# Saw DaVinci Code



## Firebeetle (May 18, 2006)

As some of you know, I'm a projectionist as my part-time gig and we showed DaVinci for the employees last night.

I have NOT read the book (a rarity for me) so I don't know how it stacks against it. My friend who attended had and was satisfied although a lot was taken out apparently. 

As a movie, there was a rumor that this movie must stink because the company wasn't doing advanced screenings. I don't see that at all. I really enjoyed it. It looks terrific, well-directed, excellent acting, characters are conveyed well, and the mystery is top notch. I really appreciate the academic nature of it. This movie is a lot like "National Treasure" with an IQ. 

Anyone planning on seeing it opening night? I'm tempted to "check the print" again tonight. (we did have a bad frame in reel 3  )


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Nope... Not going to see it, ever. (well, that's not quite true, if I was told I'd get to hit Don Brown in the nuts with a baseball bat after the screening, I probably would)

The book managed to insult my intelligence, offend my vestigial religious sensibilities, and bore me, all at the same time. I tossed it in the garbage, because I don't have a backyard to burn it in.


----------



## jester47 (May 18, 2006)

I will prolly check it out.  I have been waiting for a dramatization of Focoult's Pendulum for a long time...


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (May 18, 2006)

I'm planning on seeing it, actually already have my tickets.

Thought it was a "good" book, not excellent, not great, but good.  The religious "changes" didn't bother me, since I picked up the book in the FICTION section, and I know that fiction means (loosely) not factual.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 18, 2006)

I've decided to pick up the book as a result of the movie. I've always been a religious reformer (I asked the uncomforable questions in Sunday School) and appreciate a non-dogmatic view of Christ more than the next guy. I know it offends some people. I have lots more to say on the subject, but that would violate our no religion/politics rule.

As for a dramatization of Foucault's Pendalum (spoilers) it's not in there buddy, sorry. Was that in the book?


----------



## Roudi (May 18, 2006)

Not to get too far off-topic, but...

mmu1, how did _The DaVinci Code_ insult your intelligence?  I read the book recently and, my own criticisms of the work aside, it never insulted my intelligence.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 18, 2006)

Rental.


----------



## Henry (May 18, 2006)

I don't know about opening night, but I may yet see it. If not, I'll definitely rent it, just because Tom Hanks always turns in a pretty good performance in most any movie he's in.


----------



## Bront (May 18, 2006)

I'll be seeing it next monday or tuesday.

My father, who I think is a fairly intellegent person, enjoyed the book (though he said Angels and Devils was much better).  And personaly, given that the book is *FICTION*, I don't see how it can insult someone on the religious basis, as it's not something the author states as trueths, or that he even believes it.


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Roudi said:
			
		

> Not to get too far off-topic, but...
> 
> mmu1, how did _The DaVinci Code_ insult your intelligence?  I read the book recently and, my own criticisms of the work aside, it never insulted my intelligence.




Oh, let's see... The main character's smug little lectures that read like something a sophomore liberal arts major might regurgitate, the fact he was asking me to take a "symbologist" seriously (admittedly, a lot of this is my own bias, but being a science person, I find a lot of other academic disciplines nothing but a way of keeping sociology and philosophy majors from starving to death), the idea that a mystery that was designed so that most readers could solve stuff along with the characters actually stumped the police...

In general, I thought Brown wasn't just asking the readers to suspend their disbelief, he was asking them to suspend their critical thinking and logical reasoning, while spoon-feeding them the story.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2006)

Loved the book, and looking forward to the movie.  Should be good.


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> And personaly, given that the book is *FICTION*, I don't see how it can insult someone on the religious basis, as it's not something the author states as trueths, or that he even believes it.




Yeah, well, maybe it's because that in reality, the author actually went to great lengths to convey the impression that, while the book was about fictional characters and events, the history underlying the story was based on hard, historical fact? That he did so repeatedly while doing publicity for the book?

He might not be saying that the Roman Catholic Church employs fanatical albino monks to keep certain things secret by killing people, but he certainly _does_ make the claim that based on historical evidence, the Catholic Church has been lying about all the major tenets of Christianity, and covering up any evidence of the truth.


----------



## Iku Rex (May 18, 2006)

(It's currently at 19% on Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/ )


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 18, 2006)

Brown' is very misleading about what he claims is and is not true.  Check out some transcripts from his interviews if you get the chance.  Or even better, his website http://www.danbrown.com/.  But I agree with the idea that any information found in fiction (and really, _any_ book) should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have to see this movie, if only to satisfy my curiousity about Tom Hanks's hair.  Is it really a mullet, or just a psedo-mullet?  Is it light and fluffy?  Does it bounce?  These are the burning questions I think are often neglected in light of the controversial topic of the novel.


----------



## Desdichado (May 18, 2006)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> (It's currently at 19% on Rotten Tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/ )



Up quite a bit from two? days ago when it was at 0%.  Still, now Roger Ebert gave it a good review, I'm inclined to be a bit less dismissive.  He's the one critic I actively seek out.  Not that I always agree with him, but I can at least understand where he's coming from and gauge what I'll think of the movie based on his review.

I won't see it opening day, no.  Not at all.  I might see it later in the weekend or the next week, though.  My wife is looking forward to it, at least.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2006)

Why do people care what the author of the book said about the book or the movie?  It's a fiction book, a fiction movie, it is officially listed as both.  If you think the author is personally a quack liar or something, who cares?  I listen to Wagner's music and he was a racist bastard.  I disagree with the personal views of a lot of artists and writers and such...but I don't see how the artist and the art should be so connected that I would refuse to enjoy the art because I don't personally like the artist.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 18, 2006)

I am very interested in seeing this movie, because I heard the book was good and I am too lazy to read.  Sounds like an interesting plot, one that at least peeked my interests.


----------



## frankthedm (May 18, 2006)

*Mazes and Monsters II*, _this time we spread falsehoods about Catholicism!_


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Why do people care what the author of the book said about the book or the movie?  It's a fiction book, a fiction movie, it is officially listed as both.  If you think the author is personally a quack liar or something, who cares?  I listen to Wagner's music and he was a racist bastard.  I disagree with the personal views of a lot of artists and writers and such...but I don't see how the artist and the art should be so connected that I would refuse to enjoy the art because I don't personally like the artist.




Are you.... aaargh...

*Brown has a freakin' disclaimer in the front of the book, claiming that parts of it are FACT.* How more obvious can it get? Does that cease to be true, just because Barnes and Noble puts it on a shelf labeled "fiction"?

Also, while Wagner might have been a racist bastard, AFAIK, his racist views weren't represented in the notes of his music in any significant way. On the other hand, Brown is a liar and a quack, and his book is an expression of those lies and quackery. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Are you.... aaargh...
> 
> *Brown has a freakin' disclaimer in the front of the book, claiming that parts of it are FACT.* How more obvious can it get? Does that cease to be true, just because Barnes and Noble puts it on a shelf labeled "fiction"?
> 
> Also, while Wagner might have been a racist bastard, AFAIK, his racist views weren't represented in the notes of his music in any significant way. On the other hand, Brown is a liar and a quack, and his book is an expression of those lies and quackery. Apples and oranges.




And just to remind this is about the "movie" and not personal views of the author or any other peripheral beliefs.   Leave it be on these boards please.   If you don't like the movie, then that's fine, as you've said as much.   Just because someone asks you why you don't like it, still doesn't condone going off on a tangent.   You don't enjoy this authors views or creations....leave it at that.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Are you.... aaargh...
> 
> *Brown has a freakin' disclaimer in the front of the book, claiming that parts of it are FACT.* How more obvious can it get? Does that cease to be true, just because Barnes and Noble puts it on a shelf labeled "fiction"?
> 
> Also, while Wagner might have been a racist bastard, AFAIK, his racist views weren't represented in the notes of his music in any significant way. On the other hand, Brown is a liar and a quack, and his book is an expression of those lies and quackery. Apples and oranges.




His book is fiction.  It's not lies and quackery, it's just fiction.  Sure, parts ARE fact.  Most fiction books have parts that are fact.  That doesn't make them non-fiction or a trick or a lie.

I have the book and there is no disclaimer on the front.  Perhaps his PR people later put there to drum up more controversey on some obscure copy, but that doesn't actually make it non-fiction in any way.  In fact, here is a link to the current cover (no disclaimer):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385504209/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8258444-7312040#reader-link

Brown's views are not represented in the notes of his book either...in fact there IS no notes section.  It is not presented as fact, it is not generally marketed as fact (there is no murder, there is no albino, and there is no secret da vinci discovery).  If you need to turn to interviews with the author to make your case, I think you've actually just made mine instead.

You are free to see the world through your filter, but I think most of the planet recognizes this as purely a fiction mystery movie, and you have to really stretch to pretend this is being portraryed as a factual movie.


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> And just to remind this is about the "movie" and not personal views of the author or any other peripheral beliefs.   Leave it be on these boards please.   If you don't like the movie, then that's fine, as you've said as much.   Just because someone asks you why you don't like it, still doesn't condone going off on a tangent.   You don't enjoy this authors views or creations....leave it at that.




Here's an even better idea: leave it to the moderators to determine forum etiquette, and mind your own business. (in particular in threads you hadn't posted in, other than to try to lecture someone else)

If Mistwell didn't feel like continuing the conversation, I'm sure he'd have indicated as much.


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> His book is fiction.  It's not lies and quackery, it's just fiction.  Sure, parts ARE fact.  Most fiction books have parts that are fact.  That doesn't make them non-fiction or a trick or a lie.
> 
> I have the book and there is no disclaimer on the front.  Perhaps his PR people later put there to drum up more controversey on some obscure copy, but that doesn't actually make it non-fiction in any way.  In fact, here is a link to the current cover (no disclaimer):
> 
> ...




I was actually referring to the "all organisations, works of art and secret rituals portrayed here are real" note as the "disclaimer", I'm pretty sure all versions of the book have it.

However, let's just say we agree to disagree, since we clearly aren't bothered by the same issues. (and I won't pretend to know how most of the _planet_ feels about a movie based on a book most of the planet probably hasn't read)


----------



## trancejeremy (May 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, maybe it's because that in reality, the author actually went to great lengths to convey the impression that, while the book was about fictional characters and events, the history underlying the story was based on hard, historical fact? That he did so repeatedly while doing publicity for the book?
> 
> He might not be saying that the Roman Catholic Church employs fanatical albino monks to keep certain things secret by killing people, but he certainly _does_ make the claim that based on historical evidence, the Catholic Church has been lying about all the major tenets of Christianity, and covering up any evidence of the truth.




Well, that second claim is true, partially.  There was no single Christian movement in the early days, there were quite a number of them. But Catholic Church did win out and suppress the beliefs of others. This really isn't in dispute - as the early Catholics wrote about this (Irenaeus's  Against Heresies series of books http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers.htm )

Luckily, some of the old manuscripts and books of those early believers survived by being hidden away and were recently (relatively) found. Like the Nag Hammadi library

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Some early Christians did view Jesus as being married to Mary Magdalene. See the Gospel of Phillip from the link above, for instance. That branch of Gnosticism believed that the soul had two aspects - masculine and feminine, and when the soul came into the world, it was broken into two.  And by marriage, it was reuinited. 

OTOH, Catholics aren't lying or covering up the "truth". They just happen to have differing views on what the major tenets are.  People sometimes have a tendency to think that people of a religion secretly believe another religion is actually right, but are for some reason simply lying about their own beliefs. But in truth they try to suppress what other's say because they don't think it's worth talking about. 

Much like how many Scientists treat UFOs.  They aren't really trying to suppress any study of them, they just don't think it's worth dealing with. But it's fun to imagine conspiracies and such.


----------



## Dagger75 (May 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Nope... Not going to see it, ever. (well, that's not quite true, if I was told I'd get to hit Don Brown in the nuts with a baseball bat after the screening, I probably would)
> 
> The book managed to insult my intelligence, offend my vestigial religious sensibilities, and bore me, all at the same time. I tossed it in the garbage, because I don't have a backyard to burn it in.




Well DON Brown wrote the Duh Vinci Code maybe you picked up that book.

 DAN Brown wrote Da Vinci Code


----------



## trancejeremy (May 18, 2006)

What I find amazing about this is why it's so popular. I mean, it's nothing new.  The book that the Davinci Code was based on came out in 1982, I think.  And the whole Templar/Holy Grail thing was very popular in the early 90s (which I first got into it), which even spawned a Shadowrun novel with the very similar premise of the DaVinci code (including things being hidden in his paintings).  It's such a rehash.


----------



## A2Z (May 18, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I have the book and there is no disclaimer on the front.  Perhaps his PR people later put there to drum up more controversey on some obscure copy, but that doesn't actually make it non-fiction in any way.  In fact, here is a link to the current cover (no disclaimer):



It's not on the cover but on one of the first pages. After the copyright or something, but it is there. Fact is even written in capitals to draw attention to it. You can defend him all you like but Dan Brown's 'facts' are anything but.


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 18, 2006)

A2Z said:
			
		

> It's not on the cover but on one of the first pages. After the copyright or something, but it is there. Fact is even written in capitals to draw attention to it. You can defend him all you like but Dan Brown's 'facts' are anything but.





You are right - the Mona Lisa is a fake! It is the biggest hoax in history.

It simply says the rituals (mostly pagan but also some flagelation (sp?)), the art, and the organizations are real. As far as I can tell all of those things are true - they are real (or once were) organizations and real rituals.... I don't think you mean to dispute the reality of the art, do you? 

Just for entertainments sake - what, on his very narrow list, do you think is a lie he made up? (remember he doesn't assert that anyone actions or the beliefs he attributes to them are real; just that the pictures, rituals, and organizations are real.)


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 18, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> I'll be seeing it next monday or tuesday.
> 
> My father, who I think is a fairly intellegent person, enjoyed the book (though he said Angels and Devils was much better).




I liked _Angels and Demons _ much better myself.


----------



## Piratecat (May 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Here's an even better idea: leave it to the moderators to determine forum etiquette, and mind your own business. (in particular in threads you hadn't posted in, other than to try to lecture someone else)



A fine idea. And as part of that, mmu1, let me say that you're violating forum etiquette _and_ rules here. Let me say why.

The only moderation folks should be doing is self-moderating (and clicking on the "report a post" function when something seems wacky.) People should not be attacking other people, and conversely people should not be taking comments as personal insults when no insult is intended.

Look, gang, there's a reason that we don't discuss religion on these boards. While I'm aware that it's difficult to divorce discussion of this movie from the subjects of history and religion, you *will* do so if you're going to discuss it here.  If that's difficult for you because it's something you feel very strongly about, then please spare your friendly moderators the hassle of having to holler and simply don't post in this thread. 

Thanks, all!


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I was actually referring to the "all organisations, works of art and secret rituals portrayed here are real" note as the "disclaimer", I'm pretty sure all versions of the book have it.
> 
> However, let's just say we agree to disagree, since we clearly aren't bothered by the same issues. (and I won't pretend to know how most of the _planet_ feels about a movie based on a book most of the planet probably hasn't read)




It's the fastest selling book in a single year, ever.

That includes the bible.

It's one of the few times where one can honestly say you know at least something about how most of the planet feels about a book.  

That's certainly not to say the entire planet loves the book or anything.  But I think the notion that this is being marketed as nonfiction, when it's clearly a fiction book, is a minority view.

Let me put it another way.  If we polled people who read the book and asked them "do you feel this book is a book of fiction, or nonfiction" how do you think the majority of people would answer that question?


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> What I find amazing about this is why it's so popular. I mean, it's nothing new.  The book that the Davinci Code was based on came out in 1982, I think.  And the whole Templar/Holy Grail thing was very popular in the early 90s (which I first got into it), which even spawned a Shadowrun novel with the very similar premise of the DaVinci code (including things being hidden in his paintings).  It's such a rehash.




It's not really based on that earlier book.  And the courts actually declared that to be a legal fact recently.

I think it's popular because, in my opinion, it's a well written fast-paced novel about an interesting subject matter.  It's not classic literature, but it isn't marketed as that.  In essence, it's kinda like Star Wars.  Star Wars was not a new plot, nor did it contain particularly original characters.  But it was a well done, creative, fast paced movie about an interesting subject, and so it caught on.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2006)

A2Z said:
			
		

> It's not on the cover but on one of the first pages. After the copyright or something, but it is there. Fact is even written in capitals to draw attention to it. You can defend him all you like but Dan Brown's 'facts' are anything but.




You really think that is why people are buying the book, because of something written after the copyright? The actual copyright page (which comes first apparently) says "All characters and events in this book are fictious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental".

I am not defending Dan Brown.  In fact, I am not focusing on Dan Brown at all - you are.  All I said was I liked the book and want to see the movie, and that *I DO NOT CARE WHO THE AUTHOR IS OR WHAT HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE*.  Much as I do not care if Wagner was a big fathead, as long as I like his music (which I do - Der Ring des Nibelungen is a work of genius).

And what exactly is the lie you think he is telling?  Spell it out for me.  It apparently says ""All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

So okay:
"All descriptions of artwork...in this novel are accurate."  Is that false? I recall several descriptions of artwork (painting, sculpture, fresco), all seemed accurate to me, and I have seen most of the actual pieces.
"All descriptions of architecture...in this novel are accurate." Is that false? Several famous buildings described, some less famous structures, all seemed accurate.  Have you been to some old church in England or something that looked different than the way he described it?
"All descriptions of documents...in this novel are accurate."  Is that false? Most of the referenced documents are public Da Vinci documents, and they all seemed accurate based on the pictures I have seen.
"All descriptions of secret rituals...in this novel are accurate."  Is that false? A few ancient rituals described, some modern ones, all seem pretty accurate to me.  

What is the false claim?


----------



## mmu1 (May 18, 2006)

Here's one article that lists a fair number of things that Brown either claims outright are historical fact or implies they are, which apparently have little or no basis in reality:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060522/22davinci.htm

And BTW, just to head off a likely objection, please don't tell me that having a fictional character make ahistorical and untrue claims on the basis of a real document actually meets the letter of Brown's disclaimer, since, after all, it's the _document_ that's real, even if the character makes conclusions it doesn't support... Intentionally using a true statement in a misleading context is no different than lying. 

The main reason I'm offended by all this is not actually the religious angle, but because I've read a fair amount of _good_ historical fiction, and I hate to see this piece of junk included in the same category. It's bad history, bad research, packaged and presented in a sensationalist way designed to stir up controversy. It's hard to even call this thing a book. It's a _product._ Like something extruded oozingly into a mold in some kind of industrial process.

And I really don't care how many people bought it, just as I won't start eating at McDonalds on a regular basis based on how many people they've served.


----------



## Starman (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> The main reason I'm offended by all this is not actually the religious angle, but because I've read a fair amount of _good_ historical fiction, and I hate to see this piece of junk included in the same category. It's bad history, bad research, packaged and presented in a sensationalist way designed to stir up controversy. It's hard to even call this thing a book. It's a _product._ Like something extruded oozingly into a mold in some kind of industrial process.




So, you read it, didn't like it, but other people did, lots of them in fact, so now you hate it. Is that about correct?

I guess I'm a little baffled by your feelings toward the book. I've read lots of bad books. I know that there are a lot more like them out there. The fact that they were bad never offended me or drove me to extremes of emotion whether or not somebody else liked them.


----------



## gray stranger (May 19, 2006)

> It's the fastest selling book in a single year, ever.
> 
> That includes the bible.
> 
> It's one of the few times where one can honestly say you know at least something about how most of the planet feels about a book.




well, the book that has the most copies in print on this planet is the IKEA catalog, I realize this doesn't say much because you said fastest selling, just wanted to say it

About the da vinci code, I think angels and demons is way better and honestly, I think Dan Brown is a one trick pony. 

in retrospect, angels and demons and the da vinci code are almost the same, and they look alot like the 2 other books (digital fortress and something else, I forgot the name)

And dan brown claims that alot of the technologies, art, conspiracies, whatever in his books are true, visit www.wikipedia.org to see the what is left of those 'facts' 

I also predict that the fifth book is going 'solomon's key' is going to be the same as the da vinci code as in, Freemasons take over the earth via secret puzzle, Langdon and a girl skilled in mathematics save the day, woohoo

yes, I am a bit upset about the book


----------



## CrusaderX (May 19, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You are free to see the world through your filter, but I think most of the planet recognizes this as purely a fiction mystery movie, and you have to really stretch to pretend this is being portraryed as a factual movie.




*Ahem*


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Here's one article that lists a fair number of things that Brown either claims outright are historical fact or implies they are, which apparently have little or no basis in reality:
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060522/22davinci.htm
> 
> And BTW, just to head off a likely objection, please don't tell me that having a fictional character make ahistorical and untrue claims on the basis of a real document actually meets the letter of Brown's disclaimer, since, after all, it's the _document_ that's real, even if the character makes conclusions it doesn't support... Intentionally using a true statement in a misleading context is no different than lying.




And yet, with the exception of the Priory of Scion (and you will find some who still disagree with the experts about it being a hoax), the organizations, art and rituals _are_ based in fact.  And please lets all remember that when it comes to ancient rituals, there is often disagreement on the "facts."

I read the book, I read the disclaimer, and I was easily able to make the distinction between fact, pure fiction and speculation (which is what I think a lot of the controversial items in the book are).  I enjoyed the book as a yarn and didn't find it offensive to my Catholic sensibility.  It made for some interesting conversations with my mother and father (both attended Catholic scools) as we picked apart various aspects of the book and looked at how Brown wove together the various elements to make a story that sounds believable on the surface.

Reading my last line, I realize that maybe that is what has some people annoyed, "a story that sounds believable on the surface."  I am currently reading Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear.  The science within the book is all based in fact, along with a whole bunch of speculation.  Does the fact that it is difficult to tell where fact ends and fiction begins bother me as a scientist?  No, as a matter of fact I enjoy the ideas and trying to find that fine dividing line.


----------



## mmu1 (May 19, 2006)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> ...as we picked apart various aspects of the book and looked at how Brown wove together the various elements to make a story that sounds believable on the surface.
> 
> Reading my last line, I realize that maybe that is what has some people annoyed, "a story that sounds believable on the surface."




No, what has some people (well, me anyway, but at least I'm only extrapolating from myself to "some" people, not a whole planet, so I figure I'm ok) annoyed is that so many apparently rational people read it and decided it "sounds belieavable on the surface". Unless by "on the surface" you mean "for about two pages". 

It's not like my faith was shaken by Brown's clever storytelling, ok? The whole idea of Christ's bloodline and mortal descendants isn't new at all. Hell, there was a _computer game_ about it a while ago (Gabriel Knight 3, specifically), that managed to be more intelligent and have better puzzles, despite having vampires thrown into the mix.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Here's an even better idea: leave it to the moderators to determine forum etiquette, and mind your own business. (in particular in threads you hadn't posted in, other than to try to lecture someone else)
> 
> If Mistwell didn't feel like continuing the conversation, I'm sure he'd have indicated as much.




Well, mine was not a personal attack, but yours was.   I find this insulting and your attitude bad.   I would ask that you attempt to be a little more polite next time.


----------



## Pseudonym (May 19, 2006)

I'll go see it, because my wife read the book and enjoyed it and wants to see the movie.  I haven't read the book, and am largely ambivelant about it, but I'll go because I enjoy going out with my wife, and I've enjoyed most every movie Tom Hanks has done that doesn't have Meg Ryan in it.

I'm dragging my wife to see X-men, so I'm willing to make a tradeoff.  Plus, I'm hoping that Divinci Code will have a trailer for Superman.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 19, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> which even spawned a Shadowrun novel with the very similar premise of the DaVinci code (including things being hidden in his paintings).  It's such a rehash.




It's funny really. I read the SR novel, so when the novel was hitting real big, all I could think of was "I already read this, and hated it!".


----------



## Rackhir (May 19, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> Well, mine was not a personal attack, but yours was.   I find this insulting and your attitude bad.   I would ask that you attempt to be a little more polite next time.




Don't forget there is also a Ignore option as well. mmu1 got on to my ignore list a long time ago for just this sort of thing.


----------



## Mercule (May 19, 2006)

I will probably go to see it.  I suspect it won't thrill me, but I'll go with an open mind (as much as possible).  I rather enjoyed Dogma, so this might be fine.

Whether intended or not, the book has gotten some people confused about the history of Christianity.  That's unfortunate -- considerably moreso if malice existed on the part of the author.


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Here's one article that lists a fair number of things that Brown either claims outright are historical fact or implies they are, which apparently have little or no basis in reality:
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060522/22davinci.htm
> 
> ...




You are mistaking Browns claims for the fictional characters claims. Internal to the book there are a ton of wild conspiracy claims much like Foucalt's Pendulum, Steve Jacksons Illuminati, or the dirth of Area 51 books. Should we stop reading those books as well? Like Brown they take a piece of the truth and weave interesting fiction around it. I believe the Priory of Sion about as much as I believe the New World Order but that doesn't mean that it does not make good fiction. Maybe we should get rid of all Arthurian literature since so many are confused and believe that Lancelot, Percival, and Kay hung out in full plate sometime during the 11th century.... they were chasing after the grail also.

Nothing in your quoted website indicates that the claims on the interior of the cover are false. There is some wild fiction inbeteen the covers but his "asserted facts" remain facts. What he does with those facts is what makes it fiction. It is ashame that so many are so easily mislead; it speaks volumes about our culture and our ability to think for ourselves. I would consider many of the sited effects a condemnation of our education and social conditioning rather than laying at the feet of some book.

[ADDED] Oh yeah, I would still like to see where he lied on the interior cover. Show me a document, ritual, organization, or piece of art that he covers in the book that is not real.


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> Well, mine was not a personal attack, but yours was.   I find this insulting and your attitude bad.   I would ask that you attempt to be a little more polite next time.



Darth, Rackhir: I've already addressed this up-thread. Please don't reopen the can of worms now that we've asked that personal animosity be excluded.

Thanks.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Are you.... aaargh...
> 
> *Brown has a freakin' disclaimer in the front of the book, claiming that parts of it are FACT.* How more obvious can it get? Does that cease to be true, just because Barnes and Noble puts it on a shelf labeled "fiction"?
> 
> Also, while Wagner might have been a racist bastard, AFAIK, his racist views weren't represented in the notes of his music in any significant way. On the other hand, Brown is a liar and a quack, and his book is an expression of those lies and quackery. Apples and oranges.




Haven't read the book or seen the movie....but is there no factual background, at all?  Because we all know the church tells the truth about everything, and that nowhere in all the writing that went into creating a 3000 year old book is there any chance that maybe a few inaccuracies crawled in?

Banshee


----------



## mmu1 (May 19, 2006)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> [ADDED] Oh yeah, I would still like to see where he lied on the interior cover. Show me a document, ritual, organization, or piece of art that he covers in the book that is not real.




Did you actually read the article? It specifically lists one set of documents he claims were factual, that were in fact shown to be fakes. (as well his listing of the Prisory of Sion as a real organization)

As for confusing things... No, I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing anything. I'm not trying to debate whether his disclaimer would hold up in a court of law, just saying that it's clear that (as a marketing device) he worked very hard to create an impression of factual accuracy where there was none.


----------



## mmu1 (May 19, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Haven't read the book or seen the movie....but is there no factual background, at all?  Because we all know the church tells the truth about everything, and that nowhere in all the writing that went into creating a 3000 year old book is there any chance that maybe a few inaccuracies crawled in?
> 
> Banshee




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


----------



## Mistwell (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Did you actually read the article? It specifically lists one set of documents he claims were factual, that were in fact shown to be fakes. (as well his listing of the Prisory of Sion as a real organization)




The document is real.  The fact that it turned out to be not what it seemed doesn't make in unrreal. He didn't make it up, it's not a fictional thing, it's a real object with real words.

He never said in his disclaimer that organizations were real.  If you can show me where in the disclaimer he claims the organizations are real, I am happy to listen.



> As for confusing things... No, I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing anything. I'm not trying to debate whether his disclaimer would hold up in a court of law, just saying that it's clear that (as a marketing device) he worked very hard to create an impression of factual accuracy where there was none.




Worked very hard?  It's a disclaimer in the interior of the book which I, and I suspect most people, totally ignored.  It's no big deal.  If you had not pointed it out, I would never have even remembered it.  And it's so far holding up.  

I think it serves your purpose to exagerate Brown's beliefs and pick and choose interview statements out of context and highlight a minor note in the book to try to prove your contention.  But I think if you look at the book and movie as a whole, you get the impression it is a fiction book, a fiction movie, and that both are intended as such.

Anyway, I am not sure where this debate is going at this point.  You don't like the book or the author.  Okay, fair enough.  But I am not getting why you are so passionate about those beliefs.  Have you even looked into the motivations and claims of most authors you read?  Have you looked deeper into any other "historical fiction" novels that you like to see if they also hold up under close scrutiny? Why are you so passionate about THIS novel?


----------



## Firebeetle (May 19, 2006)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I have to see this movie, if only to satisfy my curiousity about Tom Hanks's hair.  Is it really a mullet, or just a psedo-mullet?  Is it light and fluffy?  Does it bounce?  These are the burning questions I think are often neglected in light of the controversial topic of the novel.




spoiler It's not bouncy, in fact, it doesn't move at all.


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2006)

*Mmu1, please do not post any further in this thread.*

Mistwell has been asked to take a break from it until tomorrow morning. Everyone else: do not insult religion. Heck, I'll go one better than that; do not discuss religion. Do not be rude to one another. Pretty straightforward, and thank you to everyone who has been doing this.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 19, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Everyone else: do not insult religion. Heck, I'll go one better than that; do not discuss religion. Do not be rude to one another. Pretty straightforward, and thank you to everyone who has been doing this.




My initial post was to try an accomplish this, but it seemed to escalate anyways and bit back at me as well.   Sorry I was unable to help.  My reasoning for the original post I made is because I saw where this would go when it was going off topic.

That aside, I, for one, am now interested in seeing if the hype for this movie was worth it.  Personally it wasn't at the top of my list, but with all the controversy involved here and in other media, I may full well have to go see it now.   Miserly speaking though, it won't be for full price.


----------



## paradox42 (May 19, 2006)

I was mildly curious about this myself, largely because I wanted to see how Brown's treatment of the subjects matched up with what I've already seen in other sources- the Mary Magdalene thing being the most prominent example. As far as I'm concerned, the condemnations and calls for boycott by the Vatican are a *reason* to see the film, rather than not, and I intend to do so sometime this weekend.


----------



## mmu1 (May 19, 2006)

[edit:  see post below]

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (May 19, 2006)

*Moderator's Notes*:

If you need to contact a moderator or administrator, please check this thread in Meta for instructions on how to do so.  I've passed your comments along to Kevin, *mmu1*.

Daniel


----------



## Firebeetle (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> The main reason I'm offended by all this is not actually the religious angle, but because I've read a fair amount of _good_ historical fiction, and I hate to see this piece of junk included in the same category. It's bad history, bad research, packaged and presented in a sensationalist way designed to stir up controversy. It's hard to even call this thing a book. It's a _product._ Like something extruded oozingly into a mold in some kind of industrial process.
> 
> And I really don't care how many people bought it, just as I won't start eating at McDonalds on a regular basis based on how many people they've served.




Yeah, I totally felt the same way about "National Treasure"   

I really think you're overdoing this. It's a thriller, it's fiction, it's dramatized. I would definately have problems saying it's not a book or that is was oozes into a mold of industrial product. Those would be Harlequin Romances. Industrial product doesn't take the risk of being controversial. The movie is apparently "toned down" from the book according to some critics, for example.

But controversy is important, it fosters discussion and within that dialogue people will arrive and further knowledge of self. A knowledge that may very well be opposed to the message of the book BTW. Today "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is considered racially offensive by some, in it's day Lincoln credited Stowe (the author) with starting the Civil War. Books can have tremendous impact. Opus Dei members have not been upset about the DaVinci Code and one leader said that he know members who had found their faith because of the book. 

I don't think censoring this book, which is what you seem to suggest (such as burning it, or saying it is "not a book") is a bad suggestion and disturbingly facist. Similar statements to yours have been made about "The Satanic Verses" for example. You might not like it, but the book exists, people will read it, and you have no power or right to stop that. I'm going to pick up a copy with my next paycheck myself.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 19, 2006)

*Firebeetle*, given that *mmu1* may not respond to your comments, I'm not sure it's fair to address him further in this thread; could I impose on you to edit your previous comments so that they do not address him?

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## buzzard (May 19, 2006)

I've had no desire to read the book (conspiracy theory stuff isn't my bag). This didn't give me any motive to see the movie, and considering that the Wall Street Journal tore it down pretty harshly in the review today, I probably won't even Netflix it. I tend to agree with their reviews by and large (moreso than other sources at least). They had severe issues with the acting, direction, and script. 

buzzard


----------



## David Howery (May 19, 2006)

I thought the book had a fairly good idea that wasn't executed all that well.  I found the most interesting parts of the book to be not the psuedo-history or the twisting of the traditional story of Christ, but the notes about the art of DaVinci.  So, after reading the book, I went and found a big heavy book about DaVinci that showed most of his paintings, and checked out the painting mentioned in the book.  Most of what the book said was true... except for the one about the Last Supper... that painting is so degraded, you can't really make out anything about it...


----------



## Mark Chance (May 19, 2006)

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


----------



## DonTadow (May 19, 2006)

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

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

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


----------



## Black Omega (May 19, 2006)

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

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


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 19, 2006)

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


----------



## Firebeetle (May 19, 2006)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Firebeetle*, given that *mmu1* may not respond to your comments, I'm not sure it's fair to address him further in this thread; could I impose on you to edit your previous comments so that they do not address him?




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


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 19, 2006)

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

I like this line from the Boston Globe review:



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


----------



## Darthjaye (May 19, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

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




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

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


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

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

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

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Mmu1, please do not post any further in this thread.*
> 
> Mistwell has been asked to take a break from it until tomorrow morning. Everyone else: do not insult religion. Heck, I'll go one better than that; do not discuss religion. Do not be rude to one another. Pretty straightforward, and thank you to everyone who has been doing this.




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

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (May 19, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

As someone else mentioned above, the fact that it's getting people talking whether the results of those talks are acceptance or rejection of the ideas contained within the book, is a good thing.  Too often people just accept what they're told without any critical thought.  The world would probably be a better place if people questioned more often.

Banshee


----------



## DonTadow (May 19, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

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



yeah, i'm actually more irked that he's getting so much attention for these theroies that have been around for hundreds of years.  I"m even more irked that there are talented writers whom can present the material in a non-fiction yet entertaining manner and they get ignored because we, as americans, have to be entertained in order to learn anything.


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2006)

Firebeetle said:
			
		

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



In fact, no it isn't. Moderator requests, even when polite, aren't optional.  Thread closed.

In a week or so, someone is welcome to open another thread regarding this movie. When they do, we look forward to discussing the movie without all of this associated baggage.


----------

