# The Da Vinci Code



## PATMAN (Nov 30, 2005)

If you have read the book, you'll know what i'm talking about. The movie should be coming out in march 2006(i believe). I honestly can't wait for it, i absolutly loved the book and all its historical and artistical information. 5 stars in my world.

pg 5
Link removed

who's going to see it other then me?


----------



## martryn (Nov 30, 2005)

The book was awful and overrated, with just skewed information presented as facts.  The movie has Tom Hanks in it and will kick ass.  I'll definately enjoy it.


----------



## crazymtf (Nov 30, 2005)

^that made almost no sence, goodjob buddy.


----------



## Lord Yu (Nov 30, 2005)

I wanna read the book. I wont check out the movie until I've read the book or at least some of it.


----------



## Keyser S?ze (Nov 30, 2005)

i hear this book is awesome, i hope the movie doesn't stray from the book that much


----------



## masterdan (Dec 1, 2005)

yes that made a lot of sense.  Im sure the most contrivercial book released in years would have scewed facts that havent been completly exploated by the church and right wingers to remove all the legitimacy from the book.  Yes thank you for that lame opinion, by the way nothing in that book was presented as facts.  Everything was presented as interesting conversation and revalations that were made based on extensive research.  Nothing was misrepresented and was rather clear to somebody who actually has read the book and not just flamed a topic about it on a forum. Its not overrated its one of my altime favorites, angels and demons would be in competition for first or second place in my mind and its the same author and similar theme.


----------



## martryn (Dec 1, 2005)

Ok, dumbasses, I've read the book and enjoyed the first half of it.  After that it seemed as if Brown didn't know how to end it.  The ending was very predictable and unsatisfying.  And Brown meant for everything in the book to be taken as fact, as he plainly said on television interviews.  He believed in the Priory and what not.  But the whole  thing he based the book around was actually an elaborate hoax.  

If you want to read a good book on a similar topic, read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.  That book is not only better written, it contains information that isn't completely false.  

And I will enjoy the movie because Tom Hanks is in it.  Hanks can't make a bad movie.


----------



## Lord Yu (Dec 1, 2005)

I agree with the Hanks statement.


----------



## masterdan (Dec 1, 2005)

oooh really, i actually (ironic) bought that the pendulum book earlier this week and havnt gotten into it yet. Good to know tho.


----------



## I Я Reckless! (Dec 1, 2005)

wut is this book about?


----------



## Kahlua2606 (Dec 1, 2005)

The book was great, the movie will suck.


Want a reason why?  The book was great because it included a ton of historical information to back up the theory of Dan Brown, which made it at least somewhat believeable, but it was also action packed and exciting at the same time.  The problem is that, in order to fit it into a 2 hour movie (studies say that's about the maximum attention span of adults these days), they will have to cut out both a lot of the historical information as well as the action, thereby making it extremely watered down, and a shell of what the book was.  If you don't believe me, watch 'National Treasure' sometime... it will be like that, too little information and too rushed.  The fact that they cast Tom Hanks is even worse, since it will cater to his acting style and not the character that Dan Brown intended, thereby making it an even worse movie.

It will be like the Bourne Identity or the Bourne Supremacy: if you never read the book, it will be an ok movie to watch some Friday night... if you saw the movie, you will be very sorely disappointed.

P.S.  I know this isn't the right section for this, but building off of the topic of the Da Vinci Code, if you enjoyed it and want another book like this, look into 'Decipher' by Stel Pavlou.


----------



## martryn (Dec 1, 2005)

> The book was great because it included a ton of historical information to back up the theory of Dan Brown, which made it at least somewhat believeable



I'm not sure if I like what you wrote or not.  Brown did a good job backing up what he wrote with lots of historical references, but he took some events and facts and left out the second half of those events or facts, not giving us the whole story.  



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The portrayal of the Priory of Sion as an ancient organisation is incorrect: The Priory of Sion was originally founded in 1956 by Pierre Plantard and Andre Bonhomme, not 1099 as claimed in the book. The Les Dossiers Secrets was a forgery created by Philippe de Cherisey for Plantard. Plantard, under oath, eventually admitted that the whole thing was fabricated.



The book is indeed interesting, but I would suggest reading up on it on Wikipedia to look at all the falsehoods Brown used.  It will become readily apparent that he's quite insane if he actually believes what he does.  
And like I said, the ending becomes stupid and predictable.  Anyone who didn't see that coming seriously needs to read more mystery books.  

The movie, however, will have Tom Hanks.  No one can deny his making movies better than they should be.  And because it will be shorter, there is less of a chance that it'll get into depth with all the bullshit theories which made the book suck, but rather stick to a mystery story which will be predictable (more so since I read the book) but otherwise good. 

As for Foucault's Pendulum, the book itself starts slower, but if you make it to the 3rd chapter then you'll see what the da Vinci Code was trying to be.  It gives alot of the same type of information on the Templars and pagan believe in Christian groups, but Eco actually takes facts and events as they occured and conjectures in the book rather than make it seem as if the story he spins is supposed to be fact.  

Hell, here's what Wikipedia has to say about it, for anyone who might be interested:


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Foucault's Pendulum (original title: Il pendolo di Foucault) is a novel by Italian novelist and philosopher Umberto Eco. It was first published in 1988; the translation into English by William Weaver appeared a year later. It is full of obscure esoteric facts about things like Kabbalah, alchemy, and conspiracy theory. It is divided into ten segments represented by the ten Sefiroth. Told in the form of a kind of intellectual game, three friends compile a fictitious plan (the "Plan") which stretches throughout history and hopes to combine all conspiracy theories. They feed the plan into a computer that in turn spits out an entirely new, and coincidentally real, conspiracy theory. Ardenti's find which inspires the Plan and its multiple possible interpretations play a role similar to that of the parchments in the Rennes-le-Château conspiracy theories. The novel is an encyclopedic work, moving critic and novelist Anthony Burgess to comment that it needed an index.
> 
> Foucault's Pendulum has lately been called a thinking person's The Da Vinci Code (which it predated by over a decade). The name of the book derives from an actual pendulum designed by the French physicist Léon Foucault to demonstrate the rotation of the earth.


----------



## Last of the Uchihas (Dec 1, 2005)

martryn said:
			
		

> Ok, dumbasses, I've read the book and enjoyed the first half of it.  After that it seemed as if Brown didn't know how to end it.  The ending was very predictable and unsatisfying.  And Brown meant for everything in the book to be taken as fact, as he plainly said on television interviews.  He believed in the Priory and what not.  But the whole  thing he based the book around was actually an elaborate hoax.
> 
> If you want to read a good book on a similar topic, read Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.  That book is not only better written, it contains information that isn't completely false.
> 
> *And I will enjoy the movie because Tom Hanks is in it.  Hanks can't make a bad movie.*




The Lady Killers i believe


----------



## Sakura (Dec 1, 2005)

ya, the book is good and im sure the movie will rock even more. who does tom hanks play? anybody know? i saw these ads that the da vinci code movie is coming out next year at about mid-March.....cant wait!


----------



## PATMAN (Dec 1, 2005)

grlninja16 said:
			
		

> ya, the book is good and im sure the movie will rock even more. who does tom hanks play? anybody know? i saw these ads that the da vinci code movie is coming out next year at about mid-March.....cant wait!



Robert Langdon. Teh 1337 hero


Martryn, Even if some facts might be real or they might be false, it doesn't really matter. As long as you enjoyed the book, that's the least of your worries.


i can't wait for this movie.


----------



## Kucheeky Badkuya (Dec 1, 2005)

Tom Hanks is in it, thats good.  I like him a lot, he did an amazing job, in Saving Private Ryan, Toy Story, Ladykillers and The Transit.  I will probably see this as soon as it comes out.


----------



## CABLE (Dec 1, 2005)

Tom Hanks will not make a good Robert Langdon.  Hes too wussy.  I see a Harrison Ford character as Langdon.  Not Tom Hanks.  Hes a great actor but he just doesn't fit the part.

@everyone, read Angels & Demons aswell, its much better than Da Vinci Code and it is with Robert Langdon also.


----------



## Keyser S?ze (Dec 19, 2005)

the movie looks good with tom hanks as the lead. i'm going to watch it for sure.


----------



## martryn (Dec 19, 2005)

Yep, the movie is sure to be a blockbuster.  And like I said, I'll like it, despite the fact that the book is overrated and predictable.


----------



## Ruri (Dec 20, 2005)

The Da Vinci Code was an enjoyable read, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the movie.  Tom Hanks will probably play the role well, but he's not what I imagined Robert Langdon to be like, in terms of appearance.  Still, he's a good actor, and his performance might convince me otherwise. =)


----------



## Potentialflip (Dec 20, 2005)

Book= Overrated. The only thing I believe what made this book so interesting to people because of the controversy that it created with the Catholic Church. Other than that it is just an ordinary story. I do believe Martryn was right on with how the book ended. Disappointing and predictable. 

Movie=Tom Hanks. I would say Russell Crowe who was considered could have been a better. In my opinion I do not see this being big in the box office. In the end I will most likely see it. For some reason I have a nagging feeling. That I would be eh about the film. Not so excited like I was with King Kong or Harry Potter.


----------



## Jordy (Dec 20, 2005)

I haven't read the book, but I heard from many people it's totally awesome.

I've seen the films trailer, and it looks good so far, so I can't wait until it gets released.


----------



## anbutofu (Dec 23, 2005)

hrmm havent read either angels and demons or the davinci code, i do plan to read them, but im wondering, should i read them in order? or are they 2 independant stories?


----------



## TenshiOni (Dec 23, 2005)

You don't have to read them in order, but Angels and Demons came first and the main character is the same in both.


----------



## sarrah (Dec 24, 2005)

is that right? hmmm the rest of his books..i.e. digital frotress and the one with an ice block on the cover ( forgets names easily) are totally dif stories!...i absolutely loved digital fortree..i read that b4 Da vinci code...im reading it now up to chapt 53...so many conspiricies..lol..obviously there are some fictous links..but the bulk is pretty amazing stuff...i love that about dan brown...definately researches on what he's gona write!!!

i cant wait to read all his books!


----------



## Sawako (Dec 24, 2005)

I enjoyed the book, so I'll probably check out the movie too.


----------



## ichinii30 (Dec 24, 2005)

i liked the book and everything, but not how it ended. I'm probably going to see the movie though


----------



## Scared Link (Dec 26, 2005)

I'm so watching this movie. It was one of the best books I read.


----------



## MegamanXZero (Dec 26, 2005)

I read the book and I really liked it (I hardly ever read books), it was really tense. I think I'm gonna watch the movie.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 26, 2005)

It looks good...But they should also make an Angels and Demons movie, as it was much better then the Da Vinci Code.


----------



## gamesector (Dec 26, 2005)

Megaharrison said:
			
		

> It looks good...But they should also make an Angels and Demons movie, as it was much better then the Da Vinci Code.



Agreed. Angels and Demons would have been a way better movie because the action within the book would translate onto the big screen pretty fluidly.


----------



## Nakor (Dec 29, 2005)

haven't read the book yet. i probably will before the movie comes out. 

i like tom hanks. but im more excited because audrey tautou is cast in it too. im so in love with her.


----------



## TDM (Dec 29, 2005)

I'm going to see it, hopefully in theaters, even if I haven't read the book. <_< >_>


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 20, 2006)

so this movie comes out in about a month, who's gonna watch it?

I'll go with a girl so that's how big this movie is for me (last ones i saw w/girls: king kong, matrix 3, star wars 3, u know the big ones).

anyway, i  think this movie will be the basis for religious wars..


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 22, 2006)

I hate how they are making out it to be fact though. 

"Seek the truth" is a stupid tagline for the movie.....................

Dan Brown is a great writer, but he is also a liar.


----------



## anbutofu (Apr 24, 2006)

i finally finished davinci code and angels and demons.  nothing spectacular, but they were very entertaining.  im not sure what you mean by overrated, maybe overhyped?  if you read the books you also know in the beginning he admits the only thing factual is the existence of such organizations and the maps....its a fictional book, he never says its to be taken as factual.  
tom hanks is almost the perfect langdon, harrison ford or crowe are too obvious. langdon is the unlikely hero, hanks is perfect as that role.  though i think tom hanks is a little too old, his acting skill is top notch ( usually, lady killers was pretty bad....).


----------



## Yasha (Apr 24, 2006)

DVC is definitely a good read, but I am not sure I will enjoy the movie as much as I did with the book since I already know the ending. I will go watch it if the reputation is good.


----------



## Hyuuga Neji (Apr 25, 2006)

apparently it has porn and evidence that the christian faith can easily be broken (see the thread in the cafe). i'm not missing this one


----------



## Alya-Sasuke (Apr 30, 2006)

My dad has the book, but i didn't read it yet, lol

I'm very excited to see the movie!


----------



## Bubbles (May 5, 2006)

*The DaVinci Code*

Are any of you going to go and see this film? I read the book so would kind of like to see it but I have a disliking of Tom Hanks. It does look kind of exciting though.

XX


----------



## semperfi (May 5, 2006)

didn't see it


----------



## Bubbles (May 5, 2006)

It hasn't come out yet semp.

XX


----------



## semperfi (May 5, 2006)

in holland he is 
england is 4 years behind......
naked woman on tv is a shame


----------



## Robotkiller (May 5, 2006)

I'm not going to see this movie out of my hatred for tom hanks.


----------



## Toiletnojutsu (May 5, 2006)

How can you dislike tom hanks? :s


----------



## Bubbles (May 5, 2006)

How can you like Tom Hanks have you not seen the Terminal? And Semp wtf?

XX


----------



## semperfi (May 5, 2006)

bubblishous said:
			
		

> How can you like Tom Hanks have you not seen the Terminal? And Semp wtf?
> 
> XX


when there are naked woman on tv in england it's scandal.......
the start to cry when they see one boobie 

@on-topic
hanks is okey....not my favorite...


----------



## Bubbles (May 5, 2006)

Semp as an english person who lives in england i can tell you that you are wrong it's just stuff like that is on very late or you have to pay to see it, I can assure you that there are pervs in the uk.

I'm going to see this film anyway 

XX


----------



## Toiletnojutsu (May 5, 2006)

Have you seen Forest Gump? Saving Private Ryan? The Green Mile? D: 

Watch them and I will respect you don't liking Tom Hanks.


----------



## mrbison (May 5, 2006)

this movie is going to be banned in alot of places, dont ask me where i just know it. I just want to see what is about.
oh and bubblishous question what was so wrong about terminal


----------



## Bubbles (May 5, 2006)

The Terminal was just a horrible accent and puppy dog eyes which makes me cringe.

The Green Mile is great yes but not because of hanks, Forrest Gump was ok but also extemely annoying again bad accent.

Where is this film getting banned? That stupid it's only fiction.

XX


----------



## crazymtf (May 5, 2006)

Bad accent? My friend is russian and he said he did a GREAT job. You're not evening russian -_-

Anyway yes i want to see this movie, my grandma and friend told me the book was great and I plan on reading it in the near future.


----------



## ~ Masamune ~ (May 5, 2006)

Can't wait....XD,


----------



## Roy (May 5, 2006)

im not going 2 watch it


----------



## BladeofTheChad (May 5, 2006)

The Terminal was an aweosme movie. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!


----------



## Hokage Naruto (May 5, 2006)

Toiletnojutsu said:
			
		

> Have you seen Forest Gump? Saving Private Ryan? The Green Mile? D:



Those movies were great.  My favorite had to be Forest Gump especially getting shot in the butt and his other encounters.  

As much as I respect Tom Hanks, I don't think this would be his style of movie.  He does show a lot of emotion its just that I just can't see him as the main character.  I guess after I see this movie I might have a different opinion.


----------



## Toiletnojutsu (May 6, 2006)

> As much as I respect Tom Hanks, I don't think this would be his style of movie. He does show a lot of emotion its just that I just can't see him as the main character. I guess after I see this movie I might have a different opinion.



I agree. Ralph Fiennes would have been a much better choice for the role.


----------



## Bubbles (May 6, 2006)

Perhaps my Englishness picks up funnt accents  I agree it's not the role I would put him in.

XX


----------



## Tokio_no_Go (May 7, 2006)

This movie has Magneto in it...... nuff said....


----------



## Hokage Naruto (May 7, 2006)

Toiletnojutsu said:
			
		

> I agree. Ralph Fiennes would have been a much better choice for the role.



That wouldn't be a bad selection but he might've been busy with the Harry Potter movies as Lord You-Know-Who.  XD 

Maybe, he'll do Angels & Demons.


----------



## Exiled_Angel (May 7, 2006)

hmmm not sure if this would be a good film or not, i've read the book and it does leave way for a film but i think it would be a bit of a slow film as the best bit in the book was a converstaion i won't say any more, but the film should be good because tom hanks has surprised people before i think he can do that type of charter as he was pretty much a wooden charater, well i thought so

the book is writen in a way that could easy be made into a film, and game it seems if they will be good or not i don't know the film looks interesting look forward to see if it is any good


----------



## jestx (May 19, 2006)

*The DaVinci Code - Discussion*

*The DaVinci Code*
so dark the con of man

*Movie Discussion*

Note to all: Use SPOILER Tags when pertinent!​

May 19th, 2006. The premiere of Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling novel, _The Da Vinci Code_.  Ron Howard and Tom Hanks reunite for _The Da Vinci Code_, based upon one of the best-selling books of all time by Dan Brown.  The movie is a fast-paced thriller dealing with conspiracies, secret religious societies, and the coverup of a secret thousands of years old, which, if revealed, could shake the foundations of modern society.  The success of the movie's weekend premiere was heavily debated on many news and entertainment networks throughout the month.  

The ticket sales from this weekend will reveal just how well _The Da Vinci Code_ did in the box office, but what did the viewers think?

Did the movie succeed at fully capturing the essence and many messages offered by the novel?

Were the portrayals of the main characters believable?
*-* Robert Langdon  (Tom Hanks)
*-* Sophie Neveu  (Audrey Tautou)
*-* Bezu Fache  (Jean Reno)
*-* Silas (Paul Bettany)
*-* Sir Leigh Teabing  (Sir Ian McKellen)
*-* Bishop Aringarosa  (Alfred Molina)
*-* Jacques Sauniere  (Jean-Pierre Marielle)
*-* Remy Jean  (Jean-Yves Berteloot)
*-* Lt. Collet  (Etienne Chicot)
*-* Andr? Vernet  (J?rgen Prochnow)
*-* Sister Sandrine  (Marie-Fran?oise Audollent)	  

For those who read the book, were the changes and variations that were made by Director Ron Howard from Brown's book necessary?  Did you agree with them all?  What, if anything, would you have liked to have seen done differently?

For those who viewed the movie, did you enjoy it?  If not, what aspect(s) disappointed you?

And finally, there have been talks going on for months about the religious, spiritual, and social implications that could follow the movie's premiere.  In your opinion, do you feel the movie is a direct threat to Christianity?  Do you believe the allegations offered in the movie? **REMEMBER TO SPOIL TAG ANY EXAMPLES YOU GIVE** 

What do you believe is the message both Dan Brown and the filmmakers are hoping people draw from watching the movie?  What messages did you draw?


Remember, to all participating in this discussion, please use Spoiler tags on all plot details you give.  To use Spoiler tags, you simple highlight the text you wish to tag as spoiler-related, and click the *Sp* button at the top of the post window.   

Please be courteous to those who have not had the chance to see the movie or read the book yet.


----------



## jestx (May 19, 2006)

My response to the film:


*Spoiler*: __ 




Overall I enjoyed the movie.  The filmmakers did a great job capturing all the details of what was an in-depth, heavily researched novel.  The places, the props, the backstory, the sheer wealth of detail really helped in succeeding in illustrating the story on the big screen.

As for the cast, I really wasn't unsatisfied with anyone.  I felt that each cast member truly represented the character he/she were portraying.  Tom Hanks, Sophie Neveu, Bezu Fache, Silas, Teabing, they were all just as I pictured them which suggests that the filmmakers really maintained a close familiarity with the novel throughout the filmmaking process.  Dan Brown was also a Producer on the project, which helps a lot on its own.

I noticed a few deviations from the novel in the movie, and I think they were basically necessary changes to keep the pace flowing smoothly.  Books are different because its not troublesome to us to read fast-paced parts followed by slightly longer, drawn-out sections.  But when we are watching a movie, we, as the viewers, tend to get more caught up in the pace.  A long, drawn-out section could seem misplaced on the big screen while it works great in written word.

The initial meeting of Langdon, Neveu, and Teabing in his library was one of the longer sections in the book, and it was PACKED with historical accounts of the Knights Templar, Mary Magdalene, Paganism v.s. Christianity, etc.  I feel the uses of flashbacks, along with the high-tech image of DaVinci's _Last Supper_ really helped keep the audience captivated without a risk of boring some people to sleep.

I really don't have anything that I don't agree on.  As far as a literary adaptation goes, this was dead on in my opinion.  Although the movie was great throughout, I would have to say my favorite part was at the end.  Note: Don't click this if you haven't seen it yet- 
*Spoiler*: __ 



After Langdon cuts himself shaving and realizes the Rose Line leads to the location of Mary Magdalene's tomb, he follows it to the top of the inverted glass pyramid of the Louvre and the camera zooms down through the panels and circles around the tomb far below the basement surface of the building.  Langdon kneels and closes his eyes, very good image to end the movie on.




As far as the messages of The Da Vinci Code, I believe the movie offered the same ones the novel did.  Though some will argue, the theories presented are based in factual historical accounts, and thus are possible.  In my own *personal* case, I attended catholic church as a child, but even then I had many unanswered questions about the teachings in the Bible.  Reading _The Da Vinci Code_ and it's prequel, _Angels and Demons_, and all the historical accounts surrounding the birth of Christianity as a religion really sparked my interests in the subject.  

I am not going to go around preaching to friends who are religious and believers in the teachings of the Church.  I feel everyone can make their own choice on what they believe.  I think it's good that we get the choice to look at evidence presented on both sides of the debate and can make our own decisions accordingly, whereas back hundreds of years ago, some people were _forced_ to believe in certain things.  

Personally, I believe that during his life, Jesus Christ was regarded as a great teacher, and prophet, an inspiration to all.  I believe that the disciples recorded his teachings to inspire others for generations to come.  The Council of Nicaea happened, and there are many who believe that it is at this first council that the Roman Catholic leaders decided that Jesus Christ should be imbued with divinity and seen henceforth as the Son of God, in order to influence a rise in Christianity over Paganism.  I find it completely possible that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were companions and had a child.  In my eyes, this possibility does not tarnish Christ's inspiring teachings.  I just have this feeling that the Church tried to bury certain facts in order to maintain a kind of power over worldwide faith.  I do not know if this is 100% true, but in reading books on the subjects of the Sangreal and the lost gospels of the New Testament, I just have this strong feeling that the possibility is strong that there was something more that the mass community of the world hasn't been told.

I hope that someday more revelations come to the public.  I believe people, no matter their religious "status" deserve to know the truth so they can govern their lives and their faith accordingly.  

These are MY beliefs, and I know others may believe differently, and I am perfectly fine with that.  In the end, whatever helps you to leave a happy, better life is worth believing in.  If believing that the teachings of the Bible and the Church are true makes you a better person, then I think overall... Christ's teachings have survived over the centuries.  I just think everyone deserves the access to the facts so they can make their own decisions.

In conclusion, the book is a must-read and the movie is a very well-done adaption that didn't skimp on any important details, and will most likely bring the ideas, theories, and insights from the novel into the eyes of the public moreso than every before.

I give it 4 out of 4 stars.


----------



## crazymtf (May 19, 2006)

Awsome review man, ima go see it sunday and i'll give my own review


----------



## TenshiOni (May 20, 2006)

And I must disagree with pretty much everyone the critics: I honestly thought The Da Vinci Code movie was great.

While Hanks wasn't at his best, I thought he pulled off a pretty good Langdon and I had completely accepted Audrey Tautou as Sophie by the time they met up with Teabing (who I must say was probably the best character from the book brought to life; Ian McKellen, ftw). Whoever played Silas was awesome too.

While there were some scenes in the movie that made me lean towards the "this book really doesn't make a good movie" crowd, I felt that the pros outweighed the cons by the end. The movie was very faithful to the book; some things were left out and some things were changed slightly, but nothing that retracted from the experience. I still enjoyed myself and never once found myself really bored (it’s pretty long, btw). 

So I suggest that you all make your own opinions on it and not just follow the critics. I almost watched MI:III instead of this and I'm glad my girlfriend changed her mind.


----------



## AssFace (May 20, 2006)

I hope they left the sex scene out, if that's not in I'm gonna watch it.


----------



## jestx (May 20, 2006)

AssFace said:
			
		

> I hope they left the sex scene out, if that's not in I'm gonna watch it.



AssFace click here (semi spoiler):

*Spoiler*: __ 



The sex scene was moved to near the end of the movie and they trimmed it down to like a 1 second FLASHback.  The grandfather and the woman are covered in a blanket so you can see no wrinkled skin


----------



## Aman (May 20, 2006)

PHEW, the critics scared me, thanks guys, Imma see this today.


----------



## Knight of Fate (May 20, 2006)

The movie was great and I like it.
Here's something:

*Spoiler*: __ 



Don't watch it if you don't know a thing about the bible


----------



## Yasha (May 20, 2006)

Wow, lots of positive comments here. I am gonna watch it next week...hopefully.


----------



## heiya (May 20, 2006)

they almost ban davinci here, but they rate it as R-18. i wil not be able to watch it.
geez. how troublesome.


----------



## martryn (May 20, 2006)

I'm going to see X-Men III, as I said in the other thread.  I don't want to see the DaVinci Cade, and not because I'm Christian and I'm boycotting, but because the book sucked and the movie is based off the book so...  

Brown seems to be a freak.  During live interviews he proclaimed the validity of his book and the "facts" presented therein.  And because of the anti-organized religion propoganda in the book, these facts have been widely investigated and most of them have been disproved.  One of the only things they couldn't disprove was whether Christ had married Mary Magdalene or if the two were lovers or had children or anything like that, and despite this and despite that this is the big secret that supposedly would shake the foundations of Christianity, many Christians have already specualted as much.  It isn't that big of a deal.  We've never known much of Christ's personal life, but we don't need to because that wasn't the important part of his life.  

Not to mention that Brown writes a story very similar to Umberto Eco's Foucault Pendulum, which is a great book written all about conspiracies and secret societies and knowledge that would shake the world if true, but it is very well written and predates the DaVinci Code by at least a decade.  In fact, since the release of Brown's novel, Foucault's Pendulum has been referred to as the "Thinking man's DaVinci Code".   

And can we talk about how predictable the DaVinci Code is?  I mean, what idiot reads the book OR sees the movie and doesn't know what's going to happen at the end?  Reading the book there wasn't a single surprise.  

And I don't much care for feminine empowerment or any of that bullshit, and the book is full of it, like the church inventing lies about Mary Magdalene because it thought women were Satanic or some shit.  

Hell, in the front of the book Brown states that all presented within is factual information and after the book's success when it was analyzed and checked for historical accuracy almost nothing held up.  Maybe it's not so much the book which angers me but the radical fans of the book that can't realize for themselves how fake the book really is. 

Now the movie has Tom Hanks in it and is directed by Ron Howard.  How can it suck?  Still, I'll hold off because the book sucked ass.


----------



## C?k (May 20, 2006)

Watching it tommorow hopefully, from what I've read from reviews and what people have said about it...it should be worth it.


----------



## crazymtf (May 20, 2006)

martryn said:
			
		

> I'm going to see X-Men III, as I said in the other thread.  I don't want to see the DaVinci Cade, and not because I'm Christian and I'm boycotting, but because the book sucked and the movie is based off the book so...
> 
> Brown seems to be a freak.  During live interviews he proclaimed the validity of his book and the "facts" presented therein.  And because of the anti-organized religion propoganda in the book, these facts have been widely investigated and most of them have been disproved.  One of the only things they couldn't disprove was whether Christ had married Mary Magdalene or if the two were lovers or had children or anything like that, and despite this and despite that this is the big secret that supposedly would shake the foundations of Christianity, many Christians have already specualted as much.  It isn't that big of a deal.  We've never known much of Christ's personal life, but we don't need to because that wasn't the important part of his life.
> 
> ...



I don't know the ending...


----------



## Aman (May 20, 2006)

Just got home from watching the Davinci code, favorite part was when that teacher got arrested and was laughing to death. 

Was kinda complicated though.


----------



## Hyuuga Neji (May 20, 2006)

TenshiOni said:
			
		

> And I must disagree with pretty much everyone the critics: I honestly thought The Da Vinci Code movie was great.



totally agreed

i heard it was horrible but i acctually liked it a lot, it had a nice mix of suspence, action, even humor and the whole awsome theme of code-breaking

although hanks was not so great it's not really his fault, it's more due to the fact that Langdon is a boring character (has 0 devellopment thoughout hte story) but sophie, on the other hand, is an interesting character so i didnt mind it so much

the whole anti-christian thing didn't bother me one bit in fact i just laughed at some of the hints thinking "christians are going to hate them for that" . seriously if anyone losses their christian faith over that movie they are really taking things too seriously, and if they feel insulted then they just need to chill

also i guess it helps to speak french since i would understand all they said, and i didnt know that almost half the story was in france too

basically in the end, it's a decent film. don't expect some very good work of literature, brown's specialty was not the story but the suspence which is really quite nice.


----------



## jestx (May 20, 2006)

martryn said:
			
		

> I'm going to see X-Men III, as I said in the other thread.  I don't want to see the DaVinci Cade, and not because I'm Christian and I'm boycotting, but because the book sucked and the movie is based off the book so...
> 
> Brown seems to be a freak.  During live interviews he proclaimed the validity of his book and the "facts" presented therein.  And because of the anti-organized religion propoganda in the book, these facts have been widely investigated and most of them have been disproved.  One of the only things they couldn't disprove was whether Christ had married Mary Magdalene or if the two were lovers or had children or anything like that, and despite this and despite that this is the big secret that supposedly would shake the foundations of Christianity, many Christians have already specualted as much.  It isn't that big of a deal.  We've never known much of Christ's personal life, but we don't need to because that wasn't the important part of his life.
> 
> ...




I don't think Brown intended to shatter peoples' faiths or anything that severe.  There are historical thruths from the past that contradict some of the doctrines set forth by the Church.  There were gospels that were rejected at the Council of Nicaea because they would obviously not coincide well with the way the New Testament progressed.  I.e. The Gospel of Phillip, which is quoted in The Da Vinci Code book/movie, when Phillip exclaims that Jesus and Mary were "companions".  Langdon explains that in that era, the term companion was like saying "partner/spouse".  

Now the fact that this was true or not is hard to be proven or disproven.  There are SO many things that have been buried as the years went on, there are so many secrets that have been kept throughout history, and are still kept today.  It would take a lot of research and digging around to uncover these truths.  The question is, are the secrets being kept for our own protection?  Or are they being kept so that a priveledged minority can maintain their sense of power over the planet's most popular religion?  

As for the "Church making up stuff about women", it _is_ true to a degree.  Free-thinking females were labeled witches, sorceresses, abominations and hunted down by the church.  There is a book that has been printed hundreds and hundreds of years ago that illustrates how Church officials are supposed to deal with these females in order to make an example.

You see, some of these inner-circle Church officials feared that a theory that Christ had a child with Mary Magdalene, it would mean he was more human than divine.  Christ was considered a great prophet, teacher, an illumination to thousands during his life.  It wasn't until many years after his death that he was reverred as "The Son of God" by the Council of Nicaea.  Google the Council of Nicaea, there are plenty of articles about it.  It wasn't a myth, it happened during the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine.  Rome has also been the center of Christianity for thousands of years.

If you didn't like the book, then yea I wouldn't suggest you see the movie.  But saying the book "sucked" is a matter of your opinion.  A lot of people like Bleach, I don't like it, but I don't say it "sucks" because that would imply that it is all-around not a well made anime.  Though some may agree, not everyone will, it's how we each interpret it.

I think the same goes for The Da Vinci Code.  Is Dan Brown trying to discredit religion?  Or is he trying to say that Jesus Christ, despite having a child, is still and always will be a great inspiration to mankind?  It's up to the viewer to determine if the book is dismantling faith or reinforcing it into a new perspective.  The reason it has gotten harsh reviews are because many members of the press have tunnel vission.  They see a book making claims that could change something that has been a certain way for thousands of years, so naturally they view it as a "threat" to society.

If you read the book or watch the movie and try to keep an open mind, it's actually not really that abrasive.  Moreso, it's interesting to see just how intricately Christ's life has been woven through the ages.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 20, 2006)

I thought it was a good movie. Although I worry not everyone will realize it is a work of fiction.........

Tom Hanks did fine. Not much of a part though(Same with the chick). I dig Ian Mckellen. Great actor. Jean Russo(Did I get that right?) is one of my top 10 favorite actors so I liked him as always. The villain was also creepy.

My problem was it was a bit too talky. It didn't translate on film well and despite having a fast pace, it was too long. This movie did what "Return of the King" did and not seem to want to end. Imo, it could have ended after the climax. or even after the revellation near the end. But jeez, it dragged on.

But I still liked it.

Overhyped, but I'd say 7/10
(True rating)

Script- 6/10
Directing- 9/10
Genre- 7/10
Personal- 7/10
Acting- 7.5/10

Total- 36.5/50= 7.3/10

Edit:

Comment: 

Some historial goofs were Constantine did not become born again Christian at his death bed. he had a dream which involved a cross just before  abattle so converted and won the battle. That's historical.

Also, the counsil of nancia(dont remember what it is called) didnt really have much of a debate depending on Christ's mortality. In fact, I think only 2% actually voted Christ was mortal. 

You know, people take how certain books being tossed out, way out of context. They considered throwing Ruth out because God doesn't seem to be involved as much. it's just a Jewish story. So don't be that surprised when they threw them out.

Question: When was the Gospel of Phillip written? I hear it was like 100 years after Christ's time. Why do people slam the usual gospels for being written like 50 years after Christs time but whenever something controversial comes up(Such as the gospel of Judas) that is more reliable?

If you don't think the things Christ did were true, you shouldn't use the Bible as a recource for anything else that might be speculation.

As for the Inquisition, that was true. But it was not for the Mary M. deal. It actually became more of a business. Those who were burned lost all their property to the Church, once again proving Religion is the excuse to do evil things, not the cause.


----------



## jestx (May 20, 2006)

MartialHorror said:
			
		

> I thought it was a good movie. Although I worry not everyone will realize it is a work of fiction.........
> 
> Tom Hanks did fine. Not much of a part though(Same with the chick). I dig Ian Mckellen. Great actor. Jean Russo(Did I get that right?) is one of my top 10 favorite actors so I liked him as always. The villain was also creepy.
> 
> ...




Although I enjoyed the very end of the film 
*Spoiler*: __ 



 with Langdon alone over the Louvre pyramids


 I would have to say this one part kind of drew out the climax a bit too long for me :  
*Spoiler*: __ 



 when Langdon and Sophie went to the Church and found the records of the Christ bloodline kept throughout the years, and that Sophie was in fact the direct descendant of Christ and Magdalene

That scene should have been trimmed down a bit.  But I guess they had to put in some dialogue between Langdon and Sophie since they were parting ways.


----------



## jestx (May 20, 2006)

MartialHorror said:
			
		

> Question: When was the Gospel of Phillip written? I hear it was like 100 years after Christ's time. Why do people slam the usual gospels for being written like 50 years after Christs time but whenever something controversial comes up(Such as the gospel of Judas) that is more reliable?




Well I didn't say the Gospel of Phillip was any more true than the Gospels of the New Testament, but just trying to imply that there are questions that haven't been answered.

I saw the Gopsel of Judas documentary on the History Channel and personally, I don't put much weight into it.  


But people can't really regard the Gospels that were accepted into the New Testament as more true than ones that were rejected.  There's a reason they were rejected, because they offered alternative views on Christ, instead of conforming to the general view found in the New Testament.  The Gospels have been under constant revision throughout history.  It would be better to draw examples of inspiration from them than to take them as fact word for word.

My belief anyway.


----------



## KakashiSenseiX (May 20, 2006)

i thought that movie was awesome even though the book was better...its like the whole book totally came to life for me...the portrayal of the characters, i think, were up to par...i give this movie an 8.5-9/10


----------



## MartialHorror (May 20, 2006)

If my sources are correct, the gospel of Phillip was written about 200 years after Christs time..........

that, imo, makes it less reliable than the others. 

I agree that they have rejected many, but as I stated above, they did not take anything that they felt didnt have enough God or such(Ruth is proof) so we can't say there was some hidden controversy. Also, they had to seperate false prophets and such. Take the gospel of Mary Magdeline. Did she write it? Or was she mentioned. They called the gospel of Phillip its title because Phillip is the only apostle mentioned(once mind you).

The Gospel of Thomas, from what I've read, has a few contradictions to Jesus. If I recall, Jesus acts sexist in that. Now, why would the Church, who ignored many of Christ teachings and WERE sexist, take that out?

I dont think its impossible that Jesus and Mary were married. I dont even see how that would be a problem, if they were married. But the Davinci code has a weak argument, and has some bad historical accounts.


----------



## jestx (May 20, 2006)

Well I think Dan Brown just tried to form a story out of the many theories circulating.  There are many sources besides the Da Vinci Code that address these theories and go into greater detail.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 20, 2006)

Yeah, I agree.

It was an interestign story and basically Dan Brown said "If this happened then and were like this...", ect.

No one would have slammed the story if he didnt try to sell it as fact. I dont think he does anymore(Death threats would do that..) but it was still a great story and I intend to read the novel.

I think he lacks originality in many ways. If you have read the prequel to Davinci code, you would know that its basically in many ways the same thing except more linear and replace the crazy Catholics with crazy Atheists.....


----------



## skunkworks (May 20, 2006)

Good flick. It didn't follow the book as tightly as I hoped, but I think they had to shorten it a bit. As for the whole controversy. Jesus was a Jewish man who was put to death by Rome. He was not the Messiah or Gd.


----------



## Chatulio (May 21, 2006)

The reason why most of the newer gospels that are being found arent added into the bible is because they have to meet certain standards. They all have to be writtten by the 1st century any later and its not considered accurate.


----------



## Aman (May 21, 2006)

One of the things I want to get answered is what kind of ritual was Jaques doing? The one that Sophie saw.


----------



## Psychic (May 21, 2006)

I didnt read the book but I did see a video about it at blockbuster so it was interesting enough for me to go watch the movie. I didnt expect it to be good at all, but it was and I really liked it. Then again, I found it was directed by Ron Howard, how can a movie directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks possibly go wrong? The movie explained everything I needed to know and pretty clearly. I totally recommended it, i give it a 8.5/10. 

*Spoiler*: __ 



Here's some thoughts that confused me...
1)What the hell was that scene at the end? Why was her grandfather having sex???
2)Also, why did they wanted to do the witch hunt and killed the bloodline of Christ when the whole point of Christ's hoax was that his bloodline should never be revealed?
Fav scene was when the girl was like "hey" and then she went over and dipped her feet in the pool and was like "nahh."
Loved the ending, with Tom Hanks under the starry sky. I heard there was some protestors at the movie theater, lol.



Here's some food for thought :
So...which movied do you think would make more at the box office? Passion of the Christ or the Da Vinci Code???


----------



## Megaharrison (May 21, 2006)

I saw it on Friday....The book never amazed me that much so the movie didn't either. It seemed a bit thrown together at times.


----------



## crazymtf (May 21, 2006)

didnt see it but i'm pretty sure passion of christ sold out quicker and was a bigger box office hit.


----------



## BladeofTheChad (May 21, 2006)

i heard it sucked, so I saw Over the Hedge instead and it was AWESOME!


----------



## CABLE (May 21, 2006)

BladeofTheImmortal said:
			
		

> i heard it sucked, so I saw Over the Hedge instead and it was AWESOME!



You suck at life.


----------



## martryn (May 21, 2006)

> I don't know the ending...



You would if you saw a few minutes of the movie. 



> There were gospels that were rejected at the Council of Nicaea because they would obviously not coincide well with the way the New Testament progressed. I.e. The Gospel of Phillip, which is quoted in The Da Vinci Code book/movie, when Phillip exclaims that Jesus and Mary were "companions". Langdon explains that in that era, the term companion was like saying "partner/spouse".



Sure, certain things were put in the Bible and certain things weren't, but Brown makes it seem as if the church was supressing something.  The way it was is they picked the gospels to include that concentrated most on the teachings of Christ. 



> Free-thinking females were labeled witches, sorceresses, abominations and hunted down by the church.



Free-thinking anyone, including men, were hunted down by the church.  The movie might be ok due to Tom Hanks and Ron Howard, but the book is mediocre at best.  It doesn't succeed at anything new.  Being a fan of reading, I can safely say that.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 21, 2006)

I might have said this here. Dan Brown is a good writer but I dont think can think of interesting stories.

Angels and Demons is alot like the Davinci code(its a prequel) except more action-oriented and replace the crazy Christians with Crazy Atheists.

I think I proved why the Davinci code was false earlier. 

And I still think it isn't right for people to think the Bible is not true yet consider gospels that come out 200 years after the time of Christ as possible......

Made alot of money though. Mr. Howard and Mr. Hanks should be happy. 

Now I must see "See No Evil" bwahahahaha


----------



## jestx (May 21, 2006)

Aman said:
			
		

> One of the things I want to get answered is what kind of ritual was Jaques doing? The one that Sophie saw.



It's explained in greater detail in the book.  From what I remember, a Pagan ritual concerning the "sacred feminine" and the act of "union".  If you remember when Langdon is talking about the symbols for male and female being the "blade" and "chalice", the unity of the two symbols is an important symbol on its own.


----------



## jestx (May 21, 2006)

MartialHorror said:
			
		

> I might have said this here. Dan Brown is a good writer but I dont think can think of interesting stories.
> 
> Angels and Demons is alot like the Davinci code(its a prequel) except more action-oriented and replace the crazy Christians with Crazy Atheists.
> 
> ...




Again I don't see where people are considering the Gospel of Judas and Mary Magdalene to be anymore true than the Gospels of the New Testament.  I think that they are just interested in them more because they offer more insight into the teachings and life of Christ.  You can't deny that the Church has revised the Gospels of the New Testament over and over again to depict more and more of a picture that they want to be conveyed about Christ.


----------



## BladeofTheChad (May 21, 2006)

Cable said:
			
		

> You suck at life.



Why? because i didnt waste my time on a shitty book to movie adaptation?


----------



## MartialHorror (May 21, 2006)

jestx said:
			
		

> Again I don't see where people are considering the Gospel of Judas and Mary Magdalene to be anymore true than the Gospels of the New Testament.  I think that they are just interested in them more because they offer more insight into the teachings and life of Christ.  You can't deny that the Church has revised the Gospels of the New Testament over and over again to depict more and more of a picture that they want to be conveyed about Christ.



There is no proof of that though. I will agree translations have been messed up.....but luckily, I have a world religions class that explains the big mistakes.

And as I have said many times before, the Church almost threw out Ruth......which doesn't have anything controversial....

Also, I personally don't buy how they altered the Bible that much, being the Catholic Church has ignored most of its teachings.

In fact, I went to Church for the first time in weeks and there was a verse about you arent supposed to commit sin even if it brings grace.....which basically slams the Inquisition. There is another verse I believed they used in the Silent hill movie that slams that as well........

Christ says follow him.....Christ lived as a poor person. The Vatacan is far from poor.....

So if the Church changed all that much, why not change the Bible to fit their own standards? Would make things alot less easier to them.

back on the movie, if you have seen the main trailer, it actually spoils part of the ending...........bad, bad move. I basically told my Dad 
*Spoiler*: __ 



 who the teacher was even before the character was introduced. I havent read the book either....


----------



## jestx (May 22, 2006)

If they revised the New Testament as you suggested I think it would be a little too obvious, and heavily argued.  Right now, I think you can agree, that most practicing Christians take what they read in the Bible to be the *original* account, straight from the time of Christ.  This is not really the case.  The accounts of the disciples are the major influence of the NT Gospels, but throughout hundreds of years, things have been added in, and things have been taken out.  There are many revisions of the Bible and there other editions of it as well.  Over time, the Church has slowly revised the book.

Now, yes, the Gospels of Ruth, Judas, and Mary Magdalene surface much later than the primary NT Gospels.  Is this because they were written much later?  Or perhaps initially kept under wraps?  As you have said, there is no real reason for the Church to keep these Gospels secret or out of the publics eye, but perhaps there is...

The Catholic Church is built on the premise that Christ is the Son of God, who died for the sins of all, and was resurrected soonafter.  Upon his resurrection, he was said to have walked the Earth performing miracles and generally reinforcing peoples' faith.

There are other types of religions, though, who have their own theories and beliefs.  Gnosticism for example is a religion that regards Christ as nothing more than an ordinary mortal man.  Yes, a man who did extraordinary things and inspired millions of people in his lifetime, but a man nonetheless.  No relation to an unseen "higher power".  This belief again coincides with the Council of Nicaea, where it is *documented* that there was a vote to name Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  The vote may have been a lopsided vote, but it was a vote nonetheless.  This was many years after Christ's death.

Ok so we've established that the Catholic Church and Christianity is built on the basis that Jesus Christ was the son of God and sent to Earth to save mankind from the path it was on.  Whether or not he is of divine descent, I think he accomplished that goal, hands down.  But what is left untold is if he was really in fact a divine being or simply a mortal who was a great and influential prophet and teacher.

There are fragments of accounts throughout the period shortly after the Christ's crucifixion that suggest he fathered a child.  Firstly, the Gospel of Phillip, which is of course partially destroyed and full of gaps, tends to suggest that Christ regarded Mary Magdalene as the most special of the disciples and the one he was the closest to.  Now this could mean intimacy and it could just be a platonic love between them.  However, there is another account that after the crucifixion, Magdalene was forced to flee Jerusalem to the South of France.  She has been said to have arrived there with a daughter named Sarah.  There is a coastal village in the south of France that commemorates her arrival each year.  

This is the evidence that many theories begin building on.  Now the general theory is that Christ (possibly unbeknownst to him) may have fathered a child  before his crucifixion.  This child would have been in danger during the time of the crucifixion.  If Christ had an heir, the child would have been hunted down along with the disciples.  You have to remember that at the time of the crucifixion, Christ's teachings are not widely accepted, and are subject to growing prejudice.  The child of Jesus would have had to be hidden.

Now, many years after Jesus' death, the teachings begin to become the central religion of Europe.  The Roman Empire adopts the Catholic religion and to this day, Rome is the center of Christian doctrine.  If the bloodline of Jesus, the child brought by Mary to France, had indeed continued through the generations, then it is possible that there are living relative(s) in the modern era.  The relative(s) would be a threat to the Christian religion which from the period of Constantine to the modern day has been built on the basis that Christ is a direct descendant of God.  That Christ himself is a divine being.  

Unfortunately it has become common belief that one cannot be divine and mortal at the same time.  I don't agree with this, but many do.  To many, if Jesus had a child, it would mean he was mortal with mortal passions and desires.  It would go against hundreds of years of teachings.  It would mean chaos for the Christian religion and surely a shift of power from the Vatican.

This is when many theorists believed that the records of the geneology of Christ's bloodline became one of the biggest kept secrets throughout the ages.  A deadly secret that would introduce possible facts that would question the writings of the most-read book in history, The Holy Bible.  This would be devastating to many devout Christians worldwide.  Is it better to let people have keep their faith?  Thus, keep the bloodline, and the identity of the descendents of Christ a secret?  Perhaps.

The problem is, I don't think it could ever be proven or disproven.  The early records are just too vague that any speculation can be made about them.  There are "facts" to prove theories and disprove them.  People on both sides of the fence can argue endlessly about what is fact and what is presumed.  The only thing that can be agreed upon is that nothing is written in stone.  People see a book called _The Da Vinci Code_ and they convince themselves that Dan Brown is trying to ruin Christianity.  When in fact it is a FICTIONAL novel that happens to use historical evidence, theories, and real places/artifacts to pose many questions that have long since been unanswered.  

This is why, to me, it is a good story.  But people need to realize that these thoughts, these ideas, are not consolidated in _The Da Vinci Code_ alone, there have been many books and many researches involved in these theories.  One book titled, _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ was printed before _The Da Vinci Code_ and it addresses many of the theories discussed in the latter.  The book is not written like a novel, and thus could not really be adapted to film, but it does deal with the Priory of Sion, the true "holy grail" and the coverup to conceal the true descendent(s) of Christ from the Catholic Church.

I don't understand how people can say it's "not true"  or "it sux".  The theories can't be proven or disproven.  Not without much more research.  If you happened to not have liked the book, then okay thats your opinion, but at least bring more to the discussion than "it sucked because it was a bad book".

EDIT- wow, didn't realize I drew that out that much..


----------



## Keyser S?ze (May 22, 2006)

i saw it last night, i thought it was pretty good.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 22, 2006)

1) Yes, most Christians go off the translated version. 

2) In that counsil, their wasn't much debate though. If 2% voted as Christ as a man, which less probably less than how current Christianity views Christ, that means it is agreed Christ was most likely considered to be son of God. 

3) Mistake. Ruth, if I recall, was an OT text. Using our great science, the books of Judas and Philip were written 200-300 years after Christ's death. It's like for example. With the NT gospels, imagine a WW2 veteran this day writing about his experiences during that war. Now...........imagine the Revolutionary War. If we were to write about that, keeping in mind, the Jews didn't have much written records(I believe) about something few people would know about. The records would be shaky.

4) Sorry, the History is not real. Brown makes some bad claims that even secular historians slam. He alters history to support a theory. 



This has many links shooting down most of Browns claims.


----------



## shizuru (May 23, 2006)

i've never read the book, but i watched the film last night, ^_^ it's the most popular film at the moment were i live its like impossible to get tickets to see the film.


----------



## jestx (May 23, 2006)

MartialHorror said:
			
		

> 1) Yes, most Christians go off the translated version.
> 
> 2) In that counsil, their wasn't much debate though. If 2% voted as Christ as a man, which less probably less than how current Christianity views Christ, that means it is agreed Christ was most likely considered to be son of God.
> 
> ...




A lot of those articles are written by Catholic journalists or come from Catholic media sources.  I read through a few, and they disagree with point after point of the novel, but ultimately fail to explain why they disagree, and if they happen to explain it (rarely), they don't offer any proof of their own.  To me, the whole debate is a difference of views on the subjects.

I am not saying everything in the novel is FACT, I am saying that when it pertains to some things, notably Magdalene mothering a child descended from Christ, who's to say it's IMPOSSIBLE?  From what I've seen thus far, Catholics.

For example, in the article _Dismantling The Da Vinci Code_, from CRISIS Magazine, the author writes:

_"Contrary to yet another of Brown?s claims, Tarot cards do not teach goddess doctrine. They were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century and didn?t acquire occult associations until the late 18th."_

Ok.... so they were invented for innocent gaming purposes... in who's opinion?  The author's?  Is this a historical fact?  I searched the entire article and found no citation on where she drew this "fact" from.  So without documentation, it's only her *opinion*.

The problem with all of this is, there are some conspiracy buffs who will believe any theory and take it as fact.  Alternatively, there are Catholic/Christian journalists and "scholars" who claim to have researched the theories.... but aren't they somewhat biased?  They seem to be just going down the line and finding any small minute thing to prove as false then build up their house of cards from there.

I mean look at where some of these articles were printed:

Christianity Today
Catholic Answers
Official Opus Dei response
A Christian response
Christian comparison of the claims of Dan Brown's book vs. the historical facts
ReligionFacts.com
altreligion.about.com article

Because the novel gained popularity quickly and became a best seller, a lot of people view it as the only source of the many theories it addresses.  The fact is, there have been many many more books published that address the SAME theories.  This isn't some guy named Dan Brown re-writing history to sell a novel claiming it's fact...  He wrote a fictional work based on the research done on many theories which do have some historical plausibility.

Sadly, close-minded Catholics/Christians view it as an attack on their faith, when it really isn't.  It's just telling people to keep an open mind.  I don't understand why researching into Christ's history has become some taboo thing...  it's like, all the critics dismiss anything that doesn't coincide with what they read in the Bible, hear in Church, or can be proven 100% immediately.

EDIT- Just read the _10 Historical Errors in The Da Vinci Code_ by the Oxford "professor".  Yep.  More vague arguments.  Here's an excerpt...

_2. It?s not true that eighty Gospels ?were considered for the New Testament." This makes it sound like there was a contest, entered by mail. . ._

So it's untrue because he disagrees with the wording of the statement?  That's all I see him arguing in that excerpt.  Again I searched the entire article and found no citations, or nowhere for me to go to read his historical backup for his claims.

These critics need to learn to seperate faith and opinion from historical fact,  otherwise they aren't objective critics, and thus their criticisms are flawed.


----------



## jestx (May 23, 2006)

Man I love that link..  And here's another one that starts out...

"_Opening weekend of the blasphemous Da Vinci Code movie is now over and we should to take advantage of the next few days to strategize for this week?s protests._"

Blasphemous?  Protests??  Horrible grammar???

Yeah, didn't even waste my time reading that article.  Why?  Because devout believers in the writings in the Bible will, by instinct, dismiss any theory that "goes against the grain" - as blasphemy.  They never offer any proof, or back up for their claims besides "because it's wrong to think that way".  I don't understand this, I don't understand how some people can call that faith.  Why can't Catholics/Christians be open to the possibility that Christ had a child?  Because it would make him more mortal and less godlike...?  What does any of that matter.  Isn't the important thing Christ's teachings?  How would his messages change if he had a child?

You see, many people have become conditioned to regard things a certain way, and believe that anything new or argumentative is ultimately "wrong".

But they don't mind passing judgement and criticisms of their own...


----------



## MartialHorror (May 23, 2006)

This actually is a better link....being its not a directory of other links. 

Also, I would also like to mention Dan Brown has even lied about himself and his studies before. 

As for that game, 

Now, you say Christians are biased. But really, aren't non-Christians. Muslims supported the book of Judas because it supported their belief Christ did not die on the cross. Ian Mckellen is a militant atheist who actually believed everything the DaVinci code said, despite it being proved to be shaky. 
So Christian or non Christian, it seems everyone is biased.




I don't think there is anything wrong with Jesus having a kid. I dont agree how the Catholic Church(Keeping in mind, Im not Catholic) treats the book/movie because they are coming across as scared. Even Secular Historians slam DaVinci Code. 

One stupid comment of yours, on those "innocent gaming" cards, if it was originally just to be a game, that would make it innocent. Think our current card games right now. 

I mean, let's see some examples of bad history.

Opus Dei: NOTHING LIKE IT WAS IN THE MOVIE. They don't even have Monks.

2)
*Spoiler*: __ 



According to the story, prior to AD 325, Christ was considered no more than a "mortal prophet" by his followers, and it was only as a consequence of Emperor Constantine's politicking and a close vote at the First Council of Nicaea that Christianity came to view him as divine. This has been debated by various authors with extensive reference to the Bible and the Church Fathers, sources that pre-date the First Council of Nicaea [3] (see also The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870 (1964) by Philip Hughes). According to these sources, at the Council, the central question was whether Christ and God were homoousios, "of one substance", and thus one — or whether instead Christ was homoiousios, "of like substance", and thus the first created being, inferior to the Father, but still superior to all other beings (see Arianism). The vote was 316 to 2.




3) On the Last Supper: "Also, in rough sketches of the painting, the person next to Jesus is actually labeled "John". [9]

4)"
*Spoiler*: __ 



Constantine is asserted to have collated the present biblical canon and ordered the seizure and burning of the non-canonical Gospels and the editing of others to suit his purposes; this is inaccurate.

The Emperor did have Arius exiled for his views that Jesus was a created being, divine but less than God the Father, and Arian writings were burned, but this did not include any Gospels. Furthermore, Arianism did not call for the acceptance of Gnosticism or its Gospels.

The book's claim of the Gospels being edited is demonstrably false since it would be impossible to track down the thousands of copies going around the Christian world (there was no "master registry" of Gospel manuscripts), and older pre-Nicene copies of the Gospels have been found which all match post-Nicene ones.

The official Church canon was not decreed by Constantine; indeed, debate about the inclusion of the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books continued after his time. The Council of Nicaea did not debate about the canonical books but about the relationship between Jesus and God.




5) 
*Spoiler*: __ 



The book also claims that the Gnostic Gospels (e.g. the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary Magdalene, and the recently rediscovered Judas) are far older and less corrupted and thus more accurate than the four included in the Bible. With the possible exception of Thomas, the other Gospels date from the 2nd Century through the 4th Century, while the canonical four date from the 1st Century. It is also an error to assert that these Gospels focus more on Jesus' humanity. The other Gospels we are aware of, for the most part, treat Jesus as more otherworldly and lack the humanizing detail of the Biblical accounts. The assertion of "more than eighty gospels" written, with only the familiar four chosen as canonical, greatly exaggerates the number of Gnostic Gospels written. There were indeed many Gnostic writings but only a few claimed to be Gospels.





6) There is no real evidense Davinci was in any secret society.
7) The Holy Templar is way off.......they went to power because someone with high religious authority(I forget who) supported them. Not because they found something(Holy Grail). They also werent executed by the Church, but by the King at the time.

There are much more in the link. So basically, all these claims that tie in with Jesus marrying Mary are very shakey. 

Almost crushing any good evidense Brown might have had. Now, it isn't impossible. I dont think it would be a problem if it was(Marrying is not a sin). But there is little to nothing to suggest they actually did marry.


----------



## uzamaki kurt (May 23, 2006)

jestx said:
			
		

> I don't think Brown intended to shatter peoples' faiths or anything that severe.  There are historical thruths from the past that contradict some of the doctrines set forth by the Church.  There were gospels that were rejected at the Council of Nicaea because they would obviously not coincide well with the way the New Testament progressed.  I.e. The Gospel of Phillip, which is quoted in The Da Vinci Code book/movie, when Phillip exclaims that Jesus and Mary were "companions".  Langdon explains that in that era, the term companion was like saying "partner/spouse".
> 
> Now the fact that this was true or not is hard to be proven or disproven.  There are SO many things that have been buried as the years went on, there are so many secrets that have been kept throughout history, and are still kept today.  It would take a lot of research and digging around to uncover these truths.  The question is, are the secrets being kept for our own protection?  Or are they being kept so that a priveledged minority can maintain their sense of power over the planet's most popular religion?
> 
> ...




I dont believe anyone is saying that the Council of Nicaea didnt happen but something you do need to know is that the books of the New testament werent decide until almost 50 years after... all the council of Nicaea was trying to do was bring Christianity under one doctirine and refute false teaching. Jesus' Divinity has never been under question by Christians for example look at some of these things written by leaders long before constantine... Quoted from thetruthaboutdavinci.com reads, "The Arians submitted their statement of doctrine that flatly denied the divinity of Christ. It was soundly rejected. The bishops, led by Athanasius, considered what was taught by the original church in the writings of the New Testament. These men wrote up an alternative creed, which became the Nicene Creed. In it Jesus was affirmed to be divine, the historic position of the church for the previous three hundred years.
There are many confirmations of this fact. Here is what several of these leaders wrote, all long before the council of Nicaea. (years approximate):

    * Ignatius: "God Himself was manifested in human form" (A.D. 105).
    * Clement: "It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God" (A.D. 150).
    * Justin Martyr: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He...is even God" (A.D. 160).
    * Irenaeus: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this" (A.D. 180).
    * Tertullian: "...Christ our God" (A.D. 200).
    * Origen: "No one should be offended that the Savior is also God..." (A.D. 225).
    * Novation: "...He is not only man, but God also..." (A.D. 235).
    * Cyprian: "Jesus Christ, our Lord and God" (A.D. 250).
    * Methodius: "...He truly was and is...with God, and being God..." (A.D.290).
    * Lactantius: "We believe Him to be God" (A.D. 304).
    * Arnobius: "Christ performed all those miracles...the...duty of Divinity" (A.D. 305).

This shows the leaders of the church have always considered Jesus divine. " 

As for your quote out of Phillip there is something you need to know of the Gnostic gospels and Gnosticism in general was started as a religious movement to blend elements from pagan mythology, Greek philosophy, Judaism, and Christianity into a single paradigm in which devotees attempted to achieve gnosis (the greek word for knowledge), a special level of insight into the inner nature of the cosmos.

So it is not suprising that the church would not put this in their Bible and you can see why they dont stand up well with theologians or many historians as being fact since they were written many years after Christ and were altered views written around Gnosticim not Christianity. As for the gospel of philip written late 3rd century, it doesnt claim to be written by an apostle and the book is called by his name only because he is mentioned in it. It reads And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] more than [...] the disciples, [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]. Each [...] represents a hole in the parchment. Another thing to know of the time is that kissing was a way of greeting b/t men or women and companion is not viewed as lover as you say but the aramic translation for companion meant more along the lines of follower or friend and was taken completely out of context and put to 21st century standards by a man who frankly knows nothing of history or the Aramaic language.


----------



## uzamaki kurt (May 23, 2006)

jestx said:
			
		

> A lot of those articles are written by Catholic journalists or come from Catholic media sources.  I read through a few, and they disagree with point after point of the novel, but ultimately fail to explain why they disagree, and if they happen to explain it (rarely), they don't offer any proof of their own.  To me, the whole debate is a difference of views on the subjects.
> 
> I am not saying everything in the novel is FACT, I am saying that when it pertains to some things, notably Magdalene mothering a child descended from Christ, who's to say it's IMPOSSIBLE?  From what I've seen thus far, Catholics.
> 
> ...



The thing you need to realize is that its not an opinion of historical fact in general no historian or art historian agrees with any thing that "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or "The Davinci Code" states as fact. And as you say "historical fact" you need to remember that what is stated in these books is only theory which in this case in mere speculation does not hold up next to any historical fact not only from the bible but from any history of the time. Like for instance in The Davici Code it says that the Knights Templar gain power because the Priory Of Sion started them is false... It is common knowledge that they gained power by becoming basically an ATM in ancient times transfering currency and money. Another example of poor theory is that they claim in the Da Vinci Code that Lenardo Da Vinci denounced Christianity to further his backing of the Sacred Feminine power but another common known fact is that he made arrangements before he died to have a traditional catholic burial. I mean the list goes on with these kind of mistakes. Another would be the that Constantine gave Jesus Divinity and that Christians at the beginning didnt see him as the son of God but again this is common knowledge that he was curcified for claiming to be the son of God and having followers who believed him so something that can be found in every book of the new testament. Another misconception about leonardo da vinci is that his last supper painting   has mary in it which as stated above was proven false when lookin at lenardo's sketches of the painting. Also in both "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Da vinci Code" its stated that Leonardo left a clue about the true grail by not having Jesus' Cup in the painting, but again common knowledge is that this was the last supper but was the depiction of Jesus telling his disciples that they will betray them... so it has nothing to do with the commonly known "grail" of Jesus. Oh yea and the whole basis for the conspiracy theory is the Priory of Sion correct? Well it doesnt even exsist it was fabricated by Pierre Plantard, a man who wanted to be consider royalty and he later testified under oath that he had fabricated the entire hoax. So there goes Dan Brown's who grand theory.

I can continue if you'd like to bring up other points. 

And if you want historical evidence remember the Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity - with more manuscript evidence and less significant variations deviation than any other, by a long shot.


----------



## jestx (May 23, 2006)

You guys missed the part when I said I didn't believe the Da Vinci Code was fact.  I'm just arguing the arguments of these critics because they seem to be heavily biased and unable to seperate their own faith from historical accounts.

But I'm done with this discussion, because MartialHorror argued a part of my post with "Another stupid comment of yours...".  I don't see how what I said was "stupid" , I was merely questioning the critic's sources for her comments...  Why couldn't she have explained in greater detail why tarrot cards were considered innocent playing cards in the 15th century?  Without giving me something to read more into and say, "Oh, yea, looks like she's right", it's just her opinion, and a biased one at that.  Just arguing everything and anything because she personally feels the theories are wrong.  

I don't buy into any side, really, I have said that in my posts.  I just recognize that may of the DaVinci Code bashers are devout Catholics/Christians who are arguing it without giving any solid proof or more information as to why the theories are, in their eyes, 100% incorrect.  I was hoping to have a good discussion here about it, but now that it's turning into a little flame war, I'm done.  If I wanted to have a playground argument, I could fly home and argue with my sister.

Bye.


----------



## uzamaki kurt (May 24, 2006)

jestx said:
			
		

> You guys missed the part when I said I didn't believe the Da Vinci Code was fact.  I'm just arguing the arguments of these critics because they seem to be heavily biased and unable to seperate their own faith from historical accounts.
> 
> But I'm done with this discussion, because MartialHorror argued a part of my post with "Another stupid comment of yours...".  I don't see how what I said was "stupid" , I was merely questioning the critic's sources for her comments...  Why couldn't she have explained in greater detail why tarrot cards were considered innocent playing cards in the 15th century?  Without giving me something to read more into and say, "Oh, yea, looks like she's right", it's just her opinion, and a biased one at that.  Just arguing everything and anything because she personally feels the theories are wrong.
> 
> ...




Im not trying to flame you... I was just giving you some historical fact to go by that is openly excepted by any historian, christian or not.  You can have your opinion but remember there is a fine line between fact and theory. An example would evolution... which has been debated over since Charles Darwin  introduced the idea and even though there hasnt been any physical evidence of the so called "between stages" people (scientist in general) except it as fact. Now you could say this is because they just want something else besides God or religion. So in my honest opinion the people that agree with the books on this matter are just jumping on the bandwagon to further their career, which can be said for both sides.


----------



## graysocks (Jun 30, 2006)

Finally seen this film after a month of wanting to go T_T

I must say that it wasn't as disappointing as i was preparing myself for after enjoying the book. All the actors were good but i felt let down with scenes like Silas' death and the conversations and backstories being toned down. Nearly no mention of Roberts past and wtf was Fache supposed to be Opus Dei? I didn't think his religion really came into it that much, i just seen him as a Christian. But apart from these small crititisms a good movie.


----------



## Ongakukage (Feb 16, 2007)

This movie was alright, but if you have read the book, they left a lot out of the movie. Overall it was an ok movie.


----------



## Shamini (Feb 16, 2007)

well you cant really incorporate evrything from the book to the movie . They need to  cute off parts of it . But  the movie was good  , really enjoyed it ^_^


----------



## Jackal Iscariot (Feb 16, 2007)

Was decent.. i somehow felt like it lacked something...


----------



## Lemonade (Feb 16, 2007)

I never watched the movie~~was going to get the audio book.

I heard mix things about the movie~~but I can't judge it~~


----------

