Saw DaVinci Code

[Mark Chance]

Dan Brown writes crap. That's the basics. A movie based on crap is, more than likely, also craptacular. Heck, Brown can't even get the title of his book right. What's next? The Adventures of Stratford-Upon-Avon? The Life of of Assisi? If nothing else, Brown should be boycotted for encouraging thousands of people to refer to Leonardo as "Da Vinci."

 

[DonTadow]

The rumors of the movie being bad doesnt surprise me when you think of how powerful particular organizations are in the world and that they have their own marketing team working against the film for a year. Even the "bad" ratings don't surprise me. I work in media and have seen articles and reviews swayed over corporate and religious antics plenty of times.

Im still not overly impressed with the Da Vinci code thoug has a work. A great deal I believe is true (and its aparent now that a new lost book of the bible is released every other year), but this is stuff that has been in other non-fiction books for years. I read a ton of books impplicating with substantial proof the things indicated in the Da Vinci Code. And that was 10 years ago.

I almost find it kinda comical that these things don't get brought to light until a "noted" "american" author says it. The comments so far don't surprise me either. Its like kids tossing the milk and dumping the cookies after reacting to the news that Santa Clause really wasn't real

 

[Black Omega]

I'll probably skip the movie. X-Men: Last Stand is too close and much higher up my range of movies I want to see. I'll skip the religious discussion, despite the temptation. This is not the board for it, no matter if you consider the book to use truth or fabrications.

I might rent it though. I'm a conspiracy movie fan and I can usually find an idea or two worth stealing for the games I run. And that's the main thing for me. I run a modern superntural game where half the group is hunted by a church black ops group. Any good conispiracy I can find a use for.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'll Netflix it since I plan on reading the book first.

 

[Firebeetle]

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?

I appreciate your sense of fairness, but mmu1 has lost his right to speak by his own actions. I will not re-edit because of his loss of priviledge. In short, that's his problem and not mine.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Read a couple of reviews of it: both seem to agree that the movie lacks any real emotion or conviction. Apparently they have made Langdon into a skeptic in the movie and Hanks doesn't have much to work with and as a result falls a little flat.

I like this line from the Boston Globe review:

As a film derived from a book, ''The Da Vinci Code" isn't a fiasco on the order of ''The Bonfire of the Vanities" nor is it a triumph a la ''The Lord of the Rings." Instead, it's an acceptable but uninspired simulacrum: an overly faithful multiplex translation of a very, very popular airport novel.

 

[Darthjaye]

I appreciate your sense of fairness, but mmu1 has lost his right to speak by his own actions. I will not re-edit because of his loss of priviledge. In short, that's his problem and not mine.

Actually I think what is meant is that he's gone, so let's just drop that part of the discussion. I'm not discontinuining that part of the discussion because it's unfair to do so for mmu1's sake, as he showed no respect to anyone here, but rather because it's the higher road to take. Your better than that, so let's just let it go.

On the main topic though, did anyone see Ian McKellen's stint on Real Time with Bill Maher a couple of weeks back? He made some valid points about how people (including the Vatican) were simply over-reacting. He pointed out, as well, that by doing so, they just helped the movies advertising. The rest, I can't unfortunately go into here as it would incite some equally lengthy arguements, but it was worth watching.

 

[Banshee16]

I see... You make an unsupported assumption and I'm supposed to try to prove it wrong... At which point, in response to any argument I can muster, you can just make another appeal to ignorance. No thanks, not interested in playing that game.

Let me put this back to you. I haven't read the Davinci Code yet. I *have* read Angels & Demons. I've been waiting for someone else to finish DC first, as we're sharing a copy, and she's a slower reader, so it's been a wait.

I'm familiar with several of the ideas Dan Brown brings up in the novel, as well as ones brought up in Angels & Demons, and know that in both cases, there is a level of fact to some of the things he bases his novel(s) on. Not saying it's all true, but there are some kernels in there, and he then takes those kernels and builds a yarn, which *is* a fiction (as in not true), upon those kernels.

If one were to take the novels (or the ideas within it) as "gospel truth", it would be an error....but that doesn't mean there's *no* truth to *anything* in the novel.

So, rather than getting snarky, why not just answer the question? I had posted a much more detailed question last night, but was having technical problems with the message boards, and gave up after spending 20 minutes trying to get it to accept my post.

It should be possible to discuss this without being rude to each other.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

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.

Whoops...found my post from last night, saw Mmu1's response, and posted one. I think it was toned back enough, but I can edit if neceesary. I don't think the fact that he's not here invalidates the point I was making.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

I almost find it kinda comical that these things don't get brought to light until a "noted" "american" author says it. The comments so far don't surprise me either. Its like kids tossing the milk and dumping the cookies after reacting to the news that Santa Clause really wasn't real

Don't get me started Outside of the US, many people get very frustrated with that.

I think that all Dan Brown really did was find a bunch of theories, and some possibly true facts, and assemble them into a story that would hopefully have mass appeal. If you read books like Holy Blood Holy Grail, The Dark Matter Campaign Setting, and all kinds of stuff that was written *before* the Da Vinci Code, it's possible to read many of the ideas that Dan Brown included in his book....it's just that those books were not widely dispersed through the popular consciousness.

Having referenced those books, I'll qualify my statement by saying that I'm not claiming either of those works to be "non-fiction".....simply that the many of the ideas that the Da Vinci Code supposedly deals with were also contained within them (among others).

Banshee