Film: The DaVinci Code

[wanderlust]

film: The DaVinci Code

the poll added

 

[L2R]

As i wrote previously in another thread (utfse)

I didn't mind that it was full of shit (it is).
I didn't mind that it was so mainstream.

I fucking hated the writing style. The stupid bird spend two thirds of the book repeatedly stressing herself out about something the author does not reveal until much later.
You cannot empathise with a character who keeps you in the dark. By the third or fourth time, i stopped caring.

Also with the "detective" element, i remember (not specifically which) one major evidence point which also isn't revealed to the audience, despite the fact that the main characters were fully aware, again until much later.

This cheap dramatic tools is very insulting of the audience. Fucking terrible writer. My cat coughs up more creative shit than this.

 

[Psyastic]

the poll added

Why? It doesn't come out for another 5 months. Please read the post next time. I was taken aback when someone merged my original thread into the old one; the reason the title was "upcoming film" and not "film" was so it didn't get a poll and people knew it wasn't a movie to rate.

 

[posner]

As i wrote previously in another thread (utfse)

I didn't mind that it was full of shit (it is).
I didn't mind that it was so mainstream.

I fucking hated the writing style.

That's what I meant.

 

[Hypnotik1]

The entire reason i loved this book is b/c it was written, not so much in style, but on a level of bullshit crap like Tom Clancy etc.. but presented ideas that most mainstream america doesn't know, never came across, or even contemplated.

I would fathom to guess a good deal of people read this book.. and questioned some very basics of their religious teachings and beliefs. That's what made it exciting to me. Now while i wouldn't take every claim in this book as fact by any means, it does tell alot about christian history the average public isn't presented in church..and it's a bit nice to see the Danielle Steel crowd be challenged a little bit.

Same here

 

[SA]

That's what I meant.

Thanks for clearing that up. Most of my answer wasn't directed at you anyway.

posner... that name instantly reminds me of Vladimir Posner, heh

 

[posner]

^^

Yeah, I didn't think of that. I was thinking of someone in the west.

 

[AmorRoark]

Beyond that, The DaVinci Code is a novel.

novel: a extended fictional work in prose; usually in the form of a story

Yeah, too bad Dan Brown doesn't share your sentiments. He called the DaVinci Code NON-FICTION, not a novel. The author's intent was very clear to me... mystify radical religious theories to sensationalize himself. I can't enjoy an author's work who writes with such an intent in mind.

I would fathom to guess a good deal of people read this book.. and questioned some very basics of their religious teachings and beliefs. That's what made it exciting to me. Now while i wouldn't take every claim in this book as fact by any means, it does tell alot about christian history the average public isn't presented in church..and it's a bit nice to see the Danielle Steel crowd be challenged a little bit.

And yes, I'm sure many people questioned the very basics of their religious teachings/beliefs because of this. Which appauls me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people questioning/re-evaluating their faith in modern religion. I think it's great that a novel can still move masses of non-thinking people to actually think again. BUT when this is done it should be on factual (not sensationalized) evidence. The 'theories' that Brown puts forth are based on completely unsound proofs, and is therefore unethical IMO.

 

[miss starry]

I really enjoyed this book when I read it, just for the entertainment factor. But I'll admit I love reading mystery and crime novels that are basically fluff; it's a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon! :D

I totally agree that this book is a whore (if that's possible.) I mean, we did not need a special hardcover color illustrated edition of this book. First of all, who wants to read a big textbook-size novel? There was just so much other crap that came out in reference to this book after it became a bestseller that was so obviously just a way for the author and publisher to make more $$$. If it's a good book, it should sell on that merit alone; we don't need a whole table at Barnes & Noble dedicated to different versions of The Da Vinci Code.

Another thing that caused me to lose respect for Dan Brown was reading Angels and Demons. It was published before The Da Vinci Code, and it uses the exact same plotline. It's been a couple of years since i read either one, but as I recall BOTH start out with an old guy getting murdered, and for one reason or another Langon is called to the scene. He meets up with the dead guy's beautiful, intelligent daughter and they go on an adventure to solve a mystery based in ancient religion and history, all while trying to escape assasins before time runs out for them and the world. They find time to have a little romance between them but it doesn't lead anywhere. I just couldn't get over the fact that Dan Brown wrote basically the same book twice, made craploads of money, and nobody seemed to notice.

 

[SA]

Yeah, too bad Dan Brown doesn't share your sentiments. He called the DaVinci Code NON-FICTION, not a novel. The author's intent was very clear to me... mystify radical religious theories to sensationalize himself. I can't enjoy an author's work who writes with such an intent in mind.

I never said the author wasn't a cheap whore out to sell as many copies of his work as possible, by whatever means possible. I enjoyed the book, I couldn't give two shits about the author. If I were to start worrying about the scruples or politics of every author of every work I pick up at avery airport I happen to hop into, I would never read a damn word. Most people, authors included, have something or other I disagree with, sometimes very strongly. Some of these people are downright assholes who treat other people like shit. If people are worried about "accidentally" putting money into the pockets of some authors whom they will eventually discover to be assholes, but at the same time wish to read their material so as not to be left behind in the world of what's what and who's who, I would suggest picking up a free copy of said "questionable" author's material at their local library.

I just couldn't get over the fact that Dan Brown wrote basically the same book twice, made craploads of money, and nobody seemed to notice.

Nothing new, miss starry. You have no doubt at least heard of Jack London (1876-1916). I drooled over every single one of his novels when I was 13-16, as have many millions of people before me and after, yet many of those books had essentially exactly the same plot and characters. Not to mention a huge portion of the whodunit genre in general.

 

[DigitalDuality]

Chuck Palahnuik is another fine example of someone who recycles their particular use of various literary tools over and over and over and over and over throughout his works, Tom Robins as well. Both are excellent authors IMO.

 

[AmorRoark]

I never said the author wasn't a cheap whore out to sell as many copies of his work as possible, by whatever means possible. I enjoyed the book, I couldn't give two shits about the author. If I were to start worrying about the scruples or politics of every author of every work I pick up at avery airport I happen to hop into, I would never read a damn word. Most people, authors included, have something or other I disagree with, sometimes very strongly. Some of these people are downright assholes who treat other people like shit. If people are worried about "accidentally" putting money into the pockets of some authors whom they will eventually discover to be assholes, but at the same time wish to read their material so as not to be left behind in the world of what's what and who's who, I would suggest picking up a free copy of said "questionable" author's material at their local library.

You ignored every point I made sillyalien. You were the one to point out the difference between a novel and scholarly non-fiction work. Yes, there is a difference, but Brown specifically notated that it was non-fiction work.

I don't know if Dan Brown is an 'asshole'. Yes, I guess he's an asshole for tricking the world into buying his book but I wasn't concerned with such in my previous post.

Oh, and I think your 'never read a damn thing' statement is a little blanked as well. There's a big difference between a writer who I disagree with and one that writes appalling, dishonet literature and markets it as truthful. Surely you see the difference?

btw, I read my mother's copy of the book so, it was free for me

 

[SA]

You were the one to point out the difference between a novel and scholarly non-fiction work. Yes, there is a difference, but Brown specifically notated that it was non-fiction work.

It is listed as a novel.

Oh, and I think your 'never read a damn thing' statement is a little blanked as well. There's a big difference between a writer who I disagree with and one that writes appalling, dishonet literature and markets it as truthful. Surely you see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference. But, as I pointed out, if I pick up a novel, I will enjoy it as simply that - a novel.

btw, I read my mother's copy of the book so, it was free for me

Nice. I borrowed my illustrated copy from a friend. We're even Angels and Demons I did have to pay for. Okay, you win.

 

[miss starry]

Nothing new, miss starry. You have no doubt at least heard of Jack London (1876-1916). I drooled over every single one of his novels when I was 13-16, as have many millions of people before me and after, yet many of those books had essentially exactly the same plot and characters. Not to mention a huge portion of the whodunit genre in general.

I guess if he's found a formula that works, he's going to stick with it! However, since I don't think Angels and Demons was that big of a hit until after The DaVinci Code became huge, it seems to me like Dan Brown only knows how to write one story. Yeah, it's an entertaining one, but I didn't want to read it twice No doubt other authors have done it too, but this was so blatant!

And yes, I'm sure many people questioned the very basics of their religious teachings/beliefs because of this. Which appauls me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people questioning/re-evaluating their faith in modern religion. I think it's great that a novel can still move masses of non-thinking people to actually think again. BUT when this is done it should be on factual (not sensationalized) evidence. The 'theories' that Brown puts forth are based on completely unsound proofs, and is therefore unethical IMO.

The theories Brown presents in his book are "real" theories, in the sense that they're not ones he came up with on his own. If his book was entirely a study of theory, it would definitely fall in the non-fiction category. However, the book is clearly fiction because it takes the existing theories and adds fictional elements to create a story. The fictional story is what "proves" the theories. Unless people believe Reardon and the other characters are real, it would be hard to use the book to prove any of the theories Brown presents. What the book did for a lot of people was cause them to stop and ask "what if?", and that's not so bad. Plus, when it comes to religion, there's not too much undisputable factual evidence out there. It's all just a bunch of unproven theories that you either believe or don't.

 

[SA]

I guess if he's found a formula that works, he's going to stick with it! However, since I don't think Angels and Demons was that big of a hit until after The DaVinci Code became huge, it seems to me like Dan Brown only knows how to write one story. Yeah, it's an entertaining one, but I didn't want to read it twice No doubt other authors have done it too, but this was so blatant!

Hey, this guy is still milking his success too. If I found a winning ticket, I'd bite into it and milk it for all it was worth too. Damn straight! And if the paying people wanted to hear that my winning ticket's numbers were picked straight out of the Bible, I'd swear on the Bible that it were so! This cheap whore gots to eat too.

 

[AmorRoark]

My mistake with the cataloging.. but my point that Brown himself claimed that all the evidence was based on fact still stands. He's a fucktard that doesn't deserve the readership he gained.. that opinion of mine won't change, as I see yours won't either SA.

As in the wise words of Lebowski, fuck it.

/me hands SA the bowl

 

[miss starry]

Hey, this guy is still milking his success too. If I found a winning ticket, I'd bite into it and milk it for all it was worth too. Damn straight! And if the paying people wanted to hear that my winning ticket's numbers were picked straight out of the Bible, I'd swear on the Bible that it were so! This cheap whore gots to eat too.

Oh, god...that guy just won't go away, will he? Who actually buys his CD's?

I don't necessarily blame Brown for milking this thing for all it's worth. I mean, the guy only knows how to write one story and he's already written it twice. This is pretty much it for him, so he better make as much $$ as possible. But we can still call him a whore, 'cause he'll be making tons off the movie if it does well. And I admit, I'll probably watch it at some point

 

[DigitalDuality]

The saddest part is that the actual facts in his work will be ignored largely to his fallacies, much like the work of dipshits like Michael Moore and the "Rathergate" incident, though, those are completely different things than "fictional works" .

 

[Pander Bear]

I find it amusing and distasteful that the people here who are so cockthirsty for this movie/book are completely gung ho about overlooking facts, dissention, and the outright absence of evidence when they read TDC.

I don't waste my time on Pulp like this, but I'm pretty familiar with the historical Jesus, Christian Heresies, Gnosticism, and books like Holy Blood. YES: there are differences of opinion. YES: this subject is open to speculation and reinterpretation. However, you people appear hellbent on a popular interpretation (which claims to be as infallible as the Bible's proponents claim, btw). I'm left wondering why.

Could it be that you're very interested in taking Fundies down a peg and undermining the orthodoxy of a world religion. And forcing people to question their acceptance of established doctrine. I would like to do all those things too. I'm not, however, about to stoop to conspiracy theories masquerading as the incontrivertable evidence in order to kick start it.

 

[AmorRoark]

I find it amusing and distasteful that the people here who are so cockthirsty for this movie/book are completely gung ho about overlooking facts, dissention, and the outright absence of evidence when they read TDC.

I don't waste my time on Pulp like this, but I'm pretty familiar with the historical Jesus, Christian Heresies, Gnosticism, and books like Holy Blood. YES: there are differences of opinion. YES: this subject is open to speculation and reinterpretation. However, you people appear hellbent on a popular interpretation (which claims to be as infallible as the Bible's proponents claim, btw). I'm left wondering why.

Could it be that you're very interested in taking Fundies down a peg and undermining the orthodoxy of a world religion. And forcing people to question their acceptance of established doctrine. I would like to do all those things too. I'm not, however, about to stoop to conspiracy theories masquerading as the incontrivertable evidence in order to kick start it.

You and I have talked about this personally, but this, is precicely what I was trying to convey the whole time. You have such a way with words!