The Da Vinci Code by kayleesthegreatest

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The Da Vinci Code

POSTED BY: KAYLEESTHEGREATEST
UPDATED: Monday, May 22, 2006 15:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2621
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, May 22, 2006 6:02 AM

I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was great. I still dont see why people put some much contriversy about the whole mary thing. He just made a story. Dan Brown hiself says its a fictional story

Someday the verse will spit in your soup but at least they gave you soup.
one day
one plan
one mission
one army of browncoats
june 23rd serenity day

-Our mission as browncoats is to make us known.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 6:09 AM

SAMEERTIA

The controversy is that the evidence that Dan Brown cites in his book has been in existance for thousands of years. I don't understand why everyone is blaming Dan for putting them into a fictional novel when non-fiction books like "The Chalice", "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "Mystery of Rennes" etc, have traced the evidence in factual form.
And Dan's earlier book, "Angels & Demons" is FAR more anti-Catholic than "DaVinci"!

I saw DaVinci Code on Friday night and enjoyed it, but I didn't feel it was as good as it could have been. Being a fan of the books, I was dismayed at the choice of Tom Hanks for the role of Robert Langdon. I'd said I'd reserve judgement, because I've been surprised before (Tom Cruise as Lestat, anyone?). But I'm sorry. Tom Hanks is NOT Langdon.

It was the worst casting decision I've ever seen, especially in a film where all of the other casting was spot on! Jean Reno was who I pictured as Fache from the moment I first read the description of "The Bull" in the book. In fact, I suspected that Dan had based Fache on Reno's character in "La Femme Nikita".

All of the casting was spot on except for Hanks, who came off as.... well... NOT Langdon!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 6:24 AM

JMB9039

I think the problem that people have with the book and with the movie are that the "facts" Brown cites are not facts at all. Many of the "historical facts" are completely inaccurate as are the suppositions made from them. Brown made claims that his books are supported with research - he did this on more than one program. I for one don't care about the controversy. As for the book, well, I tried to read it and just thought it was terribly written and horribly cliche. Try reading some Uberto Echo if you are interested in religious conspiracy or historical fiction. He is a much better writer in my humble opinion.

If you really want some info on historical religious (christian) research check out:

Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code : A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Paperback)
by Bart D. Ehrman

Lost Christianities : The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Paperback)
by Bart D. Ehrman

Ehram is the director of religious studies at UNC and is considered an expert in the field. I just finished reading "Misquoting Jesus: Who Changed the Bible and Why" It was fascinating to see the political and philosophical issues at play - as well as simple mistakes made by scribes.

JMB9039

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 7:09 AM

CITIZEN

All his books have exactly the same story line, it's funny really.

That and digital fortress especially had me laughing through most of it because despite his assertions there was no way he did any research whatsoever.

I mean there's pushing the realms of reality for artistic licence and there's writing crap.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 7:43 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Different people are pissed off for different reasons.

Historians are pissed off because the facts cited are wrong, for example the claim that Constantine made Christianity the religion of Rome is more than a little bit off. 67 years off if memory serves, so you can understand historians being peeved because it would be like the movie National Treasure claiming that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1709. That's the exact thing that historians hate.

Catholics can be pissed off because it misrepresents them, for example it keeps on railing on the church for claiming that Jesus was only divine, the Church claims that Jesus was Human and Divine, the very thing that it complains the Church doesn't do at one point.

People who believe that Sarah was the daughter of Jesus are pissed off because she was, "Sarah the Egyptian," so it's stupid to say that she was born and lived out her life in France. Also the whole story says that Sarah arrived in France with Mary, not inside her (legend says Mary stopped of in Egypt where holy bloodline believers think Mary gave birth.)

Art critics don't like it because the interpretations are ... unorthodox.

Mary Magdalene followers don't like it because, while it does point out that Mary wasn't a whore, it demeans and belittles her by implying her only importance was her husband. For about two thousand years it has been believed that her importance was based on her own merit. The Catholic Church says that she is the, "Apostle to the Apostles," for example.

The amount she is talked of in the Gospels makes her out to be more important than most of the apostles combined. In one non-canon work it says that Jesus loved her more than the rest, but in less Jesus was bisexual (wouldn't that make people go nuts?) the love in question wasn't sexual because the others he loved that way (just not as much) were male.

Also, for some reason, people don't seem to like the idea of Jesus having sex. Never understood why, but that's a big no-no.

-

So to recap, a few people who are pissed off and why:

Historians are pissed because it is historically in accurate.

Believers in the theories presented don't like it because it makes them look historically inaccurate.

People who like Mary Magdalene don't like it because it makes it seem that her only importance was her womb.

People who don't like sex don't like it because it says Jesus not only had sex but managed to successfully father a child.

Some Catholics don't like it because it misrepresents them.

Art critics and art historians don't like it because they disagree with the conclusions.

Personally I liked it more than the book because at the end it felt like there might have been a point, where the end of the book left me with the feeling that it was all for nothing. Ruined the whole book for me cause it was building up and building up and then ... nothing. An ending that left me feeling totally unfulfilled and the very opposite of a climax.

Obviously most people didn't feel that way.

-

In the beginning I thought: If Jesus was married someone would have said so.

Then I heard a historian ask a simple question, "Was Jesus naked when he gave the Sermon on the Mount?" Well we all say, "No," immediately but would we still say it so quickly if we were in a nudist society? We might, or we might say, "Of course he was, if he was wearing clothing it would have said so."

That made me remember that we need to look at things in their own context, not ours. Unfortunately the historians I've heard disagree on the context of the time, some assure us that at his age in his culture being married was so normal that it wouldn't be mentioned, where if he was single it would be, thus the lack of evidence implies that he was married, others say the exact opposite.

I'm not a historian so I don't know enough to draw a conclusion and I honestly don't give a damn, what Jesus did in his personal life was and is his own business, people should stop trying to pry into the sex lives of famous people be they current or historical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 7:57 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

The interesting thing about the Code is that it is nothing new, yet the response is new.

I mean who here hasn't seen at least three movies about the descendants of Christ via Mary? I don't necessarily mean watched the movies, I just mean noticed they existed.

They're all over the place, the world is full of them. There are also books. There are books that claim to be non-fiction, there are books that really are non-fiction (you'll never hear words like "maybe," "might," "supposedly," "possibly," "could be," and so on as much as in these) there are novels, there are other things, there's stuff everywhere.

Before no one cared, now there is an entire industry that's popped up just saying what is wrong with this one book.

How does one bit of formulaic fiction do that? I admit that when I started reading it I thought it was very good formulaic fiction, and maintained that delusion until I reached the end, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just one drop in an ocean of things that say exactly the same thing. Was there a reason that this one made the feces hit the fan or was it just the last straw?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 9:26 AM

KAYLEESTHEGREATEST

I thought that the lady that played sophie was pretty. She also played the role quite well.

Someday the verse will spit in your soup but at least they gave you soup.
one day
one plan
one mission
one army of browncoats
june 23rd serenity day

-Our mission as browncoats is to make us known.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 10:01 AM

MSCKAREN

I saw it yesterday, too, with a friend. We both read the book and both enjoyed the movie.

I had significant reservations when I heard Tom Hanks was going to play Langdon but I thought he did a pretty good job, actually. The pacing, music and special effects all added to the fun.

As far as the controversy goes, I really couldn't care less about it anymore than if the movie purported that Santa was gay. BFD. Everyone's going to believe what they want to believe regardless of "the facts".

I went to this movie to be entertained which I was. If/when I want to be educated on the various theories and history, I'll watch a documentary on BBC or PBS. In other words, "If I'd a wanted schoolin' I woulda gone to school!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Appears they've cancelled the show and we're still here. What does that make us?"
"Big damn junkies, Sir!"
"Ain't we just."
http://karenallover.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM

GIXXER

I'm generally agin it.

I've actually read Demons and whatever the rest of the title was. And almost all of the Da Vinci Code.

Demons and thingummybobs cured me of my fear of air travel. Now that I know I can jump out of a plane holding on to a pillowcase and live, I feel much better.

I couldn't make it to the end of the DVC, because the plot was pretty much the same as the other one and the relentless clues painfully explained in excruciating detail really ground my resolve to dust.

Please, Danny-boy. Let me work out something for myself. Or do me the courtesy of assuming I have a basic knowledge of, well...anything at all, really.

Langdon seemed a bit creepy macking on recently bereaved women. You'd think all that time on the Ponderosa and the Little House would have instilled some moral rectitude in him.

Next objection is Leon and Amelie having anything to do with the film. The actors are officially the two coolest French people on the planet, and I won't hear a word against them. Audrey Tatou is just so classically beautiful, as well.

My biggest gripe is that the film will make (probably has made already) more money than Serenity.

I call that a black injustice, and an appalling example of lowest common denominatorism.

Oh yes, and bookshops. Have you seen them lately? You can't throw a brick in any direction without hitting at least half a dozen utterly shameless bandwagon jumping hack jobs.

The Va Dinci Code, The Templar's Code, The Common Code. Umpteen others with pitches on them "If you loved the Da...etc"

Then there are the Guidebooks. Good grief. Short of writing on the side of really big nails and hammering them into your head, I can't imagine how anyone can possibly clarify something that has already been laboriously spelled out in crayon.

But I sense I may be coming over as a teensy bit tetchy about this. Normally only Archer and Cussler can wind me up that much.

G

So disgusted, that I'm seriously thinking of moving to Tunbridge Wells.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 1:47 PM

HEB

I actually pictured Tony Head as Langdon when I read the book. Maybe I've just watched too much Buffy.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 3:27 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by msckaren:
If/when I want to be educated on the various theories and history, I'll watch a documentary on BBC or PBS. In other words, "If I'd a wanted schoolin' I woulda gone to school!"

Just remember that a great man once said, "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 22, 2006 3:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I saw it and am also a bit confuzzled as to the poor reviews. I suppose for folks who have not read the book, some of the code stuff and back stories might seem a tad confusing, but I thought the movie did fairly well in regards to following the story. Tom Hanks was a bit dry, but Ian McKellen did a great job.

Quote:
I actually pictured Tony Head as Langdon when I read the book. Maybe I've just watched too much Buffy.

I don't disagree w/ any particular part there. He seems both more bookish and wordly , as it were.

A solid B-, in my book
If I had a book, that is.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE