posted on May 18, 2006 07:30:31 PM new
So is anyone going to see the movie? It opens tomorrow. 2 1/2 hours long... is a long time to sit still in a theater for me but I think I'll go see it on the weekend. I read the book, I'm not expecting the movie to do it justice..
posted on May 18, 2006 09:17:51 PM new
I'm a fanatic reader, read all the time. I read that book, felt that it was overrated and poorly written, and got a bit lost toward the end. Some memorable scenes in it, though.
Mainly, though, I do not understand where the Christian world's fuss is coming from on this. Why would it have mattered if Jesus, who was fully human as well as fully divine, married and had children? In what way does that sully His name? Nowhere do the Old Testament prophecies say he will be celibate, and I don't believe the New Testament claimed that anywhere, either.
posted on May 18, 2006 11:05:05 PM new
I'm sure our religious expert here is madly flipping through his notes for the answer,but I'll go out on a limb here and say that Jesus' unmarried state is only assumed, as the doctrinal scriptures don't specifically mention a wife. They also don't specifically mention the lack of one.
The Church appears to protest too much, methinks. I plan to see the movie, but not until the dust settles some.
____________________________________________
Da Vinci Code´ Box Office Prospects Slide After Poor Reviews
(The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Bloomberg.)
By Don Jeffrey May 18 (Bloomberg) --
Prospects for ``The Da Vinci Code´´ opening weekend dropped today after negative reviews labeled the religious thriller ``clueless´´ and ``long-winded.´´
The Hollywood Stock Exchange dropped its forecast for the film's opening this weekend to $75 million from $80.5 million two days ago, before the first reviews. The movie's stock price on the exchange, where online traders bet fake money on films' financial performance, plunged 15 percent to $196.10.
``Traders´ monitor the buzz around films,´´ stock exchange Managing Director Alex Costakis said in an interview. ``The film is being reviewed as more of a walk through history and the mythology of religious dogma -- a bit heavier than your typical subject for a summer blockbuster.´´
Sony Corp. spent about $125 million to make the film, according to the Internet Movie Database, which tracks production costs. The movie, based on the best-selling book by Dan Brown, is estimated by some analysts to fetch even less. Fandango analyst Richard Horgan estimates $44 million and Gitesh Pandya, editor of Boxofficeguru.com, estimates about $60 million. The three estimates average $59.6 million.
Reviewer Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune dubbed the movie ``clueless,´´
Steven Rea at The Philadelphia Inquirer called it ``lethally long-winded´´ and
The New York Times´s A.O. Scott said it´s a ``busy, trivial, inoffensive film,´´ adding ``Which is not to say I´m recommending you g
o see it.´´
Rolling Stone magazine simply said ``Da Vinci is a dud.´´
29 Rotten ``The bad reviews will have some impact,´´ Pandya said. ``But the majority of people who wanted to see it will.´´
Of the 36 reviews assembled on Rotten Tomatoes.com, 29 were in the ``rotten´´category.
Sony is rolling the film out to more
than 3,700 theaters starting this weekend. At $59.6 million, ``Da Vinci´´ would rank as the second- based opening this year, behind News Corp.´s ``Ice Age: The Meltdown,´´ which opened with $68 million. It would top ``Mission Impossible III,´´ which opened with $47.7 million. At $75 million, `
`The Da Vinci Code´´ would have the biggest debut so far this year. ``This is still
going to have a huge opening,´´ said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations Co. ``The most important test is in the long run, the second week and further out.
Ultimately audiences decide more on their peers than on critics, because often there´s a huge disconnect between what critics like and what audiences like.´´
-------------
posted on May 19, 2006 12:09:49 PM new
"Jesus' unmarried state is only assumed, as the doctrinal scriptures don't specifically mention a wife. They also don't specifically mention the lack of one."
That pretty much covers it. I don't understnd the hubbub either. It's a fiction book, end of story. I think most of it is both the press and organized religion trying to recapture the publicity of the Passion of the Christ.
I have not actually read the book. How does Jesus being married and having children tie in with Tom Hanks running around and running from people? I assume the Jesus thing is the big secret he's trying to expose and the action is church people trying to stop him. Is this pretty much correct?
Historically, my opinion is that if Jesus was really the son of God, and had total foreknowledge of his own execution as a criminal, he would NOT have married. Why would he want to put a wife through that ordeal? If he wasn't really the son of God, then who gives a crap what he did?
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on May 19, 2006 12:28:29 PM new
It has something to do with the secrets being passed down to the existing family of Jesus. The children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
It is a work of fiction, but the church seems to react as if it was a real threat.
posted on May 19, 2006 12:29:07 PM new
Women were like property back then. If there was something that gave women an equality, especially beside Jesus himself, it would change the face of Christianity and would point towards how edited the Bible really is.
posted on May 19, 2006 01:10:56 PM new
Bebe has it right. And the Holy Grail is claimed to be the body of Mary Magdalene, the receptacle through which Jesus passed on his genes and had babies with Mary M.
The descendants of Jesus are claimed to be a secret society that guards all those secrets.
I honestly think the Christian world's leaders don't want to think of Jesus as "doing it," as being SO "fully man" that he'd have normal urges. Sort of the flip side of the coin from immaculate conception, I guess.
And my hunch is that the Catholic Church wants to continue seeing Jesus as the first celibate in their religion, as the role model for celibate priests. (Even though the church allowed priests to marry and have children until sometime in the ?middle ages?.)
posted on May 19, 2006 03:25:49 PM new
The early church, and particularly those leaders around the time of Constantine who are responsible for compiling the Bible as we know it, needed to put Jesus at least one step removed from mainstream Jewish culture of the time. His Jewishness needed to be drastically downplayed in order to appeal to the wider Roman audience. His lack of taking a wife (who would have necessarily been Jewish) and resultant lack of heirs isolated and removed him from his culture, helping make him unique and giving him wider appeal.
Part of the church's over reaction to this book/movie comes from the fact that all preachers, whether they're Catholic or otherwise, don't want folks studying the history of Christianity too closely. They don't want people to truly understand that the bible is a carefully and intentionally edited and compiled collection of writings that were composed by disparate authors over a long time span. To understand the true creation of the bible is to begin to question whether or not it really is the inspired word of god, and the christian establishment will not suffer that kind of scrutiny without striking back at those who dare ask the questions.
____________________________________________
posted on May 19, 2006 04:25:08 PM new
I NEVER believe any review of a movie. The people who review them are one step removed from being a brick. All muddy water.
I think it is part of the Catholic Church scheme to get people not to go see it. Maybe they Protest too much is for sure. would make you think they feel threatened by it when it is a work of fiction they should not even bother worrying. They do not give their people credit for realizing it is fiction. OR they know it truth and trying to keep it hidden which I don't believe at all. Remember all the Hype at the start or before about The Passion? look what it did at the box office even with all the flack it got.
I for one will probably go see it next week sometime. Maybe I'll wait for the video but I am not going to think it true no matter how compelling it might be. Besides I am a decendant and I don't want anyone thinking they can find me. LOL Decendant of Adam and Eve so that would make me a decendant would it not?
**************
Some minds are like concrete,
thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
posted on May 20, 2006 02:12:07 PM new
how can 'Jesus, who was fully human as well as fully divine'?????????
Prof,
There is more than one Bible,a bible is like a history book,there is more than one,now which one is official??
They said Merlin is the offspring of an incubus and a earthly woman,so is he divine ??
/ lets all stop whining !! /
posted on May 20, 2006 02:24:20 PM new
hwahwa: I quoted that "fully human, fully divine" bit because that's what most of the Christian world professes to believe. A miracle, really, to be both. But I don't think "they" have ever reconciled the two and figured out how that would work in real life!
posted on May 20, 2006 03:43:04 PM new
The Gospel according to Dan Brown doesn't rate as a very good film - the translation to screen is too literal. Go visit Rotten Tomatoes to see all the mostly 'bad' reviews.
posted on May 20, 2006 05:06:21 PM new
hwa, the one that's official is the one your particular religion chooses to believe is official. It's a matter of faith. What's that old joke...everybody should believe in something...I believe I'll have another beer!
____________________________________________
posted on May 20, 2006 06:33:22 PM new
I'm going to see the movie tomorrow...will post my review after I see it. I've read the book and am prepared to be disappointed.
Roadsmith, I'm an avid reader too. I'd appreciate it if you would post any good read recommendations..
posted on May 20, 2006 06:50:30 PM new
I always wonder how the Roman Catholic Church manage to get away with all these -like Immaculate conception,infallibility of the Pope??
In other religions,Jesus Christ would be a great occultist and the Pope a medium.
By the way,there is some speculation that Christ actually spent some years in Japan but moi personally think India would be a better choice.
/ lets all stop whining !! /
[ edited by hwahwa on May 20, 2006 06:53 PM ]
posted on May 20, 2006 09:19:19 PM new
Bebe: I just finished reading the third book in the Gros Vont trilogy by Tim Sandlin. The first, "Skipped Parts," is excellent. The second was bit far out, and the third was disappointing. But when I find an author I like, I pursue it for a while.
I read so many books that it's hard to dredge up the titles any longer. My big find, two years ago, was Richard Yates. Some woman writer I admire said Yates's novel about a marriage was the best she'd ever read--"Revolutionary Road." I got it from our library and devoured it, then slowly bought used copies of the 8 books he wrote before dying. He is some writer, gripping, realistic, very good in getting inside women's heads, something few male authors are good at.
posted on May 21, 2006 07:21:16 AM new
"there is some speculation that Christ actually spent some years in Japan but moi personally think India would be a better choice"
You are talking about the "Buddhist" connection, I assume. I recently did a very short paper on the Jesus-Buddha similarities. I didn't really find any EVIDENCE that Jesus met a Buddhist, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
Do you have any sources?
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on May 21, 2006 08:33:30 AM new
The source is that chrysanthemin symbol which represents a certain sect in Japan is also found on Jesus Christ.
This is in regards to the discussion of those years he seems to be missing or unaccounted for,where did he go,amd what did he learn ??
But I would think if he did go somewhere to learn,it would be more like Tibet or India,not Japan.
But then they said Moses is a great magician as well,being an Egyptian prince ,he is privy to Egytian magic and later when he returns to his Jewish roots,he picks up Jewish magic passed on from Abraham.
I am not sure if jewish magic is the right term,is mysticism a better word?
They said Abraham arrived with the doctrine direct from God.
/ lets all stop whining !! /
posted on May 21, 2006 09:26:18 AM new
Thanks Roadsmith, I agree with you 100%, not to many male authors can capture the female perspective. But they do a fine job writing "who done its".
I do the same thing, when I find an author I like I read everything they have ever written.
I will check out Richard Yates. Thanks again. I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
posted on May 21, 2006 10:26:44 AM newThis is in regards to the discussion of those years he seems to be missing or unaccounted for,where did he go,amd what did he learn ??
He went and spent some time with the Aztecs in South America. The Aztecs refered to him as Their Great White God, Quetzalcuatl.
According to an Aztec myth, the white-faced Quetzacuatl - their most important god - had long ago fled to the east, but would one day return.
Colonial sources referring to the deified ruler Quetzalcoatl often cause confusion about the god Quetzalcuatl and Jesus Christ but a definative answer to the question, was Jesus Christ and Quetzalcoatl one in the same person has not been substantiated.
ed to add: By any chance was that in the book?
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø ø¤º°`°º¤ø
[ edited by piinthesky on May 21, 2006 10:32 AM ]
posted on May 21, 2006 12:40:53 PM new
I have read there is a white man who taught them to farm etc,there was some kind of squabbles between him and his disciples and he was killed and his body was carried away in a boat.
This Quetzalcoatl is not Jesus Christ,it is OSIRIS of the OSIRIS/ISIS/HORUS saga of Egypt.
Remember in Egytian mythology,Osiris was revived by Isis.
But the discussion here is where did Jesus learn to become such an accomplished occultist?Not from the Aztec!
What Jesus did with fish and wine etc is typical feats of the Indian monks,they can make food appear,they can astral project ,they are damn good conjurors!
/ lets all stop whining !! /
posted on May 21, 2006 03:15:39 PM new
I saw the movie today, and I liked it. But I must say that if I hadn't read the book first, I'd have been lost. Two and a half hours sped by. My husband didn't enjoy it that much...he hadn't read the book.
I live in the Southern Bible Belt and I was surprised that the theater was packed.. there was dead silence when the film ended as people left..
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
[ edited by bebeboom on May 21, 2006 03:18 PM ]
posted on May 21, 2006 06:49:20 PM newI live in the Southern Bible Belt and I was surprised that the theater was packed.. there was dead silence when the film ended as people left..
Did people keep their heads down and avoid eye contact too? Likely they didn't want to be identified as unChristian and persecuted by their God-fearing neighbours
Or the audience may have been silent because those simple folk couldn't follow the convoluted storyline.
posted on May 21, 2006 09:03:40 PM new
I saw it today too. My wife hadn't read the book, I'd read it twice. She didn't have much problem following it, but kept bugging me with questions about church history. Pretty fair rendition of the book, as movie versions go. I will say it did drag in spots, and Hanks' portrayal of Langdon is pretty flat. I'd say Harrison Ford or somebody would do a better job.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
