1
   

Finally Caught Up with the DaVinci Code. Now I'm Confused

 
 
Roberta
 
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:45 am
I didn't read the book. Saw the DaVinci Code on cable. I'm confused.

Let's say that the body in the tomb is genetically linked to Sophie. So what? All that would prove is that the body and Sophie are related. Would it prove that the body in the tomb is Mary Madgalene?

Even if there was a way to prove that it was Mary Magdalene, how could they possibly prove that the offspring was related to Jesus?

Did I miss something?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,034 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:57 am
Yeah, it was a novel! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 07:59 am
The novel explained this stuff, Phoenix?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 08:31 am
Roberta wrote:
The novel explained this stuff, Phoenix?


No, but it was a work of FICTION!

Anyhow, unless there was a way to get some DNA from Mary Magdalene, which of course is impossible, since we don't know who is in the tomb, the entire premise of the book falls apart, if we take it seriously.

It was a fascinating concept, nonetheless, and about as credible as the stuff that one finds in the bible.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 12:35 pm
Roberta, in my opinion watching the movie makes you less "caught up" on the Da Vinci code than you were before you saw it. The movie is a completely unfaithful representation of the characters from the book, and has none of the good qualities of the book, but all of the bad qualities. I am not a book reader, but I found the DaVinci code exciting enough to read it in only a couple days. The movie however was a total piece of crap that the only way I could watch it was to simultaneously play Minesweeper the whole time. No joke.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 01:40 pm
stuh505 wrote:
Roberta, in my opinion watching the movie makes you less "caught up" on the Da Vinci code than you were before you saw it. The movie is a completely unfaithful representation of the characters from the book, and has none of the good qualities of the book, but all of the bad qualities. I am not a book reader, but I found the DaVinci code exciting enough to read it in only a couple days. The movie however was a total piece of crap that the only way I could watch it was to simultaneously play Minesweeper the whole time. No joke.


Totally agree. This movie was made "by the numbers" like number painting. In this case, however, Ron Howard kept smearing paint outside the lines under the guise of "cinematic interpretation." He's done it before, especially with "A Beautiful Mind." I found that film well done but impossible to believe, as usual, that the characters were both that attractive as in real life, the were as nerdy looking as nerdy can get.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 02:50 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
I found that film well done but impossible to believe, as usual, that the characters were both that attractive as in real life, the were as nerdy looking as nerdy can get.


I know!...Russel Crowe was a terrible casting choice. He just looked like a football hunk in a nerd halloween costume. But at least A Beautiful Mind was a good watch.
0 Replies
 
caribou
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 03:01 pm
Hated the movie.
Liked the book.
But really liked Angels and Demons better. (Dan Brown's first book.)

And that movie, National Teasure, hated that the most. And I'm likely to love anything with Nicholas Cage, still hated it. That was a "let's all jump on the Da Vinci Code bandwagon"

Ah, as far as the answer to your question, Roberta, I don't remember if it was explained any better in the book... Can't get the movie out of my head.

Did I say I should have never watched the movie?
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 03:19 pm
Read the book in two days as well, but maybe people seem to miss a large part of the book, not that Jesus may or may not have had decendants, but the Pagan roots, and the history of Christianity. 25 December Christ's birth? No, 22 December is Winter equinox in the Northern Hemisphere, and we all know how bitter winters can get there. December 25 was a Pagan celebration of the days getting longer and warmer and summer approaching.
Havent seen the movie though.
Dan Brown's books all seem to follow the same plot to me. Beautiful girl with brains, vulnerable, older man and they're in love. There out to discover/reveal a large secret and their lives are in danger blah blah blah. Someone's pining over a lost lover etc.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 03:36 pm
caribou wrote:
Hated the movie.
Liked the book.
But really liked Angels and Demons better. (Dan Brown's first book.)

And that movie, National Teasure, hated that the most. And I'm likely to love anything with Nicholas Cage, still hated it. That was a "let's all jump on the Da Vinci Code bandwagon"


You are not the first person who has said they prefer Angels and Demons more. Personally, I did not like it...also National Treasure was filled with "Home Alone" humor, but it was a much more enjoyable movie than DaVinci code IMO...
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 03:57 pm
I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in certain circumstances in fiction. This isn't one of those circumstances. In fact, I don't know whether it's asking that I suspend my disbelief so much as asking me not to think.

I don't like that, and I won't do it.

So the movie was a bomb and the premise was a bust. Okey dokey.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jun, 2007 05:24 pm
The mystery goes on with James Cameron's discovery of what appears to be the tomb of Jesus' family:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology

After Camerons' phenomenal "Ghosts of the Titanic" documentary, I can hardly wait to see this one.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 08:41 am
Cameron is as full of sh*t as Dan Brown. Tomb inscriptions which read "Judah son of Jesus," and "Jesus, son of Joseph?" Written in Aramaic? Horsiepoop. Jesus is the Latin of Jesu, which is the Greek version of Joshuah. That entire "Jesus family tomb" crap sounds a lot less dramatic when you consider that the inscriptions were in Aramaic, and would only have said "Judah, son of Joshuah," and "Joshuah, son of Joseph." Puts an entirely different light on the subject.

But to paraphrase H. L. Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jun, 2007 09:10 am
It doesn't exactly read that the Jesus inscription is also written in Aramaic, only the Judah inscription. Cameron is just the filmmaker, he's not acting as an archaeologist.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Finally Caught Up with the DaVinci Code. Now I'm Confused
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/01/2020 at 09:46:37