| Freya is quietly judging you. 23.05.2006 16:54 |
I fear it's making too many stupid people think. That is all.. Not really worth a topic.. |
| Sherwood Forest 23.05.2006 17:10 |
not worth a topic? HIPOCRITE |
| Sonia Doris 23.05.2006 17:20 |
the code sucks... the idea is stupid... it's dangerous... it's ignorant... etc. |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 23.05.2006 17:50 |
Jamie SureWould wrote: not worth a topic? HIPOCRITEHuh? I'm not following.. |
| Carol! the Musical 23.05.2006 18:05 |
This girl in my class yesterday was talking to me about the movie... I said I was gonna go see it, cause all the religious people were telling us not to see it, therefore it must be good. She said, "No! Don't watch it, it's anti-Christian!" Okaaay. |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 23.05.2006 18:11 |
You see.. my problem with it is.. I get really annoyed when something starts off as a book then gets made into a film and suddenly everybody's seen it and everybody starts making a massive deal about it. In my opinion books tend to be better than films and films are just the lazy peoples way out. Meh. |
| Sherwood Forest 23.05.2006 19:55 |
<font color=Violet>Poppy wrote:u started a topic about ittt after sayingJamie SureWould wrote: not worth a topic? HIPOCRITEHuh? I'm not following.. " I fear it's making too many stupid people think. That is all.. Not really worth a topic.." |
| user name 24.05.2006 01:41 |
Stupid people think about what? Something that has no significance and no consequence as to nothing? To me it just looks like a silly movie from a silly book. It just makes more stupid people. Also, the only reason I can see that people say "the books are better than the movies" is: A) They spent all the time reading the book and want something to show for it. B) They gain insight into various insignificant details as to plot, etc. that were not mentioned in the movies (although few times the details are, in fact, not insignificant). Movies aren't an easy way out - they are an efficient way in. Another thing to note is that people are mysteriously attracted to esotericism, which I can clearly point out from Poppy's previous post. It is all very interesting, and I don't hold it against anyone...it's just something to think about. |
| MDNA 24.05.2006 06:18 |
<font color=Violet>Poppy wrote: You see.. my problem with it is.. I get really annoyed when something starts off as a book then gets made into a film and suddenly everybody's seen it and everybody starts making a massive deal about it. In my opinion books tend to be better than films and films are just the lazy peoples way out. Meh.Totaly don't agree with this. I ahve seen many films that made me go out and read the book (Schindler's List, Silence Of The Lambs, etc) and vice versa, and both where very enjoyable, and different, experiences. A film can never replace a book, true. But the opposite can also be true. As for all thoese crys not to go see or read The Da Vinci Code I tell you, GO SEE IT, READ THE BOOK, and then make your own oppinion about it based on WHAT YOU KNOW, and not based on what other people think, people that, probably, haven't even bothered to read the book in the first place, just a sinopsys or book review. As for my oppinion on this book (haven't seen the movie yet), It is a good police fiction novel based on some theories that might have some truth to them, particulaly the way that the church has disregarded the part of women. I don't take all that is in there as abolute truth, much like any other book i read including, and I know some of you will cry out HERETIC, the Bible. |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 24.05.2006 07:10 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Stupid people think about what? Something that has no significance and no consequence as to nothing? To me it just looks like a silly movie from a silly book. It just makes more stupid people. Also, the only reason I can see that people say "the books are better than the movies" is: A) They spent all the time reading the book and want something to show for it. B) They gain insight into various insignificant details as to plot, etc. that were not mentioned in the movies (although few times the details are, in fact, not insignificant). Movies aren't an easy way out - they are an efficient way in. Another thing to note is that people are mysteriously attracted to esotericism, which I can clearly point out from Poppy's previous post. It is all very interesting, and I don't hold it against anyone...it's just something to think about.I completely see your point, but you seem to have missed mine. I am of the opinion that if there has been a book that has been made into a film then *usually* the book is better, it goes the same for quite a few other movies. Yes, it's nice to have something visual to see but in my opinion you enjoy the films better if you've read the book because you have a completely different degree of understanding. "Movies aren't an easy way out - they are an efficient way in." True, but it's easier to watch a movie than read a book, so that's what I meant. |
| user name 24.05.2006 16:13 |
<font color=Violet>Poppy wrote:This is true, movies are easier to watch.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Stupid people think about what? Something that has no significance and no consequence as to nothing? To me it just looks like a silly movie from a silly book. It just makes more stupid people. Also, the only reason I can see that people say "the books are better than the movies" is: A) They spent all the time reading the book and want something to show for it. B) They gain insight into various insignificant details as to plot, etc. that were not mentioned in the movies (although few times the details are, in fact, not insignificant). Movies aren't an easy way out - they are an efficient way in. Another thing to note is that people are mysteriously attracted to esotericism, which I can clearly point out from Poppy's previous post. It is all very interesting, and I don't hold it against anyone...it's just something to think about.I completely see your point, but you seem to have missed mine. I am of the opinion that if there has been a book that has been made into a film then *usually* the book is better, it goes the same for quite a few other movies. Yes, it's nice to have something visual to see but in my opinion you enjoy the films better if you've read the book because you have a completely different degree of understanding. "Movies aren't an easy way out - they are an efficient way in." True, but it's easier to watch a movie than read a book, so that's what I meant. Also, I still am considering why books are in almost every case deemed "better" than the movie that is created from it. A few things I have come up with is that people feel loyal to the "original" of any work, particularly if they had first witnessed it (or would like to be seen as having witnessed it first); people would like something to show for the added effort of reading the books; or maybe there is just something about text that is more appealing than video. It really is like comparing apples and oranges, however you will always note that "the book was better than the movie." This goes for mostly everyone, and it interests me, who has frequently experienced this phenomenon personally, yet has failed to be able to properly explain it. There is also the esotericism, as more people have doubtless seen the movie than read the book (or that a large portion of the movie viewing audience will not have read the book). You will note that the same exact thing occurs with Broadway plays-turned-movies and also comic books-turned-movies. Another thing to note is that by reading the book, one may gain a deeper insight and also a feeling of superiority to his peers upon the subject matter, mostly noted by a peer's constant reminders of "it was different in the original," or their prescient knowledge of the plot, which they would be very willing to share. Just something to think about (or just some incoherent ramblings that one should pay no mind to). |
| brENsKi 24.05.2006 16:52 |
SONIA DORIS<br><font size=1>The Cranky wrote: the code sucks... the idea is stupid... it's dangerous... it's ignorant... etc.the code does not suck...da vinci did leave messages in his works the idea is not stupid....the council of nicea DID throw out 40+ gospels that revered Mary Magdalene....this is established fact. it's not dangerous...a Catholic Organisation that has ruled by fear of fire and brimstone for two thousand years, and suppresses facts from followers is dangerous it's not ignorant....the templars upheld the catholic faith and protected priests and churches throughout the holyland....and when a bankrupt pope and destitute king of france decide they want to get their hands on the templars assets to liquidate themselves...they decide to try all the templars as heretics....that is fact. documented fact...also anyone who belives the entire contents of four gospels written decades after christ's death and translated over a dozen times, to be wholy accurate...is ignorant... the simple FACT is that dan Brown took a load of established facts and made them into a very good thrilling work of fiction....it's SUPPOSED to provoke thought and discussion...and isn't it strange that in a world where we are constantly criticise fundamental muslims for being over-zealous...the catholic church turn around and behave the same "mortally-offended, this is all untrue" way? and before you jump on me...I am a catholic...but i am open-minded to realise that much of what we are taught, and forced to belive is absolute bollocks....i will belive what i wish to believe and dismiss the rubbish...anybody who believes with blind unquestioning faith will be in for soem major disappointments |
| deleted user 24.05.2006 16:55 |
""The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence [...]" - Reviewer A.O. Scott, in the NYT. Owch. |
| deleted user 24.05.2006 17:13 |
<font color="red">The Audacity of Kelley wrote: ""The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence [...]" - Reviewer A.O. Scott, in the NYT. Owch.Considering the way I've been slamming the book over the last 10 months or so, I could have said that! |
| Penetration_Guru 24.05.2006 17:53 |
<font color="red">The Audacity of Kelley wrote: ""The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence [...]" - Reviewer A.O. Scott, in the NYT. Owch.Harsh words indeed....from an American. |
| Nathan 24.05.2006 18:41 |
I went to see the film last night and I really enjoyed it. Seriously, what is all the hype about? And I'm a Christian, by the way. |
| user name 24.05.2006 18:47 |
Something I have little tolerance for is bad literary style. I am assuming from that comment that this book is chock-full of it? A brilliant idea sucks if you can't put it properly into words. |
| MDNA 25.05.2006 05:01 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Something I have little tolerance for is bad literary style. I am assuming from that comment that this book is chock-full of it? A brilliant idea sucks if you can't put it properly into words.Read the book and figure it out for yourself Don't take other people's opinion as your own. I read the Portuguese translation and I have to say that his style of writing is very captivating, it kept me glued to the page in a way I had't feelt in quite a while. |
| M a t i a s M a y 25.05.2006 05:16 |
I'll go to see it one of this days WHO WANTS TO GO WITH ME?? I'LL BUY POPCORN ;) |
| Sonia Doris 25.05.2006 14:50 |
<b><font color = "crimson">Thomas Quinn wrote:I like that!! ^_^ yes yes!!! The reviewer spoke the truth! :)<font color="red">The Audacity of Kelley wrote: ""The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence [...]" - Reviewer A.O. Scott, in the NYT. Owch.Considering the way I've been slamming the book over the last 10 months or so, I could have said that! |
| rachael mae. 25.05.2006 15:05 |
Nice post, Brenski. I personally think the idea is actually very plausible. Jesus may have easily had a wife & children. I'm not too certain about the idea of Mary being the Holy Grail, but I guess it is possible. Until the vaults under Rosslyn Chapel can be excavated, we won't know, I guess. |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 25.05.2006 15:09 |
<font color=red><b><i>M a t i a s M a y wrote: I'll go to see it one of this days WHO WANTS TO GO WITH ME?? I'LL BUY POPCORN ;)I like mines sweet please not salted! Let's throw popcorn at those twats at the front. :P |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.05.2006 15:10 |
I saw it last night with my Historian's Honors Society friends, and we all loved it! Now, we've all read the book, and we heard what the critics said about it. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a crap about what critics say about any movie. They go in with a whole different set of criteria for a good movie than the average movie goer, particularly the critics at Cannes. Yeah, it was a long movie, but it was a long book. You run the risk of that when you turn a book like the DaVinci Code into a movie, because so much of that book is what happens inside the characters heads. I also thought it was well cast. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent! (I love the comment about the more penis' you have the higher your rank in the military!!), and it was nice to see an "average looking" guy like Tom Hanks as the hero. I'm sick of heros looking like Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas...as much fun as they are to look at, this was better because it was like "Hurray for the average Joe!!". I would say, go and watch it, but remember it's supposed to be fiction. The best part about me going to watch it with my historian friends was that after the movie we all went out and spent 3 hours discussing various points in the movie from an empirical historical perpective. And always remember that it's good to question things...it's always good to question things, including religion. Not questioning makes you a brainwashed follower, and we've seen in the past how that turns out when you get a mass of people who aren't willing to question anything (remember Hitler?) Like Tom Hanks said at the end of the movie: "It's about what you believe", not about what anyone else believes. |
| Nathan 25.05.2006 15:13 |
Seriously though, what's all the hype about? I enjoyed the film and I'm inspired now to pick up the book. |
| M a t i a s M a y 25.05.2006 15:15 |
<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:ALRIGHT<font color=red><b><i>M a t i a s M a y wrote: I'll go to see it one of this days WHO WANTS TO GO WITH ME?? I'LL BUY POPCORN ;)I like mines sweet please not salted! Let's throw popcorn at those twats at the front. :P REMEMBER, NO SEX UNTIL THE MOVIE IS OVER |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 25.05.2006 15:18 |
<font color=red><b><i>M a t i a s M a y wrote::O<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:ALRIGHT REMEMBER, NO SEX UNTIL THE MOVIE IS OVER<font color=red><b><i>M a t i a s M a y wrote: I'll go to see it one of this days WHO WANTS TO GO WITH ME?? I'LL BUY POPCORN ;)I like mines sweet please not salted! Let's throw popcorn at those twats at the front. :P CAPO E! |
| Delilah 25.05.2006 15:23 |
Ah dear, when there's this much rumbling about a fictional book or movie, it tends to come from the ones who doubt their own beliefs. Some Christians are getting a little worried it seems. If you're comfortable with your religion and its validity, you have nothing to worry about. I have read the book - loved it. I have yet to see the movie but when I do, and I will, I will have more of an open mind than some. |
| Sonia Doris 25.05.2006 15:24 |
R.I.P World... :-( |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.05.2006 15:34 |
SONIA DORIS<br><font size=1>The Cranky wrote: R.I.P World... :-(Oh come on! We've been heading that direction for years before this movie, and we'll still be heading that way long after this movie is forgotten. Might as well enjoy the ride.... |