Coming soon, a movie based on the best-selling and widely controversial book by Dan Brown, starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard.
I'm torn. I like Tom Hanks, I like Ron Howard, I'm curious to see what they do with this.
But I hated the book. Not for the subject matter -- that's old hat, especially if you read Robert Anton Wilson's stuff from a few decades earlier, and I don't have any religious beliefs to be offended -- but because I thought the book was so very badly written. It was if someone had decided to use all of the "don't do this" examples to write a novel.
But my biggest complaint about the book was that instead of being a good book, it read more like Brown was telling you about this good book he'd read, and that element will be gone with the movie. So maybe I won't be as annoyed with it.
I'm torn.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I like pretty much everyone who was cast for the movie so how can I resist? I admit I don't know anything about the actress playing Sophie (Ill have to jump to IMDB in a second) but I enjoyed the story in the book, and I think it will make a fun movie. Ill be going to see it opening night with the GF
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I havent' read the book, but the Church is so angry about it they are making me curious. They should just ignore it. Plus Tori Amos is interested in the magdelene thing and she is cool.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Brown's books read so very much like spec screenplays for summer potboiler/popcorn flicks that really...adapting them into films seems like a mere formality.
I'm religious, but I wasn't offended by the book because it was so utterly ridiculous.
Especially the "Oooh! This is based on real stuff! Whilickers!" reactions of certain people around me. Hee-hee-hee.
"It has to be true, it was in a book!" Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I think Paul Bettany's in this one too, and along with Ian Mckellen, that's enough for me. Tom Hanks doesn't really do much for me. I've never read the book, so I guess I won't be comparing them, anyway.
Ni!
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I'm excited for it despite the fact that I hate Dan Brown. I think it will be cool to see what Tom Hanks does with the role. Also, even though the book was awful, I'm excited to see all the places involved. But that's just because I'm a huge francophile and I've never been to France.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I haven't read the book but thought it would be fun to go see the movie. Between our two churches, both pastors have done series' sermons on the book, so I think it would be interesting to see how all what they talked about translates to the screen. From the descriptions they gave it sounds like it could make for an interesting movie. I expect to be more amused and entertained than outraged.
If I can get a sitter we'll probably go see it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm torn for the same reasons as Chris. I didn't find it terribly controversial. Not a new premise and even if it were true - who cares? But it was really stupid. The best code breakers in the world stumped by those clues? I think it was so popular because anybody could feel like a genius reading it.
But I like the cast...so DVD eventually.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
quote:I think it was so popular because anybody could feel like a genius reading it.
This is exactly how I explained it to my fiance when he was reading it last week. It's so true! But it will probably translate into a good summer flick because of that. Like National Treasure or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It will probably be a much better movie than it was a book.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'll see it if for no other reason than because it's a huge pop-culture event and I'd rather participate with the people who will see it than with the ones who will take pride in not having seen it.
But for the record, I think Hanks is horribly miscast and have little to no hope that he will surprise me.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Compared to Dan Brown's writing, the characters in National Treasure seem fully dimensional, despite being recognizable stock characters of the Indiana Jones-esque archaeological adventure quest.
*Thought it was a good film, though*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I will be seeing it purely for Audrey Tautou.
YUM.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
WHAT? She's in that movie? Oooo. I LOVE her. Now I think I have got to see it. After I see Superhero movies.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
She's like heroin. I mean, the heroine. Whichever.
*shivers in anticipation of fix*
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Mmmmm....sweet Amelie...
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think there were quite a few reasons it appealed to the general public and became such a craze.
1) His writing is very accessible. By that (in this author's case) I mean that it could be adapted to a comic book or screenplay without much being lost. It caters perfectly to the 10th grade average adult reading level in this country.
2) It is about a conspiracy. Like someone said in this thread, "anyone can feel like a genius reading it." He has a style that tends to make the reader feel like they have priviledged knowledge that the average person on the street does not.
3) It attacks Christianity at a time where it is trendy to do so.
4) The amount of controversy it stirs up gives it even more publicity.
Personally, I thought his previous book, Angels & Demons, was a better story (although the writing style was the same).
Edit: So yeah, to answer the question, I'll see it sometime the first week. After all, X-Men is out the week after Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm uninterested. I read the book, and that was enough.
I don't mind getting left out of popular culture events.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm uninterested. I read the book, and that was enough.
I don't mind getting left out of popular culture events.
Ditto.
I agree with everything that has been said about Dan Brown's writing - he's just awful. I even read another one of his books just to make sure that it wasn't a one-time awfulness. It wasn't. His awfulness translates to everything he's written.
I agree with what has already been said about the controversy not really affecting me. I wasn't offended because like others, I'd heard similar things before and the book was so ridiculous there was nothing to get up in arms about. I kind of agree that churches would be better off ignoring it, but on the other hand it has raised so many questions I think the church almost has to address it in some way just to satisfy those who do, for whatever reason, feel upset or offended by it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
More than a few churches in my area are using it to start conversations with their congregations, which I think is a great thing for them to do. Don't denounce it and give it more publicity; use the publicity it already has to help relate to your parishioners.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
Brown's writing and this book in particular is just an example of cookie-cutter template best-seller writing. He threw in some cool facts and theories but other than that, it was flat.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I want to see it, but I have serious problems watching religiously-themed movies. However, I think I will be okay as long as I have a large thing of nachos. My boyfriend really wants to see it, too.
-pH
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I listened to an abridged version of it on CD and it wasn't that bad. Maybe it was just better than listening to the radio. I want to read the whole book before I see the movie, and since I don't go to movies very often, I will probably wait and rent it later anyway. I think Tom Hanks was miscast as well and his haircut drives me nuts!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, it looks like I'm going to see it after all. My hubby mentioned he wanted to see it. There has already been talk about it at the fire station and on his jobs, and he wants to know what everyone is talking about and has no time to read the book.
So we're planning on catching it tonight.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I thought it didn't come out until next week!
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's not out till next weekend, sorry I didn't mention.
This weekend is Poseidon. Prolly waiting for DVD on that one...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh, wow, you're right!
When I looked at the movie times, it already had it listed. It didn't even register to me that they were probably selling pre-tickets and that's why it was listed. When I looked again, I saw the dates.
*slaps forehead*
I have no interest in Poseidon, the orignal was a good movie and I hate remakes of good films.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Brown's books read so very much like spec screenplays for summer potboiler/popcorn flicks that really...adapting them into films seems like a mere formality.
My thoughts exactly. It's a great way to make a lot of money. Write an exciting, provocative and visual screenplay-like story in book form... publish it... wait.
I wonder if someone could deliberately do this. I mean write a book with the direct intention to have it adapted.
Hm.
<.<
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wonder if someone could deliberately do this. I mean write a book with the direct intention to have it adapted.
I assume Dan Brown DID this. His protagonists are described as resembling specific movie stars, to make it easier for casting agents. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There are some elements of that in OSC's Magic Street.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Deception Point's character descriptions are almost entirely comprised of film star comparisons.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
OSC did that with Homebody. (The movie script idea->book, not the precasting descriptions)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Dan Brown writes like crap, but he's a genius with his marketing. That guy has been on so many TV shows, had so many books written about his book, now a movie. He's got to be so rich now, and all based on cookie cutter writing. His books all read like cheesy sitcom scripts.
Wow. I wish I could write such a cheesy book that makes me a billion dollars. Maybe I should.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I don't really like Tom Hanks but I'm going to go see it.
I definately liked Angels and Demons better but that could have been because I read it while I was actually in Rome and I could go see where all the stuff was. That was pretty cool.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Michael Crichton also writes like crap but he [was] huge.
Posted by xxsockeh (Member # 9186) on :
My old vice principal thought it was a really good book, so her, me, and two of my friends are all going to see it together when it comes to town. I plan to purchase and read the book so I can compare and contrast the two.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
xxsockeh - check it out from the library, trust me. You dont want to spend good money on this book. I was never so glad for a library card as I was after I read this book.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I thought the book was so very badly written. It was if someone had decided to use all of the "don't do this" examples to write a novel.
You know I thought it read like an outline for a suspense novel, filled in by a student. It is the correct pace, the correct story elements, interesting action going on, everything. But Brown's voice is so utterly without charm or immediacy, its as if the book is a retelling of a better story.
He is a writing teacher too. So go figure on that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was bored, although I liked the subject matter. I am also a Mason, so the whole thing amused me...it is about time another group got blamed for something, after all. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't notice it being badly written, but I read the audio book, and it was enjoyably performed, so maybe that's why.
Or maybe it's because I'm a plebe.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It seemed like it was written at about a 8th grade reading level to me, and even though I don't usually read mysteries the ending was telegraphed about half way through the book.
At least that is how it seemed to me.
I have found that a lot of bestsellers are better read aloud. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It seemed like it was written at about a 8th grade reading level to me.
Brown's books are chock full of this:
"Little did he know that before the twisted events of this night were to unfold, this little tool would save his life!"
My question is why would you even bother? It isn't like I'm going to say... WOW! Brown really knew his own book! Duh, of course he just went back and added in some scene were Langdon learns that you need four fava beans and three tablespoons of nitric acid to start an exothermic reaction or something... my science is ridiculous, but so is the writing!
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
By no means do I consider it great literature, but it was a quick, fun read. I recommended it to friends who don't normally enjoy reading, and it worked. Any book that makes people read again is okay by me.
And I'm definitely seeing the movie...mostly for Audrey Tautou and a little bit for Tom Hanks.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would go see a movie based on Angels and Demons. I doubt I'll get around to seeing this one. A&D was by far the superior "yarn" and hangs together as speculation a lot better too.
I don't think I'd be put off by religious sentiments as I don't believe any of what Brown floated in his book. I can view it as entertainment in an alternative history kind of way. But I just don't think I'd be all that entertained.
Too bad. I love to watch Tom Hanks. And I think Ron Howard is an amazingly good director.
But I'm not at all torn. I've got better things to do.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
When I read it, I immediately thought it would make a better movie than a book. Dan Brown's writing style downright bugs me, but the story sounded like a good movie, so I'll go see it.
The book has caused me to re-adhere to my age old rule about buying books: unless you like the writer, never trust a book where the author's name is bigger than the title. I suspended the rule because so many of my friends said it was a good book, but now, I stand by it.
That being said, I like the fact that it's gotten a lot people interested in reading and art history who normally wouldn't be.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I don't hate Dan Brown. The book was entertaining as can be. It's like, so easy to call it a cookie-cutter book. I think there's a fair amount of jealous posing in that position.
He's a better writer than any of you.
(No offense.)
I feel the same way about Ron Howard, actually -- I hate him for all the same lame reasons.
I gotta get over that.
The controversy didn't come as any great surprise to me, either. I'm very comfortable with the idea that Jesus was XXXXXXXX and XXX XXXX; in fact it's one of the *many* generally accepted but little discussed (at least to outsiders) tidbits of the church I grew up in.
So what I'm saying is I'll see the movie, God help me, and that Dan Brown isn't bad enough to hate.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
I'll go, if someone else pays. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, that's the thing. I see no reason to subject myself to the book. I mean, there's a movie. I'm strapped for time already, and if I'm going to read something, I want it to be something that I can be fairly certain will be good. Normally, that wouldn't be my response to any movie from a book, but in this case...there's a movie.
-pH
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'll see it if for no other reason than because it's a huge pop-culture event and I'd rather participate with the people who will see it than with the ones who will take pride in not having seen it.
I really, really like this attitude. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
He's a better writer than any of you.
Not so. I've read fiction by several members of Hatrack. (Some of it published, even.) He's a more famous writer than anyone here, but not by a long shot is he a better writer than everyone here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He's a better writer than any of you.
No way.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
TL, you think we're lying about the reasons on why we dislike Dan Brown's books...that we really dislike the books because we hate -him- personally, and because we're jealous of his writing skill?
Wow.
That's a pretty big leap from accepting that someone honestly thinks it's a badly written book.
I'm curious...why do you assume we're lying?
If there's one thing I've noted in my relatively brief time on Hatrack, the posters here tend to be extremely honest on why they like or dislike something.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
IMO, Angels and Demons went a bit too far at the end. I don't like it when writers overdo the endings of books just to make them that much more sensational. The same thing happened in a Christopher Rice book that I read. Too much man.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Puffy, clearly you are jealous of TL. Admit it!
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Not so. I've read fiction by several members of Hatrack. (Some of it published, even.) He's a more famous writer than anyone here, but not by a long shot is he a better writer than everyone here.
I completely agree. I put four hatrackers I can name off the top of my head well ahead of Brown every day and twice on Sunday. There's probably more than that, I just haven't read fiction by all the writer's here.
Famous does not always equal talent. Not by a long shot, to borrow dkw's phrasing.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:TL, you think we're lying about the reasons on why we dislike Dan Brown's books...that we really dislike the books because we hate -him- personally, and because we're jealous of his writing skill?
Not even close to what I said. Nobody's lying (it's something we're probably not conscious of), nobody hates him personally (why would we), and nobody is jealous of his writing skill (we're jealous of his success).
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Famous does not always equal talent. Not by a long shot, to borrow dkw's phrasing.
That was the same phrase my high school English teachers used to use when they were running down Stephen King.
Then I started reading Stephen King and realized he was a genius-for-the-ages kind of writer and that my teachers were fools.
Just sayin'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not everything fools say is automatically wrong.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Not even close to what I said. Nobody's lying (it's something we're probably not conscious of), nobody hates him personally (why would we), and nobody is jealous of his writing skill (we're jealous of his success).
Gee, so instead of being an informed, fairly well educated and well read person who finds fault with a writer's work because it's flat, with no real character development, and a hugely contrived plot - I'm someone who is unconsciously jealous of Dan Brown's success.
Isn't it just possible, TL, that those of us who don't like Brown's work have no ulterior motive and just plain don't like it? If we followed your logic, seems we would have an unconscious jealousy for all successful writers and tear their work apart too, but I don't see that here. There are some very commercially successful authors that most hatrackers seem to enjoy reading. But, a large number of us think Brown isn't a very good writer. I happen to be one of them. And the people who agree with me are people I consider well read, and good judges of fiction. I don't think they are people who tear down Dan Brown because they secretly envy his success, and I certainly don't feel that way.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Isn't it just possible, TL, that those of us who don't like Brown's work have no ulterior motive and just plain don't like it?
Sure. I never said otherwise.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not everything fools say is automatically wrong.
Case and point.
J/k
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I don't hate Dan Brown. The book was entertaining as can be. It's like, so easy to call it a cookie-cutter book. I think there's a fair amount of jealous posing in that position.
He's a better writer than any of you.
I called it a cookie-cutter book without one iota of jealousy. I am not a writer nor do I want to be a writer.
It's actually very easy to find this book entertaining and "intellectual". But when you get beyond the poor writing, you find that there is not a whole lot of dimension to the book. Sure, a few cool fun facts and some deliberately spiteful theories, none of which bothered me in the least, but the characters were flat and the story was weak, especially the ending.
Writing is like music these days too, notorious and flashy gets promoted over good writing.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
So you missed another really good actor in this movie. The second French is Jean Reno.
If you don't remember, he played in Nikita (victor, the cleaner) and Léon. He is in the big blue (Le grand bleu), another movie from Luc Besson.
And he played into an american movie : Godzilla.
With Audrey Totou (as Sophie), there is two good french actors.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I actually am jealous - that a hack writer with serious reality problems can get published, sell millions of books, have a movie come out with a great actor in the lead, and be set for life. At least Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton knew what they were talking about when they were making good entertainment books. Dan Brown is simply them at their worst and without the facts.
By the way, in answer to the question, am I going to see the movie? No desire. Will I ever see the movie? Only if its free and happens to be available without thought.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I had very little desire to read the book, but after a while I just had to see what all the fuss was about. While maybe not memorable, it was a quick and fun read.
I liken it to the summer blockbuster movie that is typically devoid of any intellectual thought and creativity, yet millions of people flock to it anyway. Nobody expects those types of movies to be thought provoking, yet they're hugely successful because they can provide simple entertainment without requiring much emotional investment on the part of the viewer.
The fact that these types of movies and books are usually the most successful used to bother me, but I've stopped worrying about what most of the population prefers for entertainment.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I was just skimming the thread, but then I saw Choobak's post and I will second that Jean Reno is an awesome actor. Leon had the US title The Professional and was an awesome movie.
Back on topic, I haven't read The DaVinci Code and I probably won't see the movie. This has nothing to do with any protest or objection to either; they just don't look interesting to me.
--Enigmatic
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
So TL, are you still maintaining that Dan Brown is a better writer than everyone at Hatrack (including, you know, Orson Scott Card)?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
So if i think Jessica Simpson's songs are crap, does that mean I'm really just jealous of her success while my career is still just in the singing in the shower stage?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:So if i think Jessica Simpson's songs are crap, does that mean I'm really just jealous of her success
Only if you complain about how unfair it is that she's making more money than you think her talent is worth while recognizing that those millions of dollars are coming from people that do value her talents. Although, that may not really be jealousy. Maybe more of a resentment over the reward system of a society that places a high monetary value upon ideals or priorities that you do not agree with.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
And I hate Carrot Top because I'm funnier than he is and I did't get to do commercials for 1800collect. Not because his comedy sucks.
This weekend they played numerous documentaries on the DaVinci code. From the very logical and historically grounded to the sensationalistic and dishonest. Interesting and pathetic.
Found this online: http://priory-of-sion.com/ The whole site is filled with evidence showing the falsity of nearly every claim in the book (and Holy Blood Holy Grail). Not very well organized (the site's layout, that is). But I found it quite interesing. Sad to see how easily people are caught up in rumor and innuendo whose validity is itself highly suspect- and then build fantastic castles based on that.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:So if i think Jessica Simpson's songs are crap, does that mean I'm really just jealous of her success
Only if you complain about how unfair it is that she's making more money than you think her talent is worth while recognizing that those millions of dollars are coming from people that do value her talents. Although, that may not really be jealousy. Maybe more of a resentment over the reward system of a society that places a high monetary value upon ideals or priorities that you do not agree with.
Just kind of joking about the whole Dan Brown/can't write/jealously thing. Someone was mentioning that the real reason people didn't like Brown's writing is that they were secretly jealous of his success. I think it's just as easy to dislike a particular artist's work, no matter how successful and popular with the masses, based on your opinion of their product-not envy.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Just kind of joking about the whole Dan Brown/can't write/jealously thing.
Yeah, and I hadn't really intended to take it too seriously either, but it did get me thinking about the motivations for hating a person or something they do. (My earlier post was not really directed at you. I was just making a general statement.)
In looking over the comments here, everyone that has stated a dislike for Brown's writing listed a very valid reason for disliking it. But I've heard a lot of people talk about how much they hate something without having a legitimate reason for doing so. It's those people that I think are unable to see the difference between hating a person and hating how society views that person. They think they hate the person, but often times the truth is they hate the fact that everyone else likes the person. I'm not saying that is what is happening here, but I've seen it happen a lot elsewhere.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
His style was good enough that I could enjoy the story. Its not as conspiracy/mystery novels become "books for the ages" anyway. Can you name one? <waits with clinched teeth for a smart hatracker to prove him wrong>
I too thought A and D was a better yarn then The Da Vinci Code, but I still enjoyed reading both. I don't think anybody who enjoyed it has said Dan Brown's writing is AMAZING, so the critics don't really need to criticize it. Most people say they like the story, attack that if you must.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Name of the Rose"?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:"Name of the Rose"?
There ya go! With the Rose, they took a rich book and made a flat movie. Now, are we going to go see what they do with a flat book? Since my daughter is a fan of some of the actors, I may see her copy when she buys the DVD. But, pay eight dollars? Not likely.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
About the name of the Rose, i highly suggest you to read the book writen by Umberto Eco. Really really marvelous.
[ May 16, 2006, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Choobak ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*bump*
It looks like The DaVinci Code underwhelmed the audience at Cannes. Here is a link to one of several accounts of the reactions to the screening:
quote:"It was really disappointing. The dialogue was cheesy. The acting wasn't too bad, but the film is not as good as the book," chimed in Lina Hamchaoui, from British radio IRN. (emphasis added)
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I may end up going to see this for a couple reasons. First off, my wife liked the book. Second and more importantly, some of it was filmed in the Lincoln Cathedral, which is one of my favorite places ever, and it'll be cool to get some nostalgia from the climax.
I read the book. I didn't hate it as much as I should have, and I'll tell you why.
I've had a bit of experience reading other books in the same genre. I don't know if there's a specific name for this literary style, but it seems to be both lucrative and horrible. It's in the same class as such nightmares as State of Fear and The Celestine Prophecy. Another one of those books where you can tell the author really just wanted to write an essay. But he knew that essays don't sell very well, particularly when they're on the subject of a bunch of made-up pig swill (or, in this case, made-up, plagarized pig swill). So the author puts together a bunch of cardboard characters, cuts his essay into wooden dialogue, and breaks it up with half-assed globe-trotting action pieces.
So, compared to actual literature, The DaVinci Code was quite the smelly smegpot. But, wisely, the author chose to put his book in a genre that gave it very little to live up to. Compared to other works of this type, it actually wasn't all that bad.
Anyway, the reason I made this post is because I just went to Rotten Tomatoes and there haven't been any reviews yet. Since it's going to be out in around 48 hours, this usually means that it sucks it so hard that they've decided not to screen it for critics. But I've never seen that happen in a big-budget Ron Howard/ Tom Hanks-level blockbuster. I can't find any evidence on the issue one way or the other. Anybody got any dirt on this?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I read the book. I didn't hate it as much as I should have, and I'll tell you why.
I've had a bit of experience reading other books in the same genre.
I know I hate linguini with cream sauce. I therefore avoid linguini with cream sauce. When I must have linguini with cream sauce, and I hate it, I do not say, "Well, as much as I hated that, it was indeed linguini with cream sauce."
In other words: don't read books in that genre, because they suck.
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
I want to see it. I agree about the writing, but the story was a fun historical fiction that just used some mystery to say "what if?".
Fun, no more threatening than "The Body" or the old religious debate question "what if you get to heaven and Hitler answers the door?"
How many history buffs haven't speculated on who really fathered the offspring of Henry VIII? Makes no difference, but fun nonetheless.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I'll see this just to see what the fuss is about, but I think by now I've picked up the important facts about the incompleteness of the Gospels that the novel refers to. I don't see why the movie will be any better than most other crime/mystery movies.
Audrey Tatou doesn't draw me to seeing a movie. She doesn't look exceptionally cute to me, and from the clips I've seen her accent sounds annoying when she's speaking English. Maybe I'd think differently if I'd seen Amelie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
GS, now imagine if the whole book hinged on the idea that armed Latter-Day Saints, agents of a global conspiracy, were attempting to kill anyone who figured out the real father of Henry the Eighth by reading certain sections of The Tempest backwards.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
That doesn't sound any worse than A Study in Scarlet, which, by the way, didn't offend me even when I did consider myself an active and believing Mormon.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I read the book. I didn't hate it as much as I should have, and I'll tell you why.
I've had a bit of experience reading other books in the same genre.
I know I hate linguini with cream sauce. I therefore avoid linguini with cream sauce. When I must have linguini with cream sauce, and I hate it, I do not say, "Well, as much as I hated that, it was indeed linguini with cream sauce."
In other words: don't read books in that genre, because they suck.
Good point. But to make things more clear, I'm not saying that I liked that book. I didn't consider it enlightening, I wouldn't read it again, and I wouldn't recommend it to my friends. The only reason I read it in the first place was because I didn't have to pay for it, and my wife wanted to be able to talk about it with me.
Still, although it was a waste of my time compared with any book I'd be likely to pick at random from the childrens' section of my local library, it still could have been worse. I finished the book somewhat less raging pissed off than when I'd read The Celestine Prophecy, which was more than I'd hoped for when I began. It wasn't anything like a fillet steak in garlic sauce, but at least it was like linguini that had most of the cream sauce drained off and replaced with a warmed tin of crushed tomato. Still not appetizing, but less nauseating than expected. Perhaps I'm just being an optimist, but taken on its own terms I considered it a win.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
A few critics/journalists are having fun with titles - could be an early sign for a trend:
Looks like this might tone down some of the organized opposition to the movie:
quote:The film was to officially open the 59th Film Festival at a glittering red-carpet ceremony also to be attended by French representatives of the Catholic Church.
One senior official heaved a sigh of relief after catching the preview, saying the movie was so unbelievable it posed no threat to their faith.
"There's nothing to get whipped up about, even for a member of the Opus Dei," said Marc Aellen, secretary general of a Catholic cinema association.
"I really liked the book -- as a suspenseful novel. But it was dishonest to mix fact and fiction in such a way. However, you just don't believe for one second in the film and that discredits the theory completely," he said.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I love this line:
quote:Ian McKellen, an openly gay actor who plays Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code, sought to make light of the controversy.
"I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married," he said. "I know the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought this would be absolute proof that Jesus was not gay."
rofl
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh...wow...
I'm glad Paul Bettany is getting good reviews. I want him to do well.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Rottentomatoes.com hasn't got one good review posted. 7 lousy reviews, 0 positive ones.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Cashew beat me to it! 0% so far on rottentomatoes. Surely it will go up, but not a very good start.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Its up to 6% tomatometer.
I should have blown the wistle on this a few weeks ago- in my experience any movie that doesn't have any tomatometer rating at all the week before it comes out is going to be bad. This is IMO because if a studio knows the movie sucks, but the hype is huge (just like this case), then they will withold sneak preview and rumor-mill viewings so that the movie is released "in the dark" as it were. This keeps the first weeks ratings guaranteed, but then then comes the dive in ratings.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I'm sure Ebert's check will clear in time for him to give it a good review, so it should go up then.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I saw one reviewer talking about how the studio had not released it earlier so that reviewers can see it. He said there was speculation they didn't do that because of the controversy around the movie. He then pointed out that perhaps they held the film from reviewers for the most common reason films are held - because they're terrible.
Personally, I'm surprised. Much as I didn't like the book, I figured with Ron Howard and Tom Hanks (though I wasn't crazy about the casting choices) they would at least have made a movie that was somewhat entertaining.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm not going to see it - but not because of any personal prejudice on the topic, considering I'm also a huge Tom Hanks fan....
..but I read the book. And I really just didn't find it that good/intriguing/interesting at all. Not a memorable piece of writing or even average compared with other things I have read and liked.
So I don't see how they could improve upon it much in a movie.
And seeing as how it didn't do too well at Cannes - well, reading those reviews even took the "curiosity" of interest out of me.
FG
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I'm sure Ebert's check will clear in time for him to give it a good review, so it should go up then.
It must have cleared because he has given it a good review:
quote:The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations.
And, as the Baron also predicted, the Tomatometer is now at 20% - not good, but better than it was.
Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
I suppose I can be the first Hatracker to review The DaVinci Code...
I work at a movie theater, and I'm a projectionist, so I get to preview the movies so make sure splicing is right and everything is in focus. Tonight, I got to watch The DaVinci Code.
It was...OK. I enjoyed the book a lot more. The movie cut out many of the book's greatest scenes. I won't post any spoilers here. I will say that the movie is pretty long and at some points it became, well, not quite boring, per se, but the action got a little slow. The music was mediocre and the acting was just a bit off for me.
Still, it was worth taking the time to see it. Very rarely have I ever seen a movie that's better than the book.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Periodically I enjoy a mindless read and when I read Da Vinci, it must have been at this time because I enjoyed it.
I will be seeing the movie. I've always thought that Tom Hanks was a weird choice for the lead character though (was it Tom Langdon? I can't remember).
Plus I have a theory, since I know it has not been well received, I will go see it with low expectations and probably enjoy myself again. It's the ones that everyone raves about and I don't get to before I've had 25 people tell how fabulous it is that I go and meh. Total let down.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I haven't read the book, but I saw the movie today, and I have to say, it wasn't bad. Better than I expected. A little confusing near the end(presumably not so much so to someone who has read the book), but all in all seemed much shorter than two and a half hours.
Of course, since I'm in the one percent of the population who hasn't read the book, it kept me a little more on the edge of my seat than most, I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I haven't read the book, and don't really have any intention of doing so, but I will go see the movie. It's in a genre that I generally enjoy, and despite Brown's writing mishaps, whatever they may be, it still appears to be a good movie in that Indiana Jones, National Treasure, Clive Cussler sort of way (even though I can't stand Cussler's writing, I thought Sahara the movie was bearable).
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
I was very disappointed in the movie. I didn't go in with high hopes, but it didn't even meet my low expectations. The Frenchies in the cast did a great job, but I didn't feel it from Hanks. I have read the book and I didn't appreciate some of the changes that they made-most didn't help the story progress or translate to film any better. Three hours from my life that I'll never have back.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I just finished the book, and will probably rent the movie whenit comes to DVD, but it's not worth going to the theatre to me.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Oh rats, romany -- we could have fun going to the movie and making fun of it all the way through. *pouts*
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I saw it last night, and I thought it was better than the book. Then again, I also thought the movie Jurassic Park was better than the book and the movie The Neverending Story was an *excellent* adaptation of the book. I know these aren't popular POVs, but hey. I don't hate Dan Brown at all; I gather his career was reaching a dead end when he wrote DaVinci Code, so more power to him. But, Ron Howard is a better story teller IMO.
Howard made the two main characters smarter. They solved puzzles faster and spent less time poring over them, then smirking at each other and the reader before revealing the solution. The scene in the plane when they solve the "under the Rose" puzzle made me want to cheer. Hanks looked at the code and immediately asked for the correct tool to crack it, which is consistent with him knowing a lot about symbology and DaVinci. He and Ian McKellan get into involved arguments about the Mary Magdalan controversy. Again, consistent with them both being very learned on these matters. The ending is a little different, but I think it's stronger.
But I think when you've got a book as popular as The DaVinci Code, people are going to be upset when the movie is different. They want the reading experience captured on film, and film is just a different medium.
The cinimatography made me very seasick. We sat towards the front of the theater, which I would not recommend if things like flight simulators make you woozy.
Posted by Julia (Member # 9244) on :
I personally felt like I was watching a stupid hollywood movie the whole time I was reading it. It was a movie on paper. It defeated the whole purpose of a book, and all the reasons I love books more than movies weren't there.
The saddest part is that it is my brother's new favorite book. I mean, here he was, a devout OSC fan, and now he openly thinks lower of me because I didn't like the book. He took more than a step backwards if you ask me.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I want to know why they decided to make Paul Bettany's eyes BLUER. Crazies.
Ni!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Ron Howard should get an award for this. The cinematography added the moral intensity that was lacking in the book. I didn't think that the book was provocative, and I only finished it because it was light. The movie, on the other hand, was a bit more provocative-- though it still ran long to me-- and definitely more urgent. I didn't like the book, but I liked the movie fine.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I saw it tonight. And look, the movie's no great masterpiece -- it is what the book was: a potboiler with lots of ridiculous twists that manages to make you enjoy it, somehow, on a purely entertainment level. The old donut metaphor: it tastes good but does it actually nourish you? No. But it *tastes* good damn it.
The movie bored the crap out of me, frankly -- but I think just because I'd already read the book.
There were two interesting scenes, for me.
1) Teabing's little presentation on the Last Supper.
2) Langdon figuring out the real location of the Holy Grail at the end.
Somehow I found that uplifting in a way I can't explain. (Felt the same thing at the end of the novel, actually.)
I'd give the movie 2.3671 stars.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought it was pretty damned good. And though I said before that I have no intention of reading the book, I just might. I'm not in a rush to get it, but if someone lends me a copy I'll probably read it when I have the time.
I love these kinds of movies, the kooky "what if" movies that have something like 70% real history, 20% warped history and 10% absolute nonsense that just barely fits in. Say what you will about the writing, but it comes off very well in movie form, and takes just enough real history and examination of coincidence to make the whole crazy thing sound plausible. And that's all that matters to accept suspension of disbelief.
I liked this film a heck of a lot more than I thought I would. It was like National Treasure on, well not steroids, but it was a darker, much more gritty, I guess, thread of the same genre.
Also, to anyone who has seen it, (so I guess SPOILER WARNING):
I got Star Wars vibes from some of it. The whole execution of the Templar Knights who were gaining too much power all simultaneously through papal order from the Pope (Emperor) sounded a heck of a lot like killing off the Jedi with Order 66. Well, really that was the only Star Wars vibe I got, but it was pretty specific. END SPOILER
I'm curious as to how much exactly, of the movie is based on fact. I know the whole Constantine, Council of Nicea thing is correct, and some of the background they did, and Templars, French and the Crusades, that was all right too. I'll have to email one of my history profs, he specializes in European Monastic history (a fairly broad topic as is), and might have seen the film (though he tends to dislike watching movies, especially history movies, except to rip them limb from limb).
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Lyrhawn-
I had almost the opposite reaction as you did. I saw the movie last night and was quite bored for the first hour and 45 minutes. Of course, I had read the book twice, so I'm sure that influenced it. My wife, who hasn't read it, said she enjoyed it, although it was a little slow at parts.
What bugged me most was Tom Hanks. He just didn't seem to fit the role as Robert Langdon. It didn't help that the dialogue just didn't seem there. I also felt that there was an genuine lack of chemistry between Audrey and Tom. I thought the best performance the guy playing Fache.
My honest recommendation would be- if you've already read the book, don't waste $8 on the movie. But if you like the movie, read the book- it's got all the fun (though mostly nonsensical) tidbits that the movie was forced to cut.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I just got back from the movie. I hadn't read the book, and have no plans to do so (my reading queue is long enough as it is), but I went in with no expectations and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I don't know what all of the fuss or controversy or whatever was about.
It was good fun. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I should add, that the only thing that bothered me about the movie was how easy it was to guess some of the big "shockers."
I guessed who the heir of christ and who the teacher was almost as soon as I knew they were characters that needed guessing. Or in the teacher's case, as soon as he actually made some screen time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Anyone else think it is odd that a movie celebrating the divine feminine had exactly ONE female character who did nothing beyond being born?
I guessed who it was because there were no other choices. Among its myriad of issues, it's an almost exclusively masculine movie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, since I skimmed the book, I've been trying to figure out why being the heir of Christ would be something special. Does it get you discounts at Chick-Fil-A? It's not like it comes with superpowers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The movie implies that it does - a few people are healed after she touches them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder what the gene is for that, and whether it came from the mother or the father's side.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
According to the movie, the movie girl's mother.
Another point on the list of ridiculous things from the movie:
It doesn't matter if a legion of DNA tests proved that she was related to the body in the coffin. They couldn't prove that the body in the coffin was Mary Magdelene, and it wasn't like they had the DNA of Christ, so it ultimately wouldn't prove anything.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I didn't get the impression that the laying on of hands thing was anything more than a massage technique handed down through generations.
As for the proof that she was Mary Magdalene, I'd think that if you could prove a genetic link between a living person and one who was dead ~2000 years who was reputed to be Mary Magdalene, people would sit up and listen. Especially with the other "evidence" they described in the film. Maybe not proof, but it could put a pretty big dent in the churches armor.
I also enjoyed the film.
According to my wife (who read the book) Sophie played a much bigger role in solving the puzzles.
Also, is there some such rumor that the knights templar were killed ala order 66? That also occurred to me and my son, and we wonder if Lucas had heard of it from somewhere. Or if Brown stole the idea from Lucas?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Maybe not proof, but it could put a pretty big dent in the churches armor.
I'm not sure, honestly, why the Catholic church would care particularly. It's not like you automatically become Pope if you're descended from Jesus.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not sure what dent it would put in anybody's armor either.
While the Bible doesn't suggest that Mary M. was married to Jesus, neither does it rule out that she may well have been married to someone else and had children so proving that you were related to someone that was reputedly Mary Magdelene doesn't prove you were descended from Jesus.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Of course the history is fake. It's a novel/movie, not a paper/documentary. It's good entertainment and an enjoyable whodunit, even if you guess some or all of the twists before they arrive. Additionally, since the Slate article is unreferenced, the only reasons to take the author at his word are that he claims his article to be factual and that Slate published it. This claim, as far as I'm aware, is not made by the works of fiction he derides. When I watched The Da Vinci Code, I assumed that the presented "history" was at the very least bent to make it fit the plot. If Dan Brown claims that anything other than his descriptions of architecture, locations, and "secret rituals" is accurate, then he's an idiot.
When I read H. P. Lovecraft's fiction, for example, which is usually set about a century ago (plus or minus a decade or two) in the real world, I don't wonder to myself at night if the Necronomicon was a real book. Unless I'm alone in the dark when I'm reading, which I must admit has happened...
When I read the Slate article, I assumed from the author's tone that he had an axe to grind; like any other op-ed columnist who doesn't reference his or her articles, I took it with a grain of salt. If he were attempting to "debunk" anything other than a work of fiction, I'd be outright skeptical.
Anyway, the notion that Jesus wasn't divine is hardly new to the world's non-Christians. I'm not fully convinced that Jesus existed; if he did, I certainly don't think he was in any way divine. Of course, I'm an atheist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There has been evidence of people here taking The Da Vinci Code's history very seriously. It's nice to have some corroboration that it's nonsense.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I see. It's too bad that such corroboration was necessary. :/
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I loved the way our parish addressed the DVC controversy. The only mention was in the Prayer of the Faithful. Without "naming any names" we thanked God for art and imagination and the wisdom to recognize it.
Also, as I mentioned on the "Funny" thread, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of Jesus being married. In fact I rather hope He was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure what you're regretting.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's fine to discuss a novel or movie in the hypothetical, but it's never a good idea to assume something is true just because someone wrote it down and published it -- especially if it's a fictional work. If "rebuttals" are necessary because people are taking this fictional stuff as factual without doing their own research, that's unfortunate.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I think she's regretting that anyone would need to have the laughably wrong 'historical' claims in the book debunked.
Unfortunately, human nature makes this necessity certain.
And that's without Dan Browns list of 'Facts' at the beginning of the book- like the existence of the Priory of Sion prior to 1950. With that list of supposed 'facts' that are behind the story, the book hints that what is presented is not only plausible but may have (or even probably did)happen.
The Discovery Channel is showing two documentaries on the book and/or the claims in the book (and in Holy Blood Holy Grail). The first one tracks down every single one of Browns 'facts' and shows them to be either wrong, false, or only half-true at best. The other takes the claims much more seriously and does not show the investigative digging that the other did. Instead, that one is more sensationalistic than scholarly, as opposed to the first one. Sorry don't have names. Can look them up if anyone wants them.
[ May 23, 2006, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:If Dan Brown claims that anything other than his descriptions of architecture, locations, and "secret rituals" is accurate, then he's an idiot.
Can't find the quotes right now, but if this is your definition of idiot, I'm pretty sure he qualifies.
He is either one in a string of people who can't back up their theories with enough support to publish them as peer reveiwed papers and thus write them as fiction but claim that they're true and only a vast conspiracy keeps them from being recognized as such in academia or he's pretending to believe them as a marketing strategy for his books.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What I meant (by implication) is that if Brown is claiming his "history" is accurate, then he's an idiot. If that's what he's been doing, then he's the Dr. Price or Intelligent Design of history, and deserves the criticism. Doubly so for ruining a fun whodunit (the movie, I haven't read the book) with needless controversy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yep. I understood what you meant.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:He is either one in a string of people who can't back up their theories with enough support to publish them as peer reveiwed papers and thus write them as fiction but claim that they're true and only a vast conspiracy keeps them from being recognized as such in academia or he's pretending to believe them as a marketing strategy for his books.
I see other, less dismissive possibilities.
Namely: He's a guy who did a tremendous amount of research in the form of reading a lot of alt history books. He formed theories, read between lines, and eventually came to believe that he'd solved one of the great mysteries. Whether this happened over the course of his life as being a guy tremendously interested in history, or if it happened while he was doing specific research for his book, it would be impossible to say.
And then he wrote a novel.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:He's a guy who did a tremendous amount of research in the form of reading a lot of alt history books. He formed theories, read between lines, and eventually came to believe that he'd solved one of the great mysteries.
One does not do research by reading alternate history. One does research by reading the actual primary sources. If all he claimed to have done was write an alternate history novel, no one would have a problem with it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wait - Dan Brown believes his own story?
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I don't see any evidence that Dan Brown did a *lot* of research. These theories aren't all that new, and there have been other books that have explored them. In 1997 I watched two journalists give a presentation on this idea that there might be people descended from Christ. I believe their book was called "The Blood and the Chalice".
The idea that Mary Magdalan was married to Christ has also been around for ages. It doesn't require a whole lot of reading between the lines to discover, and the usual "facts" used to support the idea would take little time to dig up with a Google search. Or an hour visit to the library.
My personal guess is that Dan Brown spends more time writing books than researching great mysteries. I don't mean that as an insult to the guy. The writing thing has clearly gone well for him. But, put him in a room with a bunch of scriptorians and theologians, and I think he'd choke.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Watched it yesterday.
My take: it's irrelevant if the storytelling good or bad (not very good, I must admit, some of the action was just not smartly written) the guts of the story, the theories about Opus Dei, the Catholic Church in general, and the divinity of Jesus is sufficiently interesting in and of itself to make this experience, this 'journey' (catch phrase of the moment eh) wonderful.
I don't remember who says that if two or more people are in a room talking about God, he is with them. Well, this certainly qualifies. Spiritual filmmaking is spiritual filmmaking. And what best use of the wonderful resourses of film than to discuss seriously serious philosophy?
Do not miss this film. It's a sin.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
One of the things I found most grating and least compelling about this book/film (and, as you can imagine, this is up against some pretty stiff competition) is the way it goes about trying to debunk Christianity. It's not just the fact that it tried to prove that Christianity is a stupid, made-up, arbitrary religion. It's that it tries to do this by supplanting it with an even stupider made-up, arbitrary religion. The whole "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend" element of this story took me to a whole new level of non-grippedness.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
MY imaginary friend is a secret agent who drives a Porsche!
-pH
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Maybe not proof, but it could put a pretty big dent in the churches armor.
I'm not sure, honestly, why the Catholic church would care particularly. It's not like you automatically become Pope if you're descended from Jesus.
We've gotta keep our frame of reference straight. I'm talking about the movie. You know, the one where Opus Dei kills people rather than let the public know the "big secret."
As to the assertion that Dan Brown wrote the book as fiction because he wanted to write it as fact but couldn't get away with it. Sorry, I need some citations before I buy that. From all I've heard from media sources, it's a fictional novel. End of story. No fair putting thoughts in the guy's mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We've gotta keep our frame of reference straight. I'm talking about the movie.
So am I. But even in the movie's reality, I can't figure out why the Catholic church would care enough to kill people to protect this "secret." At the end of the day, wouldn't they want people to believe that Jesus not only lived but produced offspring? The book -- and the movie -- seem to take for granted that the church would consider this a secret worth suppressing, and I don't understand why.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Prossibly because the Offspring of Christ would be the new ultimate divine authority on Earth? The church's power over Catholics would play second fiddle to Christ's descendent.
There's too many questions, too much shaken faith, and perhaps a loss of trust in the church. The Papacy hasn't had to go through that kind of crisis of faith in what? Three hundred years?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The church's power over Catholics would play second fiddle to Christ's descendent.
Why? It's not like decency is hereditary.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I thought the movie was horribly written and amateurly filmed(awful cinematography). The characters were uninteresting and the plot was muddled. The acting was often laughable, except in the case of Ian McKellan. I really didn't like it. I guess I'm just a critic.
I also don't see the controversy. A descendant of Christ would still just be human.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would he? When was the conception made? Before or after he died? And even if the descendent of Christ was only human, so is the Pope.
People put an almost silly amount of importance on heredity when it comes to rulers and stuff like this. There's no way to know how people would react. But you don't think that even a large minority of Catholics would flock to the descendent of Christ?
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Nope.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's impossible to say. No one person can speak for what every Catholic would do in any given situation. And all Catholics aren't the same. For that matter, all Christians aren't the same.
There's no way to tell what would happen, which is exactly why the Papacy would want to ensure they'd never have to worry about it.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I would have to read the book to argue more with you. But my understanding is that the Jesus in this book is not the God that Catholics worship. He is not really represented as a God at all. I was also told today that it WAS indicated in the book that perhaps he did not die on the cross. That's not was I was told before so I don't know, but, if he didn't die, then Catholicism wouldn't exist. Because Jesus was noted to have risen from the dead, and to be a savior, and to be Divine from the very first writings. That is not consistent with some sort of church-guided cover-up scheme.
If the Apostles and the other close friends had all gotten together and decided right after the crucifiction to make up the whole story and lie about Mary Magdalene, then the "church," when organized, wouldn't know about it and wouldn't even believe it. There would be no need for a church coverup.
Oh--and here is another possiblity: let's say Jesus was Divine and did everything as he was supposed to do and that included marriage and having a child. And getting crucified... or not. If he convinced the Apostles that he is Divine, then they should be convinced of the rightness of his marriage and child. So why then why would they make up false stories? If they were truly his apostles they'd be telling the whole story from the very beginning. Again, no reason to cover up.
[ May 24, 2006, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
So for someone who is considering going, would you say that it is a DVD movie, a matinee move or a full price movie?
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I'd say DVD or matinee. Matinee if you want to see it on the big screen (though like I said, this made me seasick so I would have preferred it on DVD, myself). You probably won't learn any new spoilers between now and when the DVD comes out.
Or, perhaps more relevant, whatever your friends and family want to go to. I thoroughly enjoyed the whole "going to see the DaVinci Code" outing because of the company I was with. Had a discussion in IHOP afterwards with witty, fun people that was worth far more than the price of a ticket on opening day.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I just saw this movie, and I really couldn't follow it. I got the basic Jesus premise, but I couldn't see how they were making the deductions they made or who was on what side. But on the plus side, it seemed to move quickly enough and be well-enough acted, in both cases more so than the reviews led me to think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For all Boondock Saints fans....
Anyone else snicker when they saw that Tom Hanks' character wrote a book about "Symbology?"
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)