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?
Yeah, it was a novel! :wink:
The novel explained this stuff, Phoenix?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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/
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace