Saw DaVinci Code

[Firebeetle]

I have to see this movie, if only to satisfy my curiousity about Tom Hanks's hair. Is it really a mullet, or just a psedo-mullet? Is it light and fluffy? Does it bounce? These are the burning questions I think are often neglected in light of the controversial topic of the novel.

spoiler It's not bouncy, in fact, it doesn't move at all.

 

[Piratecat]

Mmu1, please do not post any further in this thread.

Mistwell has been asked to take a break from it until tomorrow morning. Everyone else: do not insult religion. Heck, I'll go one better than that; do not discuss religion. Do not be rude to one another. Pretty straightforward, and thank you to everyone who has been doing this.

 

[Darthjaye]

Everyone else: do not insult religion. Heck, I'll go one better than that; do not discuss religion. Do not be rude to one another. Pretty straightforward, and thank you to everyone who has been doing this.

My initial post was to try an accomplish this, but it seemed to escalate anyways and bit back at me as well. Sorry I was unable to help. My reasoning for the original post I made is because I saw where this would go when it was going off topic.

That aside, I, for one, am now interested in seeing if the hype for this movie was worth it. Personally it wasn't at the top of my list, but with all the controversy involved here and in other media, I may full well have to go see it now. Miserly speaking though, it won't be for full price.

 

[paradox42]

I was mildly curious about this myself, largely because I wanted to see how Brown's treatment of the subjects matched up with what I've already seen in other sources- the Mary Magdalene thing being the most prominent example. As far as I'm concerned, the condemnations and calls for boycott by the Vatican are a reason to see the film, rather than not, and I intend to do so sometime this weekend.

 

[mmu1]

[edit: see post below]

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes:

If you need to contact a moderator or administrator, please check this thread in Meta for instructions on how to do so. I've passed your comments along to Kevin, mmu1.

Daniel

 

[Firebeetle]

The main reason I'm offended by all this is not actually the religious angle, but because I've read a fair amount of good historical fiction, and I hate to see this piece of junk included in the same category. It's bad history, bad research, packaged and presented in a sensationalist way designed to stir up controversy. It's hard to even call this thing a book. It's a product. Like something extruded oozingly into a mold in some kind of industrial process.

And I really don't care how many people bought it, just as I won't start eating at McDonalds on a regular basis based on how many people they've served.

Yeah, I totally felt the same way about "National Treasure"

I really think you're overdoing this. It's a thriller, it's fiction, it's dramatized. I would definately have problems saying it's not a book or that is was oozes into a mold of industrial product. Those would be Harlequin Romances. Industrial product doesn't take the risk of being controversial. The movie is apparently "toned down" from the book according to some critics, for example.

But controversy is important, it fosters discussion and within that dialogue people will arrive and further knowledge of self. A knowledge that may very well be opposed to the message of the book BTW. Today "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is considered racially offensive by some, in it's day Lincoln credited Stowe (the author) with starting the Civil War. Books can have tremendous impact. Opus Dei members have not been upset about the DaVinci Code and one leader said that he know members who had found their faith because of the book.

I don't think censoring this book, which is what you seem to suggest (such as burning it, or saying it is "not a book") is a bad suggestion and disturbingly facist. Similar statements to yours have been made about "The Satanic Verses" for example. You might not like it, but the book exists, people will read it, and you have no power or right to stop that. I'm going to pick up a copy with my next paycheck myself.

 

[Pielorinho]

Firebeetle, given that mmu1 may not respond to your comments, I'm not sure it's fair to address him further in this thread; could I impose on you to edit your previous comments so that they do not address him?

Thanks!
Daniel

 

[buzzard]

I've had no desire to read the book (conspiracy theory stuff isn't my bag). This didn't give me any motive to see the movie, and considering that the Wall Street Journal tore it down pretty harshly in the review today, I probably won't even Netflix it. I tend to agree with their reviews by and large (moreso than other sources at least). They had severe issues with the acting, direction, and script.

buzzard

 

[David Howery]

I thought the book had a fairly good idea that wasn't executed all that well. I found the most interesting parts of the book to be not the psuedo-history or the twisting of the traditional story of Christ, but the notes about the art of DaVinci. So, after reading the book, I went and found a big heavy book about DaVinci that showed most of his paintings, and checked out the painting mentioned in the book. Most of what the book said was true... except for the one about the Last Supper... that painting is so degraded, you can't really make out anything about it...