Da Vinci Code

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Kylofski
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:42 am
Location: Breightmet
Contact:

Da Vinci Code

Post by Kylofski » Sat May 27, 2006 12:54 am

Has anyone seen this film?

I have and after a boring start it is believeable and that is my question

Do you believe in a) Mary being married to Jesus
b) There is a direct decendant of Jesus on this earth!


David Blane!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bcbfc.co.uk/ Bolton County Bears FC

plodder
Promising
Promising
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:08 am

Post by plodder » Sat May 27, 2006 7:09 am

Read the book, so much better.

Don't go to Rosslyn Chapel looking for anything, it ain't there.

Kylofski
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:42 am
Location: Breightmet
Contact:

Post by Kylofski » Sat May 27, 2006 8:22 am

plodder wrote:Read the book, so much better.

Don't go to Rosslyn Chapel looking for anything, it ain't there.
What makes you so sure?
http://www.bcbfc.co.uk/ Bolton County Bears FC

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38855
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat May 27, 2006 5:35 pm

Kylofski wrote:Has anyone seen this film?

I have and after a boring start it is believeable and that is my question Do you believe in a) Mary being married to Jesus
b) There is a direct decendant of Jesus on this earth. David Blane!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't answer questions like that from reading the Da Vinci Code or seeing the film. Brown wrote a good novel with an intruinging theme and made himself a lot of money. He was clever enough to use some fact, some legend, some historical background and a lot of immagination; oh and the theory was based on research done in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", again a theory and unprovable. That's why he was sued (unsuccessfully) by the writers.

I have read extensively into The Templars, Grail legends and all the associated off-shoots (and there are many) , freemasonary, The Rosicurians, The Cathars, Arcadia, Priory de Sion, The Turin Shroud, The Sacred Geometry used by many painters like Van De Mere of the Dutch school, Pousin and Da Vinci himself. Read up on Constantine the Great and the Nicene Creed, the gospels of Thomas etc, Gnostic Gospels, A book called "The Second Messiah" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas and many other sources.

After all that you still wont be able to answer the questions except on what you yourself believe. It's long been my own contention that The Templars were masters of the Red Herring; each time someone claims to have found the truth up pops another theory and another hiding place jumps into the limelight. There are already three previous versions of The Da Vinci Code in existence: They are called The Bible, The Torah and The Koran. Sort it out for yourself. :)
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

plodder
Promising
Promising
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:08 am

Post by plodder » Sat May 27, 2006 7:29 pm

Kylofski wrote:
plodder wrote:Read the book, so much better.

Don't go to Rosslyn Chapel looking for anything, it ain't there.
What makes you so sure?
There are no steps down below the ground level, no star of David etc etc etc.....hollywood fictional bollocks.

Albert Tatlock's Dad
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:50 pm
Location: Bolton

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by Albert Tatlock's Dad » Sat May 27, 2006 10:04 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Kylofski wrote:Has anyone seen this film?

I have and after a boring start it is believeable and that is my question Do you believe in a) Mary being married to Jesus
b) There is a direct decendant of Jesus on this earth. David Blane!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't answer questions like that from reading the Da Vinci Code or seeing the film. Brown wrote a good novel with an intruinging theme and made himself a lot of money. He was clever enough to use some fact, some legend, some historical background and a lot of immagination; oh and the theory was based on research done in the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", again a theory and unprovable. That's why he was sued (unsuccessfully) by the writers.

I have read extensively into The Templars, Grail legends and all the associated off-shoots (and there are many) , freemasonary, The Rosicurians, The Cathars, Arcadia, Priory de Sion, The Turin Shroud, The Sacred Geometry used by many painters like Van De Mere of the Dutch school, Pousin and Da Vinci himself. Read up on Constantine the Great and the Nicene Creed, the gospels of Thomas etc, Gnostic Gospels, A book called "The Second Messiah" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas and many other sources.

After all that you still wont be able to answer the questions except on what you yourself believe. It's long been my own contention that The Templars were masters of the Red Herring; each time someone claims to have found the truth up pops another theory and another hiding place jumps into the limelight. There are already three previous versions of The Da Vinci Code in existence: They are called The Bible, The Torah and The Koran. Sort it out for yourself. :)
The Da Vinci Code is a tortuous book. Lots of it seems to have been downloaded form the internet and rehashed in some of the speech's. Really badly written as well. Not to say that it doesn't drive the narrative forward with blinding pace but it would have been better being half the length.

The film makes the book look good.

But it's just a work of fiction so there's no point anyone getting concerned or worried about the content.

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36663
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by Bruce Rioja » Sat May 27, 2006 10:12 pm

Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:The film makes the book look good.
Very interesting comment there, ATD. I mentioned on another bit that I haven't read the book but went to see the film, and the impression I gained was that it must have been a fairly intruiging book, dumbed town into film version for an American audience !!
May the bridges I burn light your way

H. Pedersen
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:56 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by H. Pedersen » Sat May 27, 2006 11:25 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:The film makes the book look good.
Very interesting comment there, ATD. I mentioned on another bit that I haven't read the book but went to see the film, and the impression I gained was that it must have been a fairly intruiging book, dumbed town into film version for an American audience !!
That's racist.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38855
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat May 27, 2006 11:32 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:The film makes the book look good.
Very interesting comment there, ATD. I mentioned on another bit that I haven't read the book but went to see the film, and the impression I gained was that it must have been a fairly intruiging book, dumbed town into film version for an American audience !!
Very few films, particularly these day, represent the books they come from. The last film version of Pride and Prejudice was nowhere near as good as the seialised TV version which at least made a fair attempt to follow Madame Austen's lead. "Last of the Mohicans" was an enjoyable film, but again it was nothing like the J. Fennymore-Cooper original book.

I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code as a novel but am not sure now if I really need to see the film. I'll probably watch the DVD version just from curiosity though.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

chris
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:19 am
Location: Exeter

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by chris » Sat May 27, 2006 11:59 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:The film makes the book look good.
Very interesting comment there, ATD. I mentioned on another bit that I haven't read the book but went to see the film, and the impression I gained was that it must have been a fairly intruiging book, dumbed town into film version for an American audience !!
Very few films, particularly these day, represent the books they come from. The last film version of Pride and Prejudice was nowhere near as good as the seialised TV version which at least made a fair attempt to follow Madame Austen's lead. "Last of the Mohicans" was an enjoyable film, but again it was nothing like the J. Fennymore-Cooper original book.

I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code as a novel but am not sure now if I really need to see the film. I'll probably watch the DVD version just from curiosity though.
The movie Sahara is absolute rubbish, but Clive Cussler's original novel is brilliant. I wasted £5.99 on the DVD.

I saw the Da Vinci Code movie without reading the book, and did find it quite interesting, though I wouldn't rate it as one of the best films I've seen.
And no, I don't think it's believeable.

americantrotter
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:03 am
Location: Portland, Maine USA

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by americantrotter » Sun May 28, 2006 6:21 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:The film makes the book look good.
Very interesting comment there, ATD. I mentioned on another bit that I haven't read the book but went to see the film, and the impression I gained was that it must have been a fairly intruiging book, dumbed town into film version for an American audience !!
OI! Like the Bristish public's attention span is much better. Most of You hate the BBC and it's the only reason you get good news.

We may be jerks over here, but we are not the intellectual sloths that you would like to believe. That book is a movie because Americans read it. All books are dumbed down as movies because the medium needs it and the movie going public is less literate than book readers. That applies to your country too.

Christ! Now I know why all my friends hate me when I spout on about England. Maybe I have had it all wrong for all these years.

communistworkethic
Legend
Legend
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: in your wife's dreams
Contact:

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by communistworkethic » Sun May 28, 2006 8:19 am

americantrotter wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:The film makes the book look good.
Very interesting comment there, ATD. I mentioned on another bit that I haven't read the book but went to see the film, and the impression I gained was that it must have been a fairly intruiging book, dumbed town into film version for an American audience !!
OI! Like the Bristish public's attention span is much better. Most of You hate the BBC and it's the only reason you get good news.

We may be jerks over here, but we are not the intellectual sloths that you would like to believe. That book is a movie because Americans read it. All books are dumbed down as movies because the medium needs it and the movie going public is less literate than book readers. That applies to your country too.

Christ! Now I know why all my friends hate me when I spout on about England. Maybe I have had it all wrong for all these years.
"Quick, we need to find a library!!!" - do you think anyone in england would ever say that ?? There's one in every village, town and city! For all your shouting and indignation there, Bruce is right. Hollywood makes films for US audiences.

And where do you get "Most of You hate the BBC and it's the only reason you get good news." from? ITN which produces news for all the independent TV stations is as good as the BBC if not better in many way but how would you know that? Anyone who si used to their main news reporting comes from Fox cannot know what good looks like.
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely

kevin nolan is so fat, that when he sits around the house he sits around the house

H. Pedersen
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:56 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: Da Vinci Code

Post by H. Pedersen » Sun May 28, 2006 8:26 am

TANGODANCER wrote:"Last of the Mohicans" was an enjoyable film, but again it was nothing like the J. Fennymore-Cooper original book.
That's because Last of the Mohicans is a great film and Fenimore Cooper is a horrible, horrible writer. But don't take my word for it, Mark Twain said the same thing.

http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html

malcd1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3565
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:33 pm

Post by malcd1 » Sun May 28, 2006 12:02 pm

Just something to remember if you have NOT read any of the Dan Brown books. They are complete garbage.

No maybe that isn't strictly true the first half of all his books are pretty good and run along at a fantastic pace. It's the second half that really lets them down. I have never read such over the top claptrap in all my life.

Do yourself a favour and don't read any of his books.

PS I read them as I got them for a present and was intrigued to see what all the hype was about. If you look up the word HYPE in a dictionary the definition is Dan Brown.

Batman

Post by Batman » Sun May 28, 2006 12:44 pm

The worst book ever to be made into a film.

Truly terrible book, truly terrible film.

americantrotter
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:03 am
Location: Portland, Maine USA

Post by americantrotter » Sun May 28, 2006 3:00 pm

I enjoyed the book, I like the idea that the truth about our religous past might be different than written.

My BBC comment was purely a mention of how often some of you complain about the BBC. I wish we had the BBC. Since they have guaranteed funding, they dont need to serve at the feet of the popular masses/corporations and give worthless news. ( 99% of american news is crap or biased because it's all private and chases the dollar to stay on air)

Albert Tatlock's Dad
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:50 pm
Location: Bolton

Post by Albert Tatlock's Dad » Sun May 28, 2006 4:01 pm

americantrotter wrote:I enjoyed the book, I like the idea that the truth about our religous past might be different than written.

My BBC comment was purely a mention of how often some of you complain about the BBC. I wish we had the BBC. Since they have guaranteed funding, they dont need to serve at the feet of the popular masses/corporations and give worthless news. ( 99% of american news is crap or biased because it's all private and chases the dollar to stay on air)
I, for one, don't complain about the BBC. It's a fantastic organisation that keeps itself pretty neutral, is trusted around the world, and produces fantastic programming. Also has the second most popular website after Google.

a1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:11 pm

Post by a1 » Sun May 28, 2006 5:31 pm

Albert Tatlock's Dad wrote:
americantrotter wrote:I enjoyed the book, I like the idea that the truth about our religous past might be different than written.

My BBC comment was purely a mention of how often some of you complain about the BBC. I wish we had the BBC. Since they have guaranteed funding, they dont need to serve at the feet of the popular masses/corporations and give worthless news. ( 99% of american news is crap or biased because it's all private and chases the dollar to stay on air)
I, for one, don't complain about the BBC. It's a fantastic organisation that keeps itself pretty neutral, is trusted around the world, and produces fantastic programming. Also has the second most popular website after Google.
bbc is a fecking gianormous waste of money, by all means have a sycophantic up its own arse , advertizes itself too much , which apears to be neutral - but is super left or right wing depending on what day it is , that might be 'free' forigners, staffed by a bunch of c*nts and their mates on too much money and bribes style firm .. but at least fox , itn , abc , whoever else live and die by their viewers and make money depending on them .. bbc coins it in wether they make good programs or not. i'd like to see a subscription for it , we'd also see how many people really want and are willing to pay for it , strip away all that "institution" "unique" self wanking talk and its really a over protected bully of the media thats only top of the food chain because its dad comes and interferes when owt goes wrong for it .. if the playing field really was fair it would be on its arse after about a month...

da vinci code = film the satanic verses next , no?

Pete
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:52 am

Post by Pete » Sun May 28, 2006 5:42 pm

a1 wrote:bbc is a fecking gianormous waste of money, by all means have a sycophantic up its own arse , advertizes itself too much , which apears to be neutral - but is super left or right wing depending on what day it is , that might be 'free' forigners, staffed by a bunch of c*nts and their mates on too much money and bribes style firm .. but at least fox , itn , abc , whoever else live and die by their viewers and make money depending on them .. bbc coins it in wether they make good programs or not. i'd like to see a subscription for it , we'd also see how many people really want and are willing to pay for it , strip away all that "institution" "unique" self wanking talk and its really a over protected bully of the media thats only top of the food chain because its dad comes and interferes when owt goes wrong for it .. if the playing field really was fair it would be on its arse after about a month...

da vinci code = film the satanic verses next , no?
Well, really they live an die by their advertisers, so that's the difference. Granted, the adversiters want high viewer ratings, but they also want their name shown in a good light, and also the promotion of consumerism within TV schedules. The BBC keeeps the rest of the media in check, and it also keeps production quality high. If anyone has had the misfortune of having to put up with European TV, they will understand.

Albert Tatlock's Dad
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:50 pm
Location: Bolton

Post by Albert Tatlock's Dad » Sun May 28, 2006 6:46 pm

Pete wrote:
a1 wrote:bbc is a fecking gianormous waste of money, by all means have a sycophantic up its own arse , advertizes itself too much , which apears to be neutral - but is super left or right wing depending on what day it is , that might be 'free' forigners, staffed by a bunch of c*nts and their mates on too much money and bribes style firm .. but at least fox , itn , abc , whoever else live and die by their viewers and make money depending on them .. bbc coins it in wether they make good programs or not. i'd like to see a subscription for it , we'd also see how many people really want and are willing to pay for it , strip away all that "institution" "unique" self wanking talk and its really a over protected bully of the media thats only top of the food chain because its dad comes and interferes when owt goes wrong for it .. if the playing field really was fair it would be on its arse after about a month...

da vinci code = film the satanic verses next , no?
Well, really they live an die by their advertisers, so that's the difference. Granted, the adversiters want high viewer ratings, but they also want their name shown in a good light, and also the promotion of consumerism within TV schedules. The BBC keeeps the rest of the media in check, and it also keeps production quality high. If anyone has had the misfortune of having to put up with European TV, they will understand.
French TV seems to be made up of immaculately dressed women in overly bright studios debating very earnest issues with slouch-faced men in grubby suits. Then, at midnight, they switch to soft-porn.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 22 guests