1
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 07:00:39 PM »Quote
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
News:
A lot of people describe Scalzi’s Old Man's War novels as military science fiction, but I would classify its sequel Zoë’s Tale as a space opera. It’s a story about, well, Zoë, a teenage girl whose parents are invited to take leadership roles in building a colony on a new planet. Zoë is an enthusiastic member of the group sent to colonize Roanoke, despite the risks—and the risks are considerable even before the political machinations of greater powers boil to the surface. Continue reading Zoë’s Tale
Review by Silk
Discuss it in our forums.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
try reading what I write next time
2
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 06:56:44 PM »
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.
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.
3
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 06:49:44 PM »Quote
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.
5
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 06:41:45 PM »Quote
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
6
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 06:39:55 PM »Quote
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.
7
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 05:03:56 PM »
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.
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.
8
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 04:49:37 PM »
well, the liar part was in a different post.
9
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 04:33:20 PM »
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.
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.
11
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 12:28:54 PM »
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.
12
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 12:18:53 PM »
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.
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.
13
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 11:43:02 AM »Quote
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.
14
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 24, 2006, 11:37:13 AM »
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.
I called it an irrelevant trilogy based on the rest of his body of work.
15
Movies and TV / Re: DaVinci Code
« on: May 23, 2006, 11:27:51 PM »
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.
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.