The Da Vinci Code - Page 3

aychamo_aycono · 05-19-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilkoril

I'll be seeing this for the French hottie...

Dan Brown should die.

Yeah, she is beautiful. Everytime she came on screen I went "ohhh" and hahaha! She's in another movie "Amelie". It's not bad, give it a rent! It's a french movie, but has english subtitles!

Soriak · 05-20-2006, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt the Gimp

You shouldn't have to read the book to the enjoy the movie. They are seperate entities.

Given that the book had such a large following, it stands to reason that making a movie for this audience isn't all that bad an idea.

Advent Children was also a movie made for people who loved FF7 - if you didn't play the game, you'd have no idea what was going on. Actually, even if you did you wouldn't know, but that's beside the point

Drauk · 05-20-2006, 07:42 AM

Seen it today, my thoughts

Its not bad movie, but its certainly not great. Compared to the book it has 2 weak points
a) Book had a lot of interesting cultural information and i really enjoyed that, even knowing its not always accurate. Movie completly skips this.
b) Book had an actual sense of mystery and "treasure hunt". There is no such thing in the movie.

And really don't understand why Vatican is so pissed about the movie. The only bashing church has in movie is for Dark Ages, witch burning and stuff. As far as i know church has already recognised this as wrongdoings. They even changed the ending to politically correct. Seriosly, all this unreasoned screams about blasphemous movie only serves to attract attention to it.

Thorpe · 05-20-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drauk

And really don't understand why Vatican is so pissed about the movie. The only bashing church has in movie is for Dark Ages, witch burning and stuff. As far as i know church has already recognised this as wrongdoings. They even changed the ending to politically correct. Seriosly, all this unreasoned screams about blasphemous movie only serves to attract attention to it.

I believe the Church is bitching about what the book implies the "Holy Grail" really is. Which goes against a lot of the Church's long standing beliefs.

aychamo_aycono · 05-20-2006, 08:44 AM

Yeah, that was pretty much the whole point of the movie!!

I was happy to see all the stuff about the Council of Nicea & Constatine. I think that's a great argument for why the New Testament is a big ol pile of .. well that's a discussion for another thread.

zilkoril · 05-20-2006, 09:03 AM

Tautou (?) wasn't very pretty in Amelie, here (like you said) she's beautiful...

And yeah, all that "san'greal" means is that Jesus had babies.

Faltigoth · 05-20-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorpe

I believe the Church is bitching about what the book implies the "Holy Grail" really is. Which goes against a lot of the Church's long standing beliefs.

Hehe, that's an understatement there mate!

Coren · 05-20-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aychamo_aycono

Yeah, that was pretty much the whole point of the movie!!

I was happy to see all the stuff about the Council of Nicea & Constatine. I think that's a great argument for why the New Testament is a big ol pile of .. well that's a discussion for another thread.

Well except for the Da Vinci Code getting nearly everything wrong about those subjects.

Dan Brown claims that the vote at Nicea was barely passed - The actual vote was 300 to 2.

The Council of Nicea didn't even vote on wether or not Jesus was divine, nor is there any record that they debated on what to include in the New Testament. It was basicly a council to endorse and "officialize" what they already believed...and as said, it passed 300 to 2 votes. (Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais were the voters against and were exiled as a result).

Dan Brown simply is either a horrible, horrible researcher, or simply didn't care about what the facts were. (More than likely both).

Communistbloc · 05-20-2006, 11:54 AM

It's the same thing that Man on Fire did. They said it was a true story, but it really wasn't.

aychamo_aycono · 05-20-2006, 11:57 AM

Book of Thomas!

Coren · 05-20-2006, 12:48 PM

Oh, speaking of the Book of Thomas, and Constantine, etc...Da Vinci Code implies that Constantine was the one who picked the 4 gospels as being the "Official" ones iirc...but actually those 4 gospels were considered "Official" long long before Constantine.

And the reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen was because they were the ones actually written not long after the time of Jesus (Some believe the entire contents of the New Testament was written by 70 AD)...whereas the Book of Thomas, Philip, etc were written up to 200 or 300 AD.

That won't stop people from arguing the validity of the New Testament or anything I'm sure, but the facts are that the Gospels that were "Chosen", were chosen due to being closer to the actual events and therefore more reliable...and not as a cover-up by the church to promote an agenda.

I could go on and on hehe....but basicly, nearly everything that "The Da Vinci Code" claims about Constantine, the origin of scripture, etc, simply doesn't match up with established history.

Kiely · 05-20-2006, 03:45 PM

Well it doesn't piss me off anyway. If they pass off all these theories and bold statements, even saying its certifiable proof, I still don't care or have any beliefs. I still bought a fantasy book.
Whats annoying is when the nth person comes along to me saying "did you read Da vinci code? You know that he could be part of some huge conspiracy involved with Christ !." Fuckers need more salt.

Nebuchadnezzar · 05-20-2006, 04:09 PM

Nicea was about the Arian heresy. One side saw the father, son, and spirit as the same source, existing forever, and the other saw them as seperate, the son having been created, being both man and divine, at one point lesser than the father. That was the big argument.

This isn't to say Byzantine's politics didn't effect christianity for the rest of history, or that Constantine didn't see advantage in a highly structured male dominated church, but at Nicea he was pretty hands off. If Brown had really wanted to show some political corruption, Pelchuria playing the virgin and upraising Mary to near diety would have been a better point.

FanBuss · 05-20-2006, 05:04 PM

Prolly going to see this tonite. Hated the book. Love Ian McKellan. More than likely will dislike the movie.

Furism · 05-21-2006, 03:24 AM

Haven't read the book - because many people say it sucks so I won't waste my time with this - nor seen the movie. So don't bash me if I ask : is the story as far etched and factually wrong as, say, National Treasure ?

05-20-2006, 07:42 AM	#33 (permalink)
Drauk Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Russia Posts: 679 +0 Internets	Seen it today, my thoughts Its not bad movie, but its certainly not great. Compared to the book it has 2 weak points a) Book had a lot of interesting cultural information and i really enjoyed that, even knowing its not always accurate. Movie completly skips this. b) Book had an actual sense of mystery and "treasure hunt". There is no such thing in the movie. And really don't understand why Vatican is so pissed about the movie. The only bashing church has in movie is for Dark Ages, witch burning and stuff. As far as i know church has already recognised this as wrongdoings. They even changed the ending to politically correct. Seriosly, all this unreasoned screams about blasphemous movie only serves to attract attention to it. __________________ God to Earth: “Cry more, noobs!”

05-20-2006, 08:44 AM	#35 (permalink)
aychamo_aycono Legendary Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,732	Yeah, that was pretty much the whole point of the movie!! I was happy to see all the stuff about the Council of Nicea & Constatine. I think that's a great argument for why the New Testament is a big ol pile of .. well that's a discussion for another thread. __________________ Lumie: There are no cancers of the heart. Aychamo: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic280.htm

05-20-2006, 11:57 AM	#40 (permalink)
aychamo_aycono Legendary Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,732	Book of Thomas! __________________ Lumie: There are no cancers of the heart. Aychamo: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic280.htm

05-20-2006, 03:45 PM	#42 (permalink)
Kiely He who dares, wins Rodders. Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,065 +1 Internets	Well it doesn't piss me off anyway. If they pass off all these theories and bold statements, even saying its certifiable proof, I still don't care or have any beliefs. I still bought a fantasy book. Whats annoying is when the nth person comes along to me saying "did you read Da vinci code? You know that he could be part of some huge conspiracy involved with Christ !." Fuckers need more salt. __________________ Ban deep thought.

05-20-2006, 04:09 PM	#43 (permalink)
Nebuchadnezzar Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,536 -2 Internets	Nicea was about the Arian heresy. One side saw the father, son, and spirit as the same source, existing forever, and the other saw them as seperate, the son having been created, being both man and divine, at one point lesser than the father. That was the big argument. This isn't to say Byzantine's politics didn't effect christianity for the rest of history, or that Constantine didn't see advantage in a highly structured male dominated church, but at Nicea he was pretty hands off. If Brown had really wanted to show some political corruption, Pelchuria playing the virgin and upraising Mary to near diety would have been a better point. __________________ I eat grass like an ox and shat like a fox.

05-20-2006, 09:03 AM	#36 (permalink)
zilkoril Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Italy Posts: 322 +0 Internets	Tautou (?) wasn't very pretty in Amelie, here (like you said) she's beautiful... And yeah, all that "san'greal" means is that Jesus had babies.

05-20-2006, 11:54 AM	#39 (permalink)
Communistbloc Registered User Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 739 +0 Internets	It's the same thing that Man on Fire did. They said it was a true story, but it really wasn't.

05-20-2006, 12:48 PM	#41 (permalink)
Coren Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 571	Oh, speaking of the Book of Thomas, and Constantine, etc...Da Vinci Code implies that Constantine was the one who picked the 4 gospels as being the "Official" ones iirc...but actually those 4 gospels were considered "Official" long long before Constantine. And the reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen was because they were the ones actually written not long after the time of Jesus (Some believe the entire contents of the New Testament was written by 70 AD)...whereas the Book of Thomas, Philip, etc were written up to 200 or 300 AD. That won't stop people from arguing the validity of the New Testament or anything I'm sure, but the facts are that the Gospels that were "Chosen", were chosen due to being closer to the actual events and therefore more reliable...and not as a cover-up by the church to promote an agenda. I could go on and on hehe....but basicly, nearly everything that "The Da Vinci Code" claims about Constantine, the origin of scripture, etc, simply doesn't match up with established history.

05-20-2006, 05:04 PM	#44 (permalink)
FanBuss hates O RLY Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,378 -1 Internets	Prolly going to see this tonite. Hated the book. Love Ian McKellan. More than likely will dislike the movie.

05-21-2006, 03:24 AM	#45 (permalink)
Furism Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,116 +3 Internets	Haven't read the book - because many people say it sucks so I won't waste my time with this - nor seen the movie. So don't bash me if I ask : is the story as far etched and factually wrong as, say, National Treasure ? __________________ - Furism

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: