PM

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a badly written fictional book suggested it.
Quoted post

Afraid not. If he did then he would have had no reason then to even go to the cross. Cause then that would have made himself a liar. Which he wasn't.
Quoted post


Alright I'm trying to understand this from your perspective Javen. And disclaimer - I don't believe Mary M. and Jesus were a couple.

But IF they were husband and wife. . . how would that make Christ a liar? How would it make Christ less godly? How would it make him less God? How would it be sinful? And how would it have nullified his reasons for going to the cross?

Honestly curious to know your view on it. :)
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

First off, what I responded to was not if they were a couple. It was Brookie's"and Jesus and Mary M totally GOT IT ON" which is an offense in itself. Sounds like something a 12 year old would say.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Sam@May 21 2006, 11:23 PM

On a side note, now that you've expressed how you were offended both by "The DaVinci Code" and, separately, by political statements people have made in support of "V for Vendetta," perhaps you can understand how I feel about what was done to Padmé in ROTS.
Quoted post

huh?

[MasterJedi12]

I've read the DaVinci Code and looked up the references that Dan Brown uses. Some are from reputable scholars. True I did find some inaccuracies but much of the info is consistent like Le Dossier Secrets and Le Preure de Sion. There are even quite a few on the Knights Templar. I was even able to get my hands on a copy of Holy Blood Holy Grail. Mostly they are just theories and even they admit that. I think in general people tend to miss a few words or they omit them unknowingly when referring to the works.
There I said my piece. The next speake may take the podium, or the soap box.

[Justin]

You do know that the priori of sion was a hoax, and the perpetrators have admitted it?

[BoHeDia]

i liked the movie and the book, and found them exhilirating, yeah i know its spelled wrong, but i dont give a crap...if ya didnt or dont like it dont talk about it or read/see it...geesh...

[Sam]

Originally posted by P-Ray+May 22 2006, 06:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(P-Ray @ May 22 2006, 06:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Sam@May 21 2006, 11:23 PM

On a side note, now that you've expressed how you were offended both by "The DaVinci Code" and, separately, by political statements people have made in support of "V for Vendetta," perhaps you can understand how I feel about what was done to Padmé in ROTS.
Quoted post

huh?
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
Let me clarify. There are movies that contain material you find offensive. There are movies that contain material I or someone else finds offensive. They may not be the same movies, or the same type of material. But the feeling is the same. I'm not trying to force you to agree with me or anyone else about the films. I am asking, however, that you respect the feelings of people who are genuinely offended by films that you like, just as you would have people respect the feelings you've expressed here about the "DaVinci Code" and, in a nearby thread, about "V for Vendetta."

What goes around comes around.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Sam+May 22 2006, 11:13 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sam @ May 22 2006, 11:13 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by P-Ray@May 22 2006, 06:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Sam@May 21 2006, 11:23 PM

On a side note, now that you've expressed how you were offended both by "The DaVinci Code" and, separately, by political statements people have made in support of "V for Vendetta," perhaps you can understand how I feel about what was done to Padmé in ROTS.
Quoted post

huh?
Quoted post

Let me clarify. There are movies that contain material you find offensive. There are movies that contain material I or someone else finds offensive. They may not be the same movies, or the same type of material. But the feeling is the same. I'm not trying to force you to agree with me or anyone else about the films. I am asking, however, that you respect the feelings of people who are genuinely offended by films that you like, just as you would have people respect the feelings you've expressed here about the "DaVinci Code" and, in a nearby thread, about "V for Vendetta."

What goes around comes around.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
Yes, it does!

Why is this targeted at me about V for Vendetta? I'm sorry, I'm confused!

And what does that have to do with the fact that you dislike Padme's death in RotS?

[bluemilk]

Originally posted by BoHeDia@May 22 2006, 08:09 PM
i liked the movie and the book, and found them exhilirating, yeah i know its spelled wrong, but i dont give a crap...if ya didnt or dont like it dont talk about it or read/see it...geesh...
Quoted post

yeah I enjoyed the book at well; not as much as Angels & Demons though. I'm Wiccan so I don't have a personal stake in the movie or the book so I was able to enjoy it for what it was; fiction :)

[Virus]

^is it? :)

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Virus@May 23 2006, 05:50 PM
^is it? :)
Quoted post

That'll get us started again! ;) :D

[Admiral DaaLa]

Originally posted by Javen+May 22 2006, 04:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Javen @ May 22 2006, 04:39 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Marbleman@May 22 2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Javen@May 21 2006, 09:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-brookie@May 21 2006, 07:14 PM

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a badly written fictional book suggested it.
Quoted post

Afraid not. If he did then he would have had no reason then to even go to the cross. Cause then that would have made himself a liar. Which he wasn't.
Quoted post


Alright I'm trying to understand this from your perspective Javen. And disclaimer - I don't believe Mary M. and Jesus were a couple.

But IF they were husband and wife. . . how would that make Christ a liar? How would it make Christ less godly? How would it make him less God? How would it be sinful? And how would it have nullified his reasons for going to the cross?

Honestly curious to know your view on it. :)
Quoted post


First off, what I responded to was not if they were a couple. It was Brookie's"and Jesus and Mary M totally GOT IT ON" which is an offense in itself. Sounds like something a 12 year old would say.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Absolutely...

When I read that I thought who can you say that about significant historical and religios figures. It is perhaps a colloquial way that you talk about your friends but not Jesus and Mary M. Very disrespectful.

[Virus]

Originally posted by P-Ray+May 23 2006, 06:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(P-Ray @ May 23 2006, 06:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Virus@May 23 2006, 05:50 PM
^is it? :)
Quoted post

That'll get us started again! ;) :D
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

haha, I know. Basically I'm just saying that you can't point your finger at one book saying it is fiction when the other book could be fiction as well.

[Sam]

Originally posted by P-Ray+May 23 2006, 04:59 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(P-Ray @ May 23 2006, 04:59 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Sam@May 22 2006, 11:13 PM

Let me clarify. There are movies that contain material you find offensive. There are movies that contain material I or someone else finds offensive. They may not be the same movies, or the same type of material. But the feeling is the same. I'm not trying to force you to agree with me or anyone else about the films. I am asking, however, that you respect the feelings of people who are genuinely offended by films that you like, just as you would have people respect the feelings you've expressed here about the "DaVinci Code" and, in a nearby thread, about "V for Vendetta."

What goes around comes around.
Quoted post

Yes, it does!

Why is this targeted at me about V for Vendetta? I'm sorry, I'm confused!

And what does that have to do with the fact that you dislike Padme's death in RotS?
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Or a more apt saying might be, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

You've expressed outrage here over "The DaVinci Code." I do not have the objections to it that you have, but I respect the fact that you feel the way you do about it.

"V for Vendetta" comes up, due to this exchange I witnessed in its discussion thread:

JSUNDAY: I'm guessing MANY who didn't like this film are conservatives. I can't see too many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans proclaiming this to be a great film, can you?
Yeah, me either. It's a film for the liberal-minded amongst us. To others its probably no more than just sentimentalized, idealized hogwash. Now put aside your polticial beliefs and prejudices and judge it as a film. I'm guessing that not unlike Farenheit 9/11, many conserblicans can't or won't do this.

P-RAY: ^This is quite offensive!

JSUNDAY: Don't be. It's pretty accurate.

P-RAY: Too late!


Since I haven't seen the other film you talk about, "The Passion of the Christ," I could not use it as a direct example of a film that offended me. I could only report how it has offended, and is being used by, others. So I brought up ROTS as a film which I did see and found quite offensive, and have been personally bashed for criticising. You have consistently given your support to those who personally bash me and other PT critics, even though I've asked you before to distance yourself from those who use such tactics. In light of your wanting people here to respect your feelings regarding "The DaVinci Code" and "V for Vendetta," shouldn't you be more respectful of people who disagree with you in the PT threads?

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Sam+May 23 2006, 10:42 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sam @ May 23 2006, 10:42 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by P-Ray@May 23 2006, 04:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Sam@May 22 2006, 11:13 PM

Let me clarify.* There are movies that contain material you find offensive.* There are movies that contain material I or someone else finds offensive.* They may not be the same movies, or the same type of material.* But the feeling is the same.* I'm not trying to force you to agree with me or anyone else about the films.* I am asking, however, that you respect the feelings of people who are genuinely offended by films that you like, just as you would have people respect the feelings you've expressed here about the "DaVinci Code" and, in a nearby thread, about "V for Vendetta."*

What goes around comes around.
Quoted post

Yes, it does!

Why is this targeted at me about V for Vendetta? I'm sorry, I'm confused!

And what does that have to do with the fact that you dislike Padme's death in RotS?
Quoted post


Or a more apt saying might be, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

You've expressed outrage here over "The DaVinci Code." I do not have the objections to it that you have, but I respect the fact that you feel the way you do about it.

"V for Vendetta" comes up, due to this exchange I witnessed in its discussion thread:

JSUNDAY: I'm guessing MANY who didn't like this film are conservatives. I can't see too many dyed-in-the-wool Republicans proclaiming this to be a great film, can you?
Yeah, me either. It's a film for the liberal-minded amongst us. To others its probably no more than just sentimentalized, idealized hogwash. Now put aside your polticial beliefs and prejudices and judge it as a film. I'm guessing that not unlike Farenheit 9/11, many conserblicans can't or won't do this.

P-RAY: ^This is quite offensive!

JSUNDAY: Don't be. It's pretty accurate.

P-RAY: Too late!


Since I haven't seen the other film you talk about, "The Passion of the Christ," I could not use it as a direct example of a film that offended me. I could only report how it has offended, and is being used by, others. So I brought up ROTS as a film which I did see and found quite offensive, and have been personally bashed for criticising. You have consistently given your support to those who personally bash me and other PT critics, even though I've asked you before to distance yourself from those who use such tactics. In light of your wanting people here to respect your feelings regarding "The DaVinci Code" and "V for Vendetta," shouldn't you be more respectful of people who disagree with you in the PT threads?
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
First of all Sam, I have never bashed you in the PT defense threads. I feel bad for you if you have been harboring something false for this long. I am allowed to support and agree with a point of view even if it is different than yours. Welcome to a debate thread! It seems to me that you yourself need to lighten up or move along because I feel the Galactic Senate will always be a place for differing opinions.

As for the exchange between JSunday and myself that also happened a while ago, I was offended at his claims and tone, not the movie V for Vendetta. I thought that seemed obvious! Plus that was between JSunday and myself and we harbor no ill feelings towads each other.

And thirdly, are you really comparing the end of a Star Wars movie to the belief or not belief of Jesus Christ's life? Pulease!

[Master Magnus]

It's just a movie, if anyone doesn't want to see it, then don't. The book (and consequently the movie it's based on) is a work of fiction.

[bluemilk]

Originally posted by Virus@May 23 2006, 03:50 PM
^is it? :)
Quoted post

the DaVinci Code? of course it's fiction; I believe it's sorted under historical fiction. The events and storyline that take place in the book are fictional as are the characters hence that would make it a fictional story *shrug* If you mean the subject matter, well I leave that to the experts cause I think the bible is a work of fiction (no offense intended) and since I'm not a Christian I don't really have the knowledge of the bible to make an informed opinion.

If you believe in the Priory of Sion then, well, I got a nice timeshare to sell you :)

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Master Magnus@May 24 2006, 05:04 AM
It's just a movie, if anyone doesn't want to see it, then don't. The book (and consequently the movie it's based on) is a work of fiction.
Quoted post

Very good point! :)

[Virus]

Originally posted by bluemilk+May 24 2006, 12:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bluemilk @ May 24 2006, 12:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Virus@May 23 2006, 03:50 PM
^is it? :)
Quoted post

the DaVinci Code? of course it's fiction; I believe it's sorted under historical fiction. The events and storyline that take place in the book are fictional as are the characters hence that would make it a fictional story *shrug* If you mean the subject matter, well I leave that to the experts cause I think the bible is a work of fiction (no offense intended) and since I'm not a Christian I don't really have the knowledge of the bible to make an informed opinion.

If you believe in the Priory of Sion then, well, I got a nice timeshare to sell you :)
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

I completely agree with your post. Thank you

[Admiral DaaLa]

Great discussion all!:P

but Da Vinci code was last weeks movie. X3 comes out today!!!:)

[Virus]

Originally posted by Admiral DaaLa@May 24 2006, 06:04 PM
Great discussion all!:P

but Da Vinci code was last weeks movie. X3 comes out today!!!:)
Quoted post


X3 will destroy Da Vinci code this week at the box office....but there is another thread for this.

[Sam]

Originally posted by P-Ray@May 24 2006, 05:00 AM
First of all Sam, I have never bashed you in the PT defense threads. I feel bad for you if you have been harboring something false for this long. I am allowed to support and agree with a point of view even if it is different than yours. Welcome to a debate thread! It seems to me that you yourself need to lighten up or move along because I feel the Galactic Senate will always be a place for differing opinions.

As for the exchange between JSunday and myself that also happened a while ago, I was offended at his claims and tone, not the movie V for Vendetta. I thought that seemed obvious! Plus that was between JSunday and myself and we harbor no ill feelings towads each other.

And thirdly, are you really comparing the end of a Star Wars movie to the belief or not belief of Jesus Christ's life? Pulease!
Quoted post


You have consistently played the game of not doing personal bashing yourself, but posting in agreement with the abusive posts of those who are doing the personal bashing. Plus, "lighten up or move along" is yet another in a series of slogans that sounds like "America, love it or leave it."

I'm offended by the tone of many of your posts in the PT threads, just as you were offended by the tone of JSunday's post in the "V for Vendetta" thread. It appears you believe that only your side has the right to be offended by something, while anyone who's offended by something you like should either "lighten up" or leave.

What the Christ story, "The DaVinci Code," and "Star Wars" have in common is mythology. Not in the "it's only a myth" sense, but in the sense of what Wagner observed as the power of art to move a culture. There's also Joseph Campbell's famous "The Power of Myth." That you choose to believe one myth and disbelieve the others isn't the point. The point is that they are all powerful myths, which can shape the culture for good or for ill. Each of us has the right to raise objections to forms of mythology which offend our cultural sense, and to not be personally bashed, or bashed as a group, for doing so. That includes not being told "lighten up or move along," for someone could just as easily tell you that in response to your objections to "The DaVinci Code."

If this is going to keep going back and forth, I think we should go to PMs.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Sam+May 24 2006, 11:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sam @ May 24 2006, 11:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-P-Ray@May 24 2006, 05:00 AM
First of all Sam, I have never bashed you in the PT defense threads.* I feel bad for you if you have been harboring something false for this long. I am allowed to support and agree with a point of view even if it is different than yours.* Welcome to a debate thread!* It seems to me that you yourself need to lighten up or move along because I feel the Galactic Senate will always be a place for differing opinions.

As for the exchange between JSunday and myself that also happened a while ago, I was offended at his claims and tone, not the movie V for Vendetta. I thought that seemed obvious! Plus that was between JSunday and myself and we harbor no ill feelings towads each other.

And thirdly, are you really comparing the end of a Star Wars movie to the belief or not belief of Jesus Christ's life?* Pulease!
Quoted post


You have consistently played the game of not doing personal bashing yourself, but posting in agreement with the abusive posts of those who are doing the personal bashing. Plus, "lighten up or move along" is yet another in a series of slogans that sounds like "America, love it or leave it."

I'm offended by the tone of many of your posts in the PT threads, just as you were offended by the tone of JSunday's post in the "V for Vendetta" thread. It appears you believe that only your side has the right to be offended by something, while anyone who's offended by something you like should either "lighten up" or leave.

Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
Your right this is gotten way off course!

I'm sorry that you have harbored such animosity for for long. It's all opinion and no one was warned for any of the discussion( flaming in your opinion). It happened so long ago!

My other piont is not "America love it or leave it". It is the fact that this is an all opinion thread. If you don't like it or can't handle it then no ones forcing you to come here. My example would be, if you don't like Howard Stern, don't listen to him. Or simply just don't turn to that station.

And I do agree, this is off topic in a way(however we are still talking about freedoms). I am done!

[brookie]

First off, what I responded to was not if they were a couple. It was Brookie's"and Jesus and Mary M totally GOT IT ON" which is an offense in itself. Sounds like something a 12 year old would say.


ha thats hilarious, tell me javen, do you have a degree in biblical studies? because guess what? I DO!!

AND im not 12 years old. i was playing around.


wrote my thesis paper on jesus' relationship with women in the 4 gospels. I believe that mary magdalene had a very unique relationship with jesus in the gospel of john. one that the disciples were jealous of, especially peter. i also believe that the elusive and unnamed "beloved disciple" was infact mary magdalene.

However, in none of the books that i poured over while writing my thesis, was it ever suggested that jesus and mary were married. ( the fact that i think they "got it on" is somewhat a joke and just my opinion.


oh yeah, and in "the last supper" the person to his right is totally a woman. anybody with a pair of eyes can see that. hahha oh Leo you rebel you.

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a poorly written fictional book suggested it.

magdalene was NOT a prostitute. any religious studies major (mesa!) will tell you that. for some reason holy mother church decided to pair the mary, sister of lazarus and martha with the chick who washed jesus' feet. and the woman whom jesus saved from a stonening. totally three different women. if fact the whole woman being stoned is actually not a part of the original text and was added later.

[Sam]

Originally posted by P-Ray@May 25 2006, 05:06 AM
My other piont is not "America love it or leave it". It is the fact that this is an all opinion thread. If you don't like it or can't handle it then no ones forcing you to come here. My example would be, if you don't like Howard Stern, don't listen to him. Or simply just don't turn to that station.
Quoted post


Yet, you're here protesting "The DaVinci Code." By your own logic, shouldn't you just not have turned to this station?

[Sam]

Originally posted by Marbleman@May 22 2006, 11:23 AM
But IF they were husband and wife. . . how would that make Christ a liar? How would it make Christ less godly? How would it make him less God? How would it be sinful? And how would it have nullified his reasons for going to the cross?

Quoted post


Good point. And I think the movie's ending makes this very point. Also, in terms of what I mentioned to someone else about "the power of art to move a culture," I found the film to have a more positive (and pro-family) message than what's in official dogma.

[Javen]

Originally posted by brookie@May 27 2006, 09:37 PM
First off, what I responded to was not if they were a couple. It was Brookie's"and Jesus and Mary M totally GOT IT ON" which is an offense in itself. Sounds like something a 12 year old would say.


ha thats hilarious, tell me javen, do you have a degree in biblical studies? because guess what? I DO!!

AND im not 12 years old. i was playing around.


wrote my thesis paper on jesus' relationship with women in the 4 gospels. I believe that mary magdalene had a very unique relationship with jesus in the gospel of john. one that the disciples were jealous of, especially peter. i also believe that the elusive and unnamed "beloved disciple" was infact mary magdalene.

However, in none of the books that i poured over while writing my thesis, was it ever suggested that jesus and mary were married. ( the fact that i think they "got it on" is somewhat a joke and just my opinion.


oh yeah, and in "the last supper" the person to his right is totally a woman. anybody with a pair of eyes can see that. hahha oh Leo you rebel you.

and jesus and mary m. totally got it on. ive always thought that, not cause a poorly written fictional book suggested it.

magdalene was NOT a prostitute. any religious studies major (mesa!) will tell you that. for some reason holy mother church decided to pair the mary, sister of lazarus and martha with the chick who washed jesus' feet. and the woman whom jesus saved from a stonening. totally three different women. if fact the whole woman being stoned is actually not a part of the original text and was added later.
Quoted post


Yet through all this and your lovely degree. I see no apology for saying Jesus and Mary totally got it on. But I guess that is to be expected from a pet. And I didn't say you were 12. I said it sounded like something a 12 year old would say. Plus there is There is no hint of any sexual or marital relationship between Jesus and the women who supported him. All of the evidence indicates Jesus was single.

And this book and movie completely cuts Jesus off from his Jewish roots. You wouldn't even know except for all this bloodline nonsense. That is really the worst part even though I know this movie and book are fiction. And if you now have Jesus, the 12 desciples and Mary Magdalene which is laughable. How many people does that make? 14, right? lol come on, Mary Magdalene is not in his painting of the last supper. Dan Brown has so many crazy things going on in his story that his facts are not even facts they flaws.

Davinci didn't even name his Mona Lisa painting. It was named decades later. Thta right there ruins his whole story right there.

[Marbleman]

Originally posted by Sam+May 28 2006, 01:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sam @ May 28 2006, 01:14 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Marbleman@May 22 2006, 11:23 AM
But IF they were husband and wife. . . how would that make Christ a liar? How would it make Christ less godly? How would it make him less God? How would it be sinful? And how would it have nullified his reasons for going to the cross?

Quoted post


Good point. And I think the movie's ending makes this very point. Also, in terms of what I mentioned to someone else about "the power of art to move a culture," I found the film to have a more positive (and pro-family) message than what's in official dogma.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

^ Nobody answered those questions by the way. I only asked because I'm curious not because I'm going to argue about it.

[brookie]

Dan Brown has so many crazy things going on in his story that his facts are not even facts they flaws.

thats why its a work of FICTION.

whats a pet? you better whatch what you say dude.

[Javen]

Originally posted by brookie@May 28 2006, 02:07 PM
Dan Brown has so many crazy things going on in his story that his facts are not even facts they're flaws.

thats why its a work of FICTION.

whats a pet? you better whatch what you say dude.
Quoted post

Or what? I said nothing offensive.

[tenorsaxgirl93]

i actually think that if the priory of sion existed....like gaurdians of the location of the holy grail...that would be so COOL!
I liked this movie A LOT!
see it!

[T-bone]

This thread needs to tone it down a notch.

It's a movie, folks.

[Admiral DaaLa]

Look all I can say is that woman have been discriminated against throughout history in many religions. Christianity /Catholicism is no exception.
Hence why the label women as Satanist, harlots and witches.

Originally posted by Marbleman+May 28 2006, 06:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marbleman @ May 28 2006, 06:37 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Sam@May 28 2006, 01:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Marbleman@May 22 2006, 11:23 AM
But IF they were husband and wife. . . how would that make Christ a liar? How would it make Christ less godly? How would it make him less God? How would it be sinful? And how would it have nullified his reasons for going to the cross?

Quoted post


Good point. And I think the movie's ending makes this very point. Also, in terms of what I mentioned to someone else about "the power of art to move a culture," I found the film to have a more positive (and pro-family) message than what's in official dogma.
Quoted post


^ Nobody answered those questions by the way. I only asked because I'm curious not because I'm going to argue about it.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Well I don't think that the above questions would affect my faith. But others will argue that it does make him less Godly because he is God made man not man made God. Theoretically he shouldn't follow in the footsteps of mortals.... I don't know not my argument.
Actually I think if he had a family it would justify the dying on the cross. He sacrificed everything even his family to save us all. Nice sense of drama :D
And Christ no matter what we learn what changes is not a liar. He didn't write the Bible it makes the Church look very bad though.

I personally can't see why he wasn't married. What do we really know about Jesus (please don't answer this with the Bible says in chapter blah blah). There's a good thirty years missing in our history books. I'm curious don't you think if he wasn't married it would be mentioned somewhere. A 30 year old guy now a days gets enough questions about when he’s getting married (in my house anyway) but in those days it would have been completely odd to be a bachelor.

Faith hasn’t changed because of a movie.

[Master Magnus]

I personally can't see why he wasn't married. What do we really know about Jesus (please don't answer this with the Bible says in chapter blah blah). There's a good thirty years missing in our history books.
Or rather missing from the Bible. There aren't any historical sources or artifacts other than the Bible that describes the life of Jesus. There's no way of knowing what happened during that time span, but Dan Brown has never implied that Jesus really was married and if anyone claims that from reading the novel or having seen the movie, then that says more about the person than the novel or movie.

Why don't people discuss the novel or the movie rather than the religious implication which is part of the fictional story? Did the movie meet the expectations?

[Trilogist]

Not that I agree with this at all, but ...

Jedinet: Da Vinci Code a Rip-off of Star Wars? (http://www.jedinet.com/miscellaneous/#59410,20060529,7826)

Originally posted by "opinion piece on fortwayne.com"
Upon seeing “The Da Vinci Code” this weekend, I can finally empathize with all the protesters I saw in front of the theater. My objection to the movie isn’t rooted in religious beliefs or even moral disagreements, but rather the disrespectful mockery of the world’s oldest and most famous story. “Star Wars” is both a literary and cinematic treasure, and Dan Brown’s recent atrocity is nothing more than blatant plagiarism of Lucas’ timeless creation.

The likeness goes far past incidental similarities and can be more aptly described as a rip-off. For starters, look at the characters. “The Da Vinci Code” features a faceless antagonist referred to as “teacher,” much like the part of the emperor in “Star Wars.” This “teacher” controls the actions of the Bishop Aringarosa (Darth Vader) as well as Silas (Darth Maul); both of which are sith-like pawns in his ultimate plan to find the Holy Grail.

The Knights Templar are unmistakably the knighted force of the Jedi, fighting alongside the Priory of Sion, or rebellion as the case may be. While the movie omitted the return of Sophie’s brother, the book features it as the two being raised separately after their parent’s death to ensure their safety. It’s almost too easy for me to draw this painfully obvious line from that to the Luke and Leia situation. Hanks’ character, Langdon, was only missing the Wookie Chewbacca by his side.

I only wish the comparisons ended there, but they spread far past similar characters. The church’s order to terminate the Knights Templar is the emperor’s “order 66” for the clone armies to eliminate all Jedi. A few survived to protect, raise and teach the last scion, just as Obi-Won and Master Yoda did. Not to mention my favorite scene where Langdon rescues Sophie from the Death Star. Either way, I can hardly wait for the sequels. I’m sure “Da Vinci Strikes Back,” and “Return of the Code” are going to be huge hits.

Any movie worth seeing must in some way take from “Star Wars,” and fiction is fiction no matter what the subject matter.

[Darth Chrisious]

I watched it and thought it was good

I think all the protesters seriously need to lighten up, it's the muhammed cartoons all over again

[The Bandit]

So Da Vinci Code is Star Wars and National Treasure is Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade?

Makes sense.

-- 2bq

[Admiral DaaLa]

Originally posted by Master Magnus@May 29 2006, 01:04 PM
I personally can't see why he wasn't married. What do we really know about Jesus (please don't answer this with the Bible says in chapter blah blah). There's a good thirty years missing in our history books.
Or rather missing from the Bible. There aren't any historical sources or artifacts other than the Bible that describes the life of Jesus. There's no way of knowing what happened during that time span, but Dan Brown has never implied that Jesus really was married and if anyone claims that from reading the novel or having seen the movie, then that says more about the person than the novel or movie.

Why don't people discuss the novel or the movie rather than the religious implication which is part of the fictional story? Did the movie meet the expectations?
Quoted post



Sorry it was a bad coice of words on my behalf. I post late at night generally when i'm too stressed to sleep.

The idea of marriage at that age and in that culture was rather normal. Well that's the impression I have. But like you said we really heavily on the Bible for historical fact.


Anyways off topic I heard on the radio (comedy show) that albino's were oftened by their protrayal in the movie. What's that all about! :)

[Sam]

Originally posted by Master Magnus+May 29 2006, 01:04 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Master Magnus @ May 29 2006, 01:04 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>There aren't any historical sources or artifacts other than the Bible that describes the life of Jesus. There's no way of knowing what happened during that time span, but Dan Brown has never implied that Jesus really was married and if anyone claims that from reading the novel or having seen the movie, then that says more about the person than the novel or movie.

Why don't people discuss the novel or the movie rather than the religious implication which is part of the fictional story? Did the movie meet the expectations?
Quoted post
[/b]

There are the Gnostic gospels, which, unlike some of the other things in "The Da Vinci Code," are real. It's also true that the early Church supressed the Gnostic gospels, because of their contents which conflicted with the Church's agenda. These included a stronger role for Mary Magdelene among Jesus' followers and an implied close relationship with Jesus. Whether or not it was marriage, nobody knows.

I haven't read the novel, but, as I indicated in a couple of my earlier posts, I thought Ron Howard's approach to making the film was mostly a good one, and he did pretty much what I expected him to do, considering his earlier films. Howard isn't the kind of director who would make a film that's culturally explosive. He makes his better films heartwarming, and he managed to do that with the ending of this one.

I'm not a Christian, so I'm looking at the film's message from the outside. But I think if Christianity adopted a message like what's said at the end of the film, we'd all get along better.

<!--QuoteBegin-Admiral DaaLa@Jun 1 2006, 10:13 AM
Anyways off topic I heard on the radio (comedy show) that albino's were oftened by their protrayal in the movie. What's that all about! :)
Quoted post
[/quote]

This can happen, whenever there's a bad guy who's a member of a minority group, and there are no other characters from that group to balance against the portrayal. But, since you heard it on a comedy show, it may have just been a joke.

A better example would be Professer Quirell in the first "Harry Potter" movie. I know it was unintentional, since J. K. Rowling wrote the book, and most of the film production was done, long before 9/11, but the timing of the film's release was unfortunate. Here's a movie where the guy in the turban turns out to be the one possessed by the evil, coming out at the same time that murders and other hate crimes were being committed against Sikh Americans, simply becuase they wear turbans and some stupid people believed that anyone wearing a turban was an evil terrorist. A Sikh at my office was very upset by the movie for this reason.

[Admiral DaaLa]

No they were being pretty serious about it.

I think sometimes people get a little sensitve. The Harry Potter movies are familiy movies plus Quirell didn't wear it to symbolise his religion he wore it to hide Voldi. Too many people take things to personally these are just ideas, actors. Ow well I gues sthe Da Vinci code shows just how sensitive people can be.

I thought to movie was great.

[Soontir Solo]

Yeah, I've seen the movie twice now and loved it both times. Preachers in my town were urging people to boycott the film............something comes to mind when I hear this kind of thing. What does a child want to do when his parent tells him not to do something? He automatically wants to do it of course. Movie probably wouldn't have been such a huge success if the church had just ignored it.

[T-bone]

Ok I saw it tonight. It was a little long but not bad. Thing is, it starts out kinda thick and then gets thinner as it goes on. By the end you just don't care.

I can see why people got all pissy about it but it's just a movie. It was pretty good but I don't think I'd see it again. It's one of those films that once is enough. I'll read the book maybe.

[Darth Darthy]

I put off reading the book so I wouldn't be spoiled for the movie. Within the first half hour you knew who the *bleep* of Christ was. And then it just dragged on and on from there. It was dull and the fact that good old Tom Hanks didn't actualy have a character (does he have a family, hobbies, a life - who is this guy?) didn't really help.
And they killed off the pyscho guy too early. He was the only fun thing about it. Apart from Ian McKellen who seems to make any turd slightly more polished. He should have been Anakin in TPM using those X-Men3 aging techniques. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Count Dookie]

I read the book and saw the movie yesterday. I really enjoyed it for its entertainment value. I don't knick pick movies and use them to be entertained and not think too much.

I like a movie that holds my interest. Even though I knew what was going to happen next I enjoyed seeing what I had only envisioned before.

Tom Hanks did a great job on the character....we don't much about the character because the author did not give us much to go on....so what!

All in all good entertainment and I look forward to the making of Dan Brown's other book....which for some reason I can't remember the name. It has teh character Robert Langdon in it too.

[Sam]

^ Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who liked Tom Hanks' performance in the movie. He underplays, but sometimes underplaying is the right thing to do, and Hanks knows how do it well.

I haven't read the book, and, in answer to other recent posts, yes, I did guess the big surprise early, but still liked it when it came. And I did care about the ending, which to me was the most meaningful part of the film.

[Sam]

Anyone else see the extended 170 minute European cut of the "The Da Vinci Code"?

[empire21]

Has anyone gotten the DVD yet?

[Virus]

I wouldn't even touch that thing....its EVIL!!!

[kopernikuz]

I picked it up... got the special one with the cryptex included. I had read the book a while ago, my wife did as well and then she went on an extensive research quest to see if what it was suggesting could be true. She came to the conclusion most have... that while it's a fun conspiracy, the ring of truth is quite far from the text. Dan Brown wrote a lark of a novel... but his research is sketchy to say the least.

Let's be honest... to begin any quest for truth based on what an artist MIGHT have meant in a painting is fine... but let's not forget... he was just an artist. To claim that the secret meanings in his Last Supper are anything more than him filing his own theories into his art, is stretching at best.

"The figure next to Jesus is obviously Mary M... so clearly Mary is more important than we think."

Um... reality check... DaVinci wasn't there. LOL

It's simply his interpretation... nothing more. If you are willing to take the time and do the research you will find some interesting history... but also find that much of what Brown purports in the book to be fact, to be quite otherwise. But that's okay... as long as we remember... it's fiction, right? Regardless of what Brown says to the contrary?

Anyway... the film did not help lend any credence to the case at all in my opinion... it comes off as even more laughable a notion as we follow the clues. It never really seems to make the conspiracy real to me... but I'm sure it's something to do with the fact that... it isn't. But still.

I'm a huge Hanks fan... but I felt he phoned it in here... he never really seemed into it... and there was virtually no human chemistry with him and the girl. The brightest spot in the film is McKellan who does a brilliant job playing an obsessed eccentric spouting the half-baked conspiracy as though it's truth. But he's brilliant in the role, and I enjoyed his performance, even as I chuckled at some of the absurd conclusions during the slide show.

I bought the DVD with the cryptex, because I love a good mystery or puzzle, and the movie does provide some interesting puzzles as does the book. The storyline however fails to live up to it's hype. Plus, my wife is a huge fan of art and loved researching while debunking the book's more elaborate fantasies. I bought her the illustrated one with all the art in it, so I got her the film with the cryptex, because I figured she'd enjoy the puzzle and using it to create puzzles for the kids to solve.

You'd be far more entertained reading Brown's far superior "Angels and Demons" and seeing the inevitable film version I'm sure is being greenlit as we speak. That book managed far more real chills and thrills and less hypothetical discourse.

[Justin]

I thought the movie was completely loaded with cheese, and had more than a few "oh come on!" moments. Every major event was completely predictable as well.

[kopernikuz]

I thought the movie was completely loaded with cheese, and had more than a few "oh come on!" moments. Every major event was completely predictable as well.

I can agree with that... it was those types of things that made the plot even less plausible than it was in the book.

[Virus]

I thought the movie was completely loaded with cheese, and had more than a few "oh come on!" moments. Every major event was completely predictable as well.

I dont know about that (I never read the book) but the movie was soooo boring and dull and I felt that it was going no where.

[kopernikuz]

Back in the news... sort of...

Analyst sees new images in "Last Supper"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291229,00.html

A computer analyst claims to have discovered new images in Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Last Supper," one of the world's most loved religious paintings.
But some experts were skeptical, dismissing the claim as another spin-off of Dan Brown's best-selling novel "The Da Vinci Code."

Slavisa Pesci claims to have discovered new images in the 15th mural in the dining hall of Milan's Santa Maria delle Grazie church by superimposing a reverse image on the original image.

When doing so, Pesci said he observed, for example, that the two figures on either end of the long table appear to become knights, and that another figure appears to be holding an infant.

"It came to mind to scan 'The Last Supper' and print it on transparent paper, then superimpose it in reverse on the original image. The result is a new painting, with other figures," Pesci said Wednesday at a news conference.

Pesci assigned no meaning to the images, saying he was not an art historian, but suggested it might have reflected Leonardo's well-known interest in mathematics.

But Alessandro Vezzosi, a Leonardo expert and the director of a museum dedicated to the artist in his hometown of Vinci, was skeptical, saying "The Last Supper" was so degraded by time that it was difficult to draw any new conclusions.

While he had not yet seen the presentation, he noted that computers lend themselves to any conceivable alterations and that some have inaccurately held that the artist's famed "Mona Lisa" is actually a self-portrait.

"I don't like to be negative, because I admire discoveries reached scientifically," Vezzosi said. "If this computer analyst did not make a historic discovery, I hope he created something artistically beautiful."

Reinterpretations of the painting have popped up ever since "The Da Vinci Code" fascinated readers and movie-goers with suggestions that one of the apostles sitting on Jesus' right is Mary Magdalene, that the two had a child and that their bloodline continues.

Wow. Amazing stuff. :rolleyes:

We still remember this is a painting and not a photograph of the Last Supper, right? So it means nothing to begin with? Why is this even still news? lol...

On further review though, I researched myself and I did discover there actually IS an extra guest in the picture... see my evidence below...

[empire21]

Buahhahahahha :rofl:

That's pretty funny! :P

[RollaFett]

Just saw this flick the other night, and well...YAWN.
I've never read the book for simple lack of interest, and the film certainly didn't change my opinion about that.

[empire21]

I'm still waiting to see the flick myself, but it's never on when I can actually sit down and watch it.

[RollaFett]

Just wait until you're really tired and having trouble sleeping.

[empire21]

Sounds like just the thing I needed last night. :giveup:

[nefertiti]

I liked both the book and the film. Whle the subject matter is controversal, the story mixes bits and pieces of history into a mystery. I wasn't offended by it's conclusions, but found myself asking the question all amateur writers ask, "Where does he come up with this stuff?"

It was good fun