Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Parker on May 17, 2006, 11:59:50 AM
-
So Ron Howard's adaptation of the book opened last night in New York and at the Cannes Film Festival--and the response has been quite negative, from what I've read. At Cannes, people laughed in some serious parts, and no one applauded at the end--just hissing and catcalls. Negative reviews from NY, as well. Maybe it's just a case of critics disliking something that will appeal to the general public. That's certainly the case with the book. Still, I was surprised, particularly with all the talent making the film.
-
Probably doesn't help that the subject is religious, though completely unorthodox and athiestic in its presentation.
I thought one particular part in the middle of the book quite ridiculous, myself. Really, overall, it was a bad book with a good plot. I'm still not sure if I'm going to go see the movie--I keep thinking that Tom Hanks will make it all the better. I can't recall seeing him in a bad movie since the early 80s. But perhaps I avoided the bad ones.
-
So far it's only at 20% at RT.
-
Probably doesn't help that the subject is religious, though completely unorthodox and athiestic in its presentation.
I thought one particular part in the middle of the book quite ridiculous, myself. Really, overall, it was a bad book with a good plot. I'm still not sure if I'm going to go see the movie--I keep thinking that Tom Hanks will make it all the better. I can't recall seeing him in a bad movie since the early 80s. But perhaps I avoided the bad ones.
Tom Hanks' first appearance was in 1980.
He must, therefore, have nothing but good movies! :)
-
I was saying that I remember a couple bad movies from the early 80s. Well, I should say, campy. Anyone remember The Man with One Red Shoe?
-
I actually like that movie, although it might be because I watched it first when I was little and had very little sense of what "good" meant. But come on, it's got Carrie Fischer in leopard print underwear. What's not to like? :D
-
Don't forget Mazes and Monsters from 1982. It's all about the evils of role playing such as Dungeons and Dragons (although it's called Mazes and Monsters instead). Not a good one from what I've heard.
-
The Money Pit was pretty bad.
-
Money Pit was awesome.
Monster and Mazes sometimes shows on Sci-fi and AMC, it's pretty cheezy but it's an afterschool special not really a movie. Basically Hanks plays a guy that goes delusional from playing to much RPGs and thinks he's actually his character.
-
Sorry, "The Terminal" was awful. I almost didn't bother to finish the DVD.
-
Don't forget Mazes and Monsters from 1982. It's all about the evils of role playing such as Dungeons and Dragons (although it's called Mazes and Monsters instead). Not a good one from what I've heard.
Haha, actually I got the DVD for that at the walmart dump bin and "reviewed" it myself wrote a mocking summary for those who have no desire to watch a bad movie.
http://zellion.livejournal.com/409946.html
-
I dono Fuzzy, that seams more like a very long summery then an actual review. I mean all you do is type out dialog as you watch it.
-
That's why she called it a "review," instead of a review.
-
So far it's only at 20% at RT.
Looks like they recalculated it, cause now it's at 0%
-
It's at 8% now.
I'm quite surprised considering the people involved, even if the material wasn't that great it's freaking Ron Howard and Tom Hanks.
-
That's why she called it a "review," instead of a review.
You're right though Sprig - but the point was I wanted to summarize it so everyone else wouldn't have to watch it.
-
Heh, No worried Fuzzy. Your version was more interesting then the movie anyway.
Back to the DaVinci Code, how come I have this feeling that our movie reviewers will give this movie a 6/6? Lately they've had a tendency to give out almost exact opposite scores compared with what RT had.
-
Ebert gives it three stars. (Although Ebert gives everything three stars.)
-
As much as I'm a Tom Hanks fan, I'll be quite surprised if I think "DaVinci Code" is a 6 clock movie. I'm probably more ambivalent about this movie than anything in quite some time. I guess I won't know until I see it. I love Hanks, and when Howard is on, I love him, too. But the novel has never caught my interest.
For the record, I couldn't care less about a movie's RT rating. I think the idea of averaging out a numerical rating like that is, at best, unreliable. But I do keep up to date on what most cirtics are saying. Our rating for "United 93" was nearly identical to that of most leading critics (as is our upcoming review of "Poesidon"). Patrick liked "The Promise" better, and we both enjoyed "Stick It" more than most critics. "Mission: Impossible III" recieved mixed enough reviews that gauging an average is difficult.
The thing that has to be remembered about film critisicsm is that, in the end, it is subject to the opinions and tastes of the individual critic. Art and entertainment are subjective. After all, as hard as it is to believe, there are a few people out there who liked "Fantastic FOur" better than "King Kong", ;D
There are plenty of critics out there. Trust the one who's taste fits yours the best.
-
im going to see the da vinchi code tomorrow :D :D :D
-
oh. my are goish thats bein kool 8) 8) 8)
Seriously, knock it off, someone who has been banned as often as you should take a hint already.
-
If I were to write movie reviews, I only wish I could come up with opening lines like this:
"You know a movie's a dud when even its self-flagellating albino killer monk isn't any fun."
I'm very unexcited about this movie.
-
Wow, this took in 77 million over the weekend, and it had the largest overseas opening of any movie.
-
The review has arrived: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1406
-
Wow, this took in 77 million over the weekend, and it had the largest overseas opening of any movie.
I don't know about the overseas opening - I know it is the second highest world wide opening ever (right behind "Revenge of The Sith"), but that really doesn't mean as much as it sounds like it does. Very few blockbusters are released in domestic and foreign markets simultaneously - the movie only ranked as 13th biggest opening in the U.S.
-
So in that review, you missed the one thing that I couldnt help fixate over (yes Im superficial)...
What the hell was with Tom Hanks' hair?!
They were trying to give him this like crazy Harvard Prof look, it just looks sketchy!
Oh, and the book, I loved it, the movie... nooot so much...
-
So in that review, you missed the one thing that I couldnt help fixate over (yes Im superficial)...
What the hell was with Tom Hanks' hair?!
They were trying to give him this like crazy Harvard Prof look, it just looks sketchy!
Oh, and the book, I loved it, the movie... nooot so much...
Um . . . he was a Harvard Professor?
I do not remotely understand why Tom hanks is such an issue - I like his hair in the film. It's a good look, and it makes him not look look just like Tom Hanks.
The more I talk to fans of the book, the more it sounds like the movie was a very slight improvement, but I'll admit I can't judge that for certain. But this is a big problem I have (at least with what was presented in the film):
Ian McKellan asks "Why isn't the Grail in the painting of The Last Supper?"
Because the Grail is a load of dingos's kidney's. It originated in Arthurian legend - it is not a part of any religious theology. But ignore that. His point is, it's the supper, they are drinking the wine, they had to have something to drink it out of, ergo, the Holy Grail. But the grail is Mary Magdelene. Okay, now I get it! They drank the wine . . . out of Mary Magadelene? What?
-
...But the grail is Mary Magdelene. Okay, now I get it! They drank the wine . . . out of Mary Magadelene? What?
Ok. That's it. You just made me pee my pants laughing. I'm going home.
-
I had to wait a few minutes after reading this review before I posted a reply because so many things rushed into my mouth I was choked silent. I do not want to make this a big thing, but I have a few points I want to make.
Point 1--It's a novel. Now it's a movie. Stop getting offended. If you've been living in a hole for the last year or so and had no idea what the movie/book was about then I'm sorry, otherwise why did you go see it if you knew you were likely to be offended by the content?
Point 2--"professor of Cockamamie Theology"? because you don't believe that there have been meaningful symbols throughout time? I would love to hear defense of that one. Every religion has it's symbols, every country, every business, every trade. As Dan Brown points out many times, most of the symbols used in the books are not used or recognized any more as they were originally intended, otherwise the Code would not be a code. I would also like to point out that the study of history in every institution of higher learning includes a discussion of--if not emphasis in--symbols and their relation to history.
Point 3--this is a minor irritation to be sure, but an irritation nevertheless. Sir Ian McKellan has done so much more with his life than one insignificant trilogy, it seems slightly off-putting to pidgeon-hole him that way.
Point 4--This movie was never intended to be an adventure, if you want a Dan Brown story to fit that description, read Angels And Demons. This is a story about intrigue, which like it or not, is wordy. It is about intellectual problems, which require thought and debate. To make this story an adventure, and leave out the "lectures" would make a completely different story. which brings me to
Point 5--which is a lot like point 1. This story is what it is, and it has never been any different. The book would not have sold like it did, if some people were not intrigued by this story. This is a matter of personal opinions of course, but I would like to point out that as far as plot holes and believability, take a look at some of the movies this site has registered very good reviews for, such as King Kong, Napoleon Dynamite, Saw, Hulk, Collateral Damage, among others. These movies got much better reviews than this one, and the only reason I can see is that this movie offends the unthinking christian. I say unthinking because, either you didn't realize that this story offended you and thusly avoided it (an opinion I greatly support), or you had no idea that the historical events mentioned actually took place and are therefore presented with new information to shake your faith.
Point 6--the idea of the holy grail has been around in religions and cultures since the ancient egyptians, actually. The concept of a chalice or grail "carrying" religion is first recorded in the tombs of the ancient Pharoahs, and is a common theme among religious literature and art in all theologies. Brown's adoption of the grail equals Mary Magdalene is an echo of miriad theologians, philosophers and scholars...perhaps this movie requires the skeptical audience to do some homework.
Basically, as I have been in trouble before for arguing people's individual opinions, I have no objections for not caring for the story of this movie. But trying to tear holes in something one knows very little of often results in stabbing the sidewalk with a feather. Perhaps then those "wordy lectury" portions of the movie had a purpose. It seems to me that if one is going to view a movie with the purpose of writing a review, or even simply understanding the movie to it's fullest, one has two choices, a)take the movie on faith that it knows what it's talking about, or b)do some research and decide for yourself.
To quote Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield Disraeli, "It is much easier to be critical than to be correct." It seems to me that a better task for a "critic" or "reviewer" on a site like this might be to figure out and explain precisely why material is appealing to the masses as this movie surely is, or why not, when it's not, like MI III surely is not, whatever the reviewers personal opinions are. Such reviews are helpful, informative, and interesting to read, but alas, they take the power of original thought regardless of theology, bias, or closed-mindedness.
This post has been, (unless otherwise stated), my personal opinion.
-
Ok out of that lovely critical post I have to post a critical post, just cuz Im cool like that, and I need to kill some time... (woo time-wasting...)
" Point 1--It's a novel. Now it's a movie. Stop getting offended. If you've been living in a hole for the last year or so and had no idea what the movie/book was about then I'm sorry, otherwise why did you go see it if you knew you were likely to be offended by the content? "
Oh man do I agree with this. ITS A NOVEL. I am so tired of seeing commercials "I can cite where in Dan Brown's novel he is making things up!" Ok yes, he made LOTS up, its a NOVEL, a work of FICTION. Get over it people.
" Point 5--which is a lot like point 1. This story is what it is, and it has never been any different. The book would not have sold like it did, if some people were not intrigued by this story. This is a matter of personal opinions of course, but I would like to point out that as far as plot holes and believability, take a look at some of the movies this site has registered very good reviews for, such as King Kong, Napoleon Dynamite, Saw, Hulk, Collateral Damage, among others. These movies got much better reviews than this one, and the only reason I can see is that this movie offends the unthinking christian. I say unthinking because, either you didn't realize that this story offended you and thusly avoided it (an opinion I greatly support), or you had no idea that the historical events mentioned actually took place and are therefore presented with new information to shake your faith. "
I think you may be getting a little too overly critical here hun. I liked this movie, but it was not fantastic. There was a lot lacking. It didnt even remotely measure up to the book in my opinion. The other movies (I havent seen Napoleon or Collateral so Im going off what Ive heard) are great for what they are SUPPOSED to be. This movie... is slightly lacking for what its supposed to be.
This movie had a lot of potential that I dont think it lived up to.
Despite this, I liked the movie, it was enjoyable. In fact I am going to see it for a second time with my parents this week.
I really didnt find the review to be close-minded at all. But thats just my opinion. And everyone has the right to that right?
:) ;)
-
I'm glad we have akeyata around to fly off the handle at every little thing. It makes our discussions so much more lively.
I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book, and if the movie's plot is at all similar I think the review was actually quite forgiving of its underlying stupidity. It was certainly a fun story, but utterly ridiculous on virtually every level.
-
I find it interesting how many people are only too happy to jump at critisizing Dan Brown for Davinci Code.
It may have been written at the 7th grade reading level, but that's describing *every* work with the expectation of selling to the American Masses today.
Afterall, it says New York Times #1 best *Seller*, not best *writer*.
It is about time we had a new author with the balls to offend a complacent religious society. A society that blames all their problems and mistakes on a God that expressly granted free-will, which therefore places you fully responsible.
We are condemned to existance and responsibility, and everytime someone points that out we rise up in protest! Why, because it's embarrasing to think that we might have misunderstood our own moral code. We don't take the time to think for ourselves, or reflect upon our beliefs.
Most people accept what the media/society tell them. Why? Because it's easy. It requires no thought. We tend not to do any research in order to confirm truth about what we have been told to accept.
What really bothers me though, is how people without even reading the book from front to back *know* absolutely that the book is about crushing religious belief or defeating the Vatican. That simply is not true. It is a fiction expressly intended to provoke discussion about faith and the exceptions we make in the face of dogma.
We shouldn't judge what we haven't saught to understand. (For lack of a better expression.)
-
Preface to my post: I've not read nor seen the Da Vinci Code. Nor do I have any intention of ever doing so. It hardly seems like my cup of tea.
ok, random points:
-I find it funny that Jetti thinks it's a new or gutsy thing to do something religiously offensive (whether DVC is or not). Because, seriously, I see that all the time. If you think this is new, you must be living under a rock.
-the "truth" of DVC. He claims the history in it is true. That's inarguable. The claim is in print is at the beginning. However, his history, as far as I can tell, seems to be the sort of stuff that only fringe whacko historians even consider. No historian in their right mind can swallow that stuff whole. His numbers are off, and most of the rest of it is sketchy conjecture.
-"offense" at DVC. This is for the petty and the jealous. So a bad writer made a lot of money. Even taking that as a given (again, I haven't read it, so I can only say that the most rational arguments I've heard about the book convince me that he is. However, I don't know) it's a sign of small character to be angry about it. Which apparently, 90% of Arthurnet is. I wonder why these people don't spend more time doing their research. Oh yeah, it's because arguing about obscure etymologies and whining about how someone who writes fiction is making more money than those who just analyze it is more fun... or something.
In the end, it's just a book, and a movie. One that has made a man very rich. I'm sure that gives him an ego boost. I don't particularly care. There are bigger egos on wealthier people that have earned neither their accolades or their money. If you want to go on a crusade, pick on one of them. By discussing it in earnest, you're contributing and encouraging the very culture that has created the thing you vilify. If Dan Brown bothers you, the best thing you can do to stop him is shut up about him. If you like Dan Brown, carry on.
-
Point 3--this is a minor irritation to be sure, but an irritation nevertheless. Sir Ian McKellan has done so much more with his life than one insignificant trilogy, it seems slightly off-putting to pidgeon-hole him that way.
Wrong, we also pigeon-hole him as Magneto. So that's two "insignificant" trilogies. And by insignificant I assume you mean highly relevent and forever altering popular culture.
-
Let's not forget the only physical document that suggests what the Code says is a hoax a really rich, and board, Frenchman made in the 60s and then gave to the French National archives. He admitted about 10 years latter that it was a hoax, this document was the first ever recorded instance of a group of people set up to keep the secret of the "grail" and is where DaVinci fits into all this since his name was on it.
My problem with this book, and I haven't read it either, is that Brown takes every chance he gets to push it as history when in fact it's not. He's being dishonest to sell books and a lot of Americans and Europeans are gullible enough to believe him.
-
actually, the history is, unfortunately, fact. yes, the idea that mary magdalene is the "grail" is a theory, but the story of the Knights Templar, the meetings to decide the fate of christianity, etc, is all true. That is history, as any history professor will tell you. What the Templars actually did, what they were looking for and what they found is complete conjecture, but the fact remains that they went to jerusalem incredibly poor, they dug around for a long time, and then suddenly went back to Rome with untold wealth and power. For all we know they simply found a lot of money that the Jews tried to hide from the crusaders. Basically, the search for the grail, where it is and what it is is certainly a "fringe" study, but the history that is stated in the book as actual history is, history. Look it up.
I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.
-
My problem with this book, and I haven't read it either, is that Brown takes every chance he gets to push it as history when in fact it's not. He's being dishonest to sell books and a lot of Americans and Europeans are gullible enough to believe him.
It's a book. Better yet, it's a NOVEL. it's not supposed to be truth. what he says at the beginning of the book clarifies very well what in the book is fact and leaves the rest up to you. if the entire thing was supposed to be true it wouldn't be a novel.
-
actually, the history is, unfortunately, fact. yes, the idea that mary magdalene is the "grail" is a theory, but the story of the Knights Templar, the meetings to decide the fate of christianity, etc, is all true. That is history, as any history professor will tell you. What the Templars actually did, what they were looking for and what they found is complete conjecture, but the fact remains that they went to jerusalem incredibly poor, they dug around for a long time, and then suddenly went back to Rome with untold wealth and power. For all we know they simply found a lot of money that the Jews tried to hide from the crusaders. Basically, the search for the grail, where it is and what it is is certainly a "fringe" study, but the history that is stated in the book as actual history is, history. Look it up.
I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.
*sigh*
I really shouldn't argue with you, but I'm of weak will when I come to this sort of thing.
You think that's all the history in the book? What about the "facts" about the Catholic church that are in no way relevant to actual records? Have you *read* Holy Blood, Holy Grail? It's the book Brown says he got his history from. This book is considered, at best, "Dodgy" by any respected historian. Most of them will tell you it's outright trash. Dan Brown's claims about history go *far* beyond the mere existence of the Knights Templar. If you think that's the only "history" he claimed to use, then no wonder you think it's solid.
And you didn't say "irrelevant," you said "insignificant." How you can justify that as a logical statement makes no sense. Yes, he's done a lot more, but arguing that LotR was either irrelevant OR insignificant to his career is at best uninformed. Yes, he's done much, much, more. He's not just gandalf. He's a great actor independent of that, but it sounds like you're just taking offense at a single joke line to try and show how much you know.
-
Akeyata, regarding your points:
Point 1: Yes, it's fiction. But since when did being fiction make something inoffensive? So we can belittle any group, person or idea, and as long as we do it in a fiction format, no one can be offended?
But more importantly, did you read the review, or are you just assuming that everyone who dislikes the movie dislikes it for the same reasons? The review specifically states that the reviewers were "bordering on getting offended" "until Hanks delivered a monolgue that assuaged some of our fears." In other words, they weren't offended, so your first point is moot. (Incidentally, did you read the line in last paragraph that says: "So in the end, it's not a matter of being offended. It's not worth getting offended over."?)
Point 2: I won't try to defend another writer's word choice, but when no other academic religious symbologists back up Brown's ideas, it's hard to believe that Langdon is a Harvard Professor. Most of his symbology and history comes from conspiracy nut books, rather than art historians. I think that fits the phrase "cockamamie".
Point 3: I have no complaints with this point.
Point 4: I agree that the book was not meant to be an adventure story, but the movie is marketed that way, and I think that's its real downfall. They don't market it as a movie about ideas and history lectures -- they market it as a great conspiracy thriller, with car chases and fight scenes. If the movie doesn't do what the ads say it will, can you blame reviewers for thinking the movie failed?
Point 5: You say: "the only reason I can see is that this movie offends the unthinking christian." Way to jump to crazy conclusions. I can see why half-arsed history and manipulated facts appeal to you so much.
Point 6: I admit to having no knowledge of ancient grail mythology. However, you say that the movie might be requiring us to do our homework. Considering that every time anyone researches any of Brown's "facts", they come up with a whole lot of smoke and mirrors, I don't think Brown really wants us to do any homework. On the contrary, he wants us to swallow all of his bull, embrace his anti-establishment conspiracies, and then use pseudo-intellectualism to accuse skeptics of being "unthinking Christians". But maybe that's just me.
-
I say unthinking because, either you didn't realize that this story offended you and thusly avoided it (an opinion I greatly support), or you had no idea that the historical events mentioned actually took place and are therefore presented with new information to shake your faith.
This amuses me but saddens me at the same time. That anyone could think that the pivotal events described in the story actually took place because "Dan Brown" said they did is typical of exactly what is wrong with our society. Gullibility. It's the same problem on both sides of the argument.
Position 1: "What Dan Brown said is true and therefore the major Christian religions have been deceiving the masses for millenia in a malicious attempt to degrade women." Gullible. The work is internally inconsistent, deliberately controversial fiction. Why the big hullabaloo?
Position 2: "This book is a pack of malicious lies and damaging to Christian religions everywhere." Gullible. The work is internally inconsistent, deliberately controversial fiction. Why the big hullabaloo? (since when was your faith based on whether or not fictional works agreed with you?)
Most people accept what the media/society tell them. Why? Because it's easy. It requires no thought. We tend not to do any research in order to confirm truth about what we have been told to accept.
You do realize, of course, that you're doing exactly what you describe here with the DaVinci Code, yes? I find it deliciously amusing that you would condemn others for blindly believing what media and society tell them because they doubt the veracity of a movie/novel you agree with. Who's believing what after all?
Akeyata said: actually, the history is, unfortunately, ... actual history is, history. Look it up.
Yes, the things you cite as fact are fact. But they are not what anyone is getting offended over. The things you admit are conjecture: Mary Magdalene as the grail, what the Templars found in Jerusalem, etc... are what people are upset over.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's as silly as you do to get offended or lose your faith over a mediocre thriller novel but your claim that "unthinking" christians are getting upset over "facts" is silly when the things they're getting upset over are, by your own definition, NOT facts.
-
I think we're getting confused here. I never said that Dan Brown was right and major religions are trying to degrade women. If you a)read the book or better yet b) saw the movie, you will see that Dan Brown himself doesn't even say that. the scene in which Teabing and Langdon are explaining the legends to Sophie it is made very clear that there are two very different views to the same set of facts. I was merely pointing out that the facts stated as facts are facts. what you make of them is your business.
I'm not sure to whom your point 2 was directed, but I never said anything like that so I can't really reply.
as far as Blindly believing, I am not blindly believing anything. I have actually read the book and seen the movie (unlike many who have posted here), better yet, I have researched many of the historical points myself. I have found that the basic facts are generally held to be basic facts, and what Dan Brown did in the way of coloring the theories to make it a good read is exactly that.
Perhaps I am confused by what people are getting offended over. I would assume that the most "offensive" thing in the book would be the meeting to "decide Christ's divinity". since that is presented as actual historical fact. (which it is, but I am NOT going to get into that one no matter what you say). If people are getting offended by a novel that suggests that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and they had a child, then, I would have to say that there are a lot of things in life that are different from one's personal faith, and if something as insignificant as a novel turned movie can irritate you to the point of offense, you are putting way too much thought into it. If you know that you won't like it, don't read it. Don't see it. But don't rail against something simply because you don't believe in the theology.
-
actually, the history is, unfortunately, fact. yes, the idea that mary magdalene is the "grail" is a theory, but the story of the Knights Templar, the meetings to decide the fate of christianity, etc, is all true. That is history, as any history professor will tell you. What the Templars actually did, what they were looking for and what they found is complete conjecture, but the fact remains that they went to jerusalem incredibly poor, they dug around for a long time, and then suddenly went back to Rome with untold wealth and power. For all we know they simply found a lot of money that the Jews tried to hide from the crusaders. Basically, the search for the grail, where it is and what it is is certainly a "fringe" study, but the history that is stated in the book as actual history is, history. Look it up.
I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.
The reason they "came back" with untold riches is that the Templars became a fad with nobility in Europe and to join them you had to give them all your wealth. So they did in fact become very rich, but it wasn't because they found lots of treasure (heck these were the guys that spend a year just fighting for a piece of wood they thought was part of Christ's Cross) but because of donations from the powerful that wanted in. That's also the reason the French king had them hunted down, they had more influence with French nobility then he did. The only people who don't believe this are in league with the shape-shifting-Nazi-reptiles.
-
I have researched many of the historical points myself.
I call bull.
-
I believe the mystery lies in why they were so dang popular--why they were a fad. and the search for a piece of the true cross is also conjecture--it was assumed that was what they were looking for, but as they weren't really open and trusting people it is not a solid fact. I believe that that is what the grail theory is based on.
-
I call bull.
you would
-
I believe the mystery lies in why they were so dang popular--why they were a fad. and the search for a piece of the true cross is also conjecture--it was assumed that was what they were looking for, but as they weren't really open and trusting people it is not a solid fact. I believe that that is what the grail theory is based on.
The cross wasn't conjecture, they found "it" but most people believe it was fake. In fact it's believed that the cross was planted by a high level person in the Templars to raise moral since after several years there they found nothing.
As for why they were popular, well in that time Christianity and "defending" the faith were all the rage. So you had a group of people that were doing that, remember that the Templars started as a group to protect Pilgrims in the Holy Land, and several people got a lot of notoriety. What more appealing to a nobleman then being really famous from some grand war against what was perceived as a great evil (the Muslims taking the Jerusalem). It's not really that hard to understand if you take a bit of time to study what was important in Medieval Europe at the time.
-
you would
I always do.
Akeyata, did you read my earlier post? You didn't respond to it.
-
I think we should all follow Akeyata's example and not get offended by things that disagree with our world view.
/sarcasm
-
THat's what I've built my life on.
What do you mean "sarcasm?"
-
Like Cheese. Cheese disagrees with my world view, what with it's delicious yellowness tempting all who pass by.
-
I never said that Dan Brown was right and major religions are trying to degrade women. If you a)read the book or better yet b) saw the movie, you will see that Dan Brown himself doesn't even say that. the scene in which Teabing and Langdon are explaining the legends to Sophie it is made very clear that there are two very different views to the same set of facts.
I did read the book. I have not yet seen the movie. I'm starting to think that you have done neither. In the book major Christian religions, most prominently the Catholics, are accused, by everyone concerned, of suppressing a belief in the divine feminine, of deliberately obscuring Magdelene's prominence in the early church in order to preserve a patriarchal order (patriarchal means male-dominated). If changing history so males can stay dominant over females isn't degrading women I don't know what is.
The meetings that Dan Brown claims were held to decide whether or not to say Christ was divine or not are fiction. Meetings held to decide on "official" doctrines and how to change the historical record to suit the new dogma are fact. All Brown did was add a "fact" here and there, sprinkled in among established history. We know the meetings took place we don't have a copy of the minutes. People whose only exposure to the history concerned is Dan Brown's novel and what they've heard in the mass media and at parties will have trouble telling the difference.
-
In the book major Christian religions, most prominently the Catholics, are accused, by everyone concerned, of suppressing a belief in the divine feminine, of deliberately obscuring Magdelene's prominence in the early church in order to preserve a patriarchal order (patriarchal means male-dominated). If changing history so males can stay dominant over females isn't degrading women I don't know what is.
When I first read the book, that is the point that stuck with me. That is the point that my friends and I discussed. And it prompted a lot of great discussion. I have a wide group of friends, pagan, catholic, jewish, and we all sat down and shared ideas and talked about the book and the "facts" but mostly the ideas. Why they were intriquing, why they were crap.
I think that is really the point of this book. To spark discussion. And look at how well its done here thus far! I believe I read in an interview Dan Brown himself said that if it gets people talking he did what he wanted. (I cant recall his exact words or where the interview was sorry)
So what if hes a crackpot, and his ideas are faulty, it still entertains, it still sparks discussion.
This world is way too uptight on discussing religion, I love that because of this book I can talk about religion with people, find similarities and differences in belief systems. But that requires both parties to have a somewhat open mind and not be so set in their ways they refuse to hear another point of view. And if they liked this book, but are still very religious and think its all crap, then they should be cool to talk to.
-
actually, I think the point of the book was to make dan brown money. It's good for it to spark discussion, because that's like free advertising.
But maybe I'm just cynical. After all, I think rock is just a way to make money too.
-
This world is way too uptight on discussing religion, I love that because of this book I can talk about religion with people, find similarities and differences in belief systems.
One of the best responses to this controversy came from a Catholic priest back east (Pennsylvania, I think?). He said that he was very pleased with the book, because it got people asking questions about Christ, and getting legitimately interested in their religion, rather than just going through the motions.
-
soo, because I have yet to argue points for or against the priory of sion I didn't read the book either? If you want me to argue for or against every single point in the story to prove I have read it I will, but I think that would be a waste of time. I have been arguing the points that have been most debated among the people I know. If you want to debate that point we can.
Yes, mustard I did read your post, but most of it was calling me a liar and a reactionary so I didn't feel I needed to respond to it.
my point about being offended, is that if you knew the subject matter was not your thing, why did you see/read it in the first place? and if you did anyway, why should a piece of fiction have such a great impact on you that you are offended?
also, there seems to be a great amount of debate about Dan Brown's writing skills. From what I know of some of the people saying these things, I have to wonder if it is merely jealousy. So he's not the best writer. I have yet to disagree with that point. He has made boatloads of money writing a best selling novel. what's wrong with that? your comments that other movies got better reviews because they were that good considering what they are should certainly hold true for this one. if you agree that the story the movie was based upon was melodramatic and patchy, then the movie was certainly the best it could be.
also, mustard, since you want a reply, it must really really irk you to have had to change your next book to be more like this psuedo-intellectual trash.
-
He wasn't calling you a liar. Certainly a reactionary, though.
-
well, the liar part was in a different post.
-
Akeyata, I can see why DVC appeals to you. It's a bunch of wind trying to pull off an intellectual tone that ultimately falls flat. Seriously, who are you, and why should I listen to you? Yes, I've read the book. I've even gone to scholarly panels at conferences focused on the book. Where did you do your research? What qualifications should I have to believe your opinion over anyone else's, let alone people with PhDs in history? I can see you having an opinion about things, but nothing you've said so far is helping your case. Anyone can say "I've done a lot of research on this, so I know." I've done a lot of research, so I know that the earth is actually flat instead of round, like all you idiots believe. See? Easy. Back it up instead of throwing out insults and jibes, if you want any respect at all.
Oh, and because it's one of the comments that irritated me the most:
your comments that other movies got better reviews because they were that good considering what they are should certainly hold true for this one. if you agree that the story the movie was based upon was melodramatic and patchy, then the movie was certainly the best it could be.
The quality of adaptations for the most part has little to do with the quality of the work being adapted, and everything to do with the skill and motivations of the adapters. In DVC's case, I'd say the main reason the movie was made was to make a boatload of money. When that happens, a work of art is rarely the result. And just so I don't fall into the same hole I criticized you for, I've written and studied adaptation extensively, going as far to write my Masters thesis on the subject.
I'll see DVC when it comes out on video, because from what I've heard, I don't feel like shelling out $14 to see it with my wife.
-
I don't think reactionary was out of line either. It seems accurate by your own description of how you prepared your post.
-
no, reactionary was my posts a long time ago regarding tim burton.
why should you listen to me? why should anyone listen to anyone on this site? Why should I listen to you? because you're a few years ahead of me in college? I haven't written my masters thesis yet, so your views are obviously superior to mine. I must have missed the day we all submitted our credentials for review.
and I don't recall that I insulted anyone. I made general comments that if someone took to mean them personally that's their fault. I have not ripped into anyone personally this entire thread and I resent the implications that I have.
-
These movies got much better reviews than this one, and the only reason I can see is that this movie offends the unthinking christian. I say unthinking because, either you didn't realize that this story offended you and thusly avoided it (an opinion I greatly support), or you had no idea that the historical events mentioned actually took place and are therefore presented with new information to shake your faith.
If this was not a direct personal assault on the reviewers, their reviewing methods, and their faith, then I don't know what is.
-
my point about being offended, is that if you knew the subject matter was not your thing, why did you see/read it in the first place? and if you did anyway, why should a piece of fiction have such a great impact on you that you are offended?
Again, who on this board is complaining about offense? Certainly not the review.
also, mustard, since you want a reply, it must really really irk you to have had to change your next book to be more like this psuedo-intellectual trash.
Cage it, buddy!
Yes, I changed my book to be more Da Vinci Code-ish. I liked the Da Vinci Code. It was a fun, goofy book. And it sold really well.
But the thing is, I realize that Da Vinci Code is a fiction novel, with fictional facts, and manipulation of the truth. Likewise, my book is full of conspiracies and manipulated history, all of which has a basis in fact, but the majority of which is baloney. It's fiction. It's a good story. Unlike Dan Brown (and his irrational followers), I don't claim that my book is all true.
-
no, reactionary was my posts a long time ago regarding tim burton.
I had to wait a few minutes after reading this review before I posted a reply because so many things rushed into my mouth I was choked silent. I do not want to make this a big thing, but I have a few points I want to make.
^-- pretty darn reactionary.
why should you listen to me? why should anyone listen to anyone on this site? Why should I listen to you? because you're a few years ahead of me in college? I haven't written my masters thesis yet, so your views are obviously superior to mine. I must have missed the day we all submitted our credentials for review.
What is this about anyway? I"m not sure what inspired this paragraph
-
That was in response to Parker.
-
I'd honestly love to see your guys' family reunion, heck I'm surprised that I haven't seen the Wells's on Cops.
-
Not Cops. Jerry Springer.
-
Funny thing is, I think Mormons especially don't mind Dan Brown claiming that Jesus might have been married. He really might have been. It's Dan Brown's conclusions that are silly--and not based on any evidence or logic--that because Jesus was married, therefore he couldn't have been divine. Hogwash. It's all a bunch of hogwash. But! most fiction is. I am not offended. Just not terribly entertained by something that really isn't that earthshaking.
-
and I don't recall that I insulted anyone. I made general comments that if someone took to mean them personally that's their fault. I have not ripped into anyone personally this entire thread and I resent the implications that I have.
I can find where you insulted someone
" also, mustard, since you want a reply, it must really really irk you to have had to change your next book to be more like this psuedo-intellectual trash."
that seems insulting to me
Id have to say hun, I think your getting a little too emotionally invested in this discussion... but thats just my opinion
-
I haven't written my masters thesis yet, so your views are obviously superior to mine. I must have missed the day we all submitted our credentials for review.
Actually intellectually yes, his views on the subject are superior. Parkers thesis is now a part of the academic record, submitted for peer review and published by his university. The fact that he did copious amounts of research and supported it by fact, with references proves that. You can even go and check it out and use it as a resource. As a credential it certainly outweighs "I read a lot of books.". Sorry if that sounds elitist but thats life.
I'd honestly love to see your guys' family reunion, heck I'm surprised that I haven't seen the Wells's on Cops
or Law and Order...
-
And yes, I've read the book. Dan Brown knows how to end a chapter on a cliffhanger. He's a little too expositiony for my tastes--he really loves the tell, and doesn't always get the idea of showing.
But, like the review says, bleh. I really don't care either way. I just don't want to spend my money on a movie for which I didn't particularly care for the storytelling of the book. It was too melodramatic for my tastes.
-
Just read a post on CNN--Akiva Goldman's been signed on by Columbia to adapt Angels & Demons. As I still haven't seen the movie, I have nothing to add to that, but discuss away.
-
oh fantastic.... that should be interesting....
-
everyone I know who's read Browns books says that thats the better one. So that should be interesting.
-
Actually intellectually yes, his views on the subject are superior. Parkers thesis is now a part of the academic record, submitted for peer review and published by his university. The fact that he did copious amounts of research and supported it by fact, with references proves that. You can even go and check it out and use it as a resource. As a credential it certainly outweighs "I read a lot of books.". Sorry if that sounds elitist but thats life.
His views on the subject of adaptation perhaps, but as he didn't write it on the subject of the DaVinci Code, the Holy Grail, the Knights Templar, or anything else relevant I fail to see how it relates at all.
Also, by your criteria, shouldn't you then take Dan Brown on his word? he did all of that too.
And I didn't insult my brother, I quoted him.
-
But the thing is, I realize that Da Vinci Code is a fiction novel, with fictional facts, and manipulation of the truth. Likewise, my book is full of conspiracies and manipulated history, all of which has a basis in fact, but the majority of which is baloney. It's fiction. It's a good story. Unlike Dan Brown (and his irrational followers), I don't claim that my book is all true.
neither does Dan Brown
-
And I didn't insult my brother, I quoted him.
In the same sense that Dan Brown quotes history books.
-
if quoting you is an insult...
-
And I didn't insult my brother, I quoted him.
Ah, well I was unaware of that. perhaps quotations would have been helpful?
-
he wants us to swallow all of his bull, embrace his anti-establishment conspiracies, and then use pseudo-intellectualism to accuse skeptics of being "unthinking Christians". But maybe that's just me.
here.
-
ok.
so nobody likes the movie, or the story, or the author, or the theology.
I think we've established that.
I think we have also established that once again, my abrasive mannerisms have failed to win me friends. I'll cry over that later (if I remember).
but we have also established that the arguments against my posts have all fallen prey to the criticism usually leveled against me, that they attack the messenger, not the message. All anyone has done with my arguments is say that either I am lying, I am not credible, or I am simply incompetent. I find that extremely interesting. get back to me when you can argue my points.
-
That refers to your pseudo-intellectualism, not Brown's. I thought that was fairly obvious, but my apologies if it was misconstrued.
neither does Dan Brown
Ah... So Dan Brown doesn't claim it's true, but you still do? I think I get it.
-
Ok, think I have the best idea concerning this thread; let it die. All we have here is redundant arguments (on both sides) and it's really annoying.
-
ah, so Dan Brown doesn't claim it's true, but you still do? I think I get it.
try reading what I write next time
-
so nobody likes the movie, or the story, or the author, or the theology
Entirely not true...
In fact if you read the review a little better you might have caught this...
All of these elements make The Da Vinci Code more watchable and entertaining than its harshest critics have suggested. In fact, the film holds your attention most of the way through, and is mildly diverting. This is, in most respects, a pretty well-made film.
So....2 out of 4 stars is an entirely watchable movie...
Its just not in the opinions of the reviewers a great movie. Im not really sure why you take issue with this. Instead you were at least mildly insulting to the reviewers. All you had to say was I liked it and I dont agree. The way you phrased it was almost designed to be a slap in the face.
Dale Browns "research" has been picked apart on many many threads already quite successfully I may add. The problem is that you seem to be taking it as seriously as the hyper religious people who object to its showing in the first place. Look, its fiction, and a good story. But its hardly a great novel, or a great movie. Doggedly clinging to the idea that its historically true, is just well sophmoric. At the most its historical fiction, you know based on history. Thats ok and doesnt make it a bad thing. In fact no one is saying its terrible (at least here).
As far as Dan Browns word on the subject I think you need to read this from his website.
HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.
BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.
It is a work of fiction Q.E.D.
-
try reading what I write next time
That would be too easy.
-
"My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history. "
I knew I read somewhere that he wanted it to spark discussion! yay Im not insane (well not completely that is)!
-
Just saw this on the local news, supposedly Dan Browns next book is going to deal with Mormons. He was in SLC investigating the Temple and early church leaders.
-
and their conspiricy to cover up the Catholic churches secret practice of multiple marriage .... to LLamas... all painstakingly proven through science.
-
ok, i'm gonna pick this apart here:
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.
BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.
I will now cite some experts that should satisfy even Akeyata's demand for intellectual rigor. These people are professional, published scholars in the fields of medieval history, literature, and study. Read these quotes, because the smack Brown in the face on this exact claim that he has made:
I am not sure if I am understanding your post correctly. Most of us here are familiar with the actual history and development of the Holy Grail legend, unlike Dan Brown and the authors of HBHG (whose names
escape me at the moment). In the original story about the graal, "Perceval" by Chretien de Troyes, the term "sangreal" does not occur, not even "san greal" (and certainly not "sang real!!"). In Perceval, there is a "graal" that is holy. This "graal" is turned into "The Holy Grail" or "San Greal" by later writers. At some point a later (but still medieval) author probably picked up on the "San/Sang" pun and connected the graal with the blood of Christ, and the crucifixion, and the last supper, and the mass, and so on.
But originally, these were not a part of the story. The story of "The Holy Grail" did NOT start out as the story of "Holy Blood". It started out as a story about a graal (a type of dish) that was holy.
Brown's descriptions of Leonardo's works are often inaccurate. His description of the Last Supper has inaccuracies in it (e.g. that's not a "dismembered hand" it is very clearly Peter's hand). His descriptions of the two versions of the Madonna of the Rocks are also very
inaccurate--he tries to convince us that there are HUGE differences in these two when in fact the two set side by side are almost identical, sort of like those "spot the difference" games on the backs of cereal boxes. Dan Brown for example says that Leonardo switches the placement of Jesus and John the Baptist in the two versions, but in fact Jesus and John the Baptist are in exactly the same places in both versions.
Many of the practices attributed to Opus Dei are not true. Opus Dei, for example, does not have monks. And certainly doesn't have any albino monks that it sends out as hitmen.
And the Priory of Zion was in fact invented in the 1950s by a French Nazi Sympathizer with a criminal history named Pierre Plantard. It did not exist in the middle ages, as Dan Brown claims. And therefore just about everything else Dan Brown says about this organization is false
(to be continued)
-
That needs little exposition, but let me point out again that Brown claims this organization is/was real (not at all), that his descriptions of the art is accurate (not at all), and the etymology of the very basis of the book is not only suspect but completely untenable. while he doesn't state specifically that he believes this particularly theory was real, the whole purpose of trying to pull any of it off as real is to lend credence to the quest, which, in my opinion, is his worst sin.
another quote discussing the Last Supper painting that supposedly has Mary in it:
To this one could add that most depictions of the Last Supper, especially before the 13th century, are of the scene from John 18--they rarely show a Grail-like chalice or the moment of the institution of the Eucharist; rather, they depict the accusation of Judas, and they
emphasize the dishes on the table and especially the one shared by Jesus and Judas. Since Jesus was supposed to have had 12 named male apostles, one of whom is the boyish John, and Leonardo depicts 12 men one of whom is boyish, it is pretty odd to suggest that he "bumped" poor John out of the picture to replace him with Mary. The only tenable theory is that EVERY depiction of the Last Supper ever painted shows Mary Magdalene disguised as John (I have seen this argued on the web) and that sort of makes the theory less secret and less exclusive to Leonardo.
More detail for why this was the only tenable theory is given in the post. Note that all of these can be found on the Arthurnet archives (http://lists.mun.ca/archives/arthurnet.html). They were posted today.
It should also be noted that even these scholars make the joke about pigeonholing McKellen to one role (one of them calls him Magneto, in fact). This is because they have a sense of humor.
Nearly all of the detail quoted there can be referenced more completely at www.smu.edu/arthuriana/lacy.pdf
(you'll note that this is a published paper by a medieval scholar at a university).
I want to close with a Roger Ebert quote:
Dan Brown's novel is utterly preposterous; Ron Howard's movie is preposterously entertaining. Both contain accusations against the Catholic Church and its order of Opus Dei that would be scandalous if anyone of sound mind could possibly entertain them. I know there are people who believe Brown's fantasies about the Holy Grail, the descendants of Jesus, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei and the true story of Mary Magdalene. This has the advantage of distracting them from the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane.
Which adequately sums my opinion on those who think any of the "history" in this book was real.
-
Q.E.D.
-
And the Priory of Zion was in fact invented in the 1950s by a French Nazi Sympathizer with a criminal history named Pierre Plantard. It did not exist in the middle ages, as Dan Brown claims. And therefore just about everything else Dan Brown says about this organization is false
That needs little exposition, but let me point out again that Brown claims this organization is/was real (not at all), that his descriptions of the art is accurate (not at all), and the etymology of the very basis of the book is not only suspect but completely untenable.
actually, I believe the theory presented with the Priory was around, then they pretended that it was made up to throw people off the trail... go figure, pretty smart of them... yay conspiracy theories...
Ps- Sin? lil harsh perhaps?
-
I thought the movie was pretty damn good in respect to it following the book. It left out a few details, but it showed most of the art work. :)
Tom Hanks did an excellent job portraying Robert Langdon.
-
The reference to "Cockamamie" theology was not about the study of religious symbols, but merely a joke about the specious reasoning and "according to the conclusions I've jumped to" leaps in logic that bog down the film so utterly.
As far as the question of being offended, the person who wrote that didn't read the review: we never said that. And we were not in a hole - we new exactly what the story was about, there were no surprises going in, except that we thoguht there would be at least an attempt at a logical presentation of the theories. I wanted to see interesting and solid reasoning behind them, and there wasn't any.
The point that it is just a novel, and a movie, is well founded - people are trying to make into something of religious significance, and no matter how you look at it, it's just not. It's pulp fiction.
But the fact remains (in my opinion, of course) that it was shoddy pulp fiction.
As for the other films that got better reviews, "Saw" notwhithstanding, some of those were great films. "Collateral" was an extremely well made thriler that was ACTUALLY THRILLING.
The number one criteria on which a critic should base the review is whether the film succeeds at what it is trying to be. "The Da VInci Code" did not come close, at any point, to succeeding as a thriller, because it was painfully dull and you did not care if a single character in it lived or died. That has nothing to do offending Christians - it has to do with alienating people whol pay to see a movie starring Tom Hanks and Directed by Ron Howard and something either entertaining or thoughtful, and instead get something plodding, bloated and unbelievable lazy. It has nothing whatsover to do with the subject matter - that's exactly the kind of willd, unsupported reasoning the character's use, which is why the stroy is so insipid. "Collateral" and yes, even "Hulk" (which may not have connected with audiences, but was appreciated by critics) got much, much better reviews all across the country than "Da Vinci Code" did - from critics of all religious beliefs.
-
...
but we have also established that the arguments against my posts have all fallen prey to the criticism usually leveled against me, that they attack the messenger, not the message. All anyone has done with my arguments is say that either I am lying, I am not credible, or I am simply incompetent. I find that extremely interesting. get back to me when you can argue my points.
Akeyata, in your first post you claimed that people were upset by the DVC because they were unthinking christians who couldn't deal with actual history. (point 5)
But at least three people have pointed out that the only true and documented "historical" facts you could find in the work, which you listed, were not the things that were upsetting those "unthinking christians." The speculations and outright fakery Brown employed are what have most people upset.
Being upset by a Pop author's speculations is not being unable to deal with actual history, as you claimed. So, you are wrong, and we've shown it by actually dealing with your argument/point. Deal.
total non-sequitur: Are related to the Wells brothers, Fell and Mustard? No insult is intended to Fell and Mustard, just an impression I got, wondering if it's true.
-
Yes, Akeyata is our sister. It was the Xena thing that gave it away, right?
-
One additional point I wish to make about the individual films listed that got better reviews on this site than "Da Vinci Code.": not a single one of them was reviewed by these particular critics, so they are really irrelevant.
We make a point of writing our reveiws before discussing the films with anyone on the site, and then they post our opinion, which is just that, not the stance of the site as a whole. It's not as if Skar or Fellsfroch check to make sure they felt the same way about a movie that we did before they post our review. In fact, they have let us bash movies that they liked plenty of times.
-
I do. I refuse to post anything I disagree with.
(and if you believe that, i have a bridge you might be interested in buying)
-
Yes, Akeyata is our sister. It was the Xena thing that gave it away, right?
I can't remember what gave it away. I just remember thinking, "Oh, I bet she's their sister." after reading something. I resisted the idea for a while because you two are about the most unflappable and well-reasoned posters on this site. It must be a male gene in your family.
-
you two are about the most unflappable and well-reasoned posters on this site
Oh you! Flattery will get you everywhere!
-
Well, she did mention King Kong, so that's one of the ones you wrote. It's the only one she mentioned, though.
-
I can't remember what gave it away. I just remember thinking, "Oh, I bet she's their sister." after reading something. I resisted the idea for a while because you two are about the most unflappable and well-reasoned posters on this site. It must be a male gene in your family.
I think it has more to do with the fact that men are usually more stable than women, regardless of what family the belong to.
Hey everyone, let's fight!
-
FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp FIGHT! stomp
-
I think it has more to do with the fact that men are usually more stable than women, regardless of what family the belong to.
Hey everyone, let's fight!
Hey! I resemble that remark! I mean... resent...
psh, put up your dukes were startin a brawl now!
-
How would Fell's Mum feel about comments like that?
-
Dude. She's crazy!!! Why would you bring her into this? Now we all have to move again!
(FellsMum j/k)
-
I think it has more to do with the fact that men are usually more stable than women, regardless of what family the belong to.
I hope that's supposed to be an attempt at a joke, because if said in seriousness, it's pretty idiotic.
-
This is enough! Everyone go to your own rooms! This thread is now closed!
And Fell, I mean it - close it now!
-
thats hilarious!!!!
-
Oh, so as soon as fellsmum says something everyone shuts up, but when I say to knock it off you just keep on aruging.
I see how it is.
-
is someone talking?
:P
-
it's time that finally sunk in FMP. See, we *respect* Fellsmum :D